Sitting of 4 July 1990

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

    MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    British Steel
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the future of the Scottish steel industry; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I would expect to meet the chairman of British Steel whenever appropriate. I have asked the Scottish Development Agency to carry out an analysis of the prospects for the steel industry in Scotland.
    Dr. Reid: If the Secretary of State does not think that this is an appropriate time, he never will. When he meets the chairman of British Steel, will he inform him that the letter that he sent to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not only an insult, but the biggest cover-up since Watergate? Did the right hon. learned Gentleman notice that it contained not only no guarantee for Ravenscraig beyond 1994, but no guarantee for the Clydesdale and Imperial works beyond the end of this week?
    Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that Scottish Office resources and the resources of the Department of Trade and Industry will be fully at the disposal of the SDA, and that its study will cover all three plants and be based not only on present market demand, but on the potential market demand for Scottish steel plant if the necessary investment that should have been made was made now?
    Mr. Rifkind: The correspondence that I have had with Sir Robert Scholey was about Ravenscraig, so it is not surprising that there was no reference to Clydesdale or to other plants. I can confirm that the study that I have asked the SDA to carry out is not limited to any one company or plant; it is on the future prospects for the steel industry in Scotland as a whole.
    Sir Hector Monro: May I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his staunch efforts on behalf of British Steel? Does he accept that the letter from the chairman of British Steel is quite unacceptable and that we expect much
    974
    better from the chairman and directors of British Steel in terms of looking after Scotland, the community and the work force? I hope that he will pursue the chairman for as long as necessary to obtain satisfactory answers.
    Mr. Rifkind: I note my hon. Friend's remarks. We have told Sir Robert Scholey that we hope that he will reconsider his unwillingness to date to meet the representatives of the work force at Ravenscraig. It appears that it would be of mutual benefit not only for them to hear his point of view, but for Sir Robert to hear what they have to say about the plant in which they work.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State accept Sir Gordon Borrie's comment that he had hoped that the exchanges between the Government and the chairman of British Steel would have yielded information on whether a reference of that decision to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was justified? As Sir Robert Scholey, not surprisingly, has not given that information, will the Secretary of State make it clear to British Steel that if it is not prepared to operate the plant in Scotland, the Government will invoke the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's powers to ensure that genuine competition operates, that Britain's trade interests are brought into effect and that, if necessary, the assets of British Steel in Scotland will be offered to somebody who is prepared to invest in the monopoly?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am not certain that the hon. Gentleman has thought out the implications of what he said. Taken literally, it would imply that the Liberal Democrat party wishes to denationlise the assets of British Steel. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that, as the Government do not own those assets—it is not Labour party policy to reacquire them—short of reacquisition there is no way in which a company can be obliged to dispose of its facilities.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Competition law.
    Mr. Rifkind: On competition law, the hon. Gentleman must accept that it is for the Director General of Fair Trading to make a recommendation to Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That is the correct procedure of which, I think, the hon. Gentleman is well aware.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his powerful fight for Scottish steel. Has he clarified whether, in the event of the Ravenscraig closure, British Steel would automatically offer the plant for sale at a negotiated price, or whether the chairman of British Steel would reserve the right not to sell the plant if he considered that a sale would be contrary to the commercial interests of British Steel?
    Mr. Rifkind: The position of British Steel is as described in its prospectus, in which British Steel said that, in the event of there being no future requirements for its steel-making assets in Scotland, it would be prepared to make them available to an alternative private sector purchaser. Sir Robert said in his letter to me that British Steel intends to continue to honour that commitment.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Secretary of State agree that British Steel's assumptions of the likely market demand for steel are far too pessimistic, given the expected increased demand in Europe and the need to roll back the formidable import penetration in our domestic market? There is great confusion about exactly what the Secretary

    975
    of State is doing to test the assumptions and the rather doubtful theories that are included in Sir Robert Scholey's letters. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us specifically what steps he is taking? Does he remember that one of the things that might have been thought simple and that he urged on Sir Robert Scholey—the need for Sir Robert to meet the work force and explain the situation—is specifically repudiated in a letter on the basis that it undermines local management? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to take such a brush-off?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have already made it clear to Sir Robert that I feel that it is unfortunate that he is not prepared to meet his work force, and I have urged him to reconsider. In considering the prospects for the steel industry in Scotland, the SDA will wish to take account of any information on likely market trends that is available to it. We would expect that information to be taken into account when the SDA's analysis is prepared and presented.

    Hospitals
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the hospitals currently under consideration for closure by Scottish health boards.
    Mr. Rifkind: There are no closure submissions before Ministers at the moment, but I am aware that several boards are proposing rationalisation of their services.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does not that answer show how out of touch the Secretary of State is with Scottish health boards? He does not know that several hospitals are earmarked for panic closure in the Lothian region, part of which he represents. The health board has earmarked for closure Longmore hospital in my constituency. Will he ensure that the board gives him sufficient evidence—which I understand is not available—to show that the breast cancer unit and geriatric facilities can be transferred to another unit, thereby preserving the quality of service? The experts tell me, as they told the Minister of State when he visited the hospital, that that is impossible.
    Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman had done the House the courtesy of listening to my reply, he would have heard me say that there are no closure submissions before Ministers at the moment. I am as aware as the hon. Gentleman of the proposals before Lothian health board. It will be for the health board, once it has considered the responses to its proposals, to decide whether to make closure recommendations to the Scottish Office.
    I am well aware of the extremely valuable work of the breast cancer unit at Longmore hospital. Much of the discussion is about whether that valuable work could continue if the breast cancer unit transferred to an alternative location. Obviously, we would expect the health board to consider that issue carefully before making any recommendations.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say anything about Mearnskirk hospital in my constituency where Greater Glasgow health board is proposing, perfectly sensibly, the withdrawal of acute beds? My right hon. and learned Friend will soon receive a submission from Eastwood district council. Will he assure us that it will be fully considered, along with the other proposals being made by Greater Glasgow health
    976
    board, to ensure that this important site is retained, at least in part, within the health service and is developed in accordance with the wishes and needs of the people of Eastwood?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am aware of such proposals. I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that they will be carefully considered to ascertain whether the objectives of my hon. Friend and Eastwood district council can be accommodated by the health service.
    Mr. Hood: The Secretary of State will be aware of the size of Clydesdale constituency—almost 800 sq m with a population of 100,000. I wrote to him last week informing him of Lanarkshire health board's decision to build a new hospital at Wishaw and to upgrade its hospital at Hairmyres. It is threatening to remove acute medical services in the Clydesdale constituency. Will the Secretary of State assure the House and my constituents that he will not agree to a diminution in acute medical provision in Clydesdale?
    Mr. Rifkind: I note carefully what the hon. Gentleman said. The health board has not put any proposals to the Scottish Home and Health Department, but, if and when any recommendations are put, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall take into account his points and those made by others who have commented on the proposals.
    Mr. Galbraith: Does the Secretary of State agree that the reason for many of the proposed closures is the chronic underfunding of the health service in Scotland? In the past six years, has not the Scottish Office underfunded pay awards to the health boards, excluding Glasgow, by £150 million? In Lothian alone, underfunding of pay awards amounts to £20 million—almost the exact amount that Lothian will have to make in cuts. Does not that show that Lothian's problems are due not to mismanagement but to underfunding and that, therefore, the Secretary of State will be responsible for any cuts or closures in Lothian.
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. In the current year, the Government have made available an extra £158 million, or 8.3 per cent., over the previous provision to meet priorities, including out-of-line pay and price increases. The allowances made for pay have been exactly the same for Lothian as for other health boards in Scotland. The fact that Lothian is facing a cash crisis does not arise from provision for pay, which is equal for all health boards in Scotland.

    Hospice, Linlithgow
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received in relation to the future of elderly and day-care patients at the 800-year-old hospice at Linlithgow.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): No proposals have been received concerning St. Michael's hospital, Linlithgow.
    Mr. Dalyell: In view of the dismay of the 13,500 people who signed the petition, would not it be wise at least for the Scottish Office to discover the legal and historic advice about church land being disposed of when it was given, in this case in 1138, for the maintenance of the ministry, the fabric of the church and the care of the poor? In order to

    977
    avoid a cause celebre in the Court of Session, should not Scottish Office lawyers consult scholars on the legal position before the idea of disposal proceeds further? Should not the idea be nipped in the bud?
    Mr. Forsyth: I understand that Lothian health board's examination of the matter is at an early stage, but I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that his points will be drawn to the attention of the board. I shall ask it carefully to examine the legal position on the feu disposition in respect of that hospital. I am grateful to him for drawing it to our attention.

    Health Service, Tayside
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to visit Tayside to discuss the health service.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so at the present time.
    Mr. Ross: If the Minister decides to visit Tayside, instead of using his ministerial car will he perhaps get on his mountain bike, with which he featured in the newspapers on Sunday? While he is taking his time over the Ochil hills to Tayside, will he consider the £1.8 million underfunding of pay awards in Tayside which blows the myth that privatisation will be good for the health service? Have not any savings from privatisation been more than offset by the underfunding of pay awards?
    Mr. Forsyth: It is a fact that what the hon. Gentleman calls privatisation—which is competitive tendering—has made £80 million available for patient care in the health service. It is also a fact that the Labour party has committed itself to abolishing competitive tendering, in the unlikely event of its taking office. We have had no explanation of where the extra £80 million would come from. The health service has never been better funded. Funding has increased by more than one third in real terms, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the service development that has taken place in Tayside.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend meets Tayside health board will he draw its attention to the fact that it is probably the finest health board offering the best value services anywhere in the country? Nevertheless, there are causes for concern. For instance, Stracathro hospital is under threat. Moreover, it is to be hoped that the self-governing hospital proposals in Forfar which are very welcome will now be seen to be producing results.
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the exciting proposals for self-governing status which have come from the doctors in Forfar, and to what has been achieved in Tayside. In common with other health boards, those in Scotland are now treating far more patients and making significant inroads into reducing waiting lists and waiting times.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does the Minister understand the widespread anger about, and opposition to, Tayside health board's rundown, closure and withdrawal of hospital services throughout Angus? How can the Minister justify the closure of specialist services at Arbroath infirmary, and the possible closure or rundown of maternity services in Arbroath, Brechin, Forfar and Montrose and of orthopaedic, general and emergency services at
    978
    Stracathro, as well as the closure of perfectly viable laundry services at Sunnyside hospital? Is that what the Tories mean when they say that the NHS is safe in their hands?
    Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman arranges to come and see me to discuss these matters—which he has not done—I shall explain the background to them. The hon. Gentleman asked me to justify the changes. The reason is perfectly simple: the medical advice that we are receiving in respect of maternity services suggests that they should be provided where the full range of services provided by a district general hospital are available. A balance has to be struck between meeting the needs of rural areas and meeting the requirements of patient safety. The hon. Gentleman will have to take a more sophisticated approach to these matters if he wishes to continue to represent the interests of his constituents.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to the future of Stracathro hospital, which serves part of my constituency and where many of my constituents are members of staff? Will he acknowledge that many of us would find it intolerable if the services of that hospital were so whittled away that there was no general hospital between Aberdeen and Dundee?
    Mr. Forsyth: The reforms that we propose for the health service will mean that hospitals will be able to attract funds according to the patients whom they treat and the services that they provide. To hospitals such as Stracathro—which I know well because it is in the area where I was brought up—the White Paper proposals and particularly the option of self-governing status offer new opportunities.

    Housing
    Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the level of central Government grants in support of housing expenditure in Ross and Cromarty district in the last three years for which figures are available.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): In the three years to 31 March 1990, Ross and Cromarty district council received housing support grant in excess of £11.2 million, and croft housing grants of more than £294,000 were approved.
    Mr. Kennedy: Is the Minister aware that last year the district council carried out a major housing survey of its needs and projected expenditure and that it is estimated that a rolling programme of £60 million will be needed next year for new build, to improve council stock and to bring private sector housing up from below tolerable standard to reasonable standard? Given the number of representations that both the district council and I are receiving from many communities in Ross and Cromarty—and from many housing schemes in individual communities—will not the Minister have to look again at his spending allocations for the district authority? There is no way that it will meet over the next five years the obvious needs that have been identified by the council.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I welcomed the opportunity to meet the hon. Gentleman's district council

    979
    last summer and I am aware of the problems that he mentioned. The amount of housing below tolerable standard has been reduced by more than half over the past 10 years, but I am aware of the extent of such housing in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. A rural housing study is being carried out in depth, almost from Muckle Flugga to Mull of Kintyre, and we hope to come forward with a concerted strategy in Scotland by September.
    Part of the answer may lie in the extent to which the private sector will come in to support local authorities and Scottish Homes in partnership projects.
    Mr. Speaker: Dr. Godman.
    Dr. Godman: Question 14, Sir. Sorry—I mean No. 6.

    Inverclyde Enterprise Zone
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the operation of the Inverclyde enterprise zone.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): The Inverclyde enterprise zone was established in 1989 and has a 10-year life span. It is, therefore, much too soon to assess its impact on the local economy.
    However, in addition to the 870 jobs already created or planned, I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the American electronics company Sorensen Ltd. yesterday announced the takeover and expansion of Domain Power Ltd. which is expected to create a further 400 new jobs in Inverclyde.
    Dr. Godman: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I think that I was expressing hope when I referred to question 14.
    The enterprise zone suffers from large areas of dereliction. Where those areas surround listed buildings, there is a major problem of persuading investors to come into the zone. I refer to the engine works in Arthur street in Greenock and the Gourock ropeworks in Port Glasgow. I wish that the Minister would show a smidgen of the concern about and commitment to the community that were shown by his grandfather, who built the engine works in Arthur street. With regard to the Gourock ropeworks, is the Minister aware that the people of Port Glasgow deserve a quick solution to the problems of dereliction surrounding that fine listed building? Let us have some action on that building and the area of dereliction surrounding it.
    Mr. Lang: It is more likely to have been my great-grandfather. The buildings to which the hon. Gentleman referred are being given close attention, but it is primarily a matter for their owners. The Inverclyde enterprise zone has some geographical difficulties in that it is split among 11 sites covering 274 acres. However, the SDA has already spent or committed £14.3 million towards clearance of dereliction and factory construction. That is a reflection of the way in which it is approaching the matter. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by more than in any other constituency in Scotland, bar one, over the past three years. That is a reflection of the success of the Government's policies in the Inverclyde area.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does my hon. Friend accept that no other enterprise zone has greater prospects, contains finer buildings or a finer work force, is on the
    980
    Clyde or has such magnificent prospects? My hon. Friend should encourage Scottish Enterprise to promote that enterprise zone with vigour because no place could be more vigorously successful than that part of Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The enterprise zones in different parts of Scotland are one aspect of the Government's policies to promote the development of enterprise and the regeneration of the economy. The overall success of those policies is revealed by the fact that the fall in unemployment over the past three years has been the biggest single fall for the past 40 years. The dramatic improvement in employment is a reflection of the success of our policies.
    Mr. Graham: Is the Minister aware that the recent decision to allow the Braehead development, which is a monstrous plan, to go ahead will do irreparable damage to the Inverclyde enterprise zone and to nearly every industrial development in Renfrewshire? Will the Minister make a statement about that? I have never seen such a stupid planning decision, particularly when we consider that Inverclyde district council, Renfrew district council and Strathclyde council are totally opposed to the abominable Braehead plan.
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will know that that decision was given the closest and most careful consideration. However, there are a number of encouraging initiatives in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, including those at Ferguslie park and Renfrew and the developments at Linwood. Unemployment has fallen in the hon. Gentleman's constituency by more than 2,200 in the past three and a half years.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mention has been made of question No. 14, which leads me to the conclusion that hon. Members would like to get on to that question. There is interest also in question No. 11, so we should now move on rather more rapidly.

    Floods, Tay Valley
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications he has received for grants following the floods in the Tay valley; and how many have been for funds to restore the environmental damage caused by the floods.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Thirty-two applications have been received from farmers in Tayside for the repair of elevated floodbanks at the enhanced rates of grant announced on 28 February 1990. A further five applications have been received for arterial drainage and ditching operations at ordinary rates.
    With regard to environmental damage, three farmers within the Breadalbane environmentally sensitive area have notified damage to grant-aided trees and fences.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the worst break in the Tay was at Braecock farm and that a temporary repair was carried out there? Downstream, farmers and the village of Capath will be at risk unless the colossal damage that was done at Braecock is properly, fully and adequately repaired. What proposals

    981
    does my hon. Friend have and what hope can he give people downstream of Braecock that the work will be carried out properly?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to reassure my hon. Friend that the three downstream owners who are to carry out repairs to flood banks will also qualify for enhanced grants. The Scottish Office is ready to pay 60 per cent. of grant, and approval of the repair proposals will be given immediately when the owners are ready to accept the contractor's tender.
    Mr. McAllion: Is the Minister aware that Labour-controlled Tayside regional council convened a meeting last month with representatives of local authorities and farming, environmental and other bodies? That meeting called on the Scottish Office to pay £25,000 for a feasibility study to solve the flood damage problem. Will the Minister take this opportunity to say that he will respond positively to that call and pay the £25,000?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is correct that a meeting took place on 21 June. A steering group was formed to appoint an independent consultant and oversee the hydrology study. We have offered to fund it up to a quarter, to a maximum of £10,000, which we consider generous, taking all the circumstances into account.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implications of the Government's review of the poll tax for local authorities in Scotland.
    Mr. Rifkind: The House will be informed when the review has been completed.
    Mr. Douglas: When the Secretary of State meets local authorities in Edinburgh on Friday, will he inform them at least that there will be no capping of local authorities in Scotland? How will he react to their fears, published in the press today, that the poll tax is likely to increase by 25 per cent. in Scotland in the oncoming year? [Interruption.] If Conservative Members wish to intervene, I am happy for them to do so. How will the Secretary of State react to the farcical protests by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) and the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who say that they want to use the Act of Union, which the Government have abrogated by imposing unfair taxes on Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have already said that in the current financial year it is not necessary to take selective action. Indeed, evidence suggests that Scottish local authorities have had lower levels of expenditure than local authorities south of the border, no doubt because accountability is beginning to apply.
    On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question and the various predictions by local authorities about possible levels of community charge next year, I have noted that one of the points that they have raised is that a number of people are seeking to evade their legal responsibilities and refusing to pay their taxes. The hon. Gentleman might help his constituents by paying his lawful taxes so that law-abiding members of the public do not suffer.
    Mr. Jack: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the generosity of support for Scottish local authorities by taxpayers thoughout the United Kingdom. What steps is he taking to ensure that the revenue support grant that those authorities receive is spent as efficiently as possible?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is corrrect that it is in the public interest to ensure that local authorities are properly accountable to their electorates for the way in which they use available resources. One of the great advantages of the community charge as compared with the old rating system is that it ensures far greater accountability, because all adults who benefit from local services now contribute towards their cost.
    Mr. Maxton: Is the Secretary of State aware that the only sensible outcome, which is desired by the vast majority of Scottish people, is the total abolition of the poll tax? As he may find that slightly difficult, will he in the meanwhile demand from the review committee the abolition of the 20 per cent. minimum payment rule, backdated to 1 April 1989, an improvement in the rebate system, again backdated to 1 April 1989, and a vast improvement in revenue support grant next year to ensure that the odious burden of warrant sales is not imposed on thousands of our fellow Scots and that Scottish local authorities will not be forced to increase the poll tax by a massive amount and to cut services and jobs next year?
    Mr. Rifkind: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. The House and the public will be even more interested to know whether the Labour party is continuing to insist on imposing a roof tax in Scotland, which has been rejected not only by the Leader of the Opposition for England and Wales, but by the vast majority of people in Scotland. We understand the Labour party's embarrassement and sensitivity on that issue, but Opposition Members must realise that it will not go away.

    Scottish Assembly
    Mr. Gow: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the setting up of an assembly in Edinburgh with legislative powers.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In the past six months, five letters in support of an assembly have been received.
    Mr. Gow: If my noble Friend believes, as I do, that an assembly in Edinburgh would weaken and injure the Union, why are Government supporting an assembly in Belfast?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There is no contradiction in the Government's approach. It reflects the different circumstances in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. A Scottish assembly would be a taxation nightmare in Scotland and as the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has estimated, it will lead to an extra 25 p in the pound income tax for the Scots.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Does the Minister accept that if we had an Administration subject to democratic accountability in Scotland, matters such as the threatened closure of 640 hospital beds in Lothian region would receive at least as much attention as the solicitors'

    983
    monopoly is currently receiving? Does he further accept that such exposure to democratic accountability would be an invigorating experience, not just for Ministers, but for Scottish Office civil servants?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I think that the hon. Gentleman can represent his constituents perfectly well in the House of Commons—[HON. MEMBERS: "And you."] Indeed, I am one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. The hon. Gentleman can represent his constituents in the House on health matters.
    On the hon. Gentleman's point about devolution, I believe that
    "We will get guaranteed disharmony, disunity, conflict and competition throughout the whole of Britain. The dominant issue of politics in Britain will be the jealousies of region against region, nation against nation, argument against argument. That will be very bad news for Britain".
    Those are not my words—they are the words of the Leader of the Opposition a few years ago, and they are as valid today as they were when he uttered them.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that all Scottish taxpayers should be made aware that a Labour-inspired Scottish assembly would increase taxation beyond belief, as was confirmed by the Leader of the Opposition who said that only one in 15 taxpayers would face an increase—that is, the Scots?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. If Scotland were funded at the average United Kingdom per capita level, Scotland would have been £2.7 billion worse off in 1989–90. To fund the balance in Scotland and to maintain expenditure in Scotland at its current level would require an additional 25p in the pound.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Minister agree that it would be helpful to have a bit less heat and a bit more light? Does he further agree that the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill is an excellent example of the need for a Scottish Assembly because treatment of it has been superficial and inadequate? When the Scottish Constitutional Convention concludes, will the Minister undertake to meet it to try to work out a reasonable and sensible answer to all this?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer is no. The Scottish Constitutional Convention is unrepresentative of Scotland—[Interruption.] The Scottish National party is not taking part. The hon. Gentleman must await my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's statement on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.

    Scottish Office Expenditure
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received recently about Scottish Office expenditure.
    Mr. Rifkind: I receive regular representations on all aspects of Scottish Office business, including expenditure.
    Mr. Bennett: What representations has my right hon. and learned Friend received from the Opposition about their plans to spend up to £50 billion extra across the United Kingdom, to have a Scottish assembly with tax-raising powers, which would cost Scottish taxpayers
    984
    something like 25p in the pound, and a roof tax? Has he received any explanation from the Labour party in Scotland about how it proposes to pay for that?
    Mr. Rifkind: One of the most worrying aspects of the Opposition's proposals is that not only do they propose substantial increases—
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is about the Minister's answer—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We have not heard it yet.
    Mr. Bruce: The Minister is not entitled to answer for the Opposition.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear his answer. We have not heard it yet.
    Mr. Rifkind: One of the most worrying aspects about any proposals for new taxation is that they would impose an even greater burden of taxation on Scotland than on the rest of the United Kingdom. That would clearly be the consequence of the Labour party's proposals.
    Sir David Steel: Will the Secretary of State consider adding one new item of Scottish Office expenditure in the light of yesterday's announcement by the Department of Transport of a motorway link up the A1 as far as Newcastle? Does he recognise that the press statement saying that it would help Scotland added insult to injury? Nothing is more damaging to Scotland than creating the same impression on the east coast of England as exists on the west coast—that the motorway network stops at the border. Will the Secretary of State urgently review his road programme?
    Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that not only are we proposing significant improvements to the A1 in Scotland, but we are making more dramatic and radical progress in transforming the A74 into a motorway on the west coast of Scotland than any previous Government ever contemplated. We have begun construction work on the total reconstruction of the A74 to full motorway status, making quicker progress than has ever been known in the roads programme of any Transport Department in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Wilson: In spite of that answer, does the Minister accept that the absence of Scottish Office expenditure and of any visible strategy on fast, modern communications between Scotland and the south has become a major liability for the Scottish economy? In addition to the lack of decision on the A1, how on earth can he defend the total absence of a Scottish Office strategy in the past three years to ensure fast, direct links between Scotland and the channel tunnel? Will not that be seen with hindsight as one of the great omissions by the Scottish Office in the past three years, with tremendous long-term implications for the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Rifkind: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman knows what he is talking about. For the first time, we have plans to link the motorway network of central Scotland with the motorway network in the south. In addition, we have the electrification of the east coast railway line between central Scotland and London. We have also had a more remarkable improvement in civil aviation between

    985
    central Scotland and London. We have also had a more remarkable improvement in civil aviation between central Scotland and south than at any time in our history.

    British Steel
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to assess the arguments advanced by British Steel for the closure of the Ravenscraig strip mill, as outlined in the recent letter to him from the chairman of British Steel.
    Mr. Lang: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given a few moments ago by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid).
    Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister agree that it is immoral for a man who has just received a 79 per cent. pay rise to show such a lack of concern at the social impact of his decisions? Sir Robert Scholey has made it clear that to protect his private monopoly, British Steel will not sell the strip mill to a competitor. Will the Minister urge his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to insist that that statement be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and use the threat of resignation to make sure that that happens?
    Mr. Lang: Sir Robert Scholey has a responsibility to his company and to the steel industry, not only in Scotland. In regard to the other points in the hon. Gentleman's question, Sir Robert pointed out in his letter to my right hon. and learned Friend that there are no fewer than 15 major competitors to British Steel within Europe alone. Competition is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading.
    Mr. Sillars: May I refer the Minister to what the Secretary of State said about the analysis that he has instructed the Scottish Development Agency to carry out? Is he aware that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave the impression that clear and precise directions were given to the Scottish Development Agency? But I have a letter from Mr. Scott, the chief executive, who says that
    "the precise terms of reference of the remit for the study have yet to be settled."
    Exactly what will the Scottish Office involvement be in setting the final terms of reference? Will the Minister give an assurance that the terms of reference will include the feasibility of an independent Scottish steel industry and that the preparation of a business plan to attract investment for that objective will not be ruled out?
    Mr. Lang: The terms of reference for the SDA were deliberately made extremely broad. They included the analysis of prospects for the steel industry, the identification of opportunities for it and the ability to assist the Government in the discharge of our responsibilities in relation to any possible contraction of the sector. The kind of detail to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a matter for the SDA to resolve when it decides how to embark on its study.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Has the Secretary of State made a study of the impact on the local economy if Ravenscraig were to close, and if not, why not?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady will know that there are a number of initiatives in the Lanarkshire area, and have
    986
    been for a number of years—in particular, the Monklands initiative, which is a major initiative. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State invited consideration of the possible impact of the hot strip mill closure on the area. Any other initiative that may be necessary will arise as a result of the SDA report or other developments, and will be reacted to at the appropriate time.
    Mr Marlow: May I put it to my hon. Friend arid to his right hon. and learned Friend that they are giving their English colleagues a great deal of concern? We can understand the interest in what happens in Scotland, but we are talking about part of the British steel industry. My hon. Friends are concerned with Scotland, but, as British Ministers in a British Government, will they take account not only of Scottish interests—which, from an English point of view, they seem to be fighting for far too strongly—but of British interests as well?
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I, and our other colleagues, are Ministers in a territorial Department. It would be surprising if we did not direct our attention primarily to the interests of that territory.

    Cervical Cancer
    Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures for cervical cancer (a) patients and (b) deaths in Scotland.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The latest figures show 443 patients suffering from cervical cancer and, regrettably, 191 deaths.
    Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that that, and the Government's lack of interest, is appalling? Recently, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) made an appeal regarding the 2,000 needless cervical cancer deaths nationally. The Government have been repeatedly asked by family practitioner committees and cytologists to spend an extra £20 million. Had they done so, we might have saved the 2,000 people who have died from this invasive carcinoma. Why do the Government have such a shocking and appalling record, and when will they spend the £20 million that we need to achieve 90 per cent. protection?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the figures for loss of life through cervical cancer are disturbing. I also agree that many of these deaths are preventable. In 90 per cent. of the cases where cervical cancer has been diagnosed, there has been no screening. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that the Government have put in place a call and recall system for cervical screening, the aim of which is to ensure that all women between the ages of 20 and 60 are screened before 1993, on the basis of regular screening at least once every five years. In some health boards, screening will take place every three years. A screening programme is in hand and it is extremely important that women in Scotland respond to invitations to take part. In addition, the new GP contract gives incentives to doctors to provide screening services for all their patients. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

    Higher Education
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about trends in the numbers in higher education since 1979.
    Mr. Lang: I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the number of full-time students attending higher education in Scotland rose by almost 25 per cent. between 1979 and 1989, to nearly 85,000. 1 hope that this excellent trend will continue.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that those statistics underline the Government's commitment to the future of higher education in Scotland, and does he join me in welcoming the decision by Stirling university to double its intake in the near future?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is an authority on Scottish universities, having attended St. Andrews and graduated there, and having been a lecturer at Aberdeen and Glasgow universities. I am delighted to be able to reassure him that the Government are committed to continuing further expansion, even above the dramatic levels of improvement that we have achieved in the past few years.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Despite the Minister's statement, fewer than 10 per cent. of working-class youngsters get to university in Scotland, while failures from the English public school system receive first preference at certain universities, especially Edinburgh. What does the Minister intend to do about that?
    Mr. Lang: Access to university must depend on academic qualifications. I am delighted to say that more than one in five school leavers in Scotland now enter higher education, which is much higher than the United Kingdom average. The Government are committed to increasing the population in higher education, and hope that it will be as high as 30 per cent. of the relevant population in six years' time.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Did my hon. Friend notice the recent remarks of Lord Chilver, the chairman of the Universities Funding Council, commending the broadly based Scottish education system? Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that that system, based on a four-year honours course, puts additional financial burdens not only on the universities but on the students? Will he ensure that resources are made available in both sectors, to maintain our excellent record in terms of the additional number of students that we have gained in the Scottish universities?
    Mr. Lang: Lord Chilver certainly had some kind and complimentary things to say about the quality of Scottish higher education. The fact that in Scotland a substantially higher proportion of the relevant population enters higher education shows that the four-year degree course is no disincentive. Overall expenditure this year is up by 11 per cent. on last year. That is the highest-ever level of student awards, and reflects the Government's commitment.
    Mr. Worthington: When it is cheaper to produce a graduate in this country than in almost any other western European country, the United States or Japan, why are the Government intent on cost cutting and standard cutting? Why is the Minister satisfied with one in five of our
    988
    youngsters' receiving higher education, when in Japan, Sweden, America, Canada, France and Denmark the proportion is already one in two?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on the fact that we have the most generous support for students in the western world. Eighty per cent. of full-time students receive support in this country, compared with 12 per cent. in Japan. The expansion that we are achieving was not achieved by the Labour party. I am delighted that we are moving down this road, and I am sure that the Scottish economy will benefit from it.

    Law Reform
    Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the proposed changes set out in part II of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rifkind: I have received a number of representations. I am pleased to be able to report to the House that, as a result of informal discussions with the Law Society of Scotland in the past few weeks we have today reached agreement with regard to the proposals in part II of the Bill.
    The Law Society of Scotland has informed us that it is able to accept that the solicitors' monopoly with regard to conveyancing should cease. The Government for their part accept that the provisions in the Bill allowing persons other than solicitors to provide conveyancing services should be limited to independent qualified conveyancers. The provisions will not apply to the financial institutions.
    The Government and the Law Society of Scotland have also agreed that the provisions in the Bill with regard to multi-disciplinary practices should be made the same for solicitors as for advocates. There are also some detailed points in part II which I have recently discussed with the Law Society of Scotland and am considering.
    On that basis, the Law Society of Scotland has informed us that it is able to welcome part II of the Bill and is anxious to see it appear on the statute book. I am also able to inform the House that the Scottish Consumer Council has indicated that it, too, welcomes the agreement that has been reached.
    I would like to thank the Law Society of Scotland for the constructive and helpful discussions that we have had, which have enabled us to reach this amicable agreement.
    Mr. Doran: That is clearly a major statement—and a major retreat—by the Secretary of State. I am sure that he made it freely, and without any undue pressure. Substantial concessions have been made, however, and it is important to add that that is a tribute to the pressure applied by the Labour Members on the Committee. There are two outstanding questions that the Secretary of State has not addressed. Clearly, there is major concern about the other important measures in the Bill being rushed through in Committee, and about there being insufficient time to deal with them. Perhaps the Secretary of State can advise the House what proposals he has for the other parts of the Bill.
    Finally, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that the agreement that he has announced

    989
    today is accepted by all his own Back Benchers, as we have had the privilege of watching Tory Members and Ministers fighting like ferrets in a sack about the proposals?
    Mr. Rifkind: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I can say without fear of contradiction that the views of Opposition Members on the Committee considering the Bill have been of less significance than usual in terms of the development of policy. As for the attitude of my hon. Friends, they must speak for themselves, as they often do, and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so. As for the other parts of the Bill, I am sure that the House as a whole hopes that there will be an opportunity to consider properly in due course the licensing and other provisions that hon. Members believe are important.
    Sir Hector Monro: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend most warmly for his announcement and for the agreement that he has reached with the Law Society of Scotland. I thank him also for listening to his own Back Benchers' representations that in future rural solicitors should be able to compete fairly and play their full part in the community.
    Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend. From my point of view, one of the most important questions that we addressed was the need to end the solicitors' monopoly over conveyancing. I am grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for agreeing to that proposition.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: In preparing for the humiliating climbdown that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just announced, did he have time to reflect on what he said in 1976—that a separate Scottish legal system needed a separate Scottish Parliament? Have not the tawdry and undignified scenes in the Corridor outside the Committee Room demonstrated the Government's inadequacy and inability to get their business through the House?
    Mr. Rifkind: I can understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a distinguished lawyer, is disappointed about the Government's ability to reach agreement with the Law Society of Scotland on matters of this kind. I appreciate that he may have other interests in that respect. However, we have demonstrated that with good will it is possible to reach agreement. That is something which I am delighted to report to the House.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: I warmly and wholeheartedly congratulate my right hon. and learned Gentleman on his achievement. He has done a great service to the people of Scotland, the institutions of Scotland and the integrity of the House. Does he agree with me that, given good will and some reasonable compromises on the later parts of the Bill, there is every reason to believe that the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill can be enacted in this Session of Parliament, having been considered at reasonable hours?
    Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It will assist the Committee to know that with regard to that part of the Bill which has given rise to the greatest public interest both the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Consumer Council, which have occasionally adopted different views on certain matters, have enthusiastically endorsed the proposals?
    Mr. Harry Ewing: The Bill began its life in the other House in February 1990. It has taken the Secretary of State from February to the beginning of July to discuss and enter into an agreement with the Law Society on part II. How on earth does he expect the Committee to discuss, in the three weeks that remain before the recess, something on which it has taken him six months to reach agreement with the Law Society of Scotland? Does the Secretary of State also accept that although he has been a member of the Committee since it began its work, the words that he has expressed at the Dispatch Box are the first words that he has uttered on the Bill as he left everything to his junior colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)? Does he appreciate that there is simply not enough time to get the Bill through its Committee stage?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to pay a fulsome tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who has done a superb job in Committee. It is only in the recent past that the Law Society of Scotland has felt able to state its willingness to agree to the proposals that have been put before the House today. I pay tribute to the Law Society for its constructive contribution.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Although I recognise that the Secretary of State and his colleagues must feel very humiliated by this eleventh-hour decision, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House what discussions he has had with the Department of Trade and Industry about competition policy, given that that is included in the Bill? The problems did not become apparent in February, but when the Green Paper was published last year clear antagonism was expressed. Why has it taken so long to recognise that the Bill is totally unrepresentative of the wishes of the legal profession, particularly in Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady must appreciate that it is not just the interests of any one profession that the Government must take into account. We discussed competition policy with the relevant Departments arid I am delighted that the opportunities for greater choice are preserved on the basis of what I reported to the House today.
    Mr. Speaker: Sir Nicholas Fairbairn.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn rose—
    Mr. Canavan: He has been called twice. It is ridiculous.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the agreement that he has reached with the Law Society of Scotland. I remind him of Churchill's words
    "In War, resolution; in defeat"—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman should ask a question, and please not give us reminiscences.
    Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have the question.
    Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are reaching the end of Question Time—
    Mr. Eadie: I want to raise a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: I will take the point of order, but it may affect the time available to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.
    Mr. Eadie: Mr. Speaker, you must have observed—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Does this matter appertain to order during questions? If so, please make the point of order brief.
    Mr. Eadie rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman sit down for a moment, please?
    Mr. Eadie: I wish to raise a point of order which is germane to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.
    Mr. Speaker: If it requires my immediate attention, I will take the point of order now, but we are in the middle of Question Time and I want to call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.
    Mr. Eadie: It is important that you take my point of order now, Mr. Speaker. You have observed what happened in the course of Question Time. A specific question was used by the Secretary of State to make what was, in essence, a statement and not an answer to the question. The whole issue is certainly important and germane to Scotland. You know what happened yesterday in the House, when there was an endeavour by the Government and by Ministers to abuse the procedures of the House and to abuse Parliament. I ask you to do your duty Mr. Speaker, as it is your responsibility to protect Back Benchers—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr.Eadie rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please now sit down? I trust that I speak for the whole House when I say that I hope that there will not be a repetition of the disgraceful scenes that we had yesterday—[Interruption.] I am protecting Back Benchers.
    Mr. Eadie: No, you are not.
    Mr. Speaker: The question was on the Order Paper and the Minister has a right to give his answer to that question. I wish to call Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, and then the Oppositon Front-Bench spokesman, to conclude the discussion on the question. I will not hear the hon. Gentleman any more.
    Mr. Eadie: Further to that point of order
    Mr. Speaker: I must order the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.
    Mr. Eadie: No. On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] It is—
    Mr. Speaker: I should be very reluctant to take severe action in the case of such a senior Member. I order the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.
    Mr. Eadie: I am not going to resume my seat.
    Mr. Speaker: In that case, under the powers granted me, I reluctantly say that if the hon. Gentleman does not obey the Chair, I must ask him to leave the Chamber. I am reluctant to do so.
    Mr. Eadie: I will leave the Chamber, but something will have to be done about the chairmanship of the House.
    Mr. Speaker: I have to order the hon. Member to leave the Chamber.
    Mr. Canavan: We should all walk out. This is a disgrace.
    Mr. Speaker: I hope that we shall not have a repetition of the scenes that we had yesterday. I receive a great deal of post and representations from members of the general public. The reputation of the House is in the hands of its Members. It is up to us inside this Chamber to set a good example to those outside.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I will continue the question that I was asking. It was in response to a question from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) who asked whether the Secretary of State would make a statement. Given good will and consideration of the requirements of the people of Scotland and its legal services, will my right hon. and learned Friend accept my congratulations on what he has done today and remember the words, "so far, so good"?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Speaker: This is not a precedent because we are now past the end of Question Time, but, in view of the point of order, which should not have been raised then, I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.
    Mr. Dewar: My criticism of the fact that there is no statement is directed at the Secretary of State for Scotland. I entirely understand that you. Mr. Speaker, had to call question No. 14. It is unfortunate that an important announcement has been compressed into this unsatisfactory parliamentary space. However, I welcome what the Secretary of State has said as far as it goes. It is a remarkable retreat, although I fear that it is not a matter of intellectual conversion but has been forced on the Secretary of State by his total isolation and the evident lack of confidence in his competence among Conservative Back Benchers.
    Will the Secretary of State confirm that the effect of what he has said is that the banks, building societies and larger institutions will not now take on conveyancing work? Will he note our strong view that, however valuable the lobbying of the Law Society of Scotland may have been, the matter should not be decided by a deal on that basis but is an issue for the Standing Committee and, ultimately, the House? I did not like the way in which the Secretary of State suggested that the matter was settled. Is he not, in effect, accepting the amendments to part II of the Bill which have been standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends for some time?
    Finally, I have an important question. Do I understand from what the Secretary of State has said that he does not intend to proceed to a guillotine and expects to avoid that? That must imply that large sections of parts III and IV of the Bill will have to be dropped if progress is to be made.

    993
    I am certainly prepared, as my hon. Friends will be, to be constructive, but we must make it clear from the beginning that the only way to save the Bill from the chaos created by the Secretary of State's mismanagement is to enter into talks and to drop the parts that are not agreed in the rest of the measure.
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman, in questioning my right to make the remarks that I did today, should reflect that the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) was to ask me to make a statement. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to complain that that is exactly what I have done. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is quite correct that the Standing Committee and, ultimately, the House will determine whether the proposals in the Bill are acceptable, but they will wish to take into account the views of outside organisations which have taken an interest in the issue. The hon. Gentleman is also correct in saying that a number of the amendments that he has put down relate to matters to which I referred earlier. That will be relevant at a later stage. Of course I understand the hon. Gentleman's
    994
    interest in discussing these matters with other members of the Committee. The use of the guillotine is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. However, in the light of progress and of the agreements to which I referred earlier, I think that the matter has been overtaken by events.
    Mr. Speaker: Statement—Mr. Secretary Clarke.
    Several Hon. Members: On a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order later.
    Mr. Douglas: That is no way to deal with Scottish legislation—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Douglas: These matters should be dealt with through the usual channels and not decided by the Law Society of Scotland.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order later, in their usual place. I call Mr. Secretary Clarke.

NHS Trusts
3.40 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Yesterday I gave a full response to 32 questions about the establishment of national health service trusts. I said then that 199 national health service units had expressed interest in NHS trust status. These included single hospitals, groups of hospitals and non-hospital facilities. I understand that about 60 to 70 of those units which have expressed interest in trust status are likely to submit applications in the first wave for April 1991. I also explained that there would be three months of full public consultation on each application which will be undertaken by the relevant regional health authority. I stressed that, ultimately, my decision would be based on my assessment of whether, in the light of all relevant factors, NHS trust status for a particular unit will benefit national health service patients in that locality.
I do not propose to go over the ground that I covered yesterday in answer to hon. Members' questions. However, there are a few further points that I should like to make. First, I wish to state again, absolutely and categorically, that NHS trusts will, as their name makes clear, remain fully part of the national health service. Their staff will be national health service staff, their property will be national health service property, the bulk of their funds will come from contracts with health authorities, and the overwhelming majority of their patients will be NHS patients.
NHS trusts will be established by the Secretary of State. Their chairmen and a number of the non-executive members will be appointed by the Secretary of State. They will be accountable to the Secretary of State for the performance of their functions, and they can be dissolved by the Secretary of State.
I am glad to say that there is a great deal of interest in trust status within the national health service. Already in the few days since the Act received Royal Assent, we have received 12 applications. A further 25 or so units have informed my Department that they will be submitting early applications, and a substantially larger number expect to apply by 20 July. Twelve is the up-to-date figure at 3.15 when I left my office, but applications are coming in all the time. The first 12 applications are from Bradford acute services, Leeds general infirmary and associated hospitals, St. James's university hospital, Leeds, Central Middlesex hospital, North Middlesex hospital, Southend district services, Crewe acute services, the regional adult cardio-thoracic unit, Liverpool, Royal Liverpool children's hospital, East Gloucestershire district services, Mid-Surrey health authority general unit and the royal national orthopaedic hospital.
That first list includes major teaching hospitals, such as Leeds general infirmary and St. James's university hospital Leeds. St. James's is the largest teaching hospital in Europe. The Royal Liverpool children's hospital has an international reputation. Its application states that the promoters believe that
"local control and management is the most appropriate organisational model for the largest acute paediatric hospital and community child health services in Western Europe".
Clearly, all those applications and the others that arrive will need to be tested through the consultation process that
996
we have set in place, and I shall want to look carefully at the proposals and the comments made on them before deciding whether to approve applications.
Finally, I re-emphasise the very real benefits that we see flowing from trust status. Trusts will be able to use the range of powers and freedoms which I have previously outlined for the benefit of patients, to improve above all the quality of service which they provide to our patients in our national health service.
Mr. Robin Cook: The House will recall that yesterday the Secretary of State assured the House of the enthusiasm for his plans. If there is so much enthusiasm for his plans, why is he so afraid of letting local people decide for themselves whether their hospitals go self-governing? Why does he have to take that decision for them? Is not the real reason why the Secretary of State will not allow local people to ballot that he knows that he would lose?
May I press the Secretary of State on the interesting shift in the text overnight? Yesterday, the right hon. and learned Gentleman told the House that trust hospitals
"will be free to determine the terms and conditions of service of the staff they employ, to acquire, own and dispose of assets".—[Official Report, 3 July 1990; Vol. 175, c. 862–63.]
But today the Secretary of State told the House that their staff and property will belong to the national health service. Was he not right the first time? Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit that trusts will be able to hire and fire what staff they please, or to impose what conditions they please, and to buy and sell property for financial gain? Why does not he admit also that trusts will belong to the NHS only in the sense that at a late stage of the Bill's progress, he stuck "NHS" in front of their names?
Will the Secretary of State come clean on what he means by a process of consultation? Will he confirm that in an article in The Times on Monday, when he was asked whether he would let a trust go ahead "despite overwhelming opposition", the right hon. and learned Gentleman replied, "Yes"? If that is his intention, why not tell us that now and admit that the consultation is a fraud—the fake product of Ministers who love to lecture and hate to listen?
If the Secretary of State wants fair consultation, will he reveal who he will appoint as the chairs and directors of the trusts? [HON. MEMBERS: "Tories."] Before the public are consulted about the future of their hospitals, will they be told which industrialists or friends of the Tory party he is to put in charge of them? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants fair consultation, will he respond to the many doctors who have reported that they were put under pressure either by bribery or blackmail to agree to go self-governing as the price of development funding?
As the Minister who commended to the House the Rover deal, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that this time there will be no hidden sweeteners to go self-governing?
Is not the real reason why the Secretary of State cannot allow fair consultation that he cannot convince the public? Does not he understand that he can spent £3 million on the most expensive election address in history, but that he will not persuade the public that fragmenting the NHS will make it more efficient, or that turning their hospitals into business enterprises will make them more caring?
I warn the Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—that if, after consultation, he goes ahead against the will

997
of local people, ignores their views, and makes their hospitals self-governing against their wishes, they will vote for a Government who will listen to them, and who will take their hospitals back into their local NHS.
Mr. Clarke: We are here considering the future of probably the most important public service in the country, and how best to raise the quality of care that it gives to its patients. The hon. Gentleman's roustabout, knockabout nonsense does not rise to the importance of the subject matter, which he reduced to almost ridiculous proportions.
The hon. Gentleman persists in arguing that the whole exercise should be reduced to ballots, to pursue what he described last week as his desire to have a by-election in every place where the staff of a hospital apply for NHS transfer status. No process of public consultation that I can recall on any important issue has been subjected to local referenda, of whatever electorate—certainly not by his Government or any other. Childish political ranting of the sort that we have just heard is no way to determine the future method of management of great hospitals such as St. James's hospital, Leeds, the Royal Liverpool children's hospital, or the others that I listed.
NHS trusts will employ national health service staff. They will be their own staff. Just as Nottingham district health authority, which is in the national health service, employs national health service staff, so if any hospitals become NHS trusts, they will employ their own staff as NHS staff. It is absurd for the hon. Gentleman to keep repeating that somehow their staff, property or premises will cease to be national health service staff, property or premises.
If the hon. Gentleman continues to deploy that sort of argument as his contribution to public consultation on such important matters, I can only believe that he is deliberately trying to alarm and deceive the staff who work in the hospital to get them to come to an opinion that is contrary to the facts. I do not want that sort of contribution from the hon. Gentleman or anyone else, although criticism of the proposals will be welcome if it is constructive.
We are seeking a serious process of local public consultation, during which those most affected can properly consider the proposals being put forward by the staff and managers of the hospitals, make comments on them and give their view about their probable effect on services. That will serve the purpose that public consultation is meant to serve, in all such ministerial decisions, by helping me to make a better informed decision that takes into account every serious proposition on the issue. The Labour party, which has no policies on health care, will use the whole process for rent-a-mob demonstrations, usually in the high streets of our towns, but occasionally on the Floor of the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the importance of the statement, but we have an important debate today on the arts. It is a rare opportunity to debate the arts. [Laughter.] I assure hon. Members that it is no laughing matter. So great has been the pressure to take part in the debate that I may have to impose a limit of 10 minutes on speeches. Therefore, I ask for single questions to the Secretary of
998
State. If hon. Members inadvertently ask more than one question, I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would answer only the first.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend is aware of the position that I sought to describe yesterday, but other colleagues will not be aware of how large the Trent-region is. It provides cardiac surgery to the north in Sheffield and cardiac surgery to the south in Leicester. Local medical and surgical opinion in Nottingham rightly sought to have that provision in Nottingham in the Queen's medical centre. Under local management, would that local decision be possible and not subject to an external veto?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for waiting 24 hours for the answer to his question. More serious cardiac services are usually a regional specialty. Under the new arrangement the regions can continue to provide them as a regional specialty, and that includes deciding on the best location for them. However, where a hospital has opted for NHS trust status, one reason for doing so would have been because it wished to put forward its plans for the development of services in that hospital. Whether an NHS trust would be likely to proceed with the desire to develop cardiac services, as my hon. Friend has described, would depend on its ability to interest GPs and districts in providing the contracts for that service, if it was opened.
To that extent, taken with all the reforms the change will open the way to better, more local decisions, which are more influenced by the doctors, nurses and managers in great hospitals like the Queen's medical centre, which serves both our constituencies.
Mr. Frank Field: How can the Government justify their belief that when a private organisation such as a trade union takes action that could affect the public it should have a ballot, but that a public organisation which wishes to make a change in policy should not consult even when the public will be affected? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that his statement today against extending people's right to have a say on this matter was the argument that his party has used every time that the House has considered an extension of the franchise?
Mr. Clarke: With the greatest respect, that is a quite extraordinary analogy. A trade union that takes industrial action is asking its members—a definable group; a quite clear constituency—to break their contracts of employment with their employers. It was wrong ever to have had a position in which a member of a trade union could be subjected to the discipline of the trade union, sometimes in a closed shop, without being allowed any say before the action started on whether he or she wished to break his or her contractual relationship with the employer.
I see not the slightest resemblance between that process and the process of public consultation which Governments of all complexions regularly allow to take place on all kinds of complex, special interest subjects. It so happens that the management of the NHS is one of the more complex matters with which Ministers and the House must deal. There is no defined electorate that could cast a vote in a ballot because no one knows in which hospital he or she is likely to be a patient. There is no group that owns the hospital or knows that its members are bound to be patients of that hospital. The ballots for which the

999
Opposition ask are part of the demonstration campaigning which they propose to lay on this summer. They know perfectly well that they would play no part in the decision-making of any political party which really believed that it would be in government.
Mr. Cecil Franks: In many respects, do not the new national health service hospital trusts correlate to the old hospital management committees and hospital boards? Is it not strange that the Opposition were content for the best part of 30 years to support the old structure but, for some peculiar reason, are not prepared to support the new one?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. During the first 25 years of the health service, we had local management. To some extent, we are reversing the 1972 changes. This is particularly ironic for me, because I was in the House at that time. I was the Government Whip on the Committee that considered the Bill that created district health authorities. The then Labour party fought to the death to defend the old local arrangements against the bureaucracy which it said we were creating. Now that we are reducing that bureaucracy, the Labour party is defending it.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Everything come to he who waits, Mr. Speaker. How far will we be able to trust self-governing trusts? Will they be run on the same basis as trust ports? The Secretary of State for Transport is encouraging the use of private Bills to privatise trust ports. Will not similar patterns begin to emerge for self-governing hospital trusts, in that those who are trusted to run one may decide to run away from that trust because of pressure from the right hon. and learned Gentleman?
Mr. Clarke: There is really no resemblance between NHS trusts and port trusts. I happen to think that privatising some of the trust ports is one of the best ways that one can find of improving their performance and the service that they give to industry. I have always been in favour of industrial privatisation. I am against the privatisation of the health service. I have always been against the privatisation of the health service and I will continue to be against it. The NHS trusts will be within the national health service, owning property that is NHS property, employing staff who are NHS staff and treating NHS patients who will not pay for the treatment. They bear no resemblance to the commercial world in which the port trusts work.
Mr. Michael Morris: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that, to date, I have not managed to support his broad reforms, but I recognise that there is great merit in the concept of NHS trusts. Therefore, I read with particular concern the leaflet on NHS trusts, which stated:
"Those with an interest—staff, GPs, health authorities, community health councils and, above all, the local public—will be asked their views … and will have an opportunity to express an opinion".
Precisely how will that be done?
Mr. Clarke: It will be done by the process of consultation over three months which I am asking regional health authorities to conduct. I shall ask them to publish
1000
the results of that consultation and come back to me with their comments so that I can make a better-informed decision.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reading that passage in my booklet. Like him, I would emphasise the "general public". The difficulty with public consultation is that it becomes dominated by overnight committees, various interest groups and trade unions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Oh, yes. The Labour party is pouring the community charge into all kinds of front organisations which will respond to the consultations. The general public's interests are most affected by how well local hospitals are run for their benefit. I hope that in the middle of this political process, which the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is trying to stir up, the ordinary member of the public will give his or her views on what he or she would like from local hospitals.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Minister tell the truth and say that opting out of hospital services is a small step to privatisation? Patients will have to pay for treatment or to stay in hospital, in the same way as the Government introduced charges for eye tests and dental services.
Mr. Clarke: I always tell the truth, and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman believes the proposition that lies behind his question.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the great national teaching hospitals—I am concerned with the royal national orthopaedic, the last on his list—are particularly suited to NHS trust status, provided that there is balanced local consultation and that the eventual structure is right and rational? Will he reassure opinion that that will be done properly, with careful thought, and that site and buildings ownership will be properly settled so that those hospitals will be assured of a viable long-term future—particularly, of course, the RNOH?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The last application that I received before leaving the office was a letter which states simply:
"The Staff of this hospital wish you to consider the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital for National Health Service Trust status."
Mr. Dave Nellist: The staff?
Mr. Clarke: I am sure that the staff's opinion will be rejected by the hon. Gentleman if it does not coincide with his own.
The new bodies must be established carefully. Before any application is approved, we will ensure that the people appointed to the board are competent, that their plans have been well drawn up and considered and that they are likely to be successful in delivering them. The point of consultation is to ensure that there is no chance of an ill-thought-out application getting through and that the approved applications enhance the service to patients.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: As the right-wing extremists in the Tory party fear the ballot box, will the Secretary of State spell out in some detail how consultation will take place? For example, if all the nurses at Broad Green and Alder Hey hospitals in Liverpool say, "No, we do not want this ideological dream of the Tory party", will he still go ahead and pursue these aims? Will

1001
he still say yes to hospital trusts? Does he agree that the only people who are pursuing these proposals with vigour are the petty bureaucrats whom he appoints, who are looking not to the interests of the patients but for knighthoods and peerages?
Mr. Clarke: I will obey your injunction, Mr. Speaker, and answer only the first question. I do not answer for the right-wing extremists in the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman should address that question elsewhere.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the criterion by which he will reach judgments on applications is the quality of service that will be provided to patients? In the context of Leeds and the two applications from the great teaching hospitals, will he consider whether mergers of trust hospitals would be desirable and whether, as a consequence, rationalisation of district health authorities would be necessary?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend's premise that what matters is whether the change in status is likely to improve the quality of care to patients. In Leeds, it will be necessary to have a serious local discussion about the prospects of mergers of district health authorities, in which some are interested. Mergers of hospitals will not necessarily arise, but people wish to consider how the plans for both those great hospitals interrelate. The aim must be to set up a structure for managing and delivering the health service in Leeds that is likely to improve, to yet higher levels, the high standard of care in that city.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: How can anyone have confidence in the Secretary of State promising local public consultation that will be worthy of that term when his track record in managing the health service shows that he imposed a contract on doctors, against the clear evidence of consultations with them, and shows the total lack of consultation with ambulance workers throughout months of a damaging dispute which cost millions of pounds? The evidence of those consultations, as he confirmed from the Dispatch Box this afternoon, will come from political appointees, who will be appointed by him to an extent unparalleled in the history of the health service.
Mr. Clarke: I negotiated an agreement with the representatives of the GPs involving the stipulation for the first time of the services that GPs should provide to the public under the contract. I accept that that was later repudiated by the GPs, who said that they wanted the money without the description of services.
I did, indeed, resist the ambulance men's claim for a double-figure pay settlement and a high formula, because the health service could not afford it. The hon. Gentleman's test of democracy appears to be that people should be allowed to write their own contract of employment and specify the figure for their own pay. He says that it was undemocratic that I did not accept the GPs' and ambulance men's assertion of what they wanted. In both cases, I defended the public interest and, in the forthcoming consultation, I shall be bearing in mind the public interest—and not just special interests—in reaching my decision.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: As the public have never been balloted on hospital closures, on the location of specific regional facilities or on internal reorganisation of facilities in hospitals, why should they be balloted now?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. No Government of any political complexion have carried out a ballot on any decision in the health service since it was first created. The question of NHS trust status is one of the most complicated issues that has been put before the public during the lifetime of the NHS and it is particularly unsuitable for resolution by ballot.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The two teaching hospitals in Leeds provide a world-renowned service. They move at the frontiers of knowledge and during my 30 years in Leeds I have been surprised that provincial hospitals can be so good. What will happen now that the motive is a contract? How on earth will the hospitals be able to maintain university standards in conjunction with the university of Leeds given that the Government's proposals fly in the face of that aim?
Mr. Clarke: After April next year, all the hospitals in the national health service, whether self-governing or directly managed, will enter into contracts for the services that they deliver. They will not be commercial contracts—
Ms. Diane Abbott: Oh, dear.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Oh, dear.
Mr. Clarke: I advise the hon. Lady to read the White Paper, even at this late stage. There will be an agreement with the health authorities or the GPs, who will stipulate what services they want and what quality they require in exchange for an allotment of national health service resources to the hospital that will deliver those services. The separation of purchaser and provider has been welcomed by most people who have commented on the running of the health service. Even the Opposition are reported as saying that they accept the other way of describing the arrangements, which is that the money will follow the patient. I do not understand how the Opposition can have accepted the principle of what they have been describing for the past 12 months as the internal market but then continue their strident opposition to 1 he reforms that enshrine that concept.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Opposition did not want the statement today—[HON. MEMBERS: "We asked for it."]—because they do not want the public to hear that there is genuine enthusiasm among all sectors of the service? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Those hon. Members who ask "Where?" should look at the ballot of consultants at the London hospital which came out in favour of self-governing status. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Labour Members are interested only in trench warfare on behalf of their party political allies, the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees?
Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We continue to face strident demands for public consultation, which we have always said we want, from a party that will not even listen to the answers that we give to its alleged

1003
questions on the subject. My hon. Friend is also right to point out that numerous ballots of consultants have come out heavily in favour of NHS trust status. I do not rely too heavily on ballots because I am consistent in my argument that straightforward ballots of any group, however important, cannot in themselves determine one way or the other the future management of a hospital. There are plenty of hospitals where staff and consultants have voted in favour of an application.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that there are those who want self-governing trusts, but some of them are concerned that officials will restrict their operations. The Secretary of State said that the trusts would be getting their contracts from health authorities. But will health authorities attempt to thwart such trusts and other hospitals that refuse to enter into contracts with them for particular services?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are those in the service who are keenly in favour of local management of hospitals and NHS trust status. They constantly ask me to reassure them that they really will be given the local freedom to manage and develop hospitals as they wish. I keep giving them that assurance. They will be free from district health authority, regional health authority and Whitehall control of their day-to-day affairs. The contracts that we are describing will be entered into by every hospital and those contracts will be placed by the health authorities and by the patients on their assessment of the quality and value for money of the care that they are likely to receive under those contracts. Any other interference with self-governing hospitals' status and decision-taking will be ended by our reforms and they will be protected by the NHS trust documents that set them up.
Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many medical experts believe that this transfusion is just what the hospital service needs? Will he confirm that what he is now endeavouring to do, together with other health service measures, is to put the genuine public interest first over and above the partial and vested interests of some doctors, some bureaucrats and the Labour party?
Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The longer the process of introducing the reforms continues, the more opinion is changing—which it is doing quite rapidly—within the service in the direction that my hon. Friend describes and for the reasons that he gave.
Mr. John Fraser: Is the Secretary of State aware that even tonight my local hospital, King's College, is considering a massive programme of cuts, ward closures, cancellations and bed closures? If the hospital was a trust, would not people like myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and those who live in Dulwich and Bermondsey have the last vestige of democratic accountability removed from them because those cuts could be made without regard to local people?
Mr. Clarke: No hospital will acquire trust status unless it can demonstrate that it is well managed, can achieve
1004
financial stability and has proposals for delivering the services that it wants within the resources that it is likely to get.
London health authorities, like all health authorities, face problems, but, like other authorities, they must deliver their services within the available resources. If London hospitals are allowed to disregard that, they will do so at the expense of other health authorities in the home counties from which the money would be drawn to cover the deficits. It is perfectly possible, as many London hospitals demonstrate, to deliver a good quality of service in acceptable quantities and stay within the generous allocations of funds that are nowadays made to the national health service.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: With an aging population and the ever-increasing costs of the national health service do not we need a dynamic, progressive and efficient health service? If hospitals feel that by governing themselves they can deliver better patient care, why should they not be allowed to do that? Incidentally, it is not compulsory, it is optional.
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. Anyone who is seriously interested in the quality of health care wants it to be delivered by an efficient and well-run organisation. It is absurd to say that because something is a public service, it is wrong to look at efficiency, better decision-taking and the better use of resources and their delivery. The more important the service, the more important it is to get the right structure of management for it.
Mr. Bob Cryer: If the Secretary of State were to go into hospital for a serious operation, would he trust the doctors and nurses to have his life in their hands? If so, why does he not trust them to give their opinions about the national health service?
Mr. Clarke: The answer to the first question is, of course, yes. On medical matters, I pay considerable regard to their opinions. However, I would not necessarily find totally compelling the opinion of a surgeon on what car to buy or on a subject that was outside his immediate professional expertise. The doctors and nurses work inside the service and management matters a great deal to them; it will have regard to their views. If health care policy had always been dominated by the expressed opinions of doctors in ballots, we would not have had the national health service in the first place because they voted by 9:1 against the contract that Nye Bevan originally offered to them in 1948.
Mr. Tim Yeo: Since the creation of NHS trusts will tend to increase the power of comsumers at the expense of that of producers, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that only someone who was totally obsessed with protecting the power of trade union bosses and did not care a jot about how much he alarmed poor old patients would describe the matter in the terms used by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)?
Mr. Clarke: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. If there is one key to the changes that we are trying to make in public service to improve people's quality of life, it is that we want our public services to be dominated by the interests of consumers—in this case, patients—not by the interests of producers. The Labour party is an

1005
old-fashioned syndicalist party, completely dominated by trade union interests, and deeply resistant to change of any kind in the public sector.
Mr. William O'Brien: May I advise the Secretary of State that St. James's hospital covers a large area of my constituency, and the constituents of Rothwell, who are served by the Leeds Eastern health authority, have made representations to the effect that they vigorously oppose the trust system for St. James's hospital? How will the consultation procedure apply to my constituents? Are not we witnessing an extension and a bigger stake of private hospital services in the national health service?
Mr. Clarke: I would seriously ask the inhabitants of Rothwellto look at the applications being made by the people who work at St. James's hospital, to look at what they propose for the development of services, and to consider their arguments.
Mr. O'Brien: How are they to do it?
Mr. Clarke: The application documents are public documents. We shall have a public consultation process. I trust that those who are promoting self-government for St. James's hospital will make sure that their case is available and is put across to the people of Rothwell. With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is doing any service to his constituents by turning round the proposals of local doctors as though local doctors are seriously suggesting turning the hospital into a private one. That is total nonsense and does not help the process of serious public consultation.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that patients of the royal national orthopaedic hospital, for example, come from such a wide area of the country that the only conceivable ballot of those interested would have to be a general election? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that our winning the next general election will put an end to the spurious demands for inappropriate consultation?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. It would be pointless to carry out a ballot of the residents of the immediate locality about the future of the royal national orthopaedic hospital, the Royal Liverpool children's hospital or quite a large number of hospitals that I have mentioned. The first point that was put forward by the proponents of the Royal Liverpool children's hospital is that
"it is inappropriate that a hospital providing services to the vast majority of DHAs in the North West of England and Wales is managed by only one DHA."
They go on to set out other reasons, too. That applies to quite a number of the applications that we already have. Again, it shows that the idea of reducing the matter to a simple local ballot is an attempt to reduce the issue to ward politics, which is what Opposition Members are doing, whereas we are interested in the future of the service. At the general election, people will want to judge which party is putting most effort into trying to keep up and improve the quality of our national health service.
Mr. James Lamond: How can the House take the Secretary of State's argument seriously when hon. Members have had lectures from him over the years about the need to make local councils more
1006
accountable and the need to make trade union officers more accountable through votes and political influence? It is now suggested that a major change in the national health service cannot be put to the consumers of whom he spoke so movingly because the Secretary of State does not know how to define them. How can he conduct serious consultations if he does not know who should vote, and how does he know whom to consult?
Mr. Clarke: The point has just been answered extremely well by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). There is no definable electorate. No doubt that is only one of the reasons why no Government have suggested that local changes of this sort should be put to the views of the local electorate. If the Labour party has no views of its own on how to run the health service and says that the matter should be reduced to a yes/no referendum of the local population, it shows that it is in a desperate situation.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Southend-on-Sea has again given a lead to the country, with the support of its Members of Parliament, in being among the first 12 to apply. Does the Secretary of State accept that apart from the advantage of local management, the other advantage that we see, and which others should see, is that this is a way of escaping from the bureaucratic nightmare of being, for years and years, an underfunded district in an overfunded region? Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain that the proposals can help some areas, such as Southend?
Mr. Clarke: For years, Southend has suffered from being a low-funded district in a well-funded region and has been badly affected by the RAWP system. I congratulate Southend district health authority on the quality of the care that it succeeds in providing with much lower resources than would be available to an equivalent population in most other parts of England. Other parts of the reforms will help Southend, such as the new system of allocating finance, to be introduced in April. That will put into the district health authority's hands the cost of providing care for its residents and will enable it to have more control over its use. Southend has shown that it wishes to get out of the present situation and to put to better advantage the good qualities of management and care that it has shown when facing its difficulties over recent years.
Mr. Terry Fields: On the point about consultation, is the Secretary of State aware that today in Liverpool, while the area health authority is grappling with the problems of the pan-Liverpool plan for the NHS, four of his place henchmen have drawn up a secret agenda to start charging for breast cancer treatments for women under 50 years of age, and for treatments for people who are suffering from other complaints? Is he aware that they are selling off parts of Liverpool hospitals? Is he aware that those things are already on the agenda? Is he further aware that 1 he regional drugs unit in the city is underfunded, thus bringing on an epidemic of AIDS because of prostitutes and drug addicts? Who is telling the truth in all this? Is the Secretary of State telling the truth? Are the people of Liverpool lying? There is an agenda.
Mr. Clarke: Area health authorities were abolished nine years ago. It will remain illegal to charge for national health service treatments.
Mr. Tony Favell: Everybody is resistant to change—whether they are miners, trade unionists, workers in a town hall or lawyers. I do not like it when my wife tells me that I have to change. But national health service workers have to change just like everybody else. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it seems particularly ironic that, having complained for years about interference from district health authorities, regional health authorities, the Department of Health and the Treasury, and having at last been given the opportunity to be masters of their own destiny, the trade unions are now whipping up the nurses, doctors and the like to oppose these changes, which should be very welcome to us all?
Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We all understand that the prospect of change is deeply disturbing to everybody who works in a large organisation. That is bound to be the case and it is wholly understandable. It is the task of the leaders, the managers and the leading consultants in the hospital to manage that change in such a way as to address the legitimate fears of their staff, to reassure them, to help them to understand the new arrangements, and to seek to persuade them of the benefits of what they want to do. The only contribution from the labour and trade union movements to that is to go round spreading ridiculous fears among the staff and the public, to try to get them to make some instant decisions and to vote in the comic ballots that they keep saying that they want to organise.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Secretary of State explain the consultation exercise a little further? For instance, will it be similar to the one currently taking place in Halifax about the proposed closure of three wards because of a £1.2 million deficit? Although that consultation period ends at the end of August, the management have already closed the wards. When I complained and said that the consultation period was not yet over and that they were breaking the procedures, the management said that they wanted to give staff their annual leave. Is that how it will be? Will it simply be a fraud that is perpetrated on those taking part?
Mr. Clarke: The procedures that we follow are exactly the same as those followed by the previous Labour Government. Where a major change in service is proposed, there is a process of public consultation. If the community health council continues to disagree with the district health authority, the proposal is submitted to a Minister who makes a decision one way or the other. There has always been provision for emergency closures, but they eventually have to go through that process. The previous Government followed that practice, and we do. I have never heard any suggestion that it should be made subject to a ballot.
The fact that parts of the health service are still gripped by crisis management, causing frustrations with sudden closures of wards, shows the weakness of the present method of running it. Moving on to a proper basis of running it with local management being given more autonomy will eliminate much of the need for stop-go control.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Northwich Victoria infirmary is one of the first three hospitals to apply for self-governing status and that that hospital is in my constituency? Like Southend, it is in an underfunded district in a region which is close to its RAWP target. Consequently, local flexibility should lead to more comprehensive and cost-effective provision of health care for everyone in my constituency and is greatly to be welcomed. The Opposition opposed local management of schools and are against the local management of hospitals. When they were in government, they trampled with hob-nailed boots over the electorate in the imposition of comprehensive schools. Why does my right hon. and learned Friend think that they are always against local management?
Mr. Clarke: I have on the Table of the House the applications from my hon. Friend's constituents and others in Cheshire. I commend to the people of Cheshire the proposals from their local managers and doctors and ask them for their response. My hon. Friend is commending those proposals as likely to enhance the standard of care. The Labour party, as he rightly says, is against local control and prefers centralised command and bureaucracy because that is the preference of the trade unions that dominate all Labour party thinking on health service matters.
Mr. Martin Redmond: If the Secretary of State wants to improve the health service, he should resign. That would be the best tonic that I know for the health service. The Secretary of State has confirmed this afternoon that he is completely discarding the consultation process and basing his judgment or approval on the plans submitted by the applicants. If that is the case, why bother with consultation? If there are criteria to be met, why is the health service not meeting them today?
Mr. Clarke: I said the precise opposite of that. I have announced that there will be a process of public consultation which I trust will enable me to take a better-informed decision. Before making any decision, I shall take into account all the representations put before me. If, as is very likely, there is an application from Doncaster, I shall wait to see what the people of Doncaster say before I reach a decision. The people of Doncaster are likely to make more sensible representations if they disregard the nonsense that the hon. Gentleman keeps putting out to the town about how the proposals are paving the way for privatisation and that they might have to pay for their care.
Mr. David Wilshire: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in the south-east the national pay and conditions that apply in the health service and the difficulties of disposing of surplus land stand in the way of improving the health service in my constituency? Does he agree that, far from the claims made by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), giving trust managers a greater say in pay and conditions and who they hire and fire is a good thing and that making it easier for them to dispose of surplus land is a plus? That is the way to achieve better services for our constituents.
Mr. Clarke: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend about the desirability of local flexible pay in a giant and complicated service such as this. I do not think that the

1009
hon. Member for Livingston has ever run anything. Only on that basis could he possibly continue to argue that an inflexible national system of pay, terms and conditions for more than 1 million staff in every part of the country is a sensible way of running such a giant and important service.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will not give the go-ahead to any opting-out proposals if the community health council—the local patients' voice in the national health service—is firmly opposed to that proposal? Will he assure the House that he does not propose to reduce the current powers of community health councils or to abolish them?
Mr. Clarke: For 19 years, no one has given the community health councils an absolute power of veto over local decisions. I shall pay careful attention to the views of community health councils, and to everyone else, but I shall not put the management of the health service totally into the hands of the local community health councils. I certainly have no intention of changing the powers of the community health councils and, contrary to the wishes of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have no intention of abolishing them. We left them out of the process of reform; they are one part of the health service that remains completely unchanged in composition, powers and duties.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. and learned Friend will have heard the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), when opposing self-governing trusts, say that the only thing that the health service needs is more funding. Does he share my surprise, therefore, that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) did not include any more money for the health service among the two definite commitments that she made on the subject? What credence can be given to the statement by the hon. Member for Livingston when the previous Labour Government cut the hospital building programme by 30 per cent. and cut nurses' wages, in real terms, in four out of their five years in office?
Mr. Clarke: I did not hear that remark—
Mr. Robin Cook: I did not say it.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is anxious to point out that he did not make it. He is not promising any more funding for the national health service. He has been prevented from promising any more money for the service in any sensible terms. The only money that he is going to spend is £90 million on restoring NHS sight tests, mainly for the benefit of the optical chains which have been lobbying for that. As far as I am aware, that is the only spending promise to which the Labour party remains committed.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: The Secretary of State has continually referred to "a serious process of consultation", which he says will be undertaken. Who will pay for it? Will health authorities have to pay out of their current budget, or will they get additional money? What criteria will he use to assess whether the consultations are being conducted properly?
Mr. Clarke: The cost of consultation—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady cannot hear what I am saying. The cost of consultation will come out of the costs of implementing the
1010
reforms, for which we have already accounted to the House. The criteria that I shall apply will be whether the proposals are likely to result in an improvement in the delivery of health care to national health service patients served by the unit in question.
Mr. Michael Jack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that the attack levelled on his announcement today by the Opposition casts doubt on the integrity of the clinicians and managers who will run the NHS trusts—as if, by the very creation of trusts, those people will not be motivated to deliver extra patient care?
Mr. Clarke: Yes, I think that many of the remarks made today are a direct attack on local managers and doctors who have spent a great deal of effort in putting forward these proposals. Many of the people who have put in such effort will be extremely annoyed to hear them reduced to that level by the Opposition, who claim that somehow they are all proposing to raffle off their hospitals or to charge patients. That is an insult to the local doctors who work in these great institutions and who have put plans forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Because of the pressure of business I propose to move on to the ten minute Bill at 4.40. I hope that I shall be able to call all the hon. Members who wish to speak, provided that they are brief.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Secretary of State reassure me that, in the event of trust status being granted to any hospital, and there being an excess of income over expenditure at the end of any financial year, that excess will be mandatorily reinvested in the hospital, and not put in the pockets of the trustees or their friends?
Mr. Clarke: Yes, Sir. One of the powers of the new trusts will be to accumulate surpluses, but they will have to be used for the benefit of the trust. There is no question of trustees being paid any extra sums out of the surpluses, as the hon. Gentleman fears.
Ms. Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State will be aware that one hospital that has expressed an interest in opting out—although it is not on his list—is Bart's hospital in east London which serves my constituents in Hackney. It is the oldest hospital in London, founded specifically to care for the poor. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is precisely the poor who will suffer if Bart's opts out and balancing its books becomes its bottom line, because it would have to focus on high turnover and high income-generating specialties at the expense of the old and the chronically sick?
Mr. Clarke: St. Bart's is one of our most famous hospitals. Nowadays it caters for all patients, regardless of their means, and it delivers a high standard of care. The hon. Lady's description of what NHS trust status means is frankly nonsense. I thought that we had moved some months ago from the argument that anyone in an NHS trust will have to concentrate on high-tech, high-profit lines. Most people who have studied the White Paper realise that that argument has nothing whatever to do with, and is a meaningless description of, the proposals that we have made: for trusts to stay within the national

1011
health service, to provide free treatment and to develop their services as the local managers, doctors and nurses would wish for the best.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State answer the one question that he has ducked all afternoon? Will he give a firm assurance that, if the consultation period results in clear decisions against the setting up of trusts on the part of those who have been consulted, he will adhere to those expressions of opposition; or does he intend to don his Thatcherite jackboots and stamp all over local opinion in his usual arrogant and high-handed fashion?
Mr. Clarke: That is a bit rich, coming from an ex-chairman of the GLC. My approach to public consultation is indistinguishable from that of every Minister in any Government for as long as I have been in the House. The Minister retains the responsibility for the decision. Public consultation is to allow everyone to have their say, with the intention that the Minister shall eventually take a better-informed decision with the benefit of all the advice that he can get from people who have an interest. We have never handed over decisions to a mere counting of heads. I do not recall that the GLC did so either, except during the periodic intervals when—unfortunately—it succeeded in being re-elected.
Mr. Jack Thompson: I did not detect in the Secretary of State's statement any comment about the Government's policy on new hospitals. The Secretary of State is aware that a new hospital is being built in my constituency for which we have waited for more than 10 years. As yet we have no staff appointments—at any level—at that hospital. I fear that it may be the Government's policy to introduce a formula saying that such appointments will be conditional on the staff supporting opting-out, either formally or informally.
Mr. Clarke: I well remember laying the foundation stone of the great new hospital in the middle of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He arrived with a traditional demonstration carrying anti-poll-tax banners but discussing among themselves what the demonstration was about. In a field surrounding the hospital site, they concocted the extraordinary argument that it was a demonstration against the possibility that when the hospital was opened it might become a self-governing NHS trust. If that is his way of trying to take the gilt off the gingerbread of a huge investment in the local health service, I give the hon. Gentleman a prize for originality. The hospital will open in the ordinary way as an NHS hospital. It will be for the local staff—doctors, nurses and managers—to decide whether they wish to apply for NHS trust status.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the Secretary of State try to clear up the welter of confusion that he has caused among hon. Members? When he says that a hospital is applying to become a self-governing trust, and one of his colleagues behind him says that a hospital feels that it should apply, what are they talking about? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman define "hospital"? Is it an animate object, or who in the hospital will do this? What kind of hypocrisy has gone on? Will the Secretary of State make that clear, as we genuinely do not know the answer?
Mr. Clarke: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman: he is quite right. I disapprove of the habit of Opposition Members who, when they say that the nurses have said something, mean that COHSE has said it; similarly, when they say that the doctors have said something, they mean that the BMA has said it. I agree that I should not readily say that the hospital says something, but the names of the promoters are readily identifiable. The letters to me are signed. The would-be chairman is clearly identifiable, as will be the people putting forward local proposals. It will be for the local public to present their views for and against the propositions that the local managers, doctors, nurses and others wish to advance.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: If the Secretary of State accepts that it is impossible to run a hospital without doctors, consultants, surgeons, nurses, cleaners, porters, secretarial staff and ancillary workers of all descriptions, will he explain why very small groups of politically motivated senior management are allowed to make applications to set up hospital trusts and, in effect, sell the livelihoods and jobs of those under them—and also damage their working conditions in the long term?
Mr. Clarke: People who make such applications are motivated by a desire to be able to run their hospital units in the best possible way. I am sure that many people who promote those applications are not supporters of the Government or the Conservative party. It will be for the staff of the hospitals to put forward their views—as can everyone else—on the proposals. One thing must be made clear to the staff: they will remain national health service staff, with continuity of employment and their existing contracts. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will help me to make that clear to them.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Is the Secretary of State aware that two initial applications were made from Coventry for the Coventry and Warwickshire and the Walsgrave hospitals? According to the list that the Secretary of State gave this afternoon, both hospitals are not being proceeded with. The applications were made by appointed unit managers who did not consult a single doctor, nurse, ancillary worker or patient. Thousands of people in Coventry signed petitions against the initial applications and handed them to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) and me. If formal applications are made, who will the Secretary of State consult—the staff, the patients or the unit managers who appear to want to be big fish in small ponds?
Mr. Clarke: I shall consult all the groups that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That is the whole point of the exercise. We have now received real applications from people who have described their plans. We propose to hold consultations on those applications with the general public and all the interest groups to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He has been running a daft campaign in Coventry, organising petitions against applications before they have been received and before he knows what they say. If the hon. Member for Livingston will allow us to move on to a more sensible basis for discussion, there will be a much more intelligent local consultation process about how best to improve the national health service.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that he should be ashamed of himself for saying earlier that the crisis in the national health service is down

1013
to the nurses, the staff and all the other people who work in it? The real reason for the crisis in the NHS is the Secretary of State. People outside this place will be intrigued to know how the consultation is to take place. The nurses and staff will not have a vote. The general public and the consultants will not have a vote. How will the consultation take place? Does the Secretary of State intend to stare in the mirror? The general public will not like what it sees there.
Mr. Clarke: I am reassured to hear that my appearance in the mirror will not solve anything; it worries me at times. As for the hon. Gentleman's other point, I did not say what he says I said, or anything like it. He must have had difficulty with hearing what I said because of the hooligan behaviour from time to time of some of those sitting around him.
Mr. Robin Cook: May I repeat one question? If consultation establishes that a majority of the staff at a hospital and the majority of the public that the hospital serves are opposed to the hospital becoming self-governing, does he intend to listen only to those consultations that give him the answer that he wants?
Mr. Clarke: I have described the process of public consultation. My description of it is indistinguishable from that which has been given by every Minister in any Government, of whatever political complexion. I trust that public consultation will help me to establish whether an application is well founded and in the interests of the health service and patients. The decision must be that of the Secretary of State for Health of the day. He is answerable to Parliament. If we ever had the misfortune of the hon. Gentleman occupying my position as Secretary of State for Health, I am sure that he would not get up and say, "I am going to stop running the service and will hand the whole thing over to local ballots." The hon. Gentleman reveals his inexperience and lack of ideas when he advocates such a procedure.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 20 JULY
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Roger Sims

Mr. Kevin McNamara

Ms Dawn Primarolo

Points of Order
4.43 pm
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take the points of order, but I must point out to hon. Members that a very important debate is to follow. Therefore, I hope that those hon. Members who wish to raise points of order will have some consideration for their colleagues. I shall take first the point of order of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett).
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that I have already given you notice of this point of order. I have also given the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) notice of it, although he is not in his place now.
You will be aware, Sir, of the importance that all Back-Bench Members place on Adjournment debates. It provides us with the opportunity to raise very important constituency issues in the House and to receive a ministerial reply. You will also be aware that, if any other hon. Member wishes to take part in the debate, he must obtain the prior permission of both the Minister and the hon. Member whose Adjournment debate it is. I draw to your attention—they appear in today's Hansard—the events that took place last night during the Adjournment debate that I had sought and obtained on the over-the-horizon radar planning application by the Ministry of Defence for a site at St. David's in Pembrokeshire. The hon. Member for Rhondda, who may have been tired because it was a late night debate, went to the Dispatch Box as the official Opposition spokesman on defence and interrupted my speech. He was told that I was not prepared to give way on a constituency matter, but during the next 25 minutes he proceeded to disrupt the debate continually on points of order and had to be told by Mr. Deputy Speaker to sit down. A shouting match took place then. He further aggravated the matter by using an unparliamentary expression against me, which he then withdrew.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman has apologised to Mr. Deputy Speaker, but he has not apologised to me for causing such disruption. May I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, in the light of yesterday's events, when the Minister was unable to finish his speech and answer the points that I wished to raise on behalf of my constituents, to defend the rights of Back Benchers so that Adjournment debates can take place without interruption from Front-Bench spokesmen?
Mr. Speaker: I have read Hansard and I have discussed the matter with Mr. Deputy Speaker. What he said is plain, and I repeat that it is an hon. Member's right, if he secures an Adjournment debate, to have full time, unless he is prepared to offer part of it to another hon. Member. Occasionally, hon. Members give way to their colleagues during an Adjournment debate, but what happened last night was not in the best traditions of the House.
Mr. Michael Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that it can be further to the point of order. The hon. Member was not concerned in that debate. I shall take another point of order from the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. John Reid).
Dr. John Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of Scottish Question Time. I regret the chaos and confusion into which those questions degenerated and the impossible position in which you have been placed. Unless the procedure is changed, the problem will arise again.
I have sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), specifically in relation to Question No. 14. The Secretary of State for Scotland came to the Dispatch Box and announced what amounted to the abandonment of half of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill which is at present in Committee. Two points arise out of that. First, by announcing that abandonment—a major decision—during Question Time, the Secretary of State did not permit the breadth of responses and questions that, had it been a statement, it would have merited.
The second point reflects equally on the House. Many people in Scotland cannot but regard today's announcement as a deal done outside the House—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's first point of order, but the second one appears to be an extension of Question Time, which would be out of order. Apropos Question 14, the Secretary of State was asked if he would make a statement about part II of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. It is implicit in the hon. Gentleman's point of order that, as with what happened yesterday, I have authority to say that the Secretary of State ought not to answer the question but should make a statement. I have no such authority. The Secretary of State, or any other Minister, must answer the question on the Order Paper. I judged it to be of such general importance to hon. Members with Scottish constituencies that I allowed a bit of a run on it. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) was distressed, but that is the reason why we did not reach his question.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I assure you that nothing that I shall say implies criticism of the Chair. On the contrary; part of my anger, and that of my colleagues, is precisely due to the fact that, for the second day running, you have been placed in the same position because of the Government's conduct of business. We do not wish that to be imposed upon you.
It must have been clear to the Secretary of State for Scotland that the issues raised by his statement today went far beyond the normal scope and scale of Question Time. He chose to make a major statement by means of the mechanism of Question Time, in response to Question 14 on the Order Paper. That was clearly bound to distort Question Time, both before and after the statement. In normal circumstances, Question No. 14 might not have been reached.
In all the circumstances, was any contact made with you, Sir, by the usual channels about the manner in which the statement was to be made by the Secretary of State? If not, will you make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that what happened today was an abuse of the House which must not be repeated?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am dealing with one point of order at a time.
Certainly it was not an abuse of the House to answer a question on the Order Paper. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the usual channels, and, as the shadow Leader of the House said yesterday, this House proceeds by consent. On matters of this kind, it is for the usual channels to get together to decide on the best way to resolve difficulties of this kind. It is not a matter for the Chair. It puts the Chair in a difficult, if not intolerable, position if the occupant is constantly accused of failing to uphold the interests of Back Benchers because of something for which he has no direct responsibility. It is for the usual channels to resolve these matters.
Mr. Michael Brown: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), Mr. Speaker. Although I was not in the House last night, you can be assured that I shall be here for the Adjournment debate of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) tomorrow on the Boundary Commission's inquiry into Lincolnshire and Humberside.
I want to raise a general point of order about Adjournment debates. In the event of an Adjournment debate being disrupted by hon. Members without the permission of the hon. Member who has that Adjournment debate, with the effect that that hon. Member loses one third of the time allocated, would it be possible to ensure that that hon. Member's Adjournment debate was extended by 10 minutes?
Mr. Speaker: That is not within our Standing Orders, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. I am glad that he will be here tomorrow night for the Adjournment debate, and if he wishes to take part, I hope that he will seek the permission of his hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell).
Mr. Michael Foot: Further to the point of order about the events of yesterday and today, Mr. Speaker. Today we have seen a repetition of some of the difficulties that occurred yesterday, which caused great difficulties for the House and for you, Mr. Speaker. The reply given today by the Secretary of State for Health surely underlines how absurd it was for the Government to think that to interpolate that type of statement into Question Time was a proper way in which to deal with the House. The proceedings on the statement went on for an hour and a half and show how necessary it was for that statement to be given today. The strong expressions of opinion made yesterday by Opposition Members were directed not against you, Mr. Speaker, but against the Government for choosing to seek to make such an important statement at the end of Question Time.
What happened yesterday illustrated the seriousness of the matter, especially given that the Government pretended that there was an agreement through the usual channels when there was no such agreement. Given yesterday's events, surely it was all the more absurd, outrageous or offensive—whatever word one might choose—for the Government to come along today and repeat the offence. They made a statement in the House, even though they knew what had happened yesterday.
Even though a question was on the Order Paper, the Government have a responsibility to treat the House

1017
properly. They should have learnt from what happened yesterday and decided to make the statement about Scotland in the same way as the statement given on the health service. Surely, Mr. Speaker, you should use your influence to try to encourage the Government to treat the House fairly in such matters, particularly as we have had two examples in two days of what injury can be done if the Government do not abide by that practice.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am indeed seeking to use what influence I have in such matters—
Mr. Bob Cryer: You have a lot of influence.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Magisterial experience.
Mr. Speaker: I am certainly seeking to use what influence I have in such matters. Today's problem could have been avoided if an arrangement had been made through the usual channels to take the question at the end of Question Time, given that it concerned a major matter. Even though I may make such suggestions informally, I am not responsible for carrying them out.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the end of the debate on schools yesterday, a number of us witnessed the loutish behaviour of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) towards a lady Member of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member sure that this is helpful to the House? If so, he should withdraw the word "loutish", which seems to be designed to encourage disruption rather than to calm the House.
Mr. Arnold: I withdraw that word, but I should be grateful for your guidance on what you intend to do about the physical intimidation of a lady Member of the House, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science.
Mr. Speaker: Again, I was not in the Chair at the time, but Madam Deputy Speaker dealt with it very well.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Apologise."] Yesterday, during the Division I crossed the Chamber and berated the Minister about young children in Coventry being taught in toilets. It has been put to me that that was intimidatory and that that was harassment. It is now being said that that harassment was physical. I wish to make it clear that it was not intended in that way. It has been put to me that I should apologise, and I accept that. I do not apologise for my speech. I think that the entire education team should resign in disgrace about our bairns in Coventry.
Mr. Speaker: If, as I judge, the hon. Gentleman has apologised to the House, I accept that. I think that Madam Deputy Speaker, who was in the Chair, would also appreciate a note from him.
Mr. George Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seldom trouble you with points of order and hon. Members with the seniority of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) are seldom ordered out of the Chamber. Those facts demonstrate that
1018
the credibility of Scottish government was called seriously into question at Question Time. That must be a matter for you, not only because of the disruption caused before and after Question 14—as my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said—but because this is a serious matter which should command your attention. A Committee is sitting upstairs dealing with important legislation, and the Secretary of State for Scotland—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an extension of Question Time. I am not concerned with a Committee sitting upstairs; I am concerned with what happens on the Floor of the House.
Dr. Reid: Further to my point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. In relation to what happened yesterday and today, such demos do the House immeasurable harm in the eyes of the public. We are now seen on television, and such disruptions are damaging to our reputation. I also regret that the question tabled by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) was not reached, and I hope that he will come to see me about it so that I can resolve the matter with him. I cannot say any more than that.
Dr. Reid: Further—
Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Scottish questions, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) called my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State a liar. One does not expect—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If he did, I did not hear it. If I had heard it, I would have caused him to withdraw it. If the hon. Gentleman heard it he should have risen immediately on a point of order and I could have dealt with it then. I cannot deal with it now. I did not hear that remark and it is not helpful to pursue it now.
Dr. Reid rose—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have obviously been reading Hansard quite a lot lately when you have not been in the Chair. I want to draw your attention to another matter that you obviously missed when, the other night, the Government were kept up until about half-past 2. You, Mr. Speaker, will know that there is a Standing Order about Members spying strangers. It is normally used by Back Benchers in an attempt to keep open government, to frustrate a Government with a massive majority and to stop them trampling over democracy—that is roughly it. What happened the other night—if you have not read it—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I can save the time of the House—I have read it. As the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said yesterday, I know a good deal of what goes on in this Chamber, even when I am not present. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order for me?
Mr. Skinner: The point of order is this: as I explained earlier, the Standing Order is usually used by Back Benchers against the Government. Yesterday, the Government did not have 100 to closure the debate so they got a Back Bencher of their own, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), to come in and, rather surprisingly, shout "I spy strangers" so that they could

1019
have a vote and waste parliamentary time in order to find out whether they had got 100 Members. If that is going to happen, it is time you put a stop to it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a waste of parliamentary time.

BILL PRESENTED

  CROFTER FORESTRY (SCOTLAND)
  Sir Hector Monro, supported by Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith, Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, Mr. Allan Stewart, Mr. Bill Walker, Mr. Calum Macdonald, Mrs. Ray Michie and Mr. Charles Kennedy, presented a Bill to extend the powers of grazings committees in relation to the use of crofting land in Scotland for forestry purposes; and to make grazings committees eligible for certain grants in respect of such use: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 179.]
  Dr. Reid: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker:I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I do not want a continuation of Question Time. What is the point of order that I can answer?
  Dr. Reid: I am grateful for the opportunity to complete the point of order that I started earlier on. It is not an attempt to continue Question Time.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman started to talk about what was going on in Committee, about which I have no knowledge.
  Dr. Reid: It is about an abuse of the House, about which you, Mr. Speaker, are concerned, and the position in which you are being placed. I am not concerned merely because we do not get the opportunity to ask questions when an announcement such as today's is made, but because the perception of people outside Parliament is that a major Bill was abandoned during Question Time today on the express announcement of a deal done between lawyers outside the House and lawyers inside the House—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a clear continuation of Question Time. We have dealt with that matter. Ten-minute rule motion—Mr. Doug Hoyle.
  Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member, I think, has only just come in—[Interruption.] All right—I imagine that one of his hon. Friends has told him what was said about him.
  Mr. Maxton: I was sitting beside my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), who will confirm that I was here when the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) made his remark. When the Secretary of State replied to a question, I was severely provoked and used the word of which the hon. Member for Hendon, South accused me. I unreservedly withdraw that word—I emphasise that I withdraw the word.
  Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member.

Trade Union Act 1984 (Amendment) (No. 2)
5.5 pm
Mr. Doug Hoyle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Trade Union Act 1984 by extending by any time taken up by court proceedings the four week period in which a ballot must be implemented by a trade union.
[Interruption.]—I am receiving encouragement from one of the louts on the Government Front Bench, but despite that I shall continue.
We can see what happens when the law interferes in trade union affairs. Not even this anti-trade union Government intended what came about in the case of which I shall speak. In order to illustrate it, I must return to last year's docks dispute. The Trade Union Act 1984 provides for legal immunity for those strikes called within 28 days of an affirmative ballot by union members. The anomaly that was created was due to the docks dispute and was, by the Government's own admission, unintended and unforeseen.
The chronological order of events is that, on 2 May last year, the Transport and General Workers Union announced its intention to ballot its members on whether they wished to strike in response to plans to abolish the national dock labour scheme. On 8 May, the port employers issued a writ alleging that the strike action would be unlawful as it did not involve an immediate trade dispute. On 19 May, the Transport and General Workers Union held a ballot resulting in an overwhelming majority in favour of strike action. At that time, the union believed that, using the 28 days, it had until 16 June in which to start a strike lawfully. On 29 May, the court decided in favour of the union, but gave the port employers leave to appeal against that decision.
On 17 June, following an appeal by the employers, the Appeal Court reversed the original decision and granted the port employers an injunction preventing industrial action. The Transport and General Workers Union then decided to take the case to the House of Lords. On 21 June, the other place reversed the Appeal Court's ruling and lifted the injunction preventing industrial action. Unfortunately, by that time the union had exceeded the 28 days allowed for the ballot and was forced to hold another ballot at great expense.
Even on the Government's own admission, it was not intended under the Trade Union Act 1984 that, following an affirmative ballot of its members, a union would not have the freedom during the 28-day period to start a strike lawfully. During the docks dispute, the Transport and General Workers Union had no time to call a strike, because during the 28 days it faced court action and so could not have a ballot.
The spirit of the Act was clearly undermined by that process. It is necessary to amend the Act to preserve the spirit in which it was first passed into law and prevent a recurrence of that unintended anomaly. Unfortunately, the Government have set their face against any such amendment. They have said that it would be unnecessary, as the circumstances of the docks dispute were exceptional and unlikely to be repeated. They said that to amend the Act would be an over-reaction. That was not the opinion of many people in the other place, particularly the noble and learned Lord Donaldson, the Master of the Rolls. No

1021
one would imagine Lord Donaldson to be a defender of trade union rights—he is the last person one would expect to be so.
Lord Donaldson described the Government's attitude when they said that to amend the Act would be an over-reaction as
"a triumph of hope over all experience."
He continued that his experience as a practising lawyer and judge was
"where there is sufficient money at stake"—
that is interesting in itself—
"one or other of the parties will not hesitate to take legal proceedings purely with a view to achieving delay."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 December 1989; Vol. 513, c. 947.]
How right Lord Donaldson was to say that. He also said that the losers in such a case would be those people whose court proceedings would have to be rescheduled to accommodate the new proceedings as soon as possible. He added that the 28-day rule places a heavy burden on the legal process because of its inflexibility.
The noble and learned Lord made an important point when he said that, having seen the example of the port disputes last year, other employers will be tempted to use the law as a delaying mechanism. Rules should be made as soon as possible to pre-empt that possibility.
The Master of the Rolls was concerned about the law and how it affects the courts, but he was equally concerned to say that trade unions could be adversely affected because there was no doubt that other unscrupulous employers would follow the example set by the port employers.
The 1984 Act has created another major imbalance in industrial relations. The scales are again weighted against trade unions which are placed at a severe disadvantage. First, unions and then members have to foot the considerable bill for re-running the ballot. Trade unions do not have unlimited funds and, as well as the cost of the ballot, postal, administrative and other charges have to be taken into account.
Secondly, unions which have industrial action delayed by court proceedings could find that their campaign was losing momentum. That could cause frustration and
1022
pressure from members for industrial action. If there has been an overwhelming majority in favour of industrial action at the earliest opportunity, members will become frustrated at having to await the outcome of further negotiations. Obviously, that could lead to unofficial action, and I hardly think that that was what the Government had in mind for the Employment Act 1984.
In spite of Government opposition to the amendment, when it was debated in the other place it was overwhelmingly supported by members of all parties. The only people who are dragging their feet over this extremely sensible amendment are the Government. Why are they doing that? Perhaps they think that, if they make a union have another ballot, its members will be put off and the union will lose support.
However, that did not happen in the docks dispute. In the first ballot called in 1989, 74–3 per cent. of union members were in favour of industrial action and 25–7 per cent. were against it. The turnout was 90 per cent. If we could achieve such a turnout in a general election, we would think that democracy had returned to Britain. In spite of the delay, the second ballot, which was held on 7 July, showed that 74.2 per cent. of union members were in favour of industrial action and 25.8 per cent. were not, and the turnout had gone up. Such a sensible Bill should be accepted without delay.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Robert Parry, Mr. George J. Buckley, Mr. Mike Carr, Mr. Stan Crowther, Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Robert N. Wareing, Mr. Roland Boyes and Mr. Jim Callaghan.

Trade Union Act 1984 (Amendment) (No. 2)
  TRADE UNION ACT 1984 (AMENDMENT) (No. 2)
  Mr. Doug Hoyle accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Trade Union Act 1984 by extending by any time taken up by court proceedings the four week period in which a ballot must be implemented by a trade union: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 July and to be printed. [Bill 181].

Arts and Heritage
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
[Relevant document: European Community Document No. 10331/89 on protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value: needs arising from the abolition of frontiers in 1992.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Because of the large number of hon. Members who wish to speak, Mr. Speaker intends to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock.
5.13 pm
The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I welcome this opportunity to open the debate on the arts and heritage. I hope that the debate will proceed in a slightly more civilised fashion than some debates in the House in recent times. After all, we are debating civilised subjects.
The House has debated the arts every year since I became Minister for the Arts in 1985. This is the fourth year running that we have debated the subject in Government time. That shows the importance that the Government attach to the arts and heritage, seeing them as fundamental to ensuring a higher quality of life for all our people.
I have been Minister for the Arts for five years. This is a useful opportunity to review our achievements. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside will cover heritage matters in his winding-up speech. We have spent unprecedented amounts of taxpayers' money on the arts—an increase of some 48 per cent. in real terms, including central abolition money, since 1979. In real terms the Arts Council's grant is worth three times what it was 20 years ago. The Government are committed to a 24 per cent. increase in the arts budget over the next three years. A major symbol of our commitment is the building of the new British library at St. Pancras. Last month I announced plans for its completion. This magnificent building is the largest publicly-funded cultural construction to be built in this country this century and, indeed, since the building of the great museums and galleries of the 19th century. It will be one of the world's greatest treasure houses of the humanities and sciences.
For the first time, we are providing, at a cost of £450 million, a specific, purpose-built home for the library. That building will meet the library's key requirements, and provide a better service to the public. It will bring together under one roof the majority of the library's reference collections, which now occupy 19 buildings around London. For the first time they will be in a controlled, pollution-free environment, which is essential for their preservation. Included in the design is a stunning new setting for George III's King's library. The first phase of the building will be fully in use by the middle of 1993, and the whole building should be ready for occupation by the British library in 1996.
The Government are showing this same commitment throughout the country. Some £24 million of public money is being spent on a major extension to the National museum of Wales. In 1992 a similarly major new extension to the National museums of Scotland in Edinburgh will begin. The Government will pay £30 million towards that project, covering the construction costs.
1024
The Government also have a broader duty to create a climate in which all arts can flourish and develop freely with a combination of public and private sector support. Britain has one of the most vibrant and diverse arts scenes in the world today—a fact that is fully recognised by the millions of tourists who visit our shores.
London remains pre-eminent in theatre with a vast number of plays and shows being performed each evening—probably as many as in any city in the world. Much of what is available succeeds without any public subsidy. Audiences in the west end last year reached a record 11 million and box office income exceeded £150 million, giving a major boost to the economy.
The public and private sectors can also complement each other. Both the Royal Shakespeare company and the Royal National theatre have transferred productions of the highest quality to the west end. The role of the private sector is not, of course, confined to the west end. One of the most exciting companies to emerge in recent years has been Kenneth Branagh's Renaissance theatre company, which has toured world-wide without any Government support. Close to my own constituency is the Chichester festival theatre, which has been consistently successful and has transferred a large number of its productions to the west end, again without the need for public subsidy. A little further up the road is Glyndebourne, which remains one of the world's great opera festivals and an international centre of artistic excellence
Mr. Robert Banks: As to sponsorship, is my right hon. Friend aware that the Harrogate festival has, for the second year running, won an award in the business sponsorship scheme? With the support of Leeds Permanent building society and a number of others, the festival is now able to mount a programme costing in excess of £250,000, whereas not so many years ago it spent only £100,000. In 1988, the festival received a sponsorship of about £44,000, which was good, but by 1989 it had risen to £58,000. This year, the figure is £81,000. Is that not a good example of what the Government have done in encouraging sponsorship?
Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to Harrogate's achievement. In the past five years, the number of festivals in this country has doubled. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recording also the value of the business sponsorship incentive scheme, which encourages first-time sponsors. It is good to note that it has succeeded in helping the Harrogate festival to expand.
London leads the way as one of the great cultural capitals of the world. In June, we saw the opening of the new galleries of the Courtauld Institute in the beautiful neo-classical setting of Somerset house—achieved almost entirely with private sector funds. We have had, too, the rehang of the Tate and the new Clore gallery. We welcome the great generosity of Herr Berggruen in loaning 72 works from his outstanding private collection to the National gallery for five years from this autumn, and we look forward to the extension of the gallery with the new Sainsbury wing next spring.
In addition, the Royal Academy has major plans for an extension of its space. In the words of the chairman of the trustees of the National gallery, Lord Rothschild,
"London is becoming the paintings capital of the world."
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask the Minister about the natural history museum? Seventy two per cent.

1025
of the extra 16.5 per cent. that the Prime Minister says has been given to that museum was for repairs to the Waterhouse building, and 28 per cent. was accounted for by faulty calculations on estimates, leaving 0 per cent. for scientific equipment, the extension of the collections, and field work and scientific expeditions. Will the Minister reflect on his scientific responsibilities?
Mr. Luce: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest in that subject. The other day, he had an extremely important and effective Adjournment debate, which I greatly valued, and I gave an undertaking that I would hold a meeting with the museum's chairman, Sir Walter Bodmer, and its director, Dr. Neil Chalmers. The meeting is planned to be held shortly, when we will discuss the museum's problems. As the hon. Gentleman knows. Sir John Fairclough, chief scientific adviser to the Government, is also taking an interest. I take it from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he is concerned about the natural history museum's contribution to this country's wider science base. I fully take that on board and I will discuss it with the chairman and director of the museum.
Artistic flowering is not confined to London. We now see an economic renaissance in many of our great towns and cities, and the arts have played a leading role in that. They not only bring back life and vitality to the inner city but act as a tangible illustration of civic pride. I acknowledge the active role of many local authorities in support of the arts.
Those features have been prominently displayed this year in Glasgow. No other European city of culture has seized its opportunities with greater energy, imagination and pride. I knew when I selected Glasgow from all the other British cities seeking that accolade that it would rise to the challenge. It has done so magnificently. The range and number of arts events on offer to the 6 million expected visitors is quite staggering. A century ago, Glasgow was a byword for civic pride and private patronage. Many of its magnificent public buildings and galleries were constructed then. Now we see another urban renaissance, which owes a great deal to Glasgow's recognition of the crucial importance that the arts can play in improving the quality of life, enhancing the identity of a great city, and contributing to its economic strength.
Mr. Tony Banks: I agree entirely with the Minister that the city of Glasgow and its council deserve all the congratulations that the House can offer for the work that they have done in becoming the cultural capital of Europe. When the Minister pays such fulsome tributes, does he contemplate the spending pattern of a local authority such as Glasgow, given all the pressures that are placed on it in respect of housing, social services and education? Does the Minister tell the Secretary of State for the Environment that when he goes round capping English local authorities he should bear in mind the great contribution that they make to arts funding? Does the Minister have such discussions with his Cabinet colleagues?
Mr. Luce: Of course I praise Glasgow for the role that it has played in European cultural city year, but I praise also the role of the private sector, which went into partnership with that authority in a very effective exercise to regenerate the city. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not touch on that aspect. The pattern for other local authorities around the country is very varied. It is entirely
1026
for them to decide how much they are prepared to devote to the arts in their areas, and I am sure that it is right to leave them that freedom.
Mr. Conal Gregory: For many years, York has contributed through its local council, unfortunately, only £2,000 towards the purchase of new paintings, which would go nowhere at all without the national art collections fund and other funds. My right hon. Friend rightly stated that difficulties exist, but will he stress to the institutions concerned the importance of making available the national treasures held in their reserve collections? At present, they are treasures of the night watchman—beloved only of night attendants and specialist curators. Three quarters of our great arts heritage is never seen but is hidden from view. It could provide centrepieces for banks, schools and building societies, so that culture could be spread more widely and not remain the province of a few.
Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a persistent interest in the arts. Art flourishes in many forms in the city that he represents. I take his point that many of our national treasures are kept in vaults, but we should not underestimate the number of art objects now on public display and the extra space available for that purpose. There are also travelling exhibitions which allow the public around the country to see more of our art treasures.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Luce: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed as I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak.
Birmingham is another city which has established an international reputation for the quality of its arts programme. Under the leadership of Simon Rattle, the city of Birmingham symphony orchestra has emerged as one of the world's great orchestras, and it will soon be taking up residence in a purpose-built concert hall as part of the city's new convention centre. Preparations are also complete for the transfer of the Sadler's Wells Royal ballet to the Birmingham Hippodrome, and last month it was announced that the D'Oyly Carte opera company would take up residence at Birmingham's Alexandra theatre.
I could give many other examples. Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester, Bradford, and many other cities have shown how the arts can be used to spearhead an economic revival as well as to improve the quality of life for their inhabitants. They also demonstrate how partnerships between central and local government, and between the public and private sectors, can be developed for the benefit of all.
That diversity of support is ensuring, too, that the best of our arts are available to more and more people. We see that happening around the country—from the doubling of festivals in five years to the activities of touring companies such as Opera North, Welsh National Opera and the Northern ballet, with ever-increasing audiences, to the great growth in the number of museums and the regional expansion of our national institutions.
All of that progress owes much to the increasing self-reliance and prudent and imaginative management now being exercised by arts organisations. Government policies have helped. Three-year funding enables

1027
organisations to plan much more concisely. My various incentive funding schemes are producing excellent results. The awards that the Arts Council has already made under its scheme are expected to generate an additional £27 million for the arts over the next three years—£3 for every £1 of taxpayers' investment. That is a remarkable achievement and a tribute not only to the arts organisations themselves but to those who have worked with them to improve their management and marketing skills. I was pleased to learn that last year 71 per cent. of the awards were won by companies outside London, most of which were not funded directly by the Arts Council.
The business sponsorship incentive scheme, which we introduced in 1984, has been a major stimulus to the encouragement of sponsorship of the arts. On public expenditure of more than £10 million, it has brought more than £32 million of new money to the arts. As important, it has introduced almost
1,500 new sponsors to the arts. The Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts is running the scheme for us and has played a valuable part in alerting potential sponsors to the benefits of associating themselves with artistic success. The co-operation between business and the arts has brought nothing but good.
The arts in this country have benefited not only from greater business involvement, but from private giving. In his Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the introduction of gift aid. That new form of tax relief, which comes into force on 1 October, will, I believe, have a major impact on support for the arts and heritage in this country. It will apply to both personal and corporate gifts over a huge range from £600 to £5 million. Taken with the existing arrangements for tax relief on payroll giving, up to an annual limit of £600, and for convenanting charitable donations, it provides a tax incentive for gifts to the arts, both great and small. Everything needs to be done to encourage the culture of giving in this country.
The underlying strengths of the economy, and the encouragement that the Government have given to entrepreneurs and investors, have benefited the arts as much as in any other area. The Government remain committed to maintaining the value of their support for the arts, but they also believe that the private sector has a vital role to play. Creativity is not the preserve of the subsidised arts. The co-existence of healthy public and private sectors in the arts means more opportunity for the artist and more choice for the consumer. That diversity of support gives the arts in Britain a vitality equal to any in the world.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said. The Government have established a near impeccable record. I thank him for his kind words about Glyndebourne, which is in my constituency. There is a special category of support for the arts which appears to be a Government responsibility—the fabric of buildings in Government ownership. I know that the Minister has had talks with Mr. Peter Palumbo, so perhaps he will say a few words about that.
Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a keen interest in the arts, and has done for a long time. Perhaps he will allow me to develop my speech as I propose shortly to deal with the fabric question.
1028
I have sought to portray many of the positive developments in the arts world today. There will always be practical problems to deal with in a pragmatic way. I do not pretend that everything in the garden is lovely. Currently, those problems include, for example, the pressures of inflation—to which the Government are giving great priority, the problems of balancing the allocation of resources between the national companies and other arts organisations, the need to retain and enhance the best scholarship while making it more accessible, the problem of theatre deficits, and the freezing of purchase grants for the national museums and galleries.
There are problems, but many of them are the problems of expansion and success. However, there appears to be a group of people in this country who have, or seem to have, a vested interest in failure. They always want to emphasise how the arts are failing. All is crisis and Armageddon. I never know where the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) stands. He seems to have blown hot and cold in the past months and years. On occasion, he has been generous enough to congratulate me on my arts budgets, and it would be churlish not to mention that. However, whenever we debate any arts topic, he talks repeatedly of crisis. He did so again only this week at Question Time. When the hon. Gentleman is in that mood, he reminds me of A. A. Milne's Eeyore, exuding gloom wherever he goes. I hope that he will be a little more balanced in his presentation today.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman one thing—it is not possible to fund the arts or anything else without a sound, healthy economy, and no Labour Government have succeeded in achieving that. In the recent Labour document, "Looking to the future", I found a section referring to arts and leisure. I looked for vision, but found none because there is no vision there. It is sterile. There is nothing which holds out great prospects for the future of the arts. If in the category of a school assessment examination, it would rate very low, and we know why—because, on the previous Labour Government's economic record, Labour could not begin to fund and support the arts as we are doing. The document lacks credibility.
I want to touch on one or two other major areas of interest which will concern us in the next few years. First, I shall respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) about the fabric of our institutions. I shall come to Mr. Palumbo's ideas in a moment. I recognise that constant work is required to maintain what are, in most cases, magnificant buildings which house our national collections. One of my major ambitions is to bring those museum and gallery buildings into tip-top condition by the end of the decade. I made my intentions clear in a speech in York last September. In the current year, I am providing some £57 million for building works at the national museums and galleries. Over the next three years, the total Government resources provided for building works is more than £180 million and should enable further progress to be made in improving those buildings. That is a substantial addition of taxpayers' money which will enable us to deal with the fabric of museums and galleries.
I was especially delighted to launch the museums and galleries improvement in March. That new initiative was made possible through the generosity of the Wolfson charities with matching funds from the Government. It will make available a further £12 million over the next three years towards urgent refurbishment and renovation

1029
work in United Kingdom museums and galleries, both national and local. Meanwhile, a substantial amount of refurbishment work in our national institutions is already in hand.
Mr. Mark Fisher: What proportion of the fabric needs to which the right hon. Gentleman referred will be met by his £180 million over the next three years? He keeps on refusing a thoroughly reasonable request from Opposition Members—repeated by Mr. Peter Palumbo, I am glad to say—to have a national audit so that everyone can assess the needs over the next 10 years. We can then appreciate how adequate, or not so adequate, that £180 million will be in addressing those needs. Why does the Minister not have an audit? It would be so sensible and reasonable.
Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman must surely realise that the way we work with the national museums and galleries—it is on that point that I am answering the debate—is through corporate strategies which project three to five years' ahead for each museum and gallery. From that, we establish their needs and requirements for the fabric. I negotiate with my colleagues in the Treasury for a three-year agreement, which is an innovation by the Government. I have persuaded my colleagues to give substantial additional money over the next three years. My undertaking, my belief and my ambition is that by the end of the decade we can get the fabric of all those museums and galleries in good shape. That shows that we are already dealing with the fabric problem. The Queen's house at Greenwich has been refurbished at a cost of £5 million, the imperial war museum has been redeveloped at a cost of £12 million, the national portrait gallery is being extended and redeveloped further, and the Sir John Soanes museum is dealing with its fabric with the help of the Government and the MEPC.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: All hon. Members must welcome that expenditure on the fabric of so much of our museums and art galleries. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) made an important point. Unless we have a programme, we cannot assess to what extent we can deal with the long period of decay and disrepair that has been allowed to continue. What about the actual contents? The Public Accounts Committee called for an inventory control. We do not know how much there is in the British museum. We must first find out what is there, then value it, and then assess what can be done to keep it in a proper state of repair. If we do not know what we have, we do not know what needs to be done.
Mr. Luce: I appreciate that point. I also appreciate the Public Accounts Committee's work on this and I have noted the Committee's views. We are talking about the basic structure and fabric of these institutions. The corporate strategies developed in the 1980s for these institutions identified the special needs of their fabric. I shall find out whether I can help the House further on the overall requirements of these institutions as a result of the corporate strategies—looking well ahead, not just at the three-year period.
Last year, Mr. Peter Palumbo, chairman of the Arts Council, put some interesting ideas to the Government for restoring the fabric of historic theatres, museums and galleries, as well as cathedrals, by the turn of the century.
1030
As I have said, I have taken a lead on this matter with museums and galleries. The Arts Council is developing some ideas on theatre refurbishment. I stress the fact that the Theatres Trust is carrying out an assessment of the refurbishments requirement of theatres. In dealing with the fabric, we must identify needs and priorities, but it is for each Department to deal with the matter as it thinks best. I am grateful to Mr. Palumbo for his strong and imaginative interest.
Dr. Norman A. Godman rose—
Mr. Luce: I am in the hands of the House. Many hon. Members want to speak and I wish to touch on other matters. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
On 13 March, I announced to the House a major restructuring of arts funding in England—the first such reorganisation since the Arts Council was established after the war. The main changes are the decentralisation of grant-giving responsibilities from the Arts Council to a smaller number of regional arts boards and greater accountability—I stress this point—by the boards for their spending of public money. This will result in a simpler, clearer system of arts funding and give better value for money to the taxpayer.
I appointed Mr. Timothy Mason, the retiring director of the Scottish Arts Council, to manage the reforms and I established a steering group to advise on their implementation. Good progress has been made and I will shortly be giving fuller details of Mr. Mason's proposals for implementing the package.
Inevitably, the changes have given rise to some concerns. One has been that the Arts Council would be left without a role. I can assure the House that the Government remain firmly committed to a strong and effective Arts Council and that the changes in prospect will not diminish its role or status. In future, while retaining the direct funding of appropriate clients, it will operate at a more strategic level, setting national priorities for the arts, and ensuring that its objectives are met through a system of joint planning and budgeting. The new system will also free the Arts Council from much of its burden of day-to-day administration to concentrate on addressing the major issues facing the arts in the 1990s and beyond. Far from weakening the Arts Council, the changes that I have announced will give it a clearer and sharper focus.
Another concern has been that devolution of clients will threaten standards of excellence. The arrangements that I have already described, under which the Arts Council will hold the regions to account for achieving its objectives, will ensure that this does not happen. I have every confidence in the ability of the new regional arts boards to raise their sights and rise to the challenge of the new funding arrangements. At the same time, however, I have made it clear that devolution of clients will not take place until the necessary systems and structures are in place and that I am satisfied that they will enhance and maintain excellence in the arts.
I share responsibility for the film industry with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs. All three of us were present at the seminar, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently chaired, to

1031
consider how the British film industry might best respond to the new challenges and opportunities in Europe. The seminar produced a number of important initiatives, including a new fund of £5 million over the next three years to help our industry get into European co-production and £150,000 for the European film awards, which will be presented in Glasgow later this year. As important, two working parties are being set up. One, which will be industry led, will look at the tax structure for film production in this country. The other, chaired by the Department of Trade and Industry, will consider ways in which the structural problems of the industry can be addressed. In addition, we shall be looking for ways to build on the European Communities MEDIA programme to strengthen our industry's position in Europe by co-operation between member states.
The protection of our nation's heritage is a primary concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and myself and one which we jointly address as a priority. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside will refer to matters for which the Department of the Environment is broadly responsible. I shall deal with those that are my responsibility.
Mr. John Lee: I am sure that the House will acknowledge my right hon. Friend's great success with his present portfolio. In what may be his final speech in this ministerial role [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I say that in the nicest way—would he care to give the House his views on whether it makes sense to have the arts, tourism and the heritage in separate Ministries, or whether there is a case for considering amalgamating the three in one Ministry
Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for trying to settle my future. The responsibilities of the various Departments is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Throughout the 1980s and beyond, we have had a totally separate Office of Arts and Libraries which deals with these matters, and that is a sensible way to proceed.
There is one important problem to address concerning the export of works of art—the phenomenal rise in the prices of works of art and antiques. In the past decade, the Sotheby's index has risen by an aggregate of 375 per cent. and in the past five years by 150 per cent. In these circumstances, it is not possible for the taxpayer to produce all the funds that we need to save the heritage. How, therefore, do we deal with this problem? I will begin by mentioning the range of useful measures that we have to preserve our heritage.
There is the national heritage memorial fund, established by the Government in 1980, which to date has spent over £108 million of taxpayers' money. There is a range of taxation incentives. In 1985, the Government announced the availability of approximately an extra £10 million per annum for the acceptance-in-lieu scheme. That announcement, together with additional incentives, such as the waiving of interest charges on AIL items, has encouraged the scheme to expand to the extent of last year's record expenditure when works of art were accepted in lieu of more than £11.5 million tax.
The tax incentives which encourage individuals to sell heritage items to our national museums and galleries by
1032
means of private treaty sale are also well used and are proving extremely valuable. Since 1985, objects with a market value of more than £50 million have been purchased at a cost to our national institutions of a little over 50 per cent. of that figure.
Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister explain why the purchase grants of the national museums have been frozen since 1985?
Mr. Luce: As I explained before the hon. Gentleman leapt up, I accepted that that was one of the issues that we faced in the arts world. A conscious decision was taken by my predecessor and by me. The directors and chairmen of the national museums and galleries all said in discussions that, as a priority, they would rather deal with the issue of the fabric of those institutions before dealing with the problem of purchase grants. I do not deny for one moment that there is pressure on museums and galleries and on purchase grants, but there is a substantial range of other mechanisms for preserving our heritage.
We face a dilemma because of the prices of works of art and the pressure for taxpayers' money. That is why we as a Government must explore every avenue to facilitate the preservation of the most important part of our heritage. It is against that background that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 4 May that in future he would take the existence of private offers—whether or not there were conditions attached—into account when considering whether to grant an export licence. I was fully consulted about that new policy, which was developed because we believe that an injection of private funds will assist in providing a balanced and reasonable system for retaining the most important items of our cultural heritage in this country. Retention has always been the prime consideration, and that will continue.
Mr. Timothy Raison: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have read Sir Nicholas Goodison's letter in The Times today. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of agreement with the point of view expressed by Sir Nicholas and that using the export licence mechanism to keep works of art in this country while not making them available to be seen by the public is a mistake?
Mr. Luce: If my right hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall place emphasis on one aspect which I hope will help him.
There are several misconceptions about the change in policy. The owner, not the Government, decides whether to accept an offer, and he has always been free to accept an offer from anyone—museums, galleries or private individuals. The result of the policy change is to enable private offers to play a role in the Waverley system at a time of ever-increasing prices of works of art.
I am obviously keen that the public should have access to important heritage items, and I wish to encourage suitable arrangements. The extent to which a private offer involves an arrangement enabling the public to have access could be an important factor in my advice to my right hon. Friend, but even where minimal or no public access is provided we shall wish to take the existence of that offer, and the owner's refusal to accept it, into account when

1033
deciding whether to grant an export licence. The main purpose of the controls is to retain important items in this country.
Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Luce: Will my hon. Friend bear with me? I am anxious that hon. Members should have a chance to speak.
The creation of the single market in 1992 is important for our heritage. The Waverley system for identifying pre-eminent works of art, the export of which should be deferred to allow time for funds to be raised to keep them in this country, has served us well. I believe that it strikes a good balance between preserving our heritage, respecting the rights of private owners and the needs of the market. Nevertheless, the position will be rather different after 1992, when routine customs checks at internal EC frontiers will end. The implications need careful thought, and I shall want to consult widely all those concerned before deciding whether underpinning of the existing system is needed to respond to the changed circumstances of the single market.
Consultation with heritage parties is important. I have therefore decided on a two-pronged approach. From time to time, I intend to invite senior people from the art trade and the heritage world for a round table discussion. In addition, I shall set up a consultative group to consider the United Kingdom's position post-1992. That will be composed of representatives from all sides—trade, heritage and museums—and will be selected from the membership of the reviewing committee's advisory council.
I have mentioned several practical issues which affect our policies in the 1990s. I want to end by reminding the House of the cardinal principles that the Government pursue to encourage the arts. First, there is the principle of freedom. It is no accident that courageous artists have led the way in the liberation of eastern Europe. Creative art can flourish only in a fully free country. Freedom of speech and expression are at the heart of democracy, and their preservation guards the health of the arts. When people stop having new ideas, the arts die. We must not let our veneration for the past cloud our acceptance of the art of today and tomorrow.
Secondly, we must preserve and encourage the excellence of the arts, not merely the higher level professional excellence although that sets the tone for the rest, but excellence at every level in every art form throughout the country. We must encourage people to enjoy the arts through participation as well as appreciation. I am in discussion with various television channels with a view to having a televised day of celebration of the arts throughout Britain so that a vast number of people can see for themselves the richness and diversity of the arts. I very much hope that one of the channels will implement that idea.
Thirdly, we must ensure that the best in our arts is available and accessible to all, whatever their background and wherever they live. Anyone has the potential to enjoy art—the music of Beethoven or Britten, a painting by Constable or Howard Hodgkin, a play by Shakespeare or Ayckbourn, the craftsmanship of Henry Moore, an opera by Verdi or Mozart, jazz from New Orleans, or simply by taking up the paintbrush, camera or craftsman's tools.
1034
My ambition, and that of the Government, is to create the climate to enable that potential to be fulfilled, thus helping to enrich the lives of millions more people.
5.53 pm
Mr. Mark Fisher: The Minister spoke for almost 40 minutes and the House will have noticed that the longer he did so the deeper he dug himself into the problems that he identified and the weaknesses in the Government's policy.
The House, and everyone in the arts world, recognises that the Minister is a very nice man, and he is well liked, but the Government's record on the arts is so poor, and their credibility so slight, that his speech was nothing but an embarrassment. Conservative Members need not take my word for it, because perhaps they make the point more effectively than I do. The Minister will recall that last week the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) asked the Prime Minister
"why the Conservative party is still regarded as philistine".—[Official Report, 26 June 1990; Vol. 175, c. 181.]
She could not answer.
The Minister will have read the remarks of the chairman of the Arts Council, Mr. Peter Palumbo:
"The problem is that the great buildings of our country have been neglected"—
neglected by the Government.
Mr. Michael Colvin: If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to be in the Chamber on that day, he would know that the question was directed not to the Prime Minister but to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House.
Mr. Fisher: Come on!
Mr. Colvin: That is not the point. Because the hon. Gentleman was not present and did not pay attention, he got the reference wrong. I asked why, when the Government have increased spending by almost 50 per cent. in real terms since taking office, and have announced a three-year rolling programme with an increase of 24 per cent., they are still perceived as philistine. That perception is wrong, and that may be the reason why the hon. Gentleman's perception is wrong.
Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I heard the deputy Prime Minister answer the question. He could not explain why the Conservative party is regarded as philistine, because he knows that it is true. However, I acknowledge that he paid a fulsome tribute to the personal characteristics of the Minister and said that he would like him in his Cabinet.
The Minister will have noticed the comments made last week by the deputy secretary-general of the Arts Council, Mr. Anthony Everitt:
"The National Theatre itself is visibly leaking and needs to be repaired already."
Perhaps the Minister will digest those realities and recognise that all is not well with the arts.
Normally, the Minister's speech is a catalogue of complacency, but today, for the first time, he began to recognise the problems of inflation and the freezing of purchase grants, although rather disingenuously—God knows why—he attributed those to the problems of expansion and success. The directors of our great national galleries do not feel that they are suffering from expansion

1035
and success as a result of Government policy, but at least, for the first time, the Minister acknowledged that there are problems, which is an improvement.
I join the Minister in acknowledging that the arts are flourishing and in paying tribute to arts organisations, regional arts associations, local authorities, the private sector, sponsors such as BP and others and the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts. I share his appreciation of those organisations, but he will have noted that the Government are noticeably absent from that list of contributors to the health of the arts. Arts organisations in this country are strong despite the Government, not because of them.
The Minister is doing little for the cities that he referred to—Glasgow and Birmingham. It is a bit of a cheek for him to take credit for choosing Glasgow. He put hardly anything into Glasgow.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: How much will the Labour party give?
Mr. Fisher: If the Parliamentary Private Secretary.will restrain himself, I shall deal with the next Government's policy.
I was glad that the Minister recognised that there are problems, but I must put him right on one or two of his so-called successes. He mentioned, yet again, the expansion of funding, and referred to 48 per cent. The figure always goes up, but he knows that it includes abolition money and the British library. Despite that, 0.27 per cent. of total Government expenditure is spent on the arts. Only one country in Europe—Ireland—spends less. That should please the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), but he will not be satisfied until we are bottom of the league. He will be glad to hear that we are almost bottom and that almost every other country in Europe spends more than us.
Mr. Colvin: I am sorry to have to correct the hon. Gentleman, but surely that increase does not include the additional money for the British library. He said that it did.
Mr. Fisher: I think that the Minister said it did.
With the exception of Ireland, we are at the bottom of the league in Europe. The Minister knows very well that, in the next two years, the Arts Council is set to get 4–6 per cent. and 3.8 per cent. respectively. He knows very well that those figures will be well below the rate of inflation.
I have paid tribute to three-year funding in the past, but it is no good giving three-year funding when all that the Arts Council and arts clients can do is plan for cuts and deficits.
Mr. Gregory: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fisher: I should like to make a little more progress. I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
Let us look at some more of the problems to which the Minister did not refer. First, the Education Reform Act 1988 is deterring children from attending theatres and live performances. Secondly, there are the problems of the Royal Shakespeare Company, to which, I note, the Minister did not refer and to which I shall return in a moment. Thirdly, there is the question of actors' PAYE. If the Minister wants to encourage acting skills, he should
1036
not deter and penalise performers. Significantly, in the Finance Bill Committee yesterday the Government voted against our amendment.
On all those issues—
Mr. John Bowis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fisher: No, I must make some progress; I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. [Interruption.] We tabled an amendment yesterday, but unfortunately the Government did not accept it.
Mr. Hanley: Would Labour reverse the provision?
Mr. Fisher: We will introduce such an amendment when we are in government. It is an excellent amendment, which is supported by Equity and the Theatrical Management Association.
On all those issues—the RSC in Particular—the Minister is silent. He has said nothing. Perhaps he will say one or two things in answer to our questions today. Does he believe that the scale of the RSC's activities is about right? If so, is the company adequately funded? If not, how much more does the company need? What will happen next year, when the Government do not give any more to the RSC or the Arts Council? If that happens, the RSC will close not in November but in July. Why is the Minister not talking to the RSC? We had a debate on the RSC on an Opposition motion, but since then the Minister has not met representatives of the Royal Shakespeare Company. Or has he? Has he discussed the matter with the artistic directors?
Mr. Luce: Does the Labour party plan to abolish the arm's-length policy? Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the responsibility for taking such decisions belongs with the Arts Council, which gets a global sum? The council is to get an increase of 22 per cent. in the next three years, and it is for the council to decide. If the Opposition wish to abolish arm's length, they had better tell the House now.
Mr. Fisher: The Minister interprets arm's-length policy in his own way: he does not mind; he says nothing about the problems; they are no concern of his. But the figures are there. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, next year, he will be giving the Arts Council less than the rate of inflation and that that will mean that the RSC will not be able to open for the whole year. This year, the RSC is having to close for four months because it is inadequately funded. The Minister did not take the trouble to say anything about that, and he has not even met the RSC. Labour will not abolish arm's length, but the Royal Shakespeare Company and the arts in general expect a Minister to take an interest in these problems.
The Minister has watched the Royal Shakespeare Company close for four months this year and has said nothing. That is disgraceful. Can the House imagine what would happen if the Comédie Francaise was to close for four months? Would the French Government say, "We don't mind; it is unimportant to us. Who cares?" Of course they would not. They have something called national pride—pride in their culture. This Minister does not seem to mind at all that our greatest theatre—along with the National theatre—is closing.
Let us deal now with the subject of the natural history museum, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member

1037
for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on an Adjournment debate. Does the Minister understand why 100 jobs are to be lost and key scientific areas to close? Does he understand that the natural history museum is trying to save £2 million? Does he really believe that that is desirable? Will he deal with those problems?
Will the Minister consider the question of the British Theatre Association library? He rightly took some credit last year when he acted as midwife for Mr. Robert Holmes a Court's deal for the BTA. He will know that this week that has fallen apart, and the BTA appears to have been left dangling with substantial problems with its lease. Having taken the credit last year, will the Minister now intervene to ensure that that resource, which is vital for our theatrical heritage, is properly funded?
Let me deal finally with Mr. Peter Palumbo's initiative. Is it not rather amateurish—I would say incompetent—of the Minister to say that the museums' three-year plans represent an adequate basis on which to plan? Is he really saying that he will commit further Government money not on the basis of the Government's view but on the basis of each museum's view of its needs? That strikes me as a very lackadaisical view of one's responsibility for public funding. If the Minister is giving money, he ought to know what proportion of the museums' total needs that sum represents. That is an eminently sensible point. Surely the Minister ought to have an audit to establish whether Peter Palumbo's guesstimate of fl billion is accurate and, if it is, to determine how we should address the problems. But the Government refuse to face the facts. They are frightened to find out how bad the situation in the museums is. That does the Minister no credit at all.
Is the Minister awake to such problems? Does he understand them? Does he have an opinion? Unlike his predecessor, Lord Gowrie, who made the extraordinary remark that people would only value library books if they had to pay for them, this Minister is not getting it wrong; he is not getting it at all. He does not seem to understand the problem. The cities are expanding and the chairman of the Arts Council is buzzing with good and exciting ideas. On the other side of the channel, Mr. Jack Lang is galvanising the arts. But our Minister does absolutely nothing. He is a nice, kind, gentle person—
Mr. Tony Banks: No, he isn't.
Mr. Fisher: Yes, he is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no, he isn't."] Oh yes, he is. The problem lies not with the Minister's personality but with his appalling lack of policy and with the fact that he is silent while problems in the arts escalate. The arts world has a right to expect a Minister who speaks up for its interests and says something about these crucial matters.
The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): Come on.
Mr. Fisher: It is interesting that the Minister for the Environment and Countryside should come to his right hon. Friend's defence. Let us turn our attention to him and look at the Government's record on heritage, which is every bit as bad as their record on the arts—if not worse.
Half a million sites in Britain have been identified as of schedulable quality. How many have the Government scheduled? They have scheduled 12,000, in spite of the monument protection programme, which appears to have had no effect. Landscapes are an important element of our
1038
culture. How many of them have been scheduled? The answer is, not a single one. Only five cities have been designated. English Heritage is underfunded. It is to get an increase of only 1.3 per cent. this year. It has asked for a further £6.4 million. Will it get it? It has not yet had an answer.
The Government place such value on rescue archaeology that they are to allocate the princely sum of £5 million a year for the whole country. Did the Minister do anything when the Icklingham bronzes were illegally exported? Did he look to ratify the 1970 UNESCO treaty which would have allowed us to recover them from the United States? He did not a thing; the Government did not seem to care.
When the Rose theatre and Huggin hill sites were at issue last year, the Minister did nothing. The Manpower Services Commission contribution of £5.5 million was withdrawn from archaeology—it was a sum on which archaeology depended—and employment training will not replace any of it. The Government's "developer pays" policy and their total inertia and lack of interest in archaeology and in our heritage are a national disgrace.
Mr. Gregory rose—
Mr. Fisher: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because I am sure that he will want to recognise that, if only the Government had a policy, the Queen's hotel site in York—a site of international importance—would have been developed. The Government's lack of care about our archaeological heritage has meant that it is not to be developed.
Mr. Gregory: I note the paucity of Labour Members present. There are twice as many Conservative Members as Labour Members here, and that is a mark of our interest in the arts. Would the hon. Gentleman care to include in his catalogue of so-called disasters the fact that the Labour Government did not take action on any of the problems?
Is it Labour party policy to have a development levy so that archaeological sites, particularly in York—York was the first city to show that archaeology can pay and that people want to visit archaeological sites—can benefit as private enterprise is encouraged to participate with the state sector? I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside in the Chamber, and I am sure that he would like to see the development of such a policy. Are all Labour's policies based on the state sector?
Mr. Fisher: I would willingly welcome private sector money in archaeological developments, but there are many areas in which the developer will not or cannot play a part. The Government's inability to recognise that makes their policy lopsided, because they put all the emphasis on the private sector and do not accept any responsibility themselves.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the role that the National Trust plays in saving landscape and archaeological sites? Is not the National Trust entirely funded by public subscription and is that not the way that we should proceed as we look for more resources for the arts, rather than finding the resources from the taxpayer? We all want better arts facilities, but there are other ways of achieving that end.
Mr. Fisher: The hon. Lady will know that the National Trust has, for a long time, been urging the Government to designate and schedule landscapes. It does a remarkable job, but it has no statutory power. If the Government cared about our great landscapes, they could do something about them. We look forward to hearing something from the Minister about what he is going to do for the landscapes.
What is the Minister going to do in his Budget round? What kind of package has he put before Treasury Ministers? What arguments has he been deploying? The Minister missed a golden opportunity today. The House expected some sign of the case that the Minister is going to put to the Treasury. We had hoped for an exciting and convincing case. Had he put a case for the arts today, either on cultural or economic grounds, or both, he would probably have got a good press tomorrow and he would have gained much support around the country. He might then have had a stronger hand when he went to see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the summer.
Instead, the Minister said that almost everything is okay. He scored the most monumentally politically naive own goal. When he goes to see the Treasury Ministers, they will refer him to the speech that he has made tonight. They will say to him, "But you said in the House the other day that everything was fine and you were doing so well and being so successful. How on earth can you be asking for more money?" The Minister's performance has been naive. It was not calculated to get money out of the Treasury. We hope that he will get that money, and we will do everything to encourage and help him in that end. However, he has not helped himself today.
Conservative Members are aware that, although funding is important, so are the right policies. I am glad to say that, in his one or two positive comments, the Minister has adopted Labour party policies.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Then why are you condemning my right hon. Friend?
Mr. Fisher: No, I am praising these things. I am delighted about these developments.
For years, we have been urging the devolution of administration, and I am delighted that the Minister has backed that policy at last. We have also been urging that money should be spent on the fabric of buildings. Although the Minister will not accept the audit, he is at least spending the money; again, that is a good Labour party policy that he has adopted.
For years we have been saying that the Minister should do something about the film industry. At long last, the Prime Minister has taken up Labour party policy. I am confident that the recommendations which the two working parties set up by the Prime Minister will produce in three months' time will be similar to the package of proposals that the Labour party has put forward. We hope that the Minister will adopt those recommendations, as they make good common sense.
We also hope that the Minister will be emboldened by that and will recognise that, in adopting Labour party policies, he has gained popularity and has received applause. We welcome that, and hope that it will continue. Perhaps he will then take the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside and press for a full Ministry. It is a disgrace that the Minister is not a full Minister, with his own independent Department. The hon.
1040
Member for Romsey and Waterside made that point at Prime Minister's Question Time last week. The Minister should be fighting for that. It is Labour party policy to have a full Ministry as is the case in every other European country to cover the cultural industries as well as the arts.
Mr. Devlin: As we have that concrete proposal from the Labour party, when the hon. Gentleman gets that wonderful new Ministry, what will its budget be and how much will it spend on the arts?
Mr. Fisher: I am coming to that point.
In his heart of hearts, the Minister knows that he should adopt a policy in which there is a statutory responsibility on all local authorities and an eligibility for rate support grant money. That would lead to a huge expansion of local authority funding in response to the needs of the constituents of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), which are bound to differ from those of the Minister's constituents.
Mr. Devlin: How much will it cost?
Mr. Fisher: If the hon. Gentleman will listen, he will understand that I have described a responsive budget. Through the rate support grant mechanism, central Government will match and respond to local government expenditure as happens at the moment in library provision, housing and social services. It will be up to the constituents of the hon. Member for Stockton, South and his local authorities to understand the needs of their area, which no doubt will be different from the needs in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who will be speaking later about heritage. That is the way to expand budgets. Conservative Members must be aware that such a policy would be popular in their areas.
Mr. Devlin: We must be clear about this. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he will consider bids from every local authority and meet them in full, or is he saying that he will allow people to present budgets and he will meet such parts of them as he thinks fit? If that is the case, he must have some idea of the global sum which his new Department will have at its disposal. How much is that?
Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand how local government works. There will be a statutory responsibility, rather akin to the statutory responsibility for public libraries. I believe that that will lead to an equality and a development of funding similar to the expansion in the public library service. If the hon. Gentleman considers the expansion in the public library service, he will understand that that statutory responsibility has ensured that there is good public library provision around the country.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: My hon. Friend will recall his successful visit to my constituency and visiting the people working with the SHAPE Up North art link involving people with learning difficulties. My hon. Friend saw those people making a mural, which has just been presented to Wakefield prison college. It is an excellent mural, and we should all be proud of the fact that those people produced such a lovely work of art. Is my hon. Friend aware that, with poll tax capping, that superb community arts scheme, aimed at those people who really

1041
enjoyed producing that mural, could lose some of its local authority funding? Is that not a tragedy? The Labour party would not do that to local communities.
Mr. Fisher: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has mentioned that. The Minister is usually anxious to include a section in his speeches about widening access. I am sorry that he did not take the opportunity today to do that. The case for increased funding for people with disabilities in our society is acute.
For so long the Government failed to respond to the Attenborough report. When they last provided some money, we welcomed the establishment of ADAPT under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). However, that is not enough. The needs of the people in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and elsewhere in the country are responded to by SHAPE organisations and art link organisations. The Minister knows that those organisations do a good job and he also knows that they are acutely underfunded.
The next policy which the Minister should be adopting addresses my last point. The Minister will accept that one of the difficulties with funding arts projects for disabled people is that they cross departmental boundaries. That often proves to be a difficulty.
The right hon. Gentleman knows about the British Health Care arts centre in Dundee, which is doing valuable work. There is actually an expansion of the use of designers and artists in making hospital environments interesting places in which people want to get better. The Government are not putting any money into that. One of the problems, I suspect, is the division of responsibilities between the Department of Health and the Minister's Office of Arts and Libraries.
The Labour party's third major policy development, along with a full Ministry and a statutory responsibility on local authorities, would be to tackle the difficult matter of cross-departmental co-operation and joint works. The opportunities for developing the culture of this country and arts provisions are very great indeed, not only in the health sector, in combination with health authorities and the Department of Health, but in the Department of Transport. We could have a London underground system that looked like Stockholm's—it is beautiful—rather than the raggedy, horrible place that it is at the moment. We could back British Rail and the work that Jane Priestland is doing to revive the system, but we are hardly doing anything at all.
We could involve the Department of the Environment in work in parks. We have some of the most beautiful parks around our great cities. We spend £450 million a year mowing the lawns and weeding and planting the flower beds, but we spend almost nothing on activities that go into those parks. With encouragement from the Government, 1 or 2 per cent. of those budgets would transform our parks, as Birmingham did last year, as Battersea does annually, and as happens at Kenwood. Parks could he transformed into exciting cultural centres in our cities. It is a simple thing to do. The Government should be doing it, but they encounter cross-departmental difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman referred to London. He is wrong to say that London is a great cultural capital. It should be. It should be one of the greatest cities in Europe, but, unfortunately, because the Government have abolished
1042
the strategic authority, the Greater London council, there is no planning. To get anything done to develop the river, our canals and parks in London requires so many different authorities and a combination of so many different things that we are not taking a lead. The Minister should ensure that the arts have a key role—an anchor role—in developing London. Unfortunately, that is another matter on which he is silent.
The Minister could talk with his colleagues about design. I know that he does not have direct responsibility for that matter but, through the Crafts Council, he has a strong interest. The Government spend £40,000 a year as a consumer—as a commissioner—of goods and services. They could use that economic clout to make sure that British design is a priority and that the standards of design through that expenditure are setting standards that the rest of British industry should be following. Conservative Members know that that is the case, but design is not a priority of the Government. Although we haw some brilliant designers, we are being left behind. The Government have enormous potential to set a lead and a standard and, as the Labour Government will do, say that the 1990s should be a decade of British design. The Minister should take that point on board.
Miss Emma Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman referred most courteously to ADAPT, and I am grateful for his comment. He might like to know that, on the ADAPT board, there are architects who are bringing out codes of best practice for adapting arts venues and public libraries in the most acceptable visual way, as well as making them acceptable for the disabled and other people with handicaps, such as the elderly and those with young babies in pushchairs. We are working very hard on making design acceptable, which is not easy when we are often dealing with listed buildings.
Mr. Fisher: I am delighted to join the hon. Lady in her tribute to her working party, its work and its recognition that design actually helps to solve problems and often saves money. The Government could and should adopt the "British design first" policy. That would go a long way not only to solving our economic problems in the 1990s but to making this a more attractive and civilised society in which to live.
Conservative Members wanted some Labour party policy for the Government to pick up and run with. They have three things—a Ministry, statutory responsibility, and a cross-departmental cultural policy. Those three things together would transform matters. The Minister can have them. We should be delighted if the Minister had the wit and ingenuity to pick them up. There are plenty more good ideas where they came from the next Labour Government—but let the right hon. Gentleman make a start with those.
We are glad that the Government have started to implement Labour party policy. We hope that they will continue in the short time that they have left. It will mark the changeover to the Ministry and to a decade in which British culture actually begins to count for something, we can begin to be proud of our artists, and audiences cart get a square deal. That will be a good transition. The country has a right to expect a better and more vigorous cultural policy than it is getting from the Government. The next Labour Government will certainly give the country that cultural policy.
6.24 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack: The trouble with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is that he is never quite sure whether he is rehearsing "King Lear" or "Twelfth Night". He is not very good at being Mr. Nasty. Many Conservative Members knew and revered his father and had great affection for him. The hon. Gentleman inherits an abundant measure of his father's charm, but not his father's good sense. It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman spends so much time trying to be Mr. Nasty and trying to rubbish my right hon. Friend the Minister who has performed a signal service to the arts for five years. When one considers his record objectively, my right hon. Friend will be remembered as an extremely fine Minister for the Arts.
I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) did not have some inside information. I sincerely hope also that it was not my right hon. Friend's last speech as Minister for the Arts. I should love his role to be expanded.
My first point takes up a comment that has already been made in an intervention and by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. If we were honest about the matter, we would recognise that no Government since the war have done well enough for the arts. No Government have given sufficient priority to the arts and our heritage. The Government have made a significant advance, and I have paid tribute to that on many occasions. I refer to the foundation of the national heritage memorial fund, the creation of English Heritage, as the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England is generally known, what has been done at the Tate gallery and at the Tate of the north. I could go on, but I shall not. The achievements are many and considerable, but no Government have done as much as they should have done.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cormack: I shall give way, but I do not wish to give way too often because many other hon. Members wish to speak.
Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman omits something vital from his tribute to the Minister, and that is the very small amount of money that the Government are giving. Lord Armstrong conveyed to the Select Committee that at least £50 million would be required to set right the fabric of the Victoria and Albert museum alone. No matter how well-intentioned the Minister is, I do not know how in heaven's name that work can be done without the necessary money.
Mr. Cormack: Of course, there is a need for more money. There is a need for a plurality of funding and for a greater central contribution. I do not cross swords with the hon. Gentleman. He served on the Select Committee that I had the honour of chairing for most sittings, when we inquired into the arts way back at the beginning of the 1980s. That Committee made a number of recommendations, but the fundamental recommendation was that there should be one Minister with responsibility for the arts, heritage and tourism matters, and that that Minister should be a member of the Cabinet. That was an all-party recommendation. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central should not claim that that is uniquely Labour party policy.
Mr. Fisher: It is.
Mr. Cormack: I could say just as easily that he pinched it from me. I wrote articles and a book on the matter in the early 1970s when the Labour party was in government, and I urged Labour Prime Ministers to do something about it, but they did not. We can all say, "Me, too." The Labour party has hijacked my policy, and I am delighted that it has. There is now a greater recognition spread across my party—it was given eloquent voice by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) in the House last Thursday—that we need a Ministry that is more all-embracing than the present one. I should love the arts, heritage, tourism, film and broadcasting to be the responsibility of one Minister. That would make sense.
Last week during his question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside referred to 1992 and to the fact that, as our Ministers sit side by side with their European counterparts, a Minister will have more clout not only in the Cabinet and in Government, but within Europe if he has greater responsibilities and a wider remit.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not in the Chamber, so I hope that what I am saying will be reported to her. If she is contemplating a mini-reshuffle this month—some of the newspapers suggest that she is—I hope that she will reward my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts for his splendid service by giving him the place in the Cabinet that he deserves and by giving him those additional responsibilities. My right hon. Friend enjoys a great measure of respect and affection throughout the arts and heritage world. He has considerable experience, built up over five years. He would be a notable first holder of that office. That is something to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should turn her attention. If she does not feel that she can make that sort of administrative change this side of a general election, I hope that both parties will go into the general election committed to that policy—
Mr. Fisher: We will.
Mr. Cormack: I sincerely hope that both parties will do so.
Although one could range far and wide in such a debate, I shall not do so because I do not wish to take up too much time. However, two other things which deserve the House's attention have not received much up to now. There has been only the briefest passing reference in the debate so far to cathedrals. Despite all the problems to which he should be putting his mind, such as the Royal Shakespeare Company, Mr. Peter Palumbo seems intent on empire-building. I am sure that Mr. Palumbo is a man of great distinction, many talents and considerable gifts, but he should remember that he has been appointed chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain which has responsibilities, opportunities and problems enough without his seeking to intrude into areas in which the Arts Council has no experience and no proper role to play.
However, Mr. Palumbo has rightly drawn the public's attention to something that many of us have been talking about for some time. I refer to the fact that our great medieval cathedrals constitute the finest group of buildings in this country. They are buildings of great glory, the flagships of our heritage. They contain some of the finest works of art in the world and are themselves among

1045
our finest works of art. It is nonsense that they comprise the only group of important historic buildings that is not eligible for grants from public funds. Of course, there are historic reasons for that and it is not the fault of either this Government or the previous Labour Government. Indeed, when I and many others over the past 20 years have said, "What about the cathedrals?", the cathedrals themselves have frequently sounded a strong dissenting voice. A number of deans and provosts have been reluctant, thinking that such funding would threaten their autonomy and that it would not be right for them to be beholden in any sense. However, there is now a growing realisation among deans and provosts and all those who care for those great buildings that appeals, which have so often been successful, can no longer be the only answer.
Any country that allowed the spire of Salisbury cathedral to collapse or Wells' west front or Lincoln's west front to crumble into decay could not call itself a civilised country or society. It is important that money from central funds should be available to assist with the upkeep and maintenance of our cathedrals. I am not advocating a French solution. I am not suggesting that the fabric should become the responsibility of the state because I believe that it is important that the Church itself should have some responsibility. Appeals are important—they help to harness local affection, pride and patriotism, and all such good qualities are themselves good things.
Furthermore, I am not against cathedrals that have struggled hard, as Ely has, deciding to charge for admission to those who are going there not to pray, but to look and enjoy. When an all-party Select Committee recommended the consideration of admission charges, I believe that it was suggesting something perfectly reasonable, although I do not believe that it got the figures right. It would, of course, be unthinkable to have a compulsory admission charge at cathedrals on all occasions.
However, the inescapable central fact is that we need to make money available from the centre. The obvious vehicle for organising that is the body that we already have—English Heritage, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England. Just as it has a separate committee to look after state aid for churches, it should have a separate committee to look after state aid for cathedrals.
There are those of us present who battled for state aid for churches. When I became a Member of the House in 1970, such aid was not available. I remember introducing a Bill to that effect in 1972. We battled and eventually a Conservative Secretary of State, Lord Rippon as he now is, agreed that that should happen. The implementation fell to a Labour Secretary of State, the late Tony Crosland, who was one of the finest Secretaries of State for the Environment that this country has ever had. That happened on a bipartisan—indeed, on an all-party—basis. I speak as chairman of the all-party heritage group when I say that it is important that when we have got over our bantering across the Floor of the House, which is perfectly natural and good fun, we should all remember that we have fundamental and basic responsibilities for such enduring things, and that those responsibilities transcend petty party differences.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) attended all the sittings of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts which unanimously
1046
reported in 1981. All its recommendations had the support of all members of the Committee, ranging from the very far left to the fairly far right.
Mr. Matthew Carrington: I agree with my hon. Friend about state aid for cathedrals. That is long overdue and much-needed. But does my hon. Friend agree that if state aid is to be given to cathedrals, they should fall within the planning framework? Frequently, ecclesiastical exemptions for planning have meant that cathedrals and churches have gone in for planning abuses that would not be tolerated in secular buildings. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if money is to be given, the Church must give up some of its autonomy over what it does with its buildings?
Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend oversimplifies a complicated matter. As one who served on the Faculty Jurisdiction Commission of the Church of England, which wrestled with that point, my answer to my hon. Friend would, in one word, be no. I do not think that there is any need for that because the system of faculties that applies to parish churches provides great safeguards. Until now, the cathedrals have been so autonomous as to have an almost dangerous autonomy, but today's Order Paper contains a Measure relating to the care of cathedrals, which comes from the General Synod, which will mean that the Mappa Mundi affair could not be repeated. Thank goodness, that has now been resolved reasonably satisfactorily and the Mappa is now back in Hereford. There is no longer a problem there, but we do not want deans and chapters being able to get rid of things of priceless worth without paying any regard to anybody. However, in the interests of time and my colleagues, I must not be led too far along that path.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts touched on my next point in his admirable opening speech. Like other hon. Members, I saw the letter from Sir Nicholas Goodison in The Times today. The letter demonstrates the great sense of unease throughout the heritage world at the recent decision of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I might add that if there was one Minister and if that Minister were my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, I do not think that we would have that problem today. However, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has brought into sharp focus the fact that as a result of the extraordinary and almost obscene escalation in the price of works of art, there is a real need for a further review of how we can try to keep necessary things in this country.
In 1981 the Select Committee was fairly prescient and made a number of important recommendations. For instance, it said that the so-called douceur was not enough. That is illustrated by the fact that there are now so few private treaty sales. The Select Committee also said that we should consider something along the lines of the former American system whereby if someone bought a work o f art there could be an element of tax deductibility so long as the ultimate beneficiary was the nation.
In the recent decision over the Three Graces, I do not object to the fact that some private individuals have been allowed to buy the object or at least that their offer has been declared admissible. What worries me is that in return for saying that there can be some public access for 25 years, in effect they have been given a licence to print money. I am not casting any aspersions upon the integrity

1047
of the people concerned. I do not know them and everything that I have heard about them is to their credit, but however saintly and good they may be, the system which enables private individuals, at the behest of the state, to cash in on the system is wrong. I would not mind at all if those gentlemen—I believe they are called the Barclays—kept the Three Graces almost entirely to themselves so long as the ultimate beneficiary was the nation.
That is what happens in the United States. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, nodding so vigorously. That is why there are so many large collections in the United States. Private individuals have bought works of art; they have been allowed an element of tax deductibility; they have enjoyed them, sometimes in the privacy of their own homes and sometimes sharing them, but ultimately those works of art have become the property of the state in which they live and the nation has been enriched immeasurably as a result.
Mr. Tony Banks: I very much agree with what the hon. Member said about the obscene prices being paid at auction these days. As the people who buy works of art—they all seem to be Japanese business men—are incredibly wealthy, what does the hon. Gentleman think about the idea of imposing a levy, a percentage, on the amount they pay that could then be channelled back into the arts to encourage emergent painters, sculptors or musicians? There is something ironic about the fact that a Van Gogh can be sold for £27 million yet the artist died in poverty. We should do something about that. Obviously, we cannot make retrospective payments to painters, but surely we could channel some of the money back into the arts.
Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is not at all way out or outlandish and merits some consideration. After all, one could say that the public lending right scheme gives a precedent for doing something along those lines. I would not want to be tempted too far, although there may be some merit in a special sales tax, which I infer is what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. However, that does not meet the basic problem.
We have to examine the douceur and the whole business of tax deductibility for private individuals. The nation must be ultimate beneficiary if those private individuals are to enjoy works of art and be allowed a tax concession for so doing, which I do not oppose. But what Sir Nicholas says in his letter is so right and so wise. The issue needs careful examination, whether by the reviewing committee or by a specially constituted committee, and the law which now operates—it is a pre-war law—needs looking at. We need to decide how best to address the problems created by the escalation of values.
There are other matters on which my right hon. Friend should be fighting, and I am sure he is doing that. It is nonsense that the purchase grants remain frozen at 1985 levels and that the national heritage memorial fund, should have almost spent its year's resources by 4 July. That memorial fund, which has been so brilliantly
1048
organised and chaired by Lord Charteris and which has performed a great service to the nation, needs extra resources and it must have them.
The failure of the Labour Government to respond to the challenge of Mentmore, although Mentmore was the catalyst, led to the Select Committee being set up to examine the national land fund from which the national heritage memorial fund was constituted. The capital of the national land fund had been filched by Governments of all parties, and if that sum had been given back, the problems that we are discussing today would not exist. More money is owed to the national heritage memorial fund. I am sure that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who played a notable part in our deliberations in Committee and tabled the amendment that made it the national heritage memorial fund, would agree.
It would be extremely dangerous for the memorial fund to become a clearing house or central purchasing agency for museums. It was not intended as that and it must not be allowed to become so, but it will if we do not consider purchase grants to museums.
There is so much that one could say about the future of our theatre and opera where there are also serious problems, but I shall finish on this note: we have cause for some quiet satisfaction in that the Government whom I am proud to support—I am discriminating and discerning in my support, but I am still proud to support them—have done a great deal over the past 11 years to give a new priority to issues which concern almost all hon. Gentlemen in the Chamber today. However, there is no cause for complacency. My right hon. Friend the Minister said that he is well aware of the problems. We should now look towards the turn of the century and our aim should be that all the great buildings that we inherited from our ancestors are handed on to our successors sound and well restored. Museums should have their contents properly displayed, they should have no leaking roofs and they should have continuing and living collections. Most important of all, let us not forget that if we are concerned about the arts and heritage we are concerned about the living, not the dead. I shall not start quoting Keats, but a true work of art is a joy for ever; it is undying and immortal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) would change his tune if he had been with me in Romania a few weeks ago. I was talking to people who have had to face unimaginable privations, problems and hardships. They told me that without books, culture, art and a link with a European past as well as with other countries in Europe today, they would have had no hope and they would have felt that they had no future. We are dealing with enduring living art and we must not forget that we are also dealing with the encouragement of living artists. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister again, but I urge him never to give up his quest or his endeavour.
6.48 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has the conservation of our heritage at the forefront of his mind at all times, and I fully support him in that.
Our heritage is the most important aspect of the debate because it was accumulated when, for more than two centuries, Britain was the most powerful and prosperous country in the world. We are not likely to return to that,

1049
so the articles and the buildings that were created at that time—with all the talents that went into their construction—must be passed on undiminished wherever possible.
The Minister for the Arts is to be congratulated, as he has been successful in getting more out of the Treasury than did most of his predecessors. To most Governments and Treasury Ministers, an Arts Minister is just another spender. He is not likely to create money, so he is viewed with a certain amount of antagonism because of the extra money that he is able to acquire. The right hon. Gentleman can make use of a number of assets, however, and I hope that he has learnt how to do so. He represents a civilised approach within the Government, and I am sure that he has been able to press his argument upon the Treasury and to exploit it as fully as possible.
I am also sure that the right hon. Gentleman has emphasised the importance of tourism to this country and the contribution that the arts can make to encouraging tourists. Many people come here not for the weather or the restaurants—good as they are nowadays—but for the theatres and historic buildings. The Minister's work directly contributes to Britain's attractiveness to tourists. I am sure that he has emphasised that aspect, but it could be emphasised still further.
Tourism helps our balance of payments, and although the Government have somewhat derided that idea in the past, given our £20 billion balance of payments deficit perhaps it may now be regarded as more important than it used to be. The money derived from tourism is not offset by large expenditures overseas, as most of the money that tourists spend in this country stays here. When we manufacture goods we have to buy raw materials from abroad, and there is offsetting expenditure, but 90 per cent. or perhaps more of the money from tourism goes to help the balance of payments because it stays in this country. The Minister should use that argument more often.
One could argue that value added tax should not be charged on the arts at all, let alone at a monstrous 15 per cent. When I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury and had responsibility for VAT, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) asked me whether we could abolish VAT on theatres. He knew my views. I studied the matter and went to him with two views: I said that as Financial Secretary to the Treasury one must be aware of the repercussions and problems that would result from abolition; but, as the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, my advice to my right hon. Friend was to abolish VAT on theatre admission. He took the first piece of advice, not the second. I told him, "If you are going to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, for heaven's sake enjoy it, and do something that you will be proud of in later years." VAT at 15 per cent. is absurd, but it is an argument for getting compensating money from the Treasury.
We spend a large amount of money teaching our children about the arts, music and literature, but the expenditure suddenly comes to an end, and there are few subsidies for the arts to compare with the enormous amount spent on teaching children to enjoy the arts. There should not be such an abrupt change.
How should we spend the money, assuming that we have perhaps been able to get more from the Treasury than the Minister has been able to obtain? I am worried about the decay of so many public buildings and their contents. From the first report of the Public Accounts Committee last year we know that, when dealing with the subject of conservation,
1050
"The Victoria and Albert Museum accepted frankly that this 'was a national disaster' and agreed that it 'represented lasting and irreparable damage to some of the national heritage.'"
The museum went on to say:
"On present staffing levels backlog conservation"
on the prints and drawings collection alone
"was estimated at 200 years."
Whatever the right hon. Gentleman has rightly announced today, it must be compared with the size of the task, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said. If we regard the fact as important that we are merely the holders of these great collections, the least that we can do is to retain them, preserve them and pass them on in as good a condition as they were when we inherited them. That is the task before us.
Then there is the question of the export of works of art. We had the money and a certain amount of good taste and we acquired great collections, which we are proud of. I am against museum charges because they mean that people have to make a special effort to visit a museum, rather than popping in, perhaps to a local one, when they happen to be passing by. If we want to encourage children to visit museums, we should not think only in terms of party visits. How many times did hon. Members go to a museum in a party? No doubt excursions are better organised now, but I never did. Sometimes we went in to get out of the rain, and sometimes out of curiosity, and what we saw remains with us as an abiding memory. For the sake of a few million pounds it is absurd to handle our heritage in such a fashion.
Italy has far more great works of art than many other countries and it does not allow their export. So why do we allow exports? I agree with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South that we should keep the works of art that we possess here. Perhaps we might not see them for 25 years, but they would be here at the end of that period, and we should be able to enjoy them—as would our children's children. We are not likely to be able to spend £30 million to keep painting here again. We must have another mechanism to keep outstanding works of art in this country without this nonsensical rushing round to find some wealthy individual who may be prepared to come up with a scheme to keep them here which would perhaps be to his advantage or give him a certain amount of local credit. That is not the way to handle a national issue of such importance and we must ensure that we keep these great works of art in this country.
No one has mentioned the role of the BBC, which has been one of the greatest civilising influences in our country. It has brought literature and music to millions of people who would not otherwise have been drawn to a concert hall or a theatre. The plays that it has put on have generated enjoyment and understanding. The BBC is one of the main reasons why London has become such a centre for music. In the 1920s, one would have laughed at the idea of London being a world centre for music, but it is today. London has always been a centre for the theatre. Better theatre of an international standard has resulted from the number of people who have learnt to appreciate acting and plays from the BBC. That is one of our advantages. We must retain it.
The Minister has done very well, and I hope that he will not leave his post. Until I came to today's debate, I did not know that that was a possibility. He has worked himself into the job, and he has an unrivalled grasp of the subject.

1051
I am sure that his relationship with the Treasury could not be improved upon by any successor who might be brought in to fill this role.
I would dearly like to see it as a Cabinet role. There was a time when we hoped that it would be—along with other responsibilities, obviously. I wish the Minister well, and ask him to continue the fight, be more vigorous and produce more money to be spent on this important sphere of activity.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock.
6.59 pm
Mr. Toby Jessel: Let me warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts on the splendid catalogue of achievements that he set out. He has been outstandingly successful as Arts Minister. On a personal level he is most highly regarded in the arts world. I hope that he will long continue in his present position, as he is doing a first-class job. In saying that, I speak for all the members of the Conservative Parliamentary Arts and Heritage committee, which I have the honour to chair. I, too, take the view that his should be a Cabinet post.
I was astonished that, in a speech that lasted for more than half an hour, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) did not make one reference to our 10 great symphony orchestras, which play such a major part in the cultural life of our nation. I hope that he never becomes Minister for the Arts: that would bode ill for music in this country.
Let me return to what my right hon. Friend the Minister said. What matters most is how the arts enrich and fulfil people's lives in growing numbers. In this, the Government have been far more successful than any other. When I say that the Government have "done more", I mean that they have done more for audiences—the consumers rather than the producers. The producers and the performers are there for the audiences, and not the other way round. This applies to the arts, as to anything else.
What matters most is not the sum in the annual arts budget—we can spend too much time examining financial figures. Although we have a duty to do so—because it is the duty of Parliament to vote money and for the Government to make recommendations to Parliament—the money is only a means to an end. What is important is the number of people who enjoy their perception of works of art or performances. For all that, Government spending on the arts is 48 per cent. up in real terms on what it was 10 years ago. Even if we allow for GLC abolition money, the figure is still 45 per cent. up.
Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman try to explain how it helps audiences when, as a result of Government policies, 31 out of 33 English repertory companies are in deficit?
Mr. Jessel: Repertory companies have nearly always been in deficit, because they perform mostly in small towns and suburban areas. They have always been closer to the
1052
margin than the principal theatres in our main cities—there is nothing new in that—but they are managing to survive.
I was impressed by the reference to Glasgow as the cultural capital of Europe for 1990. I was there in the recess during the last week of May, and was told that the number of people who would attend arts events of all kinds was expected to increase from 6.5 million in 1989 to 10 million in 1990—an increase of about 50 per cent. That is a tremendous achievement; the figure includes performances by some repertory companies. There are now 2,500 museums in Britain, which is double the number of 20 years ago; more people now go to the theatre than attend football matches. About 2.5 million people a year go to classical concerts.
I see my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) in his place. Perhaps I can anticipate what he is about to say on the basis of his comments in previous speeches. He seems to think that all pleasures are of equal value. That is nonsense. We all know it. The obvious excitement and tension, and the emotional and spiritual uplift, from great drama, beautiful music, brilliant painting, strong religious or patriotic feeling—or even the excitement of sporting events such as football matches—has a dimension and a quality totally different from the contentment of a cow or a cabbage. That is what distinguishes human beings from animals. Once we have accepted that those feelings are intrinsically superior to the contentment of a cow or a cabbage, it is a small step to come to the conclusion that some of those things are superior to others.
Mr. Terry Dicks: My hon. Friend has made my point for me. He is saying that we are all different and that we like different types of activities and leisure pursuits, for which we should pay the full amount. At the moment, 24 million people are watching England play West Germany at football. They are not subsidised, as they buy their own television sets. Football is not subsidised, and it is a damn sight more important than the arty-farty people pushing themselves around the Royal Opera House.
Mr. Jessel: We all know that the works of Shakespeare are superior in literary merit to the Order Paper of the House which I have in my hand . Similar analogies can be made about poetry, music, architecture, painting or any of the other arts. If we can get young people into something good, then they have many years ahead of them to get something out of it. So the argument for supporting the arts with public funds is not very different from the argument for using public funds to support education.
My hon. Friend never faces up to the fact that the arts in this country attract substantial numbers of visitors from overseas. Their visits generate spending on hotels, restaurants, shops and internal travel. All those produce profits, a tax yield to the Government, and employment and income for the people who produce services. Therefore, they augment the invisible earnings of this country. That is a point in favour of the arts that my hon. Friend never answers.
There is no doubt that London has a superb range of live arts. As Dr. Johnson said,
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life; for there is in London all that life can afford."

1053
My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central did not mention orchestras, and we seldom give enough time to discussion of orchestras.
We are apt to discuss the Royal Opera house, the English National Opera, the royal national theatre and the Shakespeare theatre. They all do an excellent job, but when did the House last debate the Royal Philharmonic orchestra, the London symphony orchestra, the London Philharmonic orchestra, the Philharmonia orchestra, the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra, the Halle orchestra, the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic orchestra, the Scottish National orchestra and the many excellent orchestras of the BBC?
The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—theright hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—did mention and praise the BBC; I share his view. I should like especially to praise the BBC for its excellent promenade concert seasons: this year's is about to begin. Many of those orchestras have a high standard of excellence and are of world class. I find the sound of musical instruments playing together as a symphony orchestra at least as good as the sound of a human voice.
Of course it costs more to put on an opera than to put on a symphony concert. It involves the set, the staging and the orchestra, as well as singers. But a good symphony concert is not cheap to put on, and it is not self-evident to me why the subsidy of £15.2 million a year paid to the Covent Garden opera house should be seven or eight times as much as the subsidy which is paid to the four main London orchestras—the Royal Philharmonic orchestra, the London symphony orchestra, the London Philharmonic orchestra and the Philharmonia orchestra. Together, they receive a subsidy of about £2 million a year. The Paris orchestra, in contrast. receives £5.2 million, and theMunich Philharmonic orchestra £7.6 million each year—for only one orchestra in each case.
The underfunding of British orchestras leads to two unsatisfactory results. First, our orchestras are under-rehearsed. That defect is only partially offset by their remarkable standard of sight reading. Secondly, it is diffcult to attract conductors of world class. We are always being told that the opera must have enough money to attract international singers. If so, then orchestras must have enough money with which to attract top conductors. I hope that the chairman of the Arts Council will be invited to reconsider the proportion—only 7 per cent.—of the total Arts Council budget that is now allocated to orchestras.
7.9 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: A wide consensus of view has emerged on many important issues. I add my personal support to the plea that the Minister who is in charge of arts policy should be given a Cabinet post. He should be in charge of an integrated Department. That decision should be made sooner rather than later. I hope that it will be made by the Prime Minister this month. I agree with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Connack) that many people have been arguing for a long time that the Ministry should have greater status. My colleagues have made a similar point in the past. I endorse it. My party has argued for a long time that there should be an arts and culture Ministry,
1054
incorporating tourism, the heritage and related matters. I hope that an integrated Ministry will be achieved soon, under whichever party is in office.
The necessary basis for a proper arts policy is significant public sector funding. One hon. Member who is in the House tonight, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), dissents from that view, but all countries in the developed world believe that it is necessary. This year's additional grant, 12.5 per cent., is generous, but it is not much more than the rate of inflation. Over three years, the average additional grant will be much lower. The average additional grant for the next two years is 4.5 per cent. Over three years, therefore, at current inflation rates, the increase in the arts budget will be less than the rate of inflation. We must increase public sector funding of the arts if they are to be properly sustained.
According to "Cultural Trends", comparable figures for comparable countries make it clear that, whether it is central Government or local government expenditure, expenditure per head on the arts in France, Germany, Sweden and Canada is greater than in this country. That needs to be remedied, whichever party is in power.
There is widespread support for arts administration to be organised on a regional basis. The Minister knows that my colleagues support the findings of the Wilding report. We must avoid duplication, but the strategy for co-ordinating the roles of the Arts Council, the regional arts authorities and local government is not clear. The Minister referred to the Arts Council's new strategic role, but it needs to be more clearly worked out and integrated into the structure of regional arts administration in England and into the national administration for Scotland and Wales. It is unsatisfactory that Scotland should have to depend on a single grant handout from the main budget.
The Minister is aware of the great concern in local authorities about arts funding. My borough is about to be charge-capped. One of the inevitable victims of limited local authority budgets will be the arts and other non-statutory expenditure. A few days ago I visited the Lyric theatre in Hammersmith, where I saw "Glory" by the Temba theatre company, which is based in Southwark. I had not seen any of its previous productions. It was an extremely good production, by any standards. That company is funded by the local authority as well as by the Greater London Arts Association. If we lose the local authority's contribution to high-quality art and popular art as a result of charge capping, it will be to the detriment of the cultural life of the borough.
Mr. Gerald Bowden: The hon. Gentleman referred to the contribution by Southwark borough to the arts and to the restrictions that may be placed upon funding of the arts by charge capping. Does he not acknowledge that Southwark's contributions to the arts in recent years has been derisory and that charge capping will not affect its contribution?
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman and I have taken issue with each other previously on this issue. There has been correspondence between the chair of the arts committee in Southwark and both of us. I agree that Southwark has not given enough to the arts, but charge capping will not help. It will certainly hinder the expenditure on the arts that the people of Southwark need.
It is a mistake to hold back the purchase grant level to that which was in force in 1985. That amount must be

1055
increased if a proper purchasing policy is to be achieved. I agree with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South that the Government ought to build up again the national heritage memorial fund, not in order to supply general funding but to fulfil the specific tasks for which it was established.
It is important to work out a clear structure for purchasing policies and export licences to take us to 1992 and beyond. I urge the Minister to adopt a European convention on the heritage and culture in order to ensure that cultural treasures are not lost to this country through legislative loopholes. We ought to be able to keep them here. Furthermore, they ought to be seen. We do not want the drain to continue after 1992 under the new regime in Europe.
As for arts education, one of my concerns is that local authorities cannot make the provision that they wish to make for arts and music under the national curriculum. Teachers have told me how difficult it is to obtain time for music and arts subjects. If young people are taught nothing about the arts and are therefore denied the spiritual dimension that the arts can add to their lives, their education will be very mundane; it will amount only to a job-preparation activity. I realise that this a Department of Education and Science, not an Office of Arts and Libraries, responsibility, but I hope that the Minister realises that those gaps must be filled. Our children must be provided with tuition in music and the arts while they are at school.
The Minister heard my question on Monday. It is a mistake to charge young people for entry into museums. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) referred to that point in his speech. Our museums and galleries must also provide more facilities for the disabled. Other countries provide more facilities for the disabled than we do. Moreover, they provide more audio-visual facilities. We must do likewise.
As for our cathedrals, I associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South. Even if the cathedrals lose some of their autonomy, we ought to support with public funds some of the finest buildings in our land.
To turn to London issues, it gives me great pleasure, as one who is not a Londoner by birth, to live in a capital city with such a wonderful variety of arts provision. London provides us with some wonderful artistic opportunities. It is sad, therefore, that the big four—the Royal Opera house, English National Opera, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the National theatre—are in such financial difficulties that their activities cannot be guaranteed. They are the best of their type. All experience shows that they need to be funded properly. The only way to provide them with proper stability is to write off their current debts. I ask the Minister to try to persuade his colleagues to support that aim.
I am also concerned about the threat that hangs over the Museum of London and the Greater London archaeological service due to the proposed withdrawal of its grant, as announced by English Heritage. That is causing great concern in all parts of the House. There is to be a meeting about it later this month. I hope that the Minister will investigate that as the work of the Museum
1056
of London and the Greater London archaeological service must be sustained. To cut their grant would be a great mistake.
We still have not had any announcement about areas of archaeological importance. Five have been decided, but I hope that further decisions will be imminent. I also hope that the Government will be slightly more sympathetic about the costs in the Rose theatre case, about which I have been in correspondence with Lord Hesketh, and—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes.
7.19 pm
Mr. John Bowis: I suspect that greater love hath no man than to give up the World cup for his artistic friends. I am delighted to take part in this debate.
Hon. Members have raised a variety of subjects, including music, and this has been a musical week for me. I started off on Saturday at Glyndebourne watching Peter Sellers clutch "The Magic Flute"—an interesting, good production. This Saturday I shall play the jingle bells in the Horowitz toy symphony at the Festival hall. I am not sure that that will enhance the musical tradition to which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) referred, but it will extend my experience.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and his hon. Friends have been churlish about artistic achievements in the Government's term of office and that of my right hon. Friend the Minister. The hon. Gentleman specifically referred to the National theatre. He did not mention the nine awards achieved by 33 productions at that theatre, nor the 650,000 people who attend it regularly—all that he mentioned was a leak in the roof. The hon. Gentleman has got things out of proportion. I hope that he will think again before he criticises the great work of our theatres.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the acting profession and did his bit by auditioning for a part in "Allo, Allo". I am a member of the Committee considering the Finance Bill and last night I spoke up for the actors in my constituency and nationwide. My hon. Friends and I were delighted when the Treasury Minister made a substantial concession. It was therefore right that we sought to withdraw our amendment pending the measure to assist actors which is to be introduced on Report. The Minister deserves our support.
On other occasions, the hon. Gentleman has referred to the uniform business rate. I believe that the message has got through that UBR is assisting the arts. Greater London Arts has conducted a survey which shows that 65 per cent. of arts organisations in London will benefit from UBR, by, on average, £1,200. The remaining 35 per cent. will face an average shortfall of £500. The benefit to those organisations results from the 80 per cent. relief that the Government have introduced for bodies with charitable status. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that that is good news.
I regret that I have been called before the leader of the opposition to the arts, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks). In an intervention he compared spending on sport with that on the arts. My hon. Friend should reconsider the support that the taxpayer gives to sport. The television licence fee is used to bid vast sums for the broadcasting of sporting events. I do not resent that. The tax from the football pools is to be

1057
used to improve football grounds. The rate support grant and the community charge also contribute to local government support for sport in schools, pre-school groups, youth clubs and sports clubs. The taxpayer contributes an immense amount to sports. We should also take into account the even larger amounts of money devoted to policing sporting events. I do not resent the great sums spent on sport, but my hon. Friend must accept that those sums are comparable with the amount spent on the arts and their promotion in schools, youth clubs, art clubs and artistic venues. In common with expenditure on sport, the money is spent to promote access as well as safety. I hope that we can unite in supporting that. When sports events are broadcast, the promoters of the event are allowed to advertise their products. Alas, the same is not the case when an operatic or theatrical production is broadcast. Perhaps we should reconsider that.
The great difference between art and sport is that, ultimately, good art is eternal but sport is temporal. If there were no sponsorship of the arts, we should have a cultural desert. I am all for people thronging to see "The Phantom of the Opera" or "The Mousetrap", or visiting the Raymond Revuebar, but if they were the sole artistic productions of this country we should be much the poorer. We need to acquire sponsorship from the taxpayer as well as the threatre and opera-goer to guarantee the quality of our arts.
The heritage that we seek to pass on is as much cultural as environmental. Reference has been made to the way in which heritage and the arts merge. Town planning, landscape architecture and the use of green spaces is important, as art attaches itself to the environment. A wall painting is part of community art and contributes to the environment and the artistic life of that community. It is only a short step from that to the hung painting. The pageantry of trooping the colour leads on to public performances of the mystery plays and is part of our dramatic and musical tradition.
The arts are also important because of what they can contribute to the social welfare of our society. Self-confidence can be restored to people going through a bad patch when they discover that they have an artistic ability. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) referred to ADAPT. On Friday I initiated a debate on disability and today I again urge my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to promote arts for the disabled. That means not just access to theatres, but participation in the arts by people with disabilities. We should also encourage the arts to promote a positive image of disability so that it becomes more acceptable to our society.
I welcome the recent brochure produced by my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Science on the arts in our schools. The teaching of the arts in schools does not just mean outings to the theatre and being taught to play a particular instrument—it is about using the arts to teach other subjects. The brochure shows how that can be done. The Horniman museum uses the Dolmetsch collection of old instruments as part of its teaching programme for schools. That venture is welcome. I am pleased that the Horniman and the Geffrye museums have embarked on their new independent status—another sign of progress under the Government. I hope that the brochure will be used to expand such teaching methods throughout our education system.
1058
Arts in education are important. I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to press the case for resisting any suggestion from any place, on either side of the channel, to impose VAT on books. That would be wrong.
Reference has been made to the number of galleries and paintings in London. Our tradition of hanging the best collections in London is expanding at the Courtauld, Clore and Sainsbury galleries. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that access to such paintings does not just mean taking them out of the cellars. I know that that is important, but we must ensure that they are on public display when the public can see them. All too often, galleries are closed on public holidays—the very days when families could see the paintings. Galleries should be open on those days, as well as at the weekend and in the evening.
I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a few arts-related issues which are of interest to me and, I hope, the House. I support my right hon. Friend in all that he has done. He has achieved a tremendous amount. If the message today is, "Onwards and upwards", it is one that we give to him personally for what he has achieved and will achieve in the many years during which, I hope, he will hold his office. He is doing a great job for the arts in this country.
7.30 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: I welcome this opportunity to take part in a debate on the arts. I support the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who agrees that the Minister for the Arts should have a seat in the Cabinet. Although good advice has been given to the Prime Minister, she is not known for accepting it, and we shall have to wait until my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) becomes the Minister for the Arts before we see such a Minister in the Cabinet.
This is a nostalgic debate for me, as the hon. Members for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) are present. I was at school in the Twickenham constituency when I went to see my first play at the Richmond theatre, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes. To take the nostalgia further, I was born in Aden when the Governor of Aden was the father of the present Minister for the Arts.
Two aspects in my constituency are directly affected by this debate. I and other hon. Members who represent Leicester have been horrified at the deteriorating circumstances of the Haymarket theatre, which has a national and international reputation. In the past three years, the theatre has produced 26 main house and 24 studio productions, as well as hosting a variety of visits from different countries, including Russia and America. It has prepared and organised plays and events for children and local amateur companies, and developed a community base for concerts.
The theatre has produced many plays which have been taken to the west end and beyond. "High Society" started off at the Haymarket in Leicester, "Pride and Prejudice" went on a national tour, "Julius Caesar" went on a British Council tour of India, "M Butterfly" went to the west end, and other plays which started life in Leicester have ended up all over the world. That has all been put at risk because of the funding crisis now affecting the Haymarket theatre.

1059
There are four reasons for the risk. First, the amount of grant aid received by the theatre is directly related to the fact that the three-year funding deals were made when the inflation rate was low. The increase in inflation has meant that the theatre's management simply cannot deal with the gap that has grown between the income that it receives and its expenditure. In 1987–88, it received an income of £2,220,000 and its expenditure was £2,240,000. That deficit has continued until this year. Although there is a projected budget surplus for this year, during the course of the year there was a crisis which resulted in the resignation of the theatre's director, Peter Lichenshield, the departure of the artistic director and a number of staff redundancies.
At that time, those of us in Leicester who were proud of the tradition of the Haymarket theatre were concerned and I raised the issue with the Minister in the House. His only response was that the theatre had to live within its means. The message that I receive from the theatre management—my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central was a recent visitor to the theatre—is that they have tried to do that. They have cut costs and accepted voluntary redundancies, but in the end the theatre simply cannot afford to survive because of the current climate.
As well as the funding difficulties, the management also face the trauma of current Government economic policy. High interest rates have affected people who go to the theatre, reducing their spending power so that fewer of them go to the Haymarket theatre and audience figures are affected. In addition, the introduction of the poll tax and the squeeze on local government expenditure in the past few years, specifically on Leicester city council and Leicestershire county council, has meant that such councils have had fewer funds available to support the arts.
I pay tribute to the work done by the recreation and arts department of Leicester city council, particularly its chairman, Derek Fryett, and its director, Alan Llewellyn. The provision of grants on a limited basis has enabled many important events to take place in Leicester. But for the grants available, De Montfort hall, a main venue for concerts and other functions, would not be able to host so many events. Grants from the city council and county council to local neighbourhood arts centres and schools have enabled such activities to take place.
We are all extremely pleased about the support for multicultural activities. Without a grant from Leicester city council, I should have been unable to organise a pensioners' concert in the Members' Dining Room in the House which was attended by more than 100 pensioners from Leicester and enabled a local school—Judge Meadow community college—to show off its ability to produce good music.
The Minister has said that there are always opportunities for funding to be sought from local businesses through sponsorship schemes, but we have found that impossible on a local basis because of current Government policy. There is a limit to the extent to which we can accept sponsorship from business. I would not like to see a production of "King Lear" with all the participants wearing Marks and Spencer badges.
I wish to address some remarks about local conservation and heritage, particularly planning, to the
1060
Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who is present. One of the most effective ways to protect our local heritage and environment is by updating our planning laws. We have heard that the Government are intent on bringing forward a major piece of planning legislation next year to satisfy people who are concerned about planning problems.
The present planning laws fail to take into consideration current conservation areas. I will give an example of what happened to my constituents in Humberstone, an outer district of Leicester. I know that the Minister has visited Leicester, but I think that he has always been taken on tours of the inner city rather than the outer estates. There was a pleasant piece of land, a wildlife area, bounded by three roads—Stanley drive, Vicarage road and St. Mary's avenue. That land had been used by local people as a wildlife reserve, but a local firm of builders called Jelsons decided to develop the land for housing at a time when it was impossible to sell new houses in Leicester. It purchased the land by buying bits of people's gardens—what I would describe as the domino principle—and when it had enough of the land, it applied for planning permission. As a result of a well-organised community campaign, the council refused planning permission. The builders immediately sent in bulldozers and completely flattened the land and we discovered that no planning legislation could have prevented them.
From the time when planning permission is refused to the time when a planning appeal is heard, there is no way to stop a developer changing the nature of the land. I introduced a Bill on this subject recently, but I am sure that it will never reach the statute book as there will not be enough time before the House rises. I should like the Government's new planning Bill adequately to reflect the concerns of the people of Humberstone, and other parts of my constituency such as Evington, who want to ensure that the conservation areas that they have established are maintained and that developers who are keen to build houses for profit should not put that profit before the local environment.
I hope that the Minister for the Environment and Countryside will take my points on board and will ask the Minister for the Arts to visit Leicester for discussions with the Haymarket theatre.
7.40 pm
Mr. Terry Dicks: I have moved from the Back Benches to a Front Bench because I am the only authentic opposition voice in the House. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts is likely to be moved, perhaps I shall get a phone call from No. 10 asking me to take over the arts. If that happens, I shall do away with the subsidies within a week.
We have wasted yet another day of parliamentary time on a non-issue. We spend a great deal of time talking about the arts spending other people's money for things that most people do not want to see or hear. Tonight 24 million people are watching the World cup semi-final. That is indicative of the importance that England attaches to its football team, despite its poor performance. That interest should be compared with the general approach to the arts.
Football must have an intrinsic interest or people would not watch it. There is a great deal of entertainment to be had from watching Roger Milla after he has scored a goal for Cameroon because he runs to the touch line and

1061
does the samba. It is as good as or perhaps better than watching Rudolf Nureyev doing his "Nutcracker" or perhaps, as some people might say, cracking his nuts.
The arts world is not satisfied with £600 million guaranteed for three years, even though no other area of Government spending gets such a guarantee. The Arts Council grant of £175 million is rising to £190 million, but it seems that that is not enough. Some 60 per cent. of Arts Council clients have overspent their allocation and want additional funds. They do not need extra funds. It is just that they could not keep within their budgets in the way that everyone else has to and want another dip into the taxpayers' pocket.
The grant given by my right hon. Friend has a built-in inflation factor of approximately 12 per cent. That should be compared with the 3.9 to 4.2 per cent. factor allocated by the Government to the community charge grant. However, the arts get 12 per cent. built in and guaranteed for three years. In a press release issued by my right hon. Friend a short time ago, he apologised to people in the arts because inflation had eaten so badly into their funds. There is no apology from my Government to old-age pensioners or others about inflation eating into their way of life, but then the arts lobby is rather special.
The history of the arts is a catalogue of total mismanagement, financial ineptitude, productions that are too expensive, and artistes' fees that are too high. The arts are living beyond their means. Taxpayers' money is being poured down the drain and we should be ashamed of that. If the arts cannot afford to pay the proper price for their so-called stars, they should employ second division singers and ballet dancers. The arts are even worse than the race relations industry. Many incompetent hypocrites are seeking power without financial responsibility and are willing to sponge off the rest of us to maintain their status. The ballet, classical music and the opera are the nouvelle cuisine of the entertainment world. When I was a kid, my mother used to eat the peas and throw away the pod. In this modern age we throw away the peas and eat the pod.
Arty-farty people are running the arts and they want more money from us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) tried to show, they are always emphasising how special they are. Neither he nor anyone else could define art. If someone is willing to try to explain it to me I would be willing to listen. The definition of the arty-farty world is quite simple. Art is what people want it to be and what they can con the taxpayer into paying for.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Dicks: No, I will not give way.
I shall now discuss the film industry, which is also on the gravy train. Richard "call me Dickie" Attenborough has made two of the most boring films that one could hope to see. They were "Gandhi" and "Cry Freedom". David Puttnam walked out of Hollywood because he could not cope with the pressure. Those two conned the Prime Minister into giving them £5 million for the film industry and then walked out of the meeting with the Prime Minister and joined the Labour party. If ever the Government were taken for a ride that was it. They said, "Thank you very much, Prime Minister. Please, Mr. Kinnock, you have no brains in your party, so let us in instead." What a gravy train it all is.
Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dicks: No, I will not.
Mr. Fisher: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for me to say that England are one-nil up? That might shorten the hon. Gentleman's speech.
Mr. Dicks: I hope that you will add that few seconds to my time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the lads and am delighted to hear the news. It is much more important than the arts.
Richard Attenborough and David Puttnam have made a fortune from films, but they want more public money and will not take a penny from their own pockets.
Let us come nearer to home. The House advisory committee on works of art has just bought a painting. I do not know the exact price, although someone mentioned £300,000. That painting will be added to the 3,000 that are already in the Palace of Westminster.
Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Dicks: No, I will not give way. Please sit down.
Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. What the hon. Gentleman has said is completely untrue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is a matter for debate.
Mr. Dicks: I understand from a press report—I do not believe them all, although I tend to believe this one—that an artist called Milly Childers painted a picture called "The Terrace" which shows Members of Parliament lounging about, no doubt in a tired and emotional state, on the Terrace. If that is true—I bear in mind what my hon. Friend says—
Mr. Cormack: This man is a disgrace to the House of Commons.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We hear all points of view in this Chamber.
Mr. Dicks: My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) reminds me of Henry VIII not with all the doublet and hose, but at least well fed. Andrew Lloyd Webber's "The Phantom of the Opera" and "Miss Saigon" demonstrate that shows can attract audiences and survive without subsidies. The same applies to professional football, although my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea disputes that. Any money that goes from the pools to professional football is private sector, not public sector, money. That is important.
Pavarotti is making a small fortune introducing football on the BBC. I wonder how much that overweight Italian is contributing to the Royal Opera house from the money that he receives. My guess is that he contributes nothing and that the money is going straight into his pocket. I do not blame him, but so much for the need to support the arts.
I shall give an example of an important aspect of independence. The tie that I am wearing is that of the Wooden Spoon society. In 1983, when England received the wooden spoon for losing all its rugby matches, a group of supporters—not hooligans—were flying back from Dublin and decided that, despite the despondency caused by watching England lose, they would start to raise money for charity as a means of remembering the day. They have

1063
now raised almost £1 million and they have done it without lobbying and without subsidy. They have not squealed or whinged, they just pushed on with hard work. I shall be happy to enrol for £10 any hon. Member who wants to join the Wooden Spoon society.
The Government should immediately stop all subsidies to the arts. There can be no justification for asking an ordinary chap to pay money for such nonsense. The arts should learn to cut their suit according to the cloth and productions should be economically viable. People should be taught simple double entry book-keeping because they do not understand what is going on. They should, of course, stop whingeing.
I quote from an article whose author is not known to me:
"The best way to lower 'cultural' standards … is to subsidise them. Men and women without wit, talent or experience of life-self-supporting are found decorating subsidised theatres, galleries and 'centres'. They overflow into radio and TV. Incomprehensible rubbish is described as the work of genius. Dull, confusing plays without middle, beginning or end are lauded as great works. At the centre is the Arts Council handing out your money. They tell you what is good for you. They are the experts … who said so? They did. The more money they get the more they demand. The culture vultures fight over the grants … Opera battles with Willie S … the little ones complain of the shortage of crumbs; but all are united, no matter if only one ticket in ten is sold, the show must go on until all the grants are spent.
They are also united in their arrogance."
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We should all be delighted that the hon. Gentleman can read, but is it in order for him to quote at such length?
Mr. Dicks: I did say that I do not know the identity of the author. Nevertheless, the article goes on to say that those people
"are willing to go slumming with the masses…like a bit of old time music hall, a limited offer of slap and tickle drama but the 'people' must not take to their hearts any of the 'higher forms' unless it is approved"
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Member a little injury time because he was interrupted by three points of order. I know that the hon. Gentleman will now respect the Chair. I call him to order, and I call the next speaker.
Mr. Fisher: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe that the House was misled by the Government, because the Minister's parliamentary private secretary informed us that England had scored against West Germany. In fact, it seems that the Government cannot get their facts right. I am sad to say that there is still no score.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The House is much obliged to the hon. Member for keeping it up to date with what is occurring elsewhere. Mr. Tony Banks.
7.51 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I cannot say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), but he always makes an interesting contribution. I apologise to the House because I shall have to leave soon after I have made my speech to attend the press night of "The Dragon Can't Dance", a
1064
new play by Earl Lovelace at the Theatre Royal, Stratford East—and I promise not to look at a television on my way out of the House. I shall refer to that event again later.
It is good to have an arts debate, but there are times when they seem to exist only to provide a platform for the theatre of the absurd provided by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. I hoped that he would say something about the rumour that the BBC is to offer him a programme commenting on the arts. I understand that that rumour is absolutely true.
Mr. Dicks indicated assent.
Mr. Banks: I can hardly believe that, but I must take it as being true. I expect that we will hear sooner or later about the endowment of the Ronnie Kray chair in fine arts, or perhaps the SAS will open a charm school. Those are all unlikely events, but if the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is to pontificate on the arts, anything is possible. If he offers me a slot in his programme, I assure him that I shall accept.
During the Minister's speech, I intervened to ask about local authority funding for the arts, and received the reply that it varied from authority to authority. The right hon. Gentleman said that it is for authorities themselves to decide how much to spend, which I thought was a disingenuous remark. The Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for the Environment and Countryside know all about the strictures imposed by central Government on local authority finance.
It is all very well for the Minister for the Arts to say that it is up to local authorities to determine their arts expenditure, but other Government Departments pursue policies that make it difficult for authorities to maintain their housing programmes, social services and so on.
One can imagine the situation in town hall after town hall throughout the country, where local councillors, much abused by the press and the Government, have to decide whether to go along with poll tax capping and cuts in central Government funding, and whether they should cut expenditure on housing, social services, education, or the arts.
The Minister cannot wash his hands of those real decisions that local councillors must take. He should start telling his colleagues at the Department of the Environment that, if local authorities are to fund the arts, careful consideration should be given to the restraints imposed on them by central Government. The right hon. Gentleman cannot walk away from the hard set of choices that local authorities must take because of central Government action.
I return to the subject of the Theatre Royal, Stratford East, which is an excellent theatre under one of our best directors, Philip Hedley. Its budget largely comes from the London boroughs of Newham and Waltham Forest. The sum of £222,000 comes from Newham, £53,000 from the London borough grant scheme, £26,000 from Waltham Forest, and £262,000 from Greater London Arts. The increase in Newham's grant was about 9 per cent. It is the second most deprived local authority area in the whole country, according to the indices of the Department of the Environment. Newham has massive housing problems, but the council is desperately trying to save the Theatre Royal by keeping it open and making sure that it receives

1065
enough money to stage excellent productions. The council wants more than just a pat on the head from politicians and the Minister—it wants fairly substantial support.
When the Department of the Environment looks at the allocation of funds to Newham next year, I hope that it will hear from the Minister about the excellent work that the borough is doing, particularly in respect of the Theatre Royal, Stratford East.
That theatre tried hard to secure business sponsorship, to which we have no ideological objections. We will take money from anyone prepared to give it. Capitalist gold is as good as anyone else's gold in that respect. Wanting to maximise its income, the Theatre Royal appointed a full-time fundraiser to investigate business sponsorship. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) said, it is difficult to raise money in poor parts of the country. It is extremely difficult to do so in Newham and the rest of the east end. Businesses want to support the prestigious national companies and are not too interested in provincial theatres or those on the fringe of London, however good may be their productions.
I received today from Philip Hedley some of the comments that the Theatre Royal received when it tried to raise money among the local business community. They included, "New work might fail". The Theatre Royal stages eight new productions a year. Where does the Minister think they all come from? Where is all the innovation coming from? It is coming from theatres such as the Theatre Royal. Business people do not want to know that, or to be associated with a possible failure—but the arts must have the right to fail as well. That is part of innovation. One cannot always guarantee success. Because art is a matter of taste, today's failure might at another time be deemed a great success. There are plenty of examples of that throughout the arts.
Another comment was, "You are too controversial." The arts are meant to be challenging and controversial. One does not want people to sit there looking at something that is like a moving chocolate box top. Instead, one wants to stimulate, encourage and enthuse the audience or viewer. Of course the arts are controversial. A further comment was,
"Your audience is too mixed, and doesn't make a good target market."
We in the east end are poor. That is one of the other reasons why a large number of black people patronise the Theatre Royal. It has one of the best mixed audiences in the country. That may not constitute an economically attractive audience to someone who views the arts as a way of getting money back on the investment that they make in the theatre.
One remark that I can attribute is that from the Midland bank. When asked to support the theatre, it replied:
"No, you do plays against Mrs. Thatcher."
Oh, dear. That was the reason given by the Midland bank, which of course takes a politically partisan position.
The other attributable quote was from the London Docklands development corporation, which has so much Newham land. There is much wealth in the south of the borough, but little of it finds its way anywhere near my constituency. The LDDC replied:
"We are giving money to the National Theatre and not you because the people who go there"—
meaning the National theatre—
"can afford our expensive flats down by the river."
1066
They wanted to sell some of the unsaleable flats that they could not sell because of the high interest rates caused by the Government's economic policy.
Those are the problems that we have had in the east end when we have tried to raise money through business sponsorship. Despite all that, the play that I am attending tonight, called "The Dragon Can't Dance"—which, incidentally, is a play by Earl Lovelace—is about a carnival in Trinidad where one of the sponsors tries to clean up the carnival. I do not know whether one of the business sponsors of tonight's production knows that.
I approached the London electricity board for some money. It said, "We have a pot of money for some good causes; what would you suggest?" I replied, "Give some money to the Theatre Royal." We had £4,500 from the LEB, and we were very pleased with that, but it was just a drop in the bucket—although we were prepared to take it. I want the Minister to be aware of exactly what is happening. I also want him to know that theatres such as the Theatre Royal have major problems trying to get money from the local authority and the local community.
The Minister has obtained some good money for the arts. I do not wish to sneer at his achievements in competition with other Ministers. He has done a good job—we know that because the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington hates him for it, which is why we must be on the right hon. Gentleman's side tonight. However, 0.3 per cent. of our national wealth is pathetic in comparison with, say, the 11.8 per cent. of our national wealth that we spend on defence. I want that peace dividend. I want the defence budget to be slashed right the way through, and I hope that a Labour Government will do that. We can then start investing the money in the finest form of investment, which is the creativity and the arts of our people.
8.1 pm
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I preface my remarks by declaring an interest as I once worked in the arts business as a fine arts auctioneer.
I am disappointed—as, I suspect, are some other hon. Members—with the timing of the debate. Once again, the arts have been relegated beneath an important football engagement. Nevertheless, the House should have its attention drawn to the importance of the arts as a sector and as an industry. I regret that there are not more Opposition Members present. They might have been pleased to reflect on the fact that the arts sector nationally has a turnover of more than £10 billion and represents more than 2.5 per cent. of all the spending on goods and services. That makes it comparable with such major industries as vehicles or, indeed, anything in Britain. With that in mind, it is extraordinary that the Labour party does not take more interest in it.
The arts give direct employment to almost half a million people, or 2.1 per cent. of the working population. Twenty-seven per cent. of all spending on tourism is specifically attributable to the arts, and £2.7 billion of all general consumer spending is specifically attributable to the pulling power of the arts. The arts is a major industry in this country and should be treated as such. I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in supporting the idea of promoting the ministerial post for the arts to a Cabinet

1067
appointment. It would do the arts an enormous service. The combination of an arts, heritage and tourism post within the Cabinet would make good sense.
No hon. Member would seriously argue against the social benefits of a thriving arts industry—not only are the arts an integral part of our national heritage and culture, the very spirit of the nation, but like sport they have the power to draw people and societies together. They can be a key element in the revitalisation of inner cities—as Birmingham, the city that I have the honour to represent, has rightly recognised—restoring civic pride and bringing public safety and live people, who spend back into our otherwise deserted central city streets. In the evenings, the strong cultural infrastructure is an economic asset to the business community and can assist cities such as Birmingham to attract conventions, conferences and businesses to the area, as well as to retain important business executives and talented people in the area. It is a tremendous advantage to any regional centre.
My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the work of Birmingham both in promoting its share of the 1 per cent. scheme, and in sponsoring the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra, in attracting the Sadler's Wells Royal ballet—now the Birmingham Royal ballet—and the D'Oyly Carte opera. I ask my right hon. Friend to give strong support to the idea of Birmingham becoming one of the first in the city of culture scheme leading up to the millennium. Birmingham would do that with great aplomb. The creation of a new environment for the symphony orchestra would enormously enhance the city's prestige and would support the moves that Birmingham has made in trying to improve its image and its significant patronage of the arts.
I join my hon. Friends in praising my right hon. Friend the Minister for recognising the importance of regional centres of culture. I ask him especially to recognise the importance of Birmingham as a regional centre of culture. When making a distinction between where funding should go, it is important that, however important the flagships to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred, the natural tendency of the Arts Council will always be to put funding in the direction of the major flagship, often leading to a paucity in other areas which are doing their best to encourage sponsorship in partnership with the private sector, as Birmingham is doing.
As I have worked as a fine arts auctioneer, a business involving the sale of art abroad, I would be interested in my right hon. Friend's comments—or he may communicate with me privately—on the possible conflict of interest between the necessities of freedom of goods and capital consequent upon 1992 and the possible loss to collections in Europe of major works of art which might otherwise be retained for the British nation. There is a grave danger of our being hoist by our own petard. We support the idea of the movement of capital and goods within the EEC, but we want to ensure that we retain our works of national importance in Britain. Can my right hon. Friend give further clarification as to what steps will be taken to ensure that we do not lose out in that tug of war?
Mr. Luce: Article 36 of the treaty of Rome makes it clear that each member country of the European
1068
Community should continue to carry out protection of its heritage in whatever way it wishes. That does not mean that there is no problem with movement through the frontier because there would be no control, but article 36 gives member states the right to continue protection policies in relation to their heritage.
Mr. Hargreaves: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that clarification. I hope that the position that I have outlined will not materialise. If my right hon. Friend wishes to make a lasting, valuable contribution to the future of the arts in this country, he should try further to persuade his Treasury colleagues that a special relationship needs to be established between the state and the private sector in funding for the arts. There may be arguments about how much, where and when. Gift aid is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. If we want to keep major works of art in this country and to improve our national art collections, we have to offer tax advantages to private as well as commercial sponsors.
There have been arguments about the way that has worked in the United States. I do not necessarily agree with some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) because I am not sure that they would necessarily benefit us. Some stronger formula has to be established in the relationship between the tax advantage to an individual in purchasing works of art for the nation and its availability to the nation thereafter. That is the only way we shall secure and keep valuable works of art in this country. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to press that point with Treasury Ministers. We need a structure for the future, which could be inflation-linked in terms of state contributions and tax set-offs. We must give priority to tax incentives for this purpose. I would not normally say that tax incentives are a good idea, but we must make an exception for charitable giving or donations to the arts and national heritage. I urge my right hon. Friend to press his Treasury colleagues on that point.
I join others in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister on the tremendous service that he has performed for the arts in the past five years. Before I became a Member, I knew from friends in the industry that my right hon. Friend had many friends in the arts world. They all recognise the debt that the arts owe him for his service.
8.11 pm
Mr. Martin Flannery: I know that the Minister plays an excellent role—I have always respected him—but, as I said in an intervention, he must be a little more incisive. A struggle must be made to get much more money for the arts. It is no good saying that money does not exist—of course it does.
I should like to comment on the important subject of whether we should charge an entrance fee for access to our great national museums and galleries. I have served on each of the three Select Committees on Education, Science and Arts. The latest Committee's first report on museums was a major one. We rampaged around the country to put the information together and split up to visit theatres, especially in Newcastle. Like the Labour party, I profoundly believe that there should be free access to our great galleries and museums, just as there has always been.
Occasionally, a charge must be made when important bygones from other countries are brought here—for example, when the British museum held its Egyptian

1069
exhibition. It could be proved that that exhibition paid off splendidly. There were great queues of people willing to pay large amounts of money. Labour Members are not attacking that practice. We know that it will continue.
When examining galleries, members of the Select Committee went to the Louvre and discussed entrance fees with its leading figures. Since Napoleon, the French have always paid entrance fees, so there is a great gap in their knowledge. The authorities do not know how many people are kept away because of the fees. The people who go into the great galleries change, so the authorities cannot form a correct conclusion. The Conservative majority on the Select Committee wanted the Committee to go to a place where people paid entrance fees. It would be wrong to generalise.
It is nauseating to talk about lack of money in this rich and powerful country. Labour Members believe that all the breast beating about poverty is nonsense. The coffers are filled with money as never before in our history. At least £100 million has come from North sea oil—a bonus that no other European country has had. The selling off of the family silver—the national assets—has brought in many billions of pounds. Those sources have provided a massive amount of money, yet the Government are prepared to charge people entrance fees for the first time.
During all our difficult periods in the past 200 years—slumps, immense poverty and wars—we have somehow managed to let people have free access to all our national treasures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) pointed out that people wander into galleries to get out of the rain. If one takes a child into a great gallery on such an occasion, one may be convinced that the child will be bored, but the gallery may open the gates to tremendous enthusiasm for the exhibits. By excluding people from galleries, we are perhaps excluding them from culture and beauty for a long period of their lives. Most people can appreciate culture and beauty. Despite all the money at our disposal, as a percentage of gross national product we give to the arts and heritage only about half as much as Germany and France. The Swedes give three times as much as we do. The fact that we are low on that table is inexcusable. We must fight for more money.
I have referred previously to the mess at the Victoria and Albert museum. I went into the great Raphael cartoon gallery, which is miserable just because of lack of money but which houses some of the noblest works that humankind has produced. It was dark and looked almost tawdry. It is not fitting for a great nation. No matter how much we praise the Minister—I know of his integrity and honesty—as a nation we must go more deeply into this matter and realise the damage that we are doing by advocating payment to enter our great galleries and museums.
The three Select Committees on Education, Science and Arts have never before failed to achieve consensus. Although members of the Committee disagreed, we never parted company on issues and never presented a minority report—except on this matter, on which we took a stand. I know that as one who drafted the minority report and struggled for it. We were defeated all the way through by five to four.
Mr. Cormack: Not in 1981.
Mr. Flannery: No, not in 1981. The hon. Gentleman knows that if I had my way he would have been Chairman of that Select Committee after Chris Price went.
Charging cannot be separated from the regime under which we live. The Government talk about law and order, but they have spawned more crime as a result of the get-rich-quick mentality and, to some extent, have so corrupted us that we should even consider making admission charges. When charges were first made in Wales, attendances at the national museum of Wales dropped by 85 per cent.
Those in favour of making charges try to play down the number of people who are discouraged from attending museums and galleries, and the quality of the people who are discouraged. Research shows that those people tend to be visitors to London, probably a mother and father and two children. The Victoria and Albert museum put up a sign inviting voluntary contributions. I watched people read it and then go away. It is no good anybody saying that that did not happen. People either thought, "I am not paying" or "I will have to pay", but they still turned away. Attendances fell by 40 per cent. after that sign went up and the museum has hardly recovered—it is in grave difficulty. I think that Roy Strong led the opposition to voluntary charges at the Victoria and Albert, but he capitulated. We are slipping up badly by excluding so many people.
Some members of the Select Committee did not think that they were doing anything untoward when they decided that the issue was so important that they had to issue a minority report. The great Tory leader, Sir Robert Peel, decided that museums should be free. Speaking in 1832—the Victoria and Albert opened in 1824—he said that he wanted it to be free because many people did not have access to beauty whereas the wealthy had big houses and could buy their own pictures. I know that times have changed, but none the less this is part of our education system. If we take action which militates against people going into our—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret to have to call the hon. Gentleman to order, but his 10 minutes have passed.
Mr. Flannery: I have made my points. I would have liked to develop them further, but I shall leave the matter there.
8.22 pm
Mr. Gerald Bowden: I should like to take the opportunity of this debate to focus attention on the environment and the threat to the heritage—our architectural and art heritage—and the artefacts that form part of it.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) drew attention to loopholes in the planning legislation, which tried to introduce safeguards to stop developers intruding on part of our national heritage. The planning provisions are frequently being circumvented not only in the way mentioned by the hon. Gentleman but in ways that are not so readily realised.
In recent months, we have seen attempts by large public bodies such as British Rail to avoid the statutory provisions protecting listed buildings. The now notorious clause 19 of the King's Cross Railways Bill attempted to oust the normal planning provisions safeguarding listed buildings. That issue should be brought to the attention of

1071
hon. Members who are concerned about protecting and safeguarding our architectural heritage. I have no doubt that when the Committee considering the King's Cross Railways Bill reports it will draw attention to that.
I should like to draw to hon. Members' attention three further Bills that are based on that point—the London Underground Bill, the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill and the Midland Metro Bill. Someone has noticed the loophole in the legislation and, by clever draftsmanship, is attempting to avoid the proper statutory provisions that the House passed to protect listed buildings.
I understand that there may be good and innocent reasons for the inclusion of clause 19. Although it does not appear to affect a listed building, it fails to take account of the fact that after the Bill has been deposited the line of the route may be changed, perhaps posing a threat to buildings. The clause is too clever by half, and we should exercise our constitutional duty to object to it on principle to ensure that it is not included in the Bill. When those other Bills are considered by the House, there will be an opportunity to sound the siren and to ensure that parliamentary draftsmen and agents recognise the threat.
The answer is to have early consultation with English Heritage to allow it to discuss with any potential developer or promoter of private Bills what is or is not acceptable. Hon. Members who observed the disgraceful way in which English Heritage was barred from making any representations about the King's Cross Bill will recognise how important that is. It was only on the insistence of members of the Committee that English Heritage was given a hearing. It is disgraceful that the promoters of a private Bill, whether it be a public body such as British Rail or a private developer, should be able to oust, for private gain, the statutory provisions for protecting our heritage. I hope that the reforms of the private Bill procedure will close that loophole.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) mentioned the protection of our movable heritage—arts and artefacts that can be moved from this country. My hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) and I spent this morning at the Wallace collection. It struck a chord when the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne implied that from now on there should be no export of art from the country where it was domiciled. Over the years, the magnificent Wallace collection has been gathered from all parts of the world, particularly France, but it is now domiciled in London. It would be regrettable if, in ensuring that those important aspects of our national heritage remain here, we were so to stultify and to place such rigid controls on the art market that there was no free flow of works of art on the continent of Europe. Only by allowing certain works of art to flow freely will we achieve that European feeling which should be engendered by the treaty of Rome.
It is interesting that the treaty foresaw the possibility of such a provision by trying to strike a balance between the free flow of works of art among Community countries
1072
while recognising that certain works of art belong so intrinsically to the country of origin that they are part of the national heritage.
That is why we should be careful about making any changes to the Waverley criteria. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, those criteria have served us well in many ways by ensuring that we keep in this country that which should be here while not inhibiting the art market—an international market based in London, which contributes much to our national economy and which should be allowed to continue to flourish here. The art market attracts clients and brings with it spin-off benefits to our hotels and restaurants as well as our performing arts. The dealers, buyers and clients do not spend all their time in the sale room; they participate in other aspects of our national culture that contribute much to our lives. The insurance market and our fiscal provisions ensure that other contributions flow from that market.
I wish to query the proposals advanced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which appear to affect the existing controls on the arts trade and what a seller may sell beyond the shores of this country. I understood that the position had in part been clarified earlier in the debate and that the proposition was that if a work of art for which an export licence was sought was already on public view it would remain on public view thereafter. However, I am still not entirely clear what my right hon. Friend intended and what the implications were.
There is a further point on which I seek clarification. If a private individual bids to buy a work of art at the export price, can that sale be effected during a museum's public appeal in connection with the purchase of that work? There appears to be some uncertainty about that.
Suppose that we have restrictions that are too tight. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne mentioned Italy, where the rigidity of the rules should ensure a static home for the works of art in that country. But that has the unfortunate consequence of a great deal of smuggling and a lively black market in works of art from Italy. We must ensure that that does not happen here if we tighten the restrictions in one direction or another.
When a private purchaser purchases a work of art for which an export licence has been refused and which has been retained in this country, should there be a time limit on a further application for an export licence? If that remains unclarified, we may create a speculators' charter: people may buy works of art and keep them for a short speculative period before seeking a further export licence.
I felt that I should sound a siren signal about these matters this evening and I hope that we shall receive some clarification of them.
8.32 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: During his interesting and forthcoming speech, the Minister referred to 1992 and the review committee. I do not threaten; I merely say, in the nicest possible way, that in November we may have yet another Adjournment debate—although, it is to be hoped, not at 3.30 am. The export and movement of works of art is a very important subject and the debate may be linked with my constituent, Lizzie from East Kirkton in Bathgate, who is a 340-million-year old reptile.
I address my remarks to the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who is to wind up the

1073
debate, because our debate also concerns heritage. On 28 June, I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he would
"publish the report, Strategic Roll-Forward Submission 1991–92, prepared by PE International plc"
of Egham
"concerning the Nature Conservancy Council".
The Minister replied:
"This report is a management document commissioned to assist the NCC in preparing its proposed forward plans. It is not suitable for publication. In line with past practice, the Nature Conservancy Council's corporate plan for 1990–91 will be published later this summer."—[Official Report, 28 June 1990; Vol. 175, c. 316.]
As I understand it, the report exposes the way in which the NCC's permanent staffing level has been artificially depressed over the years. At present, the organisation's permanent staff complement is just over 800. That figure is artificially set by the Government, and bears little relation to the number of staff actually required to carry out the organisation's statutory functions. As a result, the NCC now employs an astonishing 400 temporary staff, at least half of whom are doing jobs that are permanent in all but name.
The report shows that the aggregate number of permanent staff required by the new bodies if they are to operate at the present—the NCC—level of output will be almost 1,200. That is no less than 50 per cent. above the current figure employed by the NCC. The report said that staffing levels required to deliver
"the enhanced conservation which it is believed will be essential to tackle issues within the decade to come"—
in other words, what is actually needed to do the job properly—will involve an increase of more than 100 per cent. in permanent staff, from 810 to 1,652.
As a Scottish Member of Parliament, I am perhaps more entitled than anyone to ask whether the break-up of the NCC is really sensible and what it will cost. I think that it was done for the worst possible internal Scottish reasons. Now that the bill has been presented, and in terms of efficency, I seek some comment on that.
On museums, I want to register my sadness at the admission figures for the science museum. In 1983, there were 4,784,000 admissions. In 1984, the figure was 4,510,000. In 1985, it was 4,607,000. In 1986, it was 4,824,000. In 1987, it was 4,732,000. For years, it was just under the 5 million mark. But in 1988, the figure fell to 3,861,000 and in 1989 to 2,607,000. Is that what museum charges have done? The sense of wonder experienced by the very young on a visit to the science museum—either with school parties or with their parents—is of value.
I come now to the natural history museum. I am not saying just that palaeontology is important for its own sake, which it is. The lessons of the past tell a chilling tale about the warming of the future. I do not think that anyone outside the natural history museum—in Government or in the universities—is producing the long-term data that we need in some areas. Global climate change has occurred before, but not at the rate at which the earth's climate seems to be shifting today. It is crucial to be able to look at the past to understand the present trends in climate change. Only from that knowledge can successful strategies for dealing with future changes come. Scholars at the natural history museum are not engaged in some hypothetical calculation of what might happen; they are observing that actually happened. Incidentally, I am
1074
speaking from nobody's brief. I am expressing my view, distilled from visits and from conversations with other scientists.
An uphill battle is being fought in Kensington and the Smithsonian, but the appreciation of what earth system history can offer is better than it was a year ago. Earth system history is the study of the geological and historical record. Fossils can be used to test predictions of global climate models. They can be used to assess changes in diversity and ecological structure. Museum scientists are piecing together clues about ancient ecosystems. For example, uniquely in the world as far as I know, Kensington and the Smithsonian are pioneering palaeoecology and are pulling together data from all over the world as part of the evolution of the terrestrial ecosystems programme. The data lets us see the patterns in changing ecosystems and is the basis for assessing how the current global change will affect life on earth. That is topical and important now.
I want to ask certain precise questions. If palaeobotany was cut, as proposed in the corporate plan, what would happen to research on the unique Jurassic rain forest flora of Yorkshire? That question has climate and rain forest connections. I hope that that will be one of the questions that the Minister will put to Sir Walter Bodmer when he sees him.
The Minister might also ask Sir Walter, if palaeobotany is cut as proposed in the corporate plan, what will happen to research and collaboration with Spanish colleagues on climatic changes in the Permian period based on world wide distribution of plants? The Permian period was about 220 million years ago and followed a period of extensive glaciation. This present period today follows extensive glaciation, and research on the Permian period is highly relevant to what might happen in the future.
The Minister has drawn attention to an increase in Government funding for the natural history museum of 12.8 per cent. in real terms over the past 10 years. For the running costs as opposed to building costs, which is the only component at all relevant to the museum's scientific work, the figure for 1979–80 in present day terms was £14.062 million and for 1989–90 was £14.069 million. How can it therefore be claimed that Government expenditure on science has risen at all significantly?
If the Minister meets Sir Walter Bodmer, I hope that he will meet representatives of the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists. That is important.
I received a letter from Professor Boulter of the International Organisation of Palaeobotany. He wrote:
"At our recent meeting in Frankfurt am Main it was noted that:

1 fossil plants are the source of oil, bituminous coal and browncoal

2 there is growing international concern about the effects of these fossils on the world environment

3 eastern Europe relies heavily on browncoal for energy and this has caused very bad pollution after 40 years of irresponsibility. Our view is that the study of fossil plants is a central part of the scientific investigations needed on the effect of fossil fuels on the international environment."

Professor Boulter was writing on behalf of his executive committee.
I have a letter from the Soviet Union which states:
"Soviet Palaeobotanists constantly apply to the Palaeobotany Section of the Natural History Museum for help. Only in 1989–90 two of us were specially sent on a mission to the Section for the study of stored collections."

1075
That was a long letter about the museum's value in Russia.
I have another letter to Sir Walter Bodmer from Frankfurt which states:
"This international meeting of some 120 palaeobotanists from 25 countries wishes to urge upon you and your fellow trustees our deep concern."
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Dalyell: I have made my point.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It is obvious that three more hon. Members wish to speak. We must begin the winding-up speeches at 9.30 pm. I will now relax the time limit. However, I hope that those hon. Members I call will use their common sense and divide the time reasonably sensibly among themselves.
8.43 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Once again, he characteristically asked the kind of precise questions that invariably send Parliamentary Private Secretaries scurrying to the Box to find the answers. I am glad to state that this evening the only reason why the PPS scurried out was to confirm that the score between England and Germany was 1:1. That was indeed good news.
I subscribe to the view that the pent-up passion, venom and invective that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) inflicted on us was hollow, slightly phoney and did not really ring true from such a thoroughly nice guy. It seemed to be an attempt by a decent person to placate the left wing of his party. The hon. Gentleman spent much of his time pouring scorn on the Government's policy, but he had little to say about the policies of a Labour Government if they were ever to be elected. He simply said that there would be a return to centralised state direction. There would be little freedom of choice.
Mr. Fisher: Obviously the hon. Gentleman was not listening to my three substantial commitments—an integrated ministry, a statutory responsibility on local authorities and a cross-departmental cultural policy. All those are novel and very far reaching. The most important and significant of those proposals was a statutory responsibility on local authorities. Far from being a centralised plan, that is a development of cultural and arts policy that grows up from the roots of our society differently in every area and district of our society. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge his mistake. It is the opposite of a central, top down system—it is a bottom up system.
Mr. Colvin: That is not good enough. It is a well-known trick in this place for hon. Members to say the exact opposite of what are really the facts. Under Labour, there would be centralised direction and little freedom of choice.
That somewhat out-dated socialist dogma on the arts is extraordinary when we consider what has been happening in eastern Europe. In eastern Europe the people who have been prominent in bringing about the reforms which we are all delighted to see have been prominent in the arts world. Those people have taken the lead in rejecting the centralised dogma which the hon. Gentleman is trying to
1076
put forward as Labour party policy. Those people in eastern Europe believe that freedom of choice is important. The arts world and the Conservative party believe that it is important, but the Labour party does not share that view.
It seems to be a long time since my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts and I sat together in his office the morning after his appointment in 1985.
Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Colvin: On this subject?
Mr. Buchan: Yes, I think so. I am a slow thinker so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
The hon. Gentleman was talking about freedom of choice. Can we distinguish between the freedom of choice of someone living in a cardboard box under Waterloo bridge and Peter Palumbo when it comes to choosing who will get to the Royal Opera house?
Mr. Colvin: That is an irrelevant question, although it may be relevant to a debate about homelessness such as we had yesterday. It is not a relevant question for an arts debate, although I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
As I was saying, I sat in my right hon. Friend the Minister's office the morning after he became Minister trying to find encouraging press cuttings about his appointment. I shall not embarrass my right hon. Friend by recalling some of the comments. The Daily Telegraph, which normally gets things right, said that my right hon. Friend had a liking for jazz, which was all very well, but it was hardly a qualification for handling the multi-million pound arts budget or the people involved in the arts. One of the problems in the arts world is that we seem to have to contend with as many prima donnas off stage as on stage.
My right hon. Friend the Minister was no artist when he was first appointed, but I gather that he has now taken up his paintbox. I am delighted to know that. He was a diplomat with distinguished service in the Foreign Office. Obviously, that diplomacy has worked in the arts. We now see how wrong all those press reports were. My right hon. Friend is the longest serving Minister for the Arts and has earned credit from all hon. Members and others who are interested in the arts. He has managed to deliver more money, much more encouragement and, what is more, better management through the three-year rolling programme of funding that he was able to introduce. He has given a lead, and the arts world has responded.
Much has been said about the amount that the Government are now spending. I shall not reiterate remarks about the 48 per cent. increase, and so on, but that is good news. However, it raises the point that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central raised when he got at me for suggesting in a question the other day that Conservative Members are still regarded as philistine. That sent me off to the Library to try to confirm what I had meant. We probably use the term philistine too often. I was able to confirm that Matthew Arnold first coined and popularised the phrase about those who opposed innovations in the arts. That is hardly a description of the Conservative party's arts policy.
The Chambers encyclopaedia stated that the Philistines were an aggressive, militant people, highly civilised and bearers of agriculture and commerce. That description comes slightly closer to myself. Matthew Arnold, in his

1077
analysis of society, divided society into aristocrats, the middle classes and the people. He referred to the aristocrats as barbarians, the middle classes as philistines—I suppose that all hon. Members would be in that category—and the people as just the populace.
Leslie Stephen probably got it right when he said: "Philistine—A term of contempt applied by prigs to the rest of their species."
We want to hear no more about Philistines.
Mr. Fisher: You raised it.
Mr. Colvin: I shall not raise it again—I promise.
There is a popular misconception that Labour Members are big spenders on the arts and that Conservative Members are tight-fisted. Socialist Governments tend to be big spenders, but usually on the wrong things. Conservative Governments, through good management and caution, have created the climate in which people are encouraged to invest their money and, in return, make profits on which they pay taxes. Therefore, more general national wealth is created and there is more out of which to fund an additional arts policy. That is precisely what has happened under this Government and under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Minister.
I now refer to a matter that has been touched on by only one other hon. Member—the role of local government in the arts. Support and funding for the arts is a plural business. Central Government spend a lot. Consumer spending is probably the biggest component of spending on the arts. Sponsorship—private and commercial—is also important. Funnily enough, however, local government spends more on the arts than the national Government do. That has always been so, although it is extremely difficult to analyse and put a precise figure on it.
Local government arts spending depends on supportive county, district and sometimes even parish councils creating the right environment. They have a great deal to do. They are probably closest to the grass roots and are able to target expenditure. There is no doubt that, in targeting expenditure, we often improve the quality of expenditure rather than the quantity. With the introduction of the community charge, local authorities will be far more accountable to their electorates, so it will be interesting to see the effect on present local authority art budgets and expenditure.
I have referred to plural funding. A local council often takes the initiative and is the catalyst which provides the pump-priming money that gets other things happening locally, but it is usually supported by its regional arts authority. It gives the stamp of approval to the local effort and helps other providers of resources to rally round, particularly at local level. Business sponsors have much to do and often finish up as the underwriters of local arts endeavours. They rather than local government become the funders of last resort. I do not think that it is right that councils should pick up the tab when there are failures.
An important role for local government is to help with the local arts infrastructure. That would leave artists to their own artistic endeavours. Local councils can often do that in kind rather than in cash. They can help with office overheads by providing, say, a room in a local museum for an arts director from which to operate, some rent-free accommodation, car park spaces for staff, and so on. Silly little things such as that can mean so much when a small artistic movement is afoot. Local directors' salaries could
1078
be paid by a local authority. The important thing is that local authorities must put the arts on their agendas, but they often do not. Too many local authorities have no arts policies and no arts strategies.
Mr. Fisher: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a most unusual speech. I absolutely concur with him. It is a long time since hon. Members have heard a Conservative Back-Bench Member speak persuasively and passionately in favour of local authorities and the arts. Do I take it that he supports my point? Does he support a statutory responsibility on local authorities for developing arts policies and for making arts provisions at a local level in response to local needs? That is the Labour party's policy. May we take it that the hon. Gentleman supports it?
Mr. Colvin: I am a firm believer in voluntarism rather than compulsion. I am a firm believer in freedom of choice and in the voice of the electorate. If people in a locality want more to be done about the arts, they will bring pressure to bear on their councillors because, thanks to the introduction of the community charge, their councillors are now much more accountable to the electors than ever before. That is how we shall see things happen. It should not be the heavy hand of Government saying to the local authorities, "You will do that," because in the past central Government have spent too much time saying to local government, "You will do this and you will do that," but have then not provided the wherewithal to enable the local councils to do what central Government have instructed them to do. Therefore, although I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's whole philosophy, we nevertheless agree about the importance of local government taking a lead in local arts endeavours.
The expansion of the arts in the regions, which was originally envisaged in the "Glory of the Garden" strategy, is all about developments outside the London arts hothouse. However, in welcoming my right hon. Friend's decisions on the Wilding review, my own regional arts association, Southern Arts, has said that it believes that "improved resources" will be the "acid test" of my right hon. Friend's reforms. Southern Arts has stated that it has
"consistently received less grant per head of population from the Arts Council than any other RAA—43p per head in 1990–91 against a national average of 69p".
It continued:
"This anomaly arises from the historic basis on which the Arts Council funds the RAA's and is acknowledged both in the Wilding Review and, more recently, in the National Audit Office report on government arts funding. Southern arts believes that a determined effort must be made now to correct imbalances and to rationalise the allocation of funds to the new Regional Arts Boards as part of the implementation of the Minister's reforms."
I concur with that. However, one must note that the Arts Council's grants to the regional arts authorities have doubled in real terms since 1979 and now stand at £33 million.
The House will ask why, if the regional arts associations—Southern Arts, for example—are so starved of money, the arts in my county of Hampshire are booming. The answer is that some very good initiatives have been taken by the local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts has been to my constituency and seen one such initiative in Romsey, where the Romsey amateur operatic and dramatic society has done great things to establish a theatre and now has a thriving triennial arts festival under the chairmanship of the redoubtable Mrs. Pam Gale. My

1079
right hon. Friend then visited Andover, where I live, and saw what has been done by the Andover arts festival, which is now in its sixth year, under the direction of Mr. Digby Littlewood. Both those arts festivals have received some help from Test Valley borough council, which has now begun to develop an arts strategy for the whole district.
Those are just two examples of what is happening nationwide. There are now more than 600 arts festivals nationwide which have a professional performing element, and many thousands of others are run on an amateur basis.
In conclusion, I remind the House that the latest edition of "Social Trends" stated:
"Writers, artists and intellectuals—professionals not generally reckoned friendly towards Mrs. Margaret Thatcher—have been the biggest beneficiaries of her years in power…
Compared with other groups they saw their real earnings increase between 1979 and 1986 by nearly 30 per cent. During the last Labour government, their earnings fell."
Does that say it all? No, it does not. The real beneficiaries are those whom we represent—what Matthew Arnold called the "populace". When we say that life is better under the Conservatives, we mean that the quality of life is better. It is the flowering of the arts under this Government that has done so much to improve that quality and to enrich people's lives.
9.3 pm
Mr. Norman Buchan: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I did not expect to be in the House today, but I had to come down because of this debate on the arts. I am afraid that I shall leave the House for a week or so immediately afterwards.
I want to add to the paean of praise that has been given to the Minister. I have grown to be very fond of the right hon. Gentleman and I like him. He has done his very best for the arts in this country. He has listened to what has been said in some of our policy documents and he has borrowed from them. I praise him for that. The difficulty is that he cannot operate a sole hand. He is a relatively progressive Minister in a philistine Government—if I may be forgiven for using the word "philistine". That has been his problem. However, we must congratulate him on what he has achieved against the background of an appalling Government. Instead of being able to say, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant: you have led the country forward", I believe that the Minister has been more of a bulwark to prevent the development of philistinism than being in the vanguard and leading us forward.
Perhaps it is the nature of his job in the Government, but I am afraid that the Minister has had to follow some of their ideological characteristics. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said that he could not consider the introduction of charges for museums and galleries to be separate from the prevailing ethos of the Government. He is quite right and history bears him out.
The first time that we introduced charges for national galleries since the war was when the present Prime Minister was Secretary of State for Education. She did not really understand what we were talking about. I was the shadow spokesman for Scotland, but on that issue I also dealt with England and Wales. I remember the Minister
1080
for the Arts, Lord Eccles—who Lord Crawford and Balcarres always described as "Lord Shekels"—being reported as saying that Mr. Buchan apparently would like us to go into museums and galleries to get out of the rain. I replied that I could not think of a better place to shelter from the rain than a museum or art gallery.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough was entirely right, and his point was scientifically endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who spoke about the importance of palaeontology in defending the natural history museum. He spoke about the palaeontologists currently working in the natural history museum, but I am concerned about future palaeontologists.
I do not believe that any kid wakes up one day and says, "When I grow up I want to be a palaeontologist". That does not happen, but what can happen is that a kid goes to a museum and asks his dad, "What is that?" and his dad says, "That is a fossil. It is millions of years old." That might spark the youngster to become a palaeontologist. None of us knows what sparks off a child's interest and what adds to a young person's enthusiasm. It is a crime to put up a barrier to the accidental encountering of experience and knowledge, and it is monstrous that we should have encouraged and developed the habit of charging for museums and galleries. It is as bad as insisting on payment for education. At the moment that is only for the privileged. Let them have that privilege, but I hope that none of us today would argue that all children who attend school should pay a contribution. At least we have got past that. However, the Government have broken into that principle and we have seen the result. If we charged for education, half the kids would not get to school. Attendances have halved since the introduction of museum and gallery charges.
Mr. Flannery: My hon. Friend has made an important point. When the Minister spoke about freedom of choice, I used the example of an ordinary family coming to London and having to pay about £12 to get into a museum. That is not freedom of choice. If they do not have the money to do that they are excluded from education.
Mr. Buchan: That is an illustration of the problems that the Minister faces in dealing with the Government. He has learnt from his time in Government and from the people he has met and had discussions with over the years. Everyone seems to be in a valedictory mood. I hope that does not mean anything. I cannot imagine us getting a better Minister for the Arts out of the present Tory Government, so I hope that there was not too much valediction in the air. I hope that he sticks with it.
The Minister had three interesting things to say about the arts that I was delighted to hear. First, he mentioned freedom of speech. He should watch his back. If he keeps on saying such things he might be out on his ear very quickly. It has never been more true or more important now that there is increasing monopolisation and contraction of independent voices in the printed word. Three people now control more than 80 per cent. of the national press in Britain. There is not much freedom of speech there when only three people determine it. Incidentally, five people control 94 per cent. of the Sunday and daily national press. It is an appalling form of monopoly.

1081
The arts, and broadcasting is one of the arts, matter because they are one of the bulwarks which support independence of communication. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was talking about the theatre at Stratford in east London and defending the often anti-establishment plays that are produced there as an antidote to the monopoly of communication by a few people in the press. I endorse his view that the arts are, above all, a weapon for freedom of expression. As the Minister said, it is no accident that some of the movements in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union have been led by the liberal intellectuals of the period—by writers and poets.
Shelley said that
"poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world."
A Scotsman said the same earlier and I am very fond of the quotation—hon. Members may remember my quoting it before. Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun said:
"If a man were permitted to make all the ballads, he need not care who should make the laws".
The arts—created by the singer, writer, dramatist and novelist—help to create a mood in which communication can take place. That is why, with the present press monopoly, the arts are so important.
When the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) talks his philistine gibberish, he demonstrates that he has not got over the threshold of understanding what we are talking about.
The second matter that the Minister referred to was excellence. Again, he surprised me, and I welcomed that, because he meant excellence not merely in the sense of performance ability, but in the sense of the ability to participate and appreciate. He recognised that we are dealing with a much wider spectrum than mere centres of excellence—a pretty awful term to use because it compartmentalises. The third aspect was the importance of availability and accessibility of the arts. I welcome the three important points that the Minister raised, and I do not imagine that any of his hon. Friends, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), could have made them.
I challenge what the Minister said about funding, as I have done before—and I still think that I am right. There has not been a major step forward. The last award, which came in the autumn, meant a 12.9 per cent. increase on last year's grant of £155 million to the Arts Council—to £175 million this year. However, the previous year, the update had been only 3.7 per cent. So the combined increase last year and the year before adds up to only 16.6 per cent., which is barely above the rate of inflation. In 1990–91 and 1991–92 the increase will be 4.5 per cent. and 3.8 per cent. respectively, but inflation is now running at 9.7 per cent., so the award will drop below the level of inflation.
I think that the Minister has heard of my argument for a three-year rolling programme and I remember that he criticised me for criticising the three-year uplift, on the grounds that I had argued for the same idea. But what I meant by a rolling programme was that each year one should fix a three-year rolling programme. One should not say in 1970, "This is the funding for the next three years." One should say, "This is the percentage increase over the next three years" and in the following year give the figures for the next five years, with the third year's figure changed if one wished. That way we would all know and anyone working on a project would know that they were getting a
1082
sum, indexed against inflation, for three years so that they could plan ahead. Such a three-year grant would mean that activities would not be cut short in midstream.
If we adopted this system, and each year the percentage was shifted—perhaps we could write in a safeguard that the figures could not be cut by more than x per cent. in the third year—we would be giving some guarantees to the arts. That would not be much more expensive, but it would prevent this continual rundown and jolting, and planning could take place.
That is why I am anxious about what is happening to the museums and galleries. They are in a worse state than the Minister understands. For last year and this year a total of 15 per cent.—an average of 7.5 per cent.—has been provided. That is below the rate of inflation. But for 1990–91 and 1991–92 the figures are 4.9 per cent. and 4.7 per cent. respectively. There has therefore been no great leap forward in the protection of our museums and galleries, unless there has been a sudden shift that I do not know of. We still have a major crisis in the condition of our major national museums and galleries.
The Minister referred to broadcasting as being part of our arts. The Broadcasting Bill has been brought in by his colleagues in other Departments and has not helped in terms of quality and excellence that he referred to; nor has it helped in terms of the independence of communications. One person has been exempted from the restrictions of the Broadcasting Bill—Rupert Murdoch. Everyone else has faced restrictions in terms of nationality, and in the holdings that a newspaper proprietor may have. The Government have created a new class called non-domestic broadcasting by satellite, in which he is the only substantial proprietor and owner, so he will be exempted. That is what lunch at Chequers at Christmas has brought about. Good luck to him with the Prime Minister.
The hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor)—the Minister of State, Home Department—said that he recognised that the Broadcasting Bill would bring the service a notch or two below public service standards. The proposed new chairman of the Commission for Independent Television—George Russell—says that it will be equivalent to about 80 per cent. of the value of existing public service broadcasting. We are in for a tawdry future, and we cannot expect the best of public service broadcasting to continue to protect us against the monopoly and tawdriness of so much of our press.
The Minister has been helpful and generous in regard to Glasgow. Many of us pushed alongside him for Glasgow to be established as the European centre of culture for 1990, and we welcome that decision. There has been a substantial response in Glasgow. There have been more than 2,000 different events this year in Glasgow; there have been 15 different festivals, including Mayfest, the international jazz festival, the choral festival, the European early music festival, the folk festival—in which I am involved—the literary prize, the festival of Jewish culture, the women's festival and others. There has been an astonishing amount of activity. There have been 300 exhibitions, including those on Degas, Pissaro, Henry Moore, Stephen Campbell, Ken Curry, and contemporary work from Europe. There have been 1,200 different performances, and 1,000 local projects in schools, churches, synagogues, mosques and so on. Some 52 galleries have been used for exhibitions, and 38 venues have been used for performances in the city.

1083
Much of that success will not depend only on the increases in ticket sales—which have been considerable; they are double last year's. Much of it will depend on what permanent developments come out of the events and exhibitions. We know that we will have the concert hall, and the development of the Tramway theatre.
As it happens, I was talking about the city of culture before the city of culture started. Discussions took place in a certain lady's flat in Athens, when we discussed the matter before she, Melina Mercouri, ever came forward with the concept. I was involved at the beginning—at the basement level—and was against it. My wife was for it, as was Melina Mercouri, and it was the latter who told me that we could not do it without Government funding. Although initially no Government funding was brought forward, there has now been £500,000.
These are the figures. Glasgow district council has put in £7.5 million, and Strathclyde regional council £12 million. Private sector sponsorship accounts for £4.5 million—that is about a fifth of the public sponsorship—and the Office of Arts and Libraries has put in only £500,000. It was not good enough that that decision of almost no Government support should have been made. I am grateful that the Minister managed to squeeze £500,000 out of this mean Government, but it is not sufficient.
There has been controversy in Glasgow about the arts, which I welcome, although I dislike the cause of this particular controversy: the appointment of a new keeper of social history in Glasgow. It is appalling that the present incumbent, Elspeth King, was not appointed. It has caused great dispute in Glasgow. I know of nothing like it. Those who say that the arts do not matter should look at the controversy that has been let loose in Glasgow. The Glasgow Herald has received more letters about the appointment of the new keeper of social history in Glasgow than on any other subject, including the poll tax. There have been more letters on the subject than were received even as a result of the letter writing campaigns that I or others initiated—for example, on peace. The response has been astonishing.
A new keeper has been appointed, but the leaders of Glasgow city council should redefine the job. The new keeper should be made responsible for outreach and development work in schools. Miss King, however, should remain in post to continue the brilliant work that she has done during the past 15 years on developing the people's palace in Glasgow as a palace of some fame in social history. It is known throughout Britain. I discovered a few months ago that it is also known in Australia, where Miss King has given a lead to other people on similar developments. Her role should be enhanced and she should be allowed to continue her work. Old hands here will recognise why I am using this opportunity to comment on what has happened to Miss King.
9.21 pm
Mr. Tim Devlin: I am grateful, having sat through last year's arts debate and this one, to have been given a chance to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks). My region spends the highest amount per head on the arts in
1084
England, so it is a shock to listen to my hon. Friend underrating the value of the arts. He puts me in mind of Goldsmith, who said:
"When they talk'd of their Raphaels, Correggios, and stuff, He shifted his trumpet, and only took snuff."
In 1818 Victor Cousin coined the phrase "art for art's sake" while lecturing at the Sorbonne. It is sad that so often the arts are attacked as a drain on a society that is already hard pressed to provide the quantity and quality of services that are demanded by the modern consumer of the welfare state. It has also meant a reformulation of the value of the arts in society, a process which has been going on continuously since the establishment of the Office of Arts and Libraries and the Arts Council. In the last 10 years, however, the arts have flourished. The new funding arrangements—particularly the partnerships with private sponsors and local government—have led to refinements of the arguments for the arts and their role in society.
I wish to examine two particular areas in my contribution to the debate. First, I applaud the part that the arts are playing in the process of urban regeneration. I know that the Minister who is to reply to the debate has an interest in that subject. Secondly, I urge further encouragement of the arts as part of the productive society.
In 1987, our first pledge as a Government was to tackle the very serious problems of declining inner cities. The issue, some might say, has gone off the political agenda, but to my mind—representing, as I do, one of the areas concerned—it cannot go away until the problem is solved. That is what we are in the process of doing through the urban development corporations in Teesside, Tyneside, Trafford, the black country and elsewhere. These projects have achieved the most significant success where they have incorporated the arts.
The most dramatic transformation has already been alluded to by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) and others. Glasgow—this year's European city of culture—started with its "miles better" campaign and followed it up with the opening of the Burrell collection and the cleaning of its principal buildings. Critics might argue that the arts have no economic use, but when I visited Glasgow earlier this year, specifically to see the Burrell collection, I was impressed by the great range of cultural activities that were taking place, the many other good quality museums that were available and the obvious prosperity that tourism had generated.
Bradford is another surprise for the outsider. It has made startling progress centring around the "city of entertainment", which includes the national museum of photography, film and television and the Alhambra theatre, which has recently been restored. They are soon to be joined by the Indian collection of the Victoria and Albert museum.
In Liverpool, the northern Tate opened to receive 300,000 visitors in its first three months. I was particularly struck by the people of Birmingham's pride in their orchestra when I visited there on Saturday. I am told that theatres in Birmingham are packed every weekend and that Simon Rattle and the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra are held out by the ordinary people of Birmingham as the centrepiece of the city's culture, even though many of those boasting about that might never have been to a performance.

1085
There is no doubt that the arts are a major revenue earner and employer. The Myerscough report said that 2.1 per cent. of the population work in the arts while tourists account for 42 per cent. of attendances at arts events in London. Tourism with an arts ingredient is worth £3.1 billion a year or 25 per cent. of total tourist earnings.
The Washington-based Urban Land Institute drew particular attention to the way in which arts can put the heart back into inner cities. It said:
"A healthy central core—economically strong, lively at all hours, activity oriented, pedestrian focussed, containing a rich mixture of uses—now is perceived as key to the vigor of the city as a whole. A variety of economic and social forces have combined to change perceptions of the needs and goals for downtowns, and to bring public agencies in close alignment with the private and arts sectors."
One of the leading property developers in the United States, Michael Marston, said:
"Real Estate projects that include the arts appropriately have the opportunity to offer commercial space that is unique, thereby achieving a highly desirable position in the marketplace. I personally feel that mixed-use projects including the arts have, over the longer run, stronger value appreciation potential than more standard forms of real estate development."
The Prime Minister expounded that message when speaking to the Royal Academy about the inner cities. She said of a city:
"It was only a real, true city when it also had libraries, art galleries, music, orchestras, choirs. You needed the whole of the arts to make the cities … The spirit of community, the spirit of feeling that life is not whole unless the arts are part of it, is returning."
I look forward to the extension of that work into new areas.
Speaking parochially for a moment, I hope that my constituency will one day be the site of a major flagship arts project. A substantial part of our local area is covered by the Teesside development corporation. It should listen to pleas for a major facility, perhaps a concert hall, theatre, national museum or other arts centre. I am pleased to note that knowledge of the disparity in funding between Teesside and Tyneside by Northern Arts led to a report on the future of the arts in Teessicle published by Northern Arts and the Teesside development corporation.
The point must be emphasised again and again that arts projects act as ambassadors for a city. The Cincinnati city orchestra has undoubtedly helped to attract investment to that city, and the same can be said of the Chicago symphony orchestra. Some people only visit Pitlochry in Scotland to attend its marvellous theatre. The Burrell collection is a marvellous ambassador for Glasgow. The northern Tate in Liverpool and the Royal Shakespeare Company of Tyneside have also attracted people to those cities. I believe that Teesside could be every bit as much a part of that success story. More than 3.2 million people live within 90 minutes drive of it and, from the end of this year, 40,000 sq ft of exhibition space will be available.
I hope that the Minister will heed calls to send out collections and part-collections from the basements of the national museums to places such as Teesside, so that people who do not have access to London can enjoy them.
The report that has been compiled on the future of the arts in Teesside is helpful, as it states that there should be a three-pronged strategy. First, that strategy should ensure that arts provision serves and reaches the population. Secondly, existing arts activities should be developed and the Cleveland arts economy should be expanded. Thirdly, new arts facilities and buildings should be developed to
1086
enable the county to capitalise on regional, national and international opportunities. As ever when things are done in Teesside, the author tries not to offend anyone and enlist the support of the local Labour-controlled authority.
The Government have offended many people and challenged the local authority when it set up the development corporation, which has brought a spectacular amount of new investment to the area and unrivalled new opportunities for development. We should do the same again for the arts and reorder our priorities so that they are: the development of a city arts flagship project for Teesside, which will put it on the international map; develop existing efforts; widen participation and interest in the arts locally.
The arts have a vital role to play in the development of a productive economy. Sometimes, I fear that, having been a nation of shopkeepers, we have become one of moneybrokers, turning money around and making a profit, rather than adding value to objects. In the world of making things—I represent a manufacturing constituency—design is every bit as important as price and productive technique. Why then are no British manufacturers making a new design of sports car, whereas Japanese companies are launching several this year? Some 150 years ago, that problem was first highlighted by the national exhibition at Crystal Palace. Since then, trade has exacerbated the problem.
I hope that further encouragement will be given to the arts, especially design. I know that that is not specifically a matter for the Minister who is to reply, but I hope that he will emphasise the role of the visual arts and the part that they have to play in encouraging design.
9.32 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: It is my lot to wind up for the Opposition at the precise moment that England is taking part in a penalty shoot-out, so I shall not he surprised if the attention of hon. Members lapses at times, especially when news reaches the Chamber.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said, we welcome the opportunity to debate not only the arts but our heritage. My hon. Friend is always pressing for more time to debate such matters. From his opening speech, it was obvious that, in terms of his awareness of problems facing the arts and policy development, my hon. Friend has considerable clout. I am sure that if Ministers do not share his priorities, they must respect his contributions to these debates.
I make no claim to be an expert on the arts. I have viewed the debate as a consumer, and have listened to what has been said by people with greater expertise. However, having spent several academic years studying economic and social history, I have more than a passing interest in our heritage and, more importantly, as a parent, I am extremely concerned that we place a proper value on the quality of life that we create for future generations.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House praised institutions from the natural history museum to cathedrals. Most of them exist for our benefit only because of the investment and decisions made by past generations. We are under an obligation to be equally far-sighted in our treatment of our heritage and our investment in the arts today.
I have listened carefully to most of the speeches this evening, and found them—especially those of my hon.

1087
Friends—interesting and enjoyable and, at times, a useful education. However, if I am totally honest, I would rather have spent the past two hours watching the World cup match on television, especially at 8.34 pm, when the sound of the cheer reached the Chamber. I mean no disrespect to my colleagues, but I hope that other hon. Members share my feeling that there is a clash of interests this evening. It is strange that the Government should schedule a debate on the arts and heritage so that it clashes with what, judging by the small part of it that I saw, is an extremely good display of art. Football is an important element in our heritage and I hope that Ministers appreciate that it is not just a sport but a cultural event. Anyone who doubts that should stand in the terraces or sit in the stand at a football match and listen to the wry humour. I know that many Conservative Members are somewhat prejudiced against football but, as I say, it is part of our cultural background and heritage.
I regret the clash of events. Perhaps this debate should have been scheduled for tomorrow and we could have had a Scottish debate this evening. When I say that, I mean no disrespect to Scottish Members. I was born in Scotland and have mixed loyalties—no doubt the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) will be interested to know that. Tempting though it is, I do not want to hijack the debate into a discussion on football. Some of us could get carried away in the manner of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) when he described Roger Milla. I agree that Roger Milla is extremely artistic. The hon. Gentleman did not talk about poetry in motion, but if we are not careful we could find ourselves straying down that path. I do not want to do that.
I should like to deal with the definitions that have been used in the debate. It is right that hon. Members should debate great works of art, orchestras, theatres, fine palaces, great houses and the wonderful architectural achievements of the past. It is important to preserve those things and support the fine arts generally because of the role that they play in a civilised society. However, there is another side which is in danger of being neglected or considered to be of secondary importance in our debates. There is a wider definition of the arts and heritage, and I hope that in future debates it will move nearer to the centre of the stage.
My heritage does not have its roots in big houses and palaces, although I understand that my Scottish grandmother was in service in one fine big house. My heritage, and that of most people, is working-class life. It is a heritage of terraced houses, two up, two down and no bathroom, and of parents and grandparents who worked in mills, factories and mines. We must foster the understanding that those things are part of our heritage. In literature, such things are often glamorised but we must get the balance right.
Whatever the balance between glamour and reality, it is important to ask the Government what they are doing to make the young people of today aware of that part of their heritage. Of course we want to preserve the fine heritage and the houses and palaces, but just as history should not teach only about kings and queens, so, in discussing our heritage, we should not fall into the trap of talking only about castles and palaces.
1088
I note that, like me, the Minister is somewhat disturbed and thrown off course by the bad news that has just reached the Chamber about the World cup match. We all commiserate with those who have worked so hard for a better result. There seemed to be a great deal of unfairness in many of the results, and I am sure that we all congratulate the England team on its performance and regret that the final outcome was not more satisfactory.
Mr. Fisher: Football is part of our heritage.
Mrs. Taylor: I dealt with that when my hon. Friend was out of the Chamber.
The Minister for the Environment and Countryside is a northern Member. I should like to hear what he is doing to ensure that the heritage of the majority gets proper recognition. An increasing number of small industrial museums are being established, very often with little or no Government assistance, and the Minister's action is hindering the development of some of those museums.
Adjacent to my own constituency is the Caphouse mining museum. It was once a real colliery, and when it was due to close it was turned into a museum with the help of West Yorkshire county council, Kirklees and Wakefield district councils, and some EC funding—but no Government money. When the Government abolished county councils, the financial burden of supporting that museum increased. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 makes it difficult for local authorities to subsidise and maintain the museum, because it is not an arm's length company. There is now concern about its future.
The museum's trustees have established a new governing body to attract sponsorship. The museum should serve as a showpiece of mining in an area of declining mining activity, but instead of helping, the Government introduced legislation that could cripple that project. The Minister's delay in introducing regulations is increasing uncertainty. I hope that the Minister for the Environment and Countryside will consider the possible consequences. The museum is used by thousands of children each year, who at small cost can visit a live pit—not an artificial creation. I suggest that that museum is more relevant to the background and heritage of families in my constituency than many of the great halls and other places that receive a subsidy.
I do not follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington in saying that there is no place for subsidies in respect of fine buildings, but I do not believe that they have an exclusive right to them. I hope that the Minister for the Arts will take on board the need to broaden the definition of heritage, as should the Minister for the Environment and Countryside.
Another part of our heritage is our natural landscape, and public enjoyment and appreciation of the countryside. As I have always lived in northern towns but in sight of open country, it is an aspect of our heritage that I particularly value. It is all too easy to take for granted our countryside and open spaces, but working in Westminster all week is a good counter to any temptation to fall into that trap. I only feel sorry for right hon. and hon. Members whose constituencies are not as attractive as mine. I am sure that the Minister for the Environment and Countryside agrees, because his constituency is in an extremely attractive part of the country.
Ministers have a fundamental conflict between the need to protect such areas and their dogma of non-interference

1089
and belief that market forces should rule. That may be why not even one piece of landscape has been designated under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. What does the Minister propose to do in respect of the Common Land Forum's recommendation? The Minister for the Environment and Countryside recently supported family rambling day to demonstrate his solidarity with the ramblers' demands for access to the countryside. However, I understand that his walk a week last Sunday was rained off. We on the other side of Yorkshire are made of sterner stuff, and we went ahead. Nevertheless, the Minister's support was welcome.
He is somewhat rare, in that he urges local authorities to spend extra money on establishing and encouraging more rights of way and signposts. I hope that he can square that with poll tax capping.
What does the Minister intend to do in respect of the Government's - promise in the Conservative party manifesto in May 1987:
"We will legislate to safeguard common land on the basis of the Common Land Forum."?
Had we time, I would recount all the occasions on which Ministers have repeated the guarantee that legislation of that kind was about to be introduced. We are told that the Government intend to introduce a comprehensive Bill at a suitable opportunity when parliamentary time permits, and that it will be based loosely on relevant reports. We have had a little slippage on occasions, when we have been told that it will take a little time. We were told by the Minister of State in February that legislation would be coming soon. In March he said that a statement was expected sooner rather than later. At the beginning of April, he said that he expected a further statement about the Government's intention within a few weeks. Later that month, he said that a further statement of the Government's intentions would be made soon.
Mr. Fisher: We are getting closer.
Mrs. Taylor: As my hon. Friend says, we are getting closer. We have been told for three years that a statement was coming. It would be helpful to have an indication of the Government's intentions this evening. If we do not, we can conclude only that the Government intend to renege on their past promises.
Time is short. The debate has been varied and it has concentrated, perhaps wrongly, more on arts issues than on heritage issues. I hope that in future hon. Members on both sides of the House will have more time to deal with the whole wealth of issues that have been touched on this evening.
Mr. David Lightbown (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): On this important day.
Mrs. Taylor: Yes, on this important day, as the Government Whip, who usually does not speak, has pointed out. It is a black day for English football. I hope that hon. Members will understand the need to appreciate and protect our arts and heritage, including football. Then perhaps we will have learnt something from today's events.
9.46 pm
The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): Like the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), I am mortified at the England result. A bright, efficient civil servant managed to put into my hand the amazing statistic that more people go to theatre, opera
1090
and dance performances than to football matches. I am beginning to wonder whether that helps the current position.
I say to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and the hon. Member for Dewsbury—both of whom have a fondness for the city of Manchester—that there is some consolation in what happened at lunchtime today, when I had the privilege of attending a function which was also attended by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher)—
Mr. Fisher: Distinguished Member.
Mr. Trippier: Yes, the distinguished Member. I had the privilege of awarding the museum of the year award, which was jointly won not only by the imperial war museum, which could be expected and was richly deserved, but by the Manchester museum of industry and science, so I hope that there will be dancing in the streets of my favourite city.
The richness and the diversity of Britain's heritage is not in doubt. After six hours of debate, I am not in much doubt about the richness and diversity of the views of hon. Members on the subject—perhaps more the richness of the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) than the diversity of the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).
Some of the arguments, especially those of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, Central, were like parts of England's heritage—very old. Unfortunately, his ideas are in nothing like such good condition as much of the English heritage. The difference is that the owners of Britain's great art and heritage care deeply about their possessions and ensure that they are looked after. I am afraid that the hon. Member does not make the same effort with his opinions. He does not care what he says, whether it is true or even whether it makes sense. That is why he found himself in a terrible muddle in linking together the responsibility for municipal parks, which he should know by now come under local authorities, and for the royal parks, which are the responsibility of my Department.
Mr. Fisher: No.
Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the royal parks, as the record will show.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the document "Looking to the Future", on which he was quizzed by my hon. Friends who sought to extract a more accurate figure or estimate of what it would cost a future Labour Government to implement the policy. The hon. Gentleman ducked the question. I will gladly allow him to intervene on this precise matter if he can tell the House the cost of implementing these proposals in terms of the arts and heritage.
Mr. Fisher: I wish to take up a previous point about the royal parks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no!"] Oh yes! The Minister referred to the royal parks. Does he approve of the royal parks banning the 300-year-old tradition of flying kites on Sundays in Kensington gardens? Does he feel that access to the royal parks should be widened rather than diminished in this way? Will he give the Government's view?
Mr. Trippier: We are going to get carried away one way or the other about the flying of kites. The hon. Gentleman

1091
has been flying a few during this debate. I agree that there should be wider access to public parks and to royal parks wherever possible.
The hon. Gentleman said about five times in his speech that he wanted a national audit. I give him notice that the Government are putting the Labour party and its policy document under audit. Every pledge that the hon. Gentleman made today will be carefully and closely examined and costed. Given that the first salvo by the Leader of the Opposition into this difficult territory was his statement that the first two benefits that the Labour party would introduce in the unlikely event of its ever being elected would cost £2 billion, and given that everyone has now confirmed that it will be at least £3.5 billion, I assure the House—
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Trippier: No, I will not.
Mrs. Taylor rose—
Mr. Trippier: All right, I give way.
Mrs. Taylor: The Minister is uncharacteristically generous. He seems to be proving yet again that he belongs to the Maradona school of drama—whenever he is under attack, he does the parliamentary equivalent of rolling over three times and shouting "Foul."
The Minister said that all these plans will be audited. If it is so easy to audit the Labour party's policy, why is it proving so difficult for the Department to audit its position and all that has happened so far? Who will pay for the audit—the Government or the Conservative party?
Mr. Trippier: I assure the hon. Lady, if she did not already know, that the Government are consistently audited. Every Department of state is subjected to rigorous scrutiny by the National Audit Office and various Select Committees. We need to turn the attention of the Select Committees to the Labour party.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central went on to mislead the House once again—unintentionally, I am sure—by saying that the Government had not done anything to help tackle the problem experienced with the Rose theatre site.
Mr. Fisher rose—
Mr. Trippier: I am sorry, but you have had your opportunity. You made a very long speech. I have a short time in which to respond. You must not get so thin skinned about the fact that I might be picking you up on one or two points.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am "you".
Mr. Trippier: The sum of £1 million was given to allow the extra time for the redesign of the office block on the Rose theatre site, so the hon. Gentleman's comment was not accurate.
To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about areas of archaeological importance—an important matter—
Mr. Fisher rose—
Mr. Trippier: —I expect to announce later this month—
Mr.Fisher rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down!
Mr. Trippier: I give way.
Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He made a serious accusation that I had misled the House, and it is important to put the record straight. The help has not been given to the Rose Theatre Trust. Indeed, the Government are now saying that it will have to pay the full legal costs. They have given just £2,000 towards the legal costs and they say that the Rose Theatre Trust will have to pay the rest. Is that really the Government's attitude towards this important archaeological site?
Mr. Trippier: In the unlikely event of the hon. Gentleman being a Minister, would he strongly advocate that the Government should help with the legal costs of an organisation that brings a case in that way? Is he seriously suggesting that?
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey made a fair point. I expect to announce later this month my conclusions on the operation and effectiveness of statutory areas of archaeological importance following the review and advice provided by English Heritage. As to the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the Museum of London's grant, English Heritage is discussing with the Museum of London and other interested parties the provision of an archaeological survey in London, which primarily is a matter for that body.
In his excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts spoke of Government policy on the arts. I intend to concentrate my remarks on the subjects for which the Department of the Environment is responsible.
We live surrounded by a rich legacy of the past. Castles, palaces, stately homes, archaeological remains and attractive villages and towns serve to remind us of our proud history as a land of culture, commerce and history. Like the living arts and the treasures of our museums and galleries, the built heritage contributes vitally to the quality of life. A sense of history and stewardship helps to weld our society together.
In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South referred to the nation's concern for our cathedrals. I might share his views, and I assure him that we hope to address that matter in the forthcoming White Paper, which should be launched in the autumn.
Our generation values the built heritage more than any previous generation and in recent years, under a Government who have encouraged people to think and act for themselves, there has been a marked increase in that trend. It is significant, for example, that the National Trust has doubled its membership in the past 10 years to almost 2 million. The Labour party's analysis of art and heritage policy is still fundamentally corporatist and bureaucratic. The individual's instinctive feeling for an association with the past has no place in Labour party policy. One cannot legislate for stewardship, but if it were possible the party would try.
The Government's role lies not in drawing up grand plans—that is an absurd notion. The fabric of our nation was laid long before we politicians came on the scene and will certainly be there long after. What continues are the bonds formed by an individual's pride in his nation's history and landmarks. We should cherish the values of

1093
ownership and stewardship. The Government's policy is to provide the framework in which those values are allowed to flourish.
I wish to identify five separate strands to that policy. First, the Government and their agencies aim to set standards of excellence in the care of properties in their ownership or guardianship. Secondly, we have an excellent system for identifying and recording the best of our built heritage. Thirdly, we aim to harness the energy and resources of the private and voluntary sectors in conserving the heritage, backed where necessary with financial assistance from public funds to help meet the extra cost of maintaining and restoring heritage properties. Fourthly, the Government seek to promote greater understanding and enjoyment of the heritage and to encourage wider public participation. Last, but not least, we have a mature and effective legislative system to protect and preserve the heritage.
In those, and in other matters, the Government and their agencies can set an example and give a lead. English Heritage manages 400 castles, abbeys, historic houses and other sites and properties in England, including such famous sites as Stonehenge, Dover castle, Osborne house and Hadrian's wall. This year, it is spending almost £34 million from a total grant in aid of £78.5 million on maintaining, repairing, displaying and marketing those properties. The historic royal palaces agency was set up as an executive agency within my Department in October last year. It has 350 staff and a budget of about £20 million.
Mr. Fisher: Give the figures.
Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman keeps asking me to give him figures, but he does not like the figures when I give them. The agency is headed by the first chief executive to have been recruited from an agency outside the civil service.
I have spoken of the cultural value of the built heritage to both our own and future generations, but heritage is also good business and contributes substantially to a tourist industry worth about £19 billion in total. That point was effectively made by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). Tourism is the strongest and largest growth sector in the whole of the British economy, creating a net increase of about 50,000 jobs year by year. I accept that there can sometimes be a conflict between heritage and tourism, although it seems to me that those who oppose such tourism would prefer people to send their money in a sealed envelope through the post rather than turning up in person. We must realise that we attract an enormous number of overseas visitors who come here to appreciate our heritage—I hardly think that they come here for our climate.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Mr. Paul Howard
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown].
10 pm
Mr. Jack Thompson: I am grateful to have the opportunity to introduce this Adjournment debate, even if this evening's experiences outside the House have not been pleasant. Having watched the match, I recommend that we do not go into extra time in the House tonight. I sympathise with you, Mr. Speaker, and with the Minister. We have to stay a little longer, despite the disappointing events outside.
Parliament is concerned with individual rights, and the case to which I shall refer has a bearing on those rights. The fact that we are debating it reflects the significance of the parliamentary system in Britain. I regret that I have had to seek an Adjournment debate to bring it to the attention of the House, because for two years now I have been trying to solve the problem with the Ministry of Defence and the Army medical authorities, but a response to my clear requests for information has not been forthcoming.
A constituent of mine, Paul Howard, was given a temporary discharge from the Scottish division on 28 December 1985. I have with me a copy of the relevant document which is entitled:
"Certificate of discharge issued to a soldier discharged with less than six months service or discharged from type 'O' engagement."
The document lists his name, surname, army number and the place at which he enlisted. The service particulars on discharge specify that Paul Howard had served as a private and that his service on discharge was five months and 20 days, including 28 days on leave without pay before reporting for duty. The document states as the cause of his discharge:
"Ceasing to fulfil Army medical standards."
His military conduct is described as
"Exemplary assessed on five months' service."
The document is signed by the officer in charge of infantry and GSC manning, Imphal barracks, York.
The papers also include a temporary certificate of discharge or transfer to the reserve, which also gives his rank, number and name, and states that the cause o f his discharge was medical and that his military conduct was exemplary. That is the only information that has been made available about Paul Howard's discharge.
Paul Howard joined the Army on 5 August 1985. He underwent the normal medical examination required for those joining the armed forces and had a clean medical record. He was undertaking training with the Gordon Highlanders when he took ill and was transferred to the Royal Victoria infirmary in Edinburgh. He was diagnosed as having
"urinary tract infection, contusions of the soft tissue in the lower back and contusions of the scalp."
Following his period in the Royal Victoria infirmary, a medical board held in November 1985 discharged him as
"temporarily medically unfit."
Two appointments were made for Mr. Howard to see Dr. Bates, a consultant neurologist, but he was unable to keep the appointment. The Ministry said that that was his fault, but in fact he was a patient in Catterick military hospital which would not release him for the appointment. He was then requested to obtain, at his own expense,

1095
reports from a neurologist and urologist. Mr. J. S. W. Feggetter, an eminent consultant urologist and a serving officer in the Territorial Army, was requested to examine him. Dr. David Bates, a consultant neurologist with the Northern regional health authority and a senior lecturer at the university of Newcastle, also examined Mr. Howard. I have copies of those reports and they suggest that there is nothing wrong with him. The Minister has also seen copies of the reports. Mr. Howard has a clean bill of health. Those examinations took place in February 1989 and the findings were supported as recently as March this year by Mr. Howard's general practitioner, Dr. Donald Irvine, who is a highly respected practitioner and a senior figure in national medical circles.
Since 1985, Paul Howard had been encouraged to believe that he would be allowed to re-enlist once his health situation was clarified. In his opinion and in mine, that clarification was forthcoming. However, in 1988 when he approached me, it was evident that that was not the case.
Despite evidence and correspondence between myself and three Under-Secretaries of State for Defence—the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) and the Earl of Arran—and a meeting with the hon. Member for Romford in his capacity as Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, I was unable to obtain the reasons why Mr. Howard was unable to re-enlist. All that I learnt, in a letter from the Earl of Arran of 5 April 1990, was that
"Mr. Howard remains and will continue to remain below the minimum medical standards for service either with the regular or reserve forces."
The position with the reserve forces was confirmed when Mr. Howard's application to join the Territorial Army was rejected.
In a letter to me, Dr. Irvine—Mr. Howard's GP—wrote:
"I have … made a careful re-exploration of his medical records … I can find no medical reason why he should not be accepted for service in the armed forces."
The Minister has a copy of that letter.
I raise this issue on the Floor of the House in an attempt to obtain two pieces of information. I am sorry that I have reached this point because until now the discussions between myself, my constituents and the Minister have been in private as would normally be the case.
First, on behalf of Dr. Irvine, I would like to have the medical reasons for Mr. Howard's temporary discharge in detail. Mr. Howard is still only temporarily discharged. If he has a medical condition that warrants investigation by Dr. Irvine, he at least should know the circumstances. Secondly, why has Mr. Howard not been given a permanent discharge which should indicate specifically the reasons for ending his Army career so abruptly?
Although finding civilian employment in my constituency is not easy at the moment, it is not helped by the mystery surrounding Mr. Howard's discharge. His attempts to seek civilian employment are being seriously hampered by the bureaucratic attitude of the Army's recruiting and medical departments.
Mr. Howard is the kind of young enthusiastic person our forces need. I applaud his persistence in trying to ferret out information from behind the closed doors of those two departments. He and I have both failed to do that. When
1096
the Minister responds, I hope that he will finally come clean on behalf of the Ministry and explain why there has been a constant refusal to relieve the concerns of Mr. Howard about his health and his prospects in his attempts to resume his Army career and about the blight on his opportunities to take up a civilian career.
10.8 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Michael Neubert): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) on his commitment to his constituency and, in particular, to his constituent Mr. Paul Howard. The hon. Gentleman has displayed great tenacity in pursuing his constituent's case. As he said, it is more than two years since he first entered into correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), now the Minister for Public Transport. The intensity of that correspondence increased with my arrival in December 1988 as Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, and the dialogue has continued at full flow since last August under the tenure of my successor, my noble Friend the present Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces.
A few words by way of preface on the general policy of the armed forces towards medical matters may be helpful. The House will of course appreciate the demanding and stressful physical nature of service in the armed forces and how important it is that service men and women should be medically fit to withstand the full rigours of the varied and exacting life that the services offer. Medical fitness gives confidence that they can then perform their role in peace and war. But it is also essential, in the interests of an individual, and of those with whom he or she works as a unit, that they do not fall prey to avoidable mishaps or injury. In this context, it is only fair to remind the House that the services can be, and often are, severely criticised when young men, particularly those undergoing arduous training, suffer serious injury.
The Army, therefore, like the other two services, places great emphasis on maintaining high medical standards of fitness for service. Particular care is taken on entry and again in the early stages of training.
The central system of medical classification operated by each of the three services lays down employability standards by which to measure an individual's medical fitness. The system is designed to provide a functional assessment of an individual's capacity to work and to assist in expressing the physical and mental attributes appropriate to the various roles that service personnel may be called upon to perform. The system also helps in determining the fitness of personnel to undertake certain postings. It is applied equally to all ranks of the three services, both male and female, including officers. It is that system by which Paul Howard was not only discharged from the Gordon Highlanders in 1985 but was refused re- enlistment at various times during the period that has elapsed since that date.
It is important to say at this point, in particular in relation to the general practitioner's report, that, although the system of medical classification is operated by service medical authorities and is a medical responsibility, the various arms of the services set the minimum standards

1097
required for each of their services. Paul Howard was, therefore, medically assessed against the requirements of the infantry—in this case, the Gordon Highlanders.
It may be helpful if I too set out the history of Paul Howard's brief service as we have seen it during 1985 with the Gordon Highlanders.
Paul Howard first sought to enlist at the Army careers information office in Ashington, Northumberland. As is required of all potential recruits to the services, he had to undergo a pre-service medical examination. That took place on 22 March 1985, and was performed by a civilian medical practitioner working to military standards and regulations. Mr. Howard was advised that he would be examined again by a medical officer at the training unit within the first six days of service—the initial medical examination—and again at the conclusion of his basic training or the 16th week of training—the service medical examination. That comprehensive and well-tested procedure is designed expressly to expose, during training, obscure or dormant disabilities not evident in the pre-service medical examination. Mr. Howard reported for training at the Scottish Infantry depot and underwent his initial medical examination on 5 August 1985.
As the hon. Gentleman said, neither the pre-service nor initial medical examination showed any disabilities, and Mr. Howard revealed no history at that stage to show any medical reason why he should not be allowed to continue. Unfortunately, as we have heard, within six weeks of entry, he was taken ill and was admitted to Edinburgh royal infirmary, where he spent 20 days before being transferred to the medical reception station, Edinburgh, which he left on 5 October 1985. At that stage, a medical board was convened, and that board concluded that he was temporarily medically unfit and should be discharged. Just three days after his discharge from the medical reception station, he was readmitted to the royal infirmary with symptoms similar to those for which he had previously been an in-patient. He remained there for a further eight days.
During his time in hospital, he underwent a number of investigations and was also seen by a representative of the neurology department. He was then sent home on leave and, after having several similar attacks, did not return to barracks. Unfortunately, he was to return to hospital again on two more occasions before finally being transferred on 21 November 1985 to the Duchess of Kent's military hospital in Catterick, where he stayed until 26 November.
That same evening, following his release from the Duchess of Kent's military hospital, he reported himself to the accident and emergency department of the Edinburgh royal infirmary, complaining of further illness. He was examined once again and discharged to the care of the military authorities in order for him to follow up an appointment with a consultant in neurology at the Royal Victoria infirmary, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
In the light of his medical history during his very short time in the Army, Mr. Howard was given examinations which were to form the basis for a second medical board at the Duchess of Kent's military hospital because the Duchess of Kent's military hospital did not at that stage have access to the results of the first board.
The House should know that there has been some confusion in previous correspondence with the hon. Gentleman as to whether or not these medical boards did in fact take place, as his constituent was not himself
1098
present. The hon. Gentleman has, however, been informed by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, in his letter of 30 November 1989, that it is not a pre-requisite for a patient to be present for a medical board. It is often the case that evidence is collated and subsequently examined in turn by board members, who then give their findings and make their recommendations. Before the second medical board could be approved, authority for discharge had been given on the basis of the conclusions of the first medical board.
In this case, Mr. Howard was assessed by the first medical board as being below retention standards, and he was finally discharged from the services on 28 December 1985. This was in accordance with Queen's regulations for the Army and because he could not fulfil Army medical requirements. The hon. Gentleman will know that he was found by the first medical board to be temporarily unfit for Army service. In retrospect, and in the light of later medical reports, including that of the second medical board, it would perhaps have been more appropriate to have discharged him as permanently unfit for Army service. Had he not already been discharged on the basis of the first board, that is what would have happened.
While I cannot go into the medical details of the case for reasons of medical confidentiality, it will be obvious from what I have said that Mr. Howard was subject to a number of medical examinations while in hospital. It is not open to me to discuss the nature of his illness, his treatment or the results of the medical investigations, because it is not our practice to disclose personal medical details except to other medical personnel with responsibility for the continued care of the patient. That does not mean there is anything to hide. The medical records in this case have already been made available to Mr. Howard's GP following the hon. Gentleman's meeting with me last July.
Since his discharge, Mr. Howard has been persistent in his attempts to rejoin the Army and latterly the Reserves. He has been seen by a number of medical practitioners, both service and civilian, including civilian specialists in urology and neurology, and his case has, as the House knows, been vigorously represented by the hon. Member for Wansbeck.
The hon. Gentleman has concentrated his attention on the grounds on which Paul Howard's repeated applications to re-enlist have been turned down. He and his constituent appear to suggest that the medical reasons which have consistently been cited are not the true reasons, and that some other reasons lie behind the decision. That is not so. The House will appreciate that, again, medical confidentiality prevents me from giving full details of the medical grounds on which we have declined to accept Mr. Howard's applications, or indeed the full extent of any advice received from the civilian consultants involved.
Nevertheless, in the light of the hon. Gentleman's initial representations, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering undertook in his letter of 30 April 1988 that the Army medical authorities would consider the case again on production of any favourable medical reports covering the period since his discharge to the present. After further correspondence, two reports from civilian urology and neurology consultants were then forwarded to me, as the then Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, with the hon. Gentleman's letter of 7 March 1989.
While those civilian reports were favourable, there remained a need for them to be considered by the Army

1099
medical authorities alongside the service medical findings and service medical requirements. My letter of 22 March 1989, therefore, informed the hon. Gentleman that any application from Mr. Howard for re-enlistment would now be dealt with in the normal manner through the Army careers information office, Ashington. Unfortunately, the wrong impression was drawn from that letter, as the hon. Gentleman seems to have regarded it as some sort of guarantee that Mr. Howard would be able to rejoin his regiment, and that the Army medical authorities were now satisfied with the medical reports. I re-emphasise to the House that, while the Army medical authorities can and do take account of all medical information presented to them, the decision on the medical suitability of candidates for the Army must, ultimately, rest with them.
Mr. Howard then reapplied to AC10 Ashington and was referred by the examining civilian medical practitioner there for specialist neurological assessment. That took place at the Duchess of Kent's military hospital at Catterick on 30 March 1989. The consultant's report confirmed the earlier opinions of the members of the medical boards which recommended Mr. Howard's discharge in 1985, and concluded, in line with the standard system of medical classification, that Mr. Howard was below entry medical standards and that there was, furthermore, no evidence to suggest that he would in the future meet those standards.
Following that, Mr. Howard was again informed that he did not meet the very high standard of medical fitness required for the Army and that AC10 Ashington could not, therefore, proceed further with his application for re-enlistment. This assessment was also later held to be applicable to Army service in the reserves. I can quite understand that Mr. Howard will have been disappointed once again by this decision. Nevertheless, I hope that the House will agree that Mr. Howard has in fact been given every opportunity to prove to the Army medical authorities that he could meet the minimum standards required and that the authorities have fully considered and reconsidered his case.
1100
Finally, I would like to touch on the fears that Mr. Howard has expressed through the hon. Gentleman tonight and previously that his unfitness for the rigours of service life may have some adverse impact on his chances of civilian employment. No failure to satisfy the very high medical standards set by the services for their uniquely stressful and exacting requirements should be taken in itself to imply that an individual is unfit for a wide range of civilian employment. I am naturally pleased that Mr. Howard has obtained reassurance from civilian specialists on his state of health and I hope he will take comfort from this. If he does have any lingering doubts that being found unfit for the Army will affect his prospects of civilian employment, he can also take reassurance on that account from his civilian medical advisers.
With regard to his brief military experience, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the decision to discharge Mr. Howard as medically unfit was not taken lightly nor on the basis of a single incident or examination. Mr. Howard was an in-patient in more than one hospital and therefore subject to medical examination on several occasions between September and November 1985, and the service medical authorities then and later gave due weight to all the evidence before them on reaching their conclusion.
I should like to conclude by wishing Mr. Howard well in civil employment. It is a matter of regret to us all that he has been unable to pursue his chosen career in the services, but, as I hope has become clear from the detailed remarks I have made tonight and from the previous correspondence, the firm view of the competent service medical authorities is that it would not be in the interests either of the Army or of Mr. Howard himself for him to rejoin the forces. That view has been subject to repeated re-examination, and the conclusion of the service medical authorities is that Mr. Howard is not medically fit for service with the Army. But, as I have also made clear, that does not mean that he is not medically fit for a wide range of civil employment, and the views of his general practitioner should, I hope, serve to reassure him and any potential employer.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Ten o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Oil Spillage, West Coast
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what emergency provisions have been made to cover the event of an oil spillage off the west coast of Scotland.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Because it is impossible to predict where or when a tanker accident may occur, the marine pollution control unit's (MPCU) contingency plan consists of highly mobile resources on short-notice standby positioned at various locations around the United Kingdom, from where they can be deployed quickly to the west coast of Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom that may be threatened by a major oil spillage.

  Local authorities on the west coast of Scotland all have their own contingency plans for dealing with coastal pollution and can call on advice and assistance from the MPCU, which in a major spillage would co-ordinate onshore clean-up operations as well as directing offshore activities. This is to ensure a fully integrated response.

  The MPCU is this year holding its annual major counter-pollution exercise off the west coast of Scotland to test the effectiveness of plans to deal with an oil spillage in that area. The exercise will take place on 4 and 5 July in the North Minch and will involve local authorities in both the Isle of Lewis and the Scottish mainland.

  Disability
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state what steps he intends to take following the report of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee on access for disabled people to buses and coaches; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The committee worked closely with my Department in drawing up its "Recommended Specification for Buses Used to Operate Local Services", published in June 1988. This includes features such as lower steps, textured and colour-contrasted handrails, bus stopping signs, step edge markings, and bell pushes which can be reached by seated passengers.

  Among other initiatives to promote the use of the specification, my Department has produced a video, "Welcome Aboard", illustrating the features recommended by the committee and demonstrating the benefits to passengers with disabilities.

  The main DPTAC recommendations have also been proposed by my Department for inclusion in a draft EC directive on bus and coach construction.

  Motorway Construction
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of motorway are(a) being planned and (b) under construction for the Greater Manchester county.

  Mr. Atkins
  A total of 31 miles of new motorway are being planned. In addition we plan to widen 25 miles of existing motorway. No new motorways are currently under construction in Greater Manchester.

  Roads, Devon
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when the South Molton information signs will be erected on the north Devon link road;

  (2) if he will visit north Devon to inspect the north Devon link road one year after completion;

  (3) when the 60 mph restriction signs will be erected on the north Devon link road; and if he will make a statement upon the provision of emergency telephones along this road.

  Mr. Atkins
  The application for information signs on the link road near South Molton is being considered, but the road safety implications of additional signs are a cause for concern.

  I have no plans to visit the link road. Nor have I any plans to install 60 mph speed limit signs on the road. The national speed limits already apply: there are reminder posters about the limits at the picnic areas, and reminder signs in the laybys.

  New-style emergency phones are being installed by the RAC and AA (with a contribution from the Department). I understand that these will be operational very shortly.

ENVIRONMENT

  Ozone-depleting Chemicals
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those chemicals which he has assessed to be safe substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals.

  Mr. Trippier
  Discussions are taking place today and tomorrow in Brussels on the package of tests which will be necessary for the assessment of the substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals.

  Recycling
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to encourage and support small businesses to establish a door-to-door collection service for the recycling of metal cans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Environmental Protection Bill contains a range of measures which will assist and promote the segregation of waste for recycling. Collection authorities will have a duty to draw up recycling plans and when doing so be required to liaise with all relevant organisations in their areas, including private sector companies. Waste disposal authorities will be required to pass to collection authorities the savings that accrue because refuse has been recycled rather than passed to
  565
  them for disposal—and this may be passed on to benefit both voluntary groups and small businesses. Other provisions of the Bill will allow authorities to specify environmentally favourable options for waste disposal, such as recycling, even if they are not the cheapest in financial terms. Stricter controls on waste disposal by landfill and other means will increase their costs and so make recycling more attractive. The forthcoming White Paper on the environment will set out our further plans for recycling.

  The Government are also working with local authorities to develop projects like recycling city in Sheffield and Cardiff where segregated collection systems are being carried out on a trial basis and which can, when fully evaluated, be used as models for future practice. We shall be providing comprehensive advice to local authorities to assist them in the development of recycling projects.

  National Rivers Authority
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the level of funding of the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 5 June to the hon. Member for Dewbury (Mrs. Taylor) at column 489.

  Letting of Rooms
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the statutory provisions applying to residents who wish to let out a room or rooms in their home; and if he has any plans to reform the law.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Department receives the occasional letter from hon. Members and the public about the statutory provisions applying to residents who wish to let out a room or rooms in their home. Changes were made in the Housing Act 1988 which completely deregulated such lettings. We have no plans to make any further changes to the legislation.

  House Purchase Incentive Scheme
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Department first made available £200,000 to Lambeth council for the cash incentive scheme for tenants wishing to buy properties in the private sector.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My officials wrote to Lambeth on 27 March 1990 giving approval in principle to a cash incentive scheme in 1990–91 for which £200,000 in supplementary credit approvals will be available as part of the Government's homeless initiative. The supplementary credit approvals will be issued as grants are actually paid out.

  Warrington and Runcorn Development Corporation
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which contracts were awarded by Warrington and Runcorn development corporation to business ventures on the basis of competitive tendering.

  Mr. Chope
  No contracts were awarded by Warrington and Runcorn development corporation to business ventures on the basis of competitive tendering.
  566
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 27 June to the hon. Member for Warrington, North, how the value of services provided to Warrington and Runcorn development corporation by business ventures was assessed in order for the corporation to make appropriate reductions for the use of its property; how the rentable value of that property was assessed by Warrington and Runcorn development corporation; and which business ventures made use of Warrington and Runcorn development corporation property for 30 months.

  Mr. Chope
  The basis of the fees paid to business ventures by Warrington and Runcorn development corporation was that they should not exceed the costs which the corporation would have had to bear if the function had remained in-house. The fees payable were initially based on payroll costs and direct expenses and were exclusive of accommodation costs. Thereafter, as the business ventures began to undertake work for other clients, the corporation reduced its fee payments to reflect the use made of its accommodation in providing these services. The engineering business venture, involving a merger with Rendel Palmer and Tritton, made use of corporation accommodation for 30 months.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Warrington, North of 27 June, what were the three largest redundancy payments made to Warrington and Runcorn development corporation staff who joined business ventures employed by the corporation; and to which officials they were paid.

  Mr. Chope
  The three largest redundancy payments made to staff of Warrington and Runcorn development corporation who joined business ventures were as follows:

  £

  Chief Estates Officer (Runcorn)

  45,328

  Chief Engineer

  44,264

  Chief Legal Officer

  43,507

  World Cup Hooliganism
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations his Department has received on the subject of deportations from Italy for alleged hooliganism at the World Cup tournament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  As of 3 July my Department had received 12 representations concerning the sending home of British citizens during the World Cup.

  Waste Collection
  Mr. Boscawen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends that local authorities should charge for waste collected from mixed domestic and commercial property; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations 1988 for simplicity define all waste arising from mixed hereditaments (now known as composite hereditaments)—that is, properties which are partly residential and partly used for trade or business—as commercial waste. Waste collection authorities do not
  567
  charge for the collection of domestic waste, but may make a reasonable charge for commercial waste. However, circular 13/88 suggests that authorities, in setting the level of their charges, should recognise that some waste arises from the residential part of a composite property. We consider that all authorities should, once they have received a request to collect commercial waste from such properties, collect or empty free of charge at least one refuse sack or dustbin per week per property and should be prepared to consider alternative or additional arrangements on an individual basis.

  Water Metering
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the results of the national water metering trials to be available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The second interim report on the national metering trials has been published by the water industry today and I have placed a copy in the Library.

  Use of rateable values as a basis for water charges ceases to be lawful from April 2000. Water companies will have to decide what alternative method of charging to adopt for the future; and metering—which is being adopted for many new properties, which do not have a rateable value—is one of the options being considered. Because it relates the size of a customer's bill to the

  Specific Grants 1990–91

  Bradford (£000)

  Wandsworth (£000)

  Westminster (£000)

  Rent Allowance Grant

  13,201

  12,273

  17,600

  Mandatory Student Awards Grant

  9,593

  7,807

  1,700

  Community Charge Benefit Grant

  12,121

  5,160

  4,780

  In-Service Teacher Training

  1,507

  484

  347

  Education Support

  733

  511

  246

  Training Agency (TVEI)

  1,877

  102

  50

  Work Related Further Education

  0

  586

  350

  Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council

  0

  601

  0

  Social Services Training

  0

  80

  95

  Aids and HIV

  0

  39

  0

  Magistrates' Courts

  1,929

  0

  0

  Probation

  2,483

  0

  0

  Civil Defence

  0

  6

  2

  Commonwealth Immigrants

  6,553

  2,241

  1,642

  Housing Benefit Administration

  1,250

  1,165

  860

  Home Insulation Grant

  7

  2

  0

  Improvement Grants and Area Improvement Grants

  7,420

  7,344

  4,294

  Urban Programme

  2,541

  1,220

  138

  Expenses of Rent Officers

  0

  0

  972

  Careers Service Strengthening

  241

  73

  50

  Sheltered Employment

  168

  114

  39

  European Community Grants

  0

  5

  0

  Transitional Relief Grant

  2,911

  1

  20

  Transitional Relief Preparatory Costs Grant

  8

  0

  0

  Transitional Relief Administration Costs Grant

  89

  64

  0

  Other

  0

  0

  331

  Total

  64,632

  39,878

  33,516

  Football (Arrests)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the 92 Football League clubs together with the total season's attendance for Football League matches, total number of arrests made at such matches and the number of arrests as a percentage of the total attendance, for the seasons 1987–88 and 1989–90;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the total attendance at Football League matches in England and
  568
  amount of water used, it has been seen as potentially the fairest way of charging. But general metering will involve considerable expenditure, as the report demonstrates.

  The trials have now been under way for about 18 months and, in the majority of cases, customers have been charged on their consumption of water for about a year. The full results will not be known until the trials have been completed in about two years' time. In the meantime a considerable amount of information has been collected about the costs and problems of installing meters and this has been assembled in the second interim report.

  The report provides valuable information which will contribute to the debate on what future methods of charging the industry should adopt. This will be carried forward by the consultation paper which the Director General of Water Services intends to issue later this year.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) on 25 June,Official Report, columns 44–46, if he will detail the specific grants given to Bradford, Wandsworth and Westminster.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: The information, as given on the local authorities' 1990–91 budget returns, is as follows:

  Wales, the total number of arrests at such matches, and the number of arrests as a percentage of the total attendance, accurate to four decimal places, for the seasons 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 June 1990, c. 483]: The Association of Chief Police Officers is today publishing figures supplied by individual police forces relating to attendances and arrests at Football League matches in England and Wales during the season 1989–90.

  569
  These figures are some guide to the level of offences committed at such football matches. The figures do not record the outcome or seriousness of the cases involved. Figures for individual clubs relate to arrests at the home ground in question, involving supporters of any club.

  Total figures for the last three seasons are:

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Attendances

  17,968,965

  18,366,143

  19,360,194

  Arrests

  6,106

  6,185

  5,945

  Arrests as percentage of attendance

  0.0340

  0.0337

  0.0307

  This indicates a 5.4 per cent. rise in attendances and a 3.9 per cent. fall in arrests between 1988–89 and 1989–90: overall a reduction of 8.9 per cent. in arrests as a proportion of attendances.

  Figures for individual clubs over the last three seasons are:

  Season 1989–90

  Attendances

  Number of arrests

  Arrest as percentage of attendances

  Aldershot

  46,537

  36

  0·07

  Arsenal

  639,763

  143

  0·02

  Aston Villa

  485,356

  215

  0·04

  Barnsley

  207,389

  54

  0·03

  Birmingham

  195,242

  152

  0·07

  Blackburn

  221,054

  51

  0·02

  Blackpool

  93,527

  107

  0·11

  Bolton

  167,770

  73

  0·04

  Bournemouth

  171,432

  213

  0·12

  Bradford

  199,041

  69

  0·03

  Brentford

  130,189

  25

  0·02

  Brighton

  198,105

  55

  0·03

  Bristol City

  262,037

  114

  0·04

  Bristol Rovers

  142,791

  50

  0·03

  Burnley

  142,967

  47

  0·03

  Bury

  79,210

  27

  0·03

  Cambridge

  45,349

  1

  0·00

  Cardiff

  84,302

  32

  0·04

  Carlisle

  107,959

  15

  0·01

  Charlton

  204,503

  64

  0·03

  Chelsea

  415,239

  236

  0·05

  Chester

  55,914

  46

  0·08

  Chesterfield

  98,265

  54

  0·05

  Colchester

  70,940

  17

  0·02

  Coventry

  271,543

  192

  0·07

  Crewe

  93,156

  11

  0·01

  Crystal Palace

  323,792

  76

  0·02

  Derby County

  329,912

  89

  0·02

  Doncaster

  62,255

  51

  0·08

  Everton

  494,766

  68

  0·01

  Exeter

  112,634

  19

  0·01

  Fulham

  103,321

  67

  0·06

  Gillingham

  88,421

  7

  0·01

  Grimsby

  137,623

  49

  0·03

  Halifax

  38,637

  47

  0·12

  Hartlepool

  56,988

  16

  0·03

  Hereford

  61,981

  49

  0·08

  Huddersfield

  129,549

  25

  0·02

  Hull City

  144,198

  57

  0·04

  Ipswich

  293,597

  30

  0·01

  Leeds United

  635,833

  168

  0·02

  Leicester

  269,387

  115

  0·04

  Leyton Orient

  100,385

  20

  0·01

  Lincoln

  93,629

  116

  0·12

  Liverpool

  700,908

  84

  0·01

  Luton

  186,451

  9

  0·01

  Maidstone

  55,912

  20

  0·03

  Manchester City

  531,541

  57

  0·01

  Manchester United

  740,476

  60

  0·01

  Mansfield

  71,933

  10

  0·01

  Middlesbrough

  374,249

  36

  0·01

  570

  Attendances

  Number of arrests

  Arrest as percentage of attendances

  Millwall

  236,009

  108

  0·04

  Newcastle

  505,840

  215

  0·04

  Northampton

  73,564

  1

  0·00

  Norwich

  318,052

  49

  0·01

  Notts County

  141,438

  46

  0·03

  Notts Forest

  391,014

  84

  0·02

  Oldham

  223,557

  8

  0·00

  Oxford

  133,822

  51

  0·04

  Peterborough

  110,777

  12

  0·01

  Plymouth

  200,720

  22

  0·01

  Portsmouth

  209,644

  42

  0·02

  Port Vale

  206,485

  96

  0·05

  Preston

  145,189

  114

  0·08

  QPR

  249,760

  70

  0·03

  Reading

  93,974

  21

  0·02

  Rochdale

  47,510

  28

  0·06

  Rotherham

  127,692

  48

  0·04

  Scarborough

  53,204

  31

  0·06

  Scunthorpe

  81,007

  15

  0·02

  Sheffield United

  388,677

  97

  0·02

  Sheffield Wednesday

  397,615

  87

  0·02

  Shrewsbury

  81,283

  18

  0·02

  Southampton

  313,222

  73

  0·02

  Southend

  83,880

  10

  0·01

  Stockport

  89,758

  25

  0·03

  Stoke City

  286,368

  49

  0·01

  Sunderland

  401,098

  85

  0·02

  Swansea

  88,396

  48

  0·05

  Swindon

  216,463

  30

  0·01

  Torquay

  49,484

  27

  0·05

  Tottenham

  502,830

  73

  0·01

  Tranmere

  171,200

  27

  0·01

  Walsall

  93,765

  55

  0·06

  Watford

  238,074

  40

  0·02

  West Bromwich

  259,724

  116

  0·04

  West Ham

  465,873

  182

  0·04

  Wigan

  63,486

  14

  0·02

  Wimbledon

  145,380

  20

  0·01

  Wolverhampton

  392,031

  322

  0·08

  Wrexham

  54,974

  3

  0·01

  York

  59,395

  39

  0·06

  Season 1988–89

  Attendances

  Number of arrests

  Arrests as percentage of attendances

  Aldershot

  60,249

  65

  0·12

  Arsenal

  676,267

  167

  0·02

  Aston Villa

  443,362

  344

  0·08

  Barnsley

  166,129

  21

  0·01

  Birmingham

  144,577

  65

  0·04

  Blackburn

  191,379

  37

  0·02

  Blackpool

  88,701

  66

  0·07

  Bolton

  124,626

  40

  0·03

  Bournemouth

  186,002

  35

  0·02

  Bradford

  242,007

  85

  0·03

  Brentford

  129,296

  50

  0·04

  Brighton

  208,022

  47

  0·02

  Bristol City

  186,371

  73

  0·04

  Bristol Rovers

  121,856

  67

  0·05

  Burnley

  162,583

  47

  0·03

  Bury

  77,346

  27

  0·03

  Cambridge

  59,655

  17

  0·03

  Cardiff

  100,643

  16

  0·01

  Carlisle

  73,696

  17

  0·02

  Charlton

  177,760

  47

  0·03

  Chelsea

  371,685

  304

  0·08

  Chester

  70,119

  20

  0·03

  Chesterfield

  86,746

  44

  0·05

  Colchester

  66,421

  7

  0·01

  Coventry

  302,902

  190

  0·06

  Crewe

  74,202

  30

  0·04

  Crystal Palace

  245,342

  71

  0·03

  571

  Attendances

  Number of arrests

  Arrests as percentage of attendances

  Darlington

  53,278

  26

  0·05

  Derby County

  335,964

  132

  0·04

  Doncaster

  49,796

  20

  0·04

  Everton

  521,444

  80

  0·01

  Exeter

  59,832

  12

  0·02

  Fulham

  113,580

  126

  0·11

  Gillingham

  84,907

  23

  0·02

  Grimsby

  98,949

  79

  0·08

  Halifax

  43,577

  62

  0·14

  Hartlepool

  46,921

  21

  0·04

  Hereford

  49,619

  28

  0·05

  Huddersfield

  133,989

  34

  0·02

  Hull City

  135,915

  18

  0·01

  Ipswich

  288,319

  31

  0·01

  Leeds United

  500,906

  159

  0·03

  Leicester

  239,357

  95

  0·04

  Leyton Orient

  87,340

  8

  0·01

  Lincoln

  90,051

  19

  0·02

  Liverpool

  734,902

  132

  0·02

  Luton

  176,681

  7

  0·00

  Manchester City

  540,476

  39

  0·01

  Manchester United

  693,257

  60

  0·01

  Mansfield

  92,033

  40

  0·04

  Middlesbrough

  378,210

  86

  0·02

  Millwall

  293,926

  160

  0·05

  Newcastle

  433,487

  166

  0·04

  Northampton

  91,030

  3

  0·00

  Norwich

  318,844

  86

  0·03

  Notts County

  130,654

  49

  0·04

  Nottingham Forest

  394,911

  66

  0·02

  Oldham

  160,325

  12

  0·01

  Oxford

  145,788

  36

  0·02

  Peterborough

  74,469

  14

  0·02

  Plymouth

  198,443

  19

  0·01

  Portsmouth

  233,980

  162

  0·07

  Port Vale

  154,426

  79

  0·05

  Preston

  163,703

  51

  0·03

  QPR

  235,018

  95

  0·04

  Reading

  117,613

  25

  0·02

  Rochdale

  45,127

  47

  0·10

  Rotherham

  116,279

  31

  0·02

  Scarborough

  66,895

  51

  0·07

  Scunthorpe

  104,588

  55

  0·05

  Sheffield United

  280,315

  50

  0·02

  Sheffield Wednesday

  380,807

  80

  0·02

  Shrewsbury

  108,100

  37

  0·03

  Southampton

  296,047

  146

  0·05

  Southend

  84,479

  30

  0·03

  Stockport

  64,061

  53

  0·08

  Stoke City

  214,979

  44

  0·02

  Sunderland

  342,217

  49

  0·01

  Swansea

  112,895

  51

  0·04

  Swindon

  198,881

  44

  0·02

  Torquay

  53,852

  16

  0·03

  Tottenham

  464,876

  127

  0·03

  Tranmere

  121,830

  20

  0·02

  Walsall

  140,495

  148

  0·11

  Watford

  279,446

  44

  0·01

  West Bromwich

  290,683

  145

  0·05

  West Ham

  394,126

  201

  0·05

  Wigan

  72,263

  4

  0·01

  Wimbledon

  148,169

  17

  0·01

  Wolverhampton

  330,699

  192

  0·05

  Wrexham

  61,051

  12

  0·02

  York

  59,119

  132

  0·22

  Season 1987–88

  Attendances

  Number of arrests

  Arrest as percentage of attendances

  Aldershot

  70,642

  39

  0·06

  Arsenal

  598,059

  153

  0·03

  Aston Villa

  403,836

  308

  0·08

  572

  Attendances

  Number of arrests

  Arrest as percentage of attendances

  Barnsley

  168,339

  55

  0·03

  Birmingham

  188,722

  101

  0·05

  Blackburn

  211,120

  79

  0·04

  Blackpool

  96,935

  36

  0·04

  Bolton

  114,778

  21

  0·02

  Bournmouth

  168,757

  149

  0·09

  Bradford

  285,509

  197

  0·07

  Brentford

  105,430

  72

  0·07

  Brighton

  205,263

  34

  0·02

  Bristol City

  225,861

  21

  0·01

  Bristol Rovers

  84,753

  18

  0·02

  Burnley

  144,770

  90

  0·06

  Bury

  58,997

  5

  0·01

  Cambridge

  52,896

  29

  0·05

  Cardiff

  101,752

  43

  0·04

  Carlisle

  51,282

  27

  0·05

  Charlton

  173,629

  14

  0·01

  Chelsea

  408,538

  271

  0·07

  Chester

  580,096

  22

  0·04

  Chesterfield

  61,239

  21

  0·03

  Colchester

  40,607

  0

  0·00

  Coventry

  350,165

  194

  0·06

  Crewe

  51,828

  21

  0·04

  Crystal Palace

  215,496

  78

  0·04

  Darlington

  50,374

  5

  0·01

  Derby County

  343,107

  86

  0·03

  Doncaster

  43,223

  28

  0·06

  Everton

  555,692

  24

  0·00

  Exeter

  56,264

  83

  0·15

  Fulham

  116,454

  99

  0·09

  Gillingham

  106,260

  32

  0·03

  Grimsby

  76,541

  66

  0·09

  Halifax

  39,358

  38

  0·10

  Hartlepool

  48,972

  21

  0·02

  Hereford

  50,712

  28

  0·06

  Huddersfield

  150,334

  126

  0·08

  Hull City

  157,507

  38

  0·02

  Ipswich

  258,037

  99

  0·04

  Leeds Utd

  443,094

  184

  0·04

  Leicester

  223,049

  31

  0·01

  Leyton Orient

  90,322

  8

  0·01

  Liverpool

  791,977

  33

  0·00

  Luton

  161,884

  1

  0·00

  Manchester City

  428,655

  35

  0·01

  Manchester United

  783,099

  38

  0·00

  Mansfield

  90,894

  21

  0·02

  Middlesbrough

  321,219

  110

  0·03

  Millwall

  185,165

  44

  0·02

  Newcastle

  419,742

  149

  0·04

  Newport

  40,261

  35

  0·09

  Northampton

  126,578

  11

  0·01

  Norwich

  313,904

  32

  0·01

  Notts County

  144,824

  56

  0·04

  Notts Forest

  384,648

  130

  0·03

  Oldham

  147,995

  19

  0·01

  Oxford

  218,632

  105

  0·05

  Peterborough

  71,881

  15

  0·02

  Plymouth

  226,152

  29

  0·01

  Portsmouth

  324,780

  282

  0·09

  Port Vale

  88,126

  22

  0·02

  Preston

  139,998

  20

  0·01

  QPR

  265,813

  91

  0·03

  Reading

  150,352

  20

  0·01

  Rochdale

  44,903

  32

  0·07

  Rotherham

  84,107

  47

  0·05

  Scarborough

  70,504

  146

  0·21

  Scunthorpe

  74,405

  46

  0·06

  Sheffield United

  223,960

  60

  0·03

  Sheffield Wednesday

  395,519

  90

  0·02

  Shrewsbury

  108,202

  68

  0·06

  Southampton

  290,617

  208

  0·07

  Southend

  79,320

  3

  0·00

  Stockport

  52,154

  17

  0·03

  Stoke City

  211,234

  57

  0·03

  Sunderland

  400,760

  80

  0·02

  573

  Attendances

  Number of arrests

  Arrest as percentage of attendances

  Swansea

  100,957

  10

  0·01

  Swindon

  209,800

  67

  0·03

  Torquay

  67,434

  21

  0·03

  Tottenham

  517,970

  74

  0·01

  Tranmere

  76,847

  53

  0·07

  Walsall

  128,153

  47

  0·04

  Watford

  291,464

  43

  0·01

  West Bromwich

  222,261

  132

  0·06

  West Ham

  396,473

  149

  0·04

  Wigan

  86,776

  4

  0·01

  Wimbledon

  159,691

  49

  0·03

  Wolverhampton

  226,964

  132

  0·06

  Wrexham

  51,539

  17

  0·03

  York

  62,902

  62

  0·10

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Rural Schools
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what special funding he proposes to small rural schools to assist delivery of the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We are giving local education authorities specific grant support for the introduction of the national curriculum There will be support for some £120 million expenditure this financial year, rising to nearly 170 million expenditure next financial year This is in addition to the general revenue support grant funding which local authorities receive in support of spending It is for authorities to decide how much to spend to help small rural schools to deliver the national curriculum.

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from Lancashire about the extent to which schools in the county will be affected by plans to extend the technical and vocational education initiative.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations about this

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has reached any conclusions on the future composition and organisation of the pay negotiating body; and if he will make a statement

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is now considering the responses of the teacher unions and employers to his proposals for new permanent pay negotiation machinery He will announce his conclusions in due course.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next expects to meet representatives of teachers' trade unions regarding pay and conditions of service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has met representatives of the teacher unions on a number of occasions, and would expect to hold similar meetings in the future.

  LEA Staff
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many(a) teaching staff and (b) non-teaching staff were employed by local education authorities in each of the years 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985 and the latest date for which figures are available; and what was the number of pupils on roll in each year listed.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Figures are given in the table. Information prior to 1970 is not readily available.

  Full-time equivalents of teacher staff and pupils on roll in nursery, primary and secondary schools maintained by local education authorities in England in January 1970–1989

  Thousands

  Teacher numbers

  Pupil numbers

  1Non-teaching staff

  1970

  328·7

  7,514·2

  n/a

  1975

  417·6

  8,458·1

  409·4

  1980

  438·1

  8,183·1

  400·0

  1985

  405·3

  7,201·6

  361·8

  1989

  397·4

  6,761·7

  381·3

  n/a Not available.

  1 Figures in this column relate to all non-teaching education staff employed by local authorities in England, not to nursery, primary and secondary schools alone All figures relate to March of each year.

  Local Management of Schools
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a list of education authorities with the percentage of their budget which is allocated in 1990–91 for local management of schools and the percentage retained as a centrally retained resource overhead.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) on 5 February 1990 at column 451.

  School Meals
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the latest figures showing how many children take(a) school meals and (b) free school meals broken down into primary, secondary and special schools; and what proportion of children present they make up in each case.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested for maintained schools in England for January 1989 is as follows:

  Total number of school meals provided

  As a percentage of all pupils on roll

  Total meals provided free

  As a percentage of all pupils on roll

  Primary1

  1,835,516

  46

  515,395

  13

  Secondary

  1,104,875

  38

  235,270

  8

  Special

  66,319

  71

  28,466

  31

  1 Includes nursery schools.

  Schools Budget (Administration)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science for each county council local education authority, what percentage of the total schools budget, excluding capital expenditure, is spent on administration.
  575
  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is still receiving budget statements prepared under section 42 of the Education Reform Act from local education authorities. As soon as he receives the great majority of returns the information requested will be published.

  Postgraduate Grants
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he expects existing differentials in postgraduate studentship rates to continue; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  During the current academic year the main studentship rate set by the research councils under the schemes which they run has been £600 higher than that under the state studentship scheme run on my behalf by the British Academy. Following representations from the British Academy and others I have today agreed that the rates under the state studentship scheme should be increased for the coming academic year to bring them in line with those currently available under the research councils' schemes. I have also today accepted advice from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, that some of the as yet unallocated funds within the science budget for 1991–92 should be allocated to help finance a £400 increase in the main studentship rate with effect from April 1991. I have invited the board's advice on how the planned increases in postgraduate awards fit within an overall strategy for postgraduate training and on the quantitative evidence about applications, enrolments, wastage and completion on which the strategies of the individual councils are based. So that scarce resources can be directed to areas of greatest need, I have informed the board that I would expect the councils to consider possibilities for the differentiation in future of studentship award rates, by year of study, by subject or type of training, or by geographical areas. I have invited the British Academy to proceed in the same fashion in relation to any further increase over and above that approved today.

  Art and Music
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to set up working groups to recommend attainment targets and programmes of study for art and music within the national curriculum for England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are today establishing working groups for art and music. The members of the groups are:

  Art Working Group

  Chairman:

  Professor Colin Renfrew

  Master of Jesus College, Cambridge; Professor of Archaeology, Cambridge

  Members:

  Giles Auty

  Art Critic, The Spectator

  Gilroy Brown

  Head Teacher, Foundry JMI School, Birmingham

  Robert Clement

  Adviser for Art and Design, Devon County Council

  David Derrick

  Head Teacher, St. Clement Dane's C of E Primary School, Westminster

  Gillian Figg

  Lecturer in Art Education, West Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education

  Toby Jackson

  Head of Education, Tate Gallery, Liverpool

  576

  Professor Leslie R. Perry

  Emeritus Professor, University of London Institute of Education, formerly Professor of the Philosophy of Education at Kings College, London

  Peter Riches

  Head of Faculty of Creative Studies, Eggbuckland School, Plymouth

  Ray Smith

  Practising artist

  Merrick Taylor

  Managing Director, Motor Panels (Coventry) Ltd.

  Lady Marina Vaizey

  Member of Fine Arts Advisory Committee, British Council; member of Crafts Council; art critic, Sunday Times. Broadcaster

  Music Working Group

  Chairman:

  Sir John Manduell CBE

  Principal, Royal Northern College of Music, Manchester

  Members:

  David Adams

  Head of Music, Sawston Village College, Cambridge

  Dr. Kevin Adams

  Head of Music, Maesteg Comprehensive School, Mid Glamorgan

  Michael Batt

  Freelance musician and composer

  Michael Brewer

  Director of Music, Chetham's (independent Specialist music) School, Manchester

  Philip Jones CBE

  Principal, Trinity College of Music

  Gillian Moore

  Education Officer, London Sinfonietta

  Professor George Pratt

  Head of Music Department, Huddersfield Polytechnic

  Mrs. L. Read

  Head of Infant Department, Elburton Primary School, Devon

  Julian Smith

  Director, W. H. Smith & Sons Ltd.

  John Stephens

  ex-LEA Senior Staff Inspector for music, and ex-HMI. Director of Education, Trinity College of Music from September 1990

  Christine Wood

  Lovely Music, Tadcaster (specialist suppliers of music to schools)

  The groups will advise on the attainment targets and programmes of study for art and music to be included within the national curriculum in England and Wales. We are grateful to the chairmen and members for having agreed to serve on the groups. An announcement on a working group for physical education will be made very shortly.

  Copies of the terms of reference for the art and music working groups have been placed in the Library. These make clear that the attainment targets and programmes of study will not be prescribed in as much detail as for other foundation subjects.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  VAT
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about value added tax on fuel consumed by vessels plying the United Kingdom coast and continental ports.
  577
  Mr. Ryder
  The Government have received a few representations about the change in VAT liability of fuel which takes effect on 1 July 1990 and the possibility of VAT stores relief for fishing and other vessels after that date.

  Civil Service Pensions
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what adjustments were made for each of the years from 1960 onwards to the negotiated pay in the home civil service for pension benefits.

  Mr. Major
  Civil service pay is determined within what is affordable according to the need to recruit, retain and motivate staff. A number of factors including pensions are taken into account in the pay negotiations.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had from regional bodies on public expenditure in the current year.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend receives many representations on a variety of subjects.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the public spending planning total for 1990–91.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The public expenditure planning total for 1990–91 published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" is £179 billion.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, 20 December 1989,Official Report, column 242, whether he has now received a report from the Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Major
  I have today received a report from the RPI Advisory Committee. It examines how to incorporate the price of holidays into the RPI and certain other issues in its work programme. On the price of holidays the report recommends that the CSO should collect data and examine a new methodology which will have to be subjected to further scrutiny before it could be incorporated into the RPI. I will present the report to Parliament and announce the Government's decision on the recommendations in due course.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Cambodia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he now has plans for direct British aid to Cambodia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 18 June.

WALES

  Corlan Housing Association
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the directors of the Corlan housing association,.

  Mr. Grist
  The present members of the committee of management of Corlan housing association were appointed recently by Housing for Wales under the provisions of section 17 of the Housing Associations Act 1985. They are:

  Mr. N. Bacon

  (Deputy Chief Executive, National Agriculture Centre Rural Trust)

  Mr. T. Blanch

  (Director, Rhondda Housing Association)

  Mr. R. Head

  (Director, Family Care Housing Association)

  Mr. M. Savage

  (Solicitor)

  Mr. A. Shewring

  (Chartered Accountant)

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what purchases of land were made by the Corlan housing association and at what price, over the last five years.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not readily available. The affairs of Corlan housing association are the subject of an investigation instituted by Housing for Wales under the provisions of section 28 of the Housing Associations Act 1985.

  Food Safety Bill
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional funds his Department is to earmark for local authority implementation of the Food Safety Bill, and additional local authority current costs as a result of the Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  In the annual round of consultations leading to the 1991–92 local authority revenue settlement, the local authority associations have assessed the costs necessary to implement the food Bill in that year at £1.35 million. This will be taken into account in determining the revenue support grant 1991–92. I expect that Government support for implementation of this Bill will be via unhypothecated grant, which will give councils the flexibility to direct resources in the light of local circumstances and priorities.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Committee
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will consider giving financial assistance to the myalgic encephalomyelitis committee in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The association received £5,000 grant aid from the Department in 1988–89 and £7,500 in 1989–90, but returned £2,500 of the latter following the resignation of the officer whose post had been supported. No formal application for further grant has been received, but any future applications would be carefully considered.

  Gwynedd Health Authority
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the report by consultants on the financial position and performance of Gwynedd health authority, which has been recently submitted to him; and what steps his Department intends taking in the light of this report.
  579
  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend and I look forward to receiving the authority's procurement and business plan and its related proposals for restoring financial balance.

  When the proposals have been submitted, we will meet the chairman and other representatives to discuss them. I shall not be in a position to comment on the way ahead until that meeting has taken place.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will arrange a conference of community health council and area health authority chairmen to discuss his plans for community health councils in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. A wide-ranging consultation exercise has been completed, with both community health councils and district health authorities, among many others, commenting fully on the proposals.

  My right hon. Friend hopes to announce a decision on the future structure of the community health councils in Wales shortly.

  Clwyd Health Councils
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit(a) Clwyd South community health council and (b) Clwyd North community health council to discuss his plans to merge community health councils.

  Mr. Grist
  A wide-ranging consultation exercise has been completed on the review of community health councils in Wales. Clwyd South and Clwyd North community health councils have taken the opportunity to comment fully on the proposals and my right hon. Friend and I are well acquainted with their views.

  My right hon. Friend hopes to announce a decision on the future structure of the community health councils in Wales shortly.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many community health councils he has visited in Wales; and which community health councils he plans to meet before October.

  Mr. Grist
  None.

  War Memorial Hospital, Wrexham
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the previous cases in Wales heard by that inspector who decided application number WRR 16029 relating to the decision to allow demolition of the War Memorial hospital at Wrexham.

  Mr. Grist
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Flat Ownership
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Lord Chancellor intends to make a statement on changes in the law of the ownership of flats.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) on 18 June 1990 at column 389.

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases in 1989 involving persons injured by plastic bullets in Northern Ireland have been considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland; and what action was taken in each case.

  The Attorney-General
  Figures for cases considered during 1989 by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland involving persons killed or injured by the alleged use of baton rounds are as follows:

  Number

  Cases

  12

  Persons injured

  14

  Persons killed

  1

  Prosecutions directed

  0

  No prosecution directed

  12

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General if interest accruing when the statutory charge is postponed by virtue of regulation 97 of the Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 is chargeable before the Legal Aid Board has paid the assisted person's legal advisers; if the board has the discretion to waive or postpone such interest until the time for payment to the legal advisers; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The position set out in regulation 97 of the Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989 is that interest is payable from the date the charge is registered. The Legal Aid Board does not have a discretion to waive or postpone the interest due from that date.

  Offences, Northern Ireland
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases concerning scheduled offences were referred to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in 1989; and in how many of these referred cases the original conviction has been(a) quashed and (b) upheld.

  The Attorney-General
  In 1989 a total of 103 cases concerning scheduled offences were referred to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. Of these 103 cases, convictions were quashed in three: the sentence was varied in six; 55 appeals were dismissed and 39 appeals abandoned.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Attorney-General how many applications for bail by those held on remand for scheduled, non-scheduled offences, and both together, were refused bail in 1989.

  The Attorney-General
  In 1989 the number of High Court bail applications by those held on remand for scheduled offence cases were refused was 560.

  The number of High Court bail applications by those on remand for non-scheduled offence cases, which were refused, was 197.

  Information is not available in relation to unsuccessful applications in this category in the magistrates courts.

PRIME MINISTER

  Fission Products
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown),Official Report, 28 June, columns 484–85, if she will give a full breakdown of the costs for the disposal of the fission products of nuclear power; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The costs of disposing of the products of nuclear generation can be expressed in purely monetary terms since the technology of waste disposal is sufficiently developed. These have been quantified, for example, in the 1988–89 accounts of the CEGB by provisions for reprocessing of spent fuel and associated waste management, and disposal costs amount to £6.4 billion at 31 March 1989. The costs of dealing with the effects of global warming as the result of the emission of greenhouse gases are not known, but could be extremely large.

  Japanese Fishing
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make representations to the Japanese Government in respect of(a) their policy of scientific whaling, (b) their overfishing of smaller cetaceans and (c) their use of monofilament nets.

  The Prime Minister
  We have already made known to the Japanese, through the International Whaling Commission, our firm view that whaling for research should not be conducted unless the research can be fully justified scientifically. The research would have to provide vital information which could not be obtained by non-lethal means, and would not endanger the relevant whale stocks. We shall be following this policy at the meeting of the IWC currently taking place in the Netherlands.

  We have already raised the matter of the killing of small cetaceans with the Japanese Government. In 1989 the Japanese Government introduced new regulations which will reduce the number of Dall's porpoises caught.

  We fully share the concern about large-scale indiscriminate drift net fishing practised by the Japanese in the South Pacific. The nations concerned were able to agree last year to a United Nations resolution which calls for an end to large-scale drift net fishing in the South Pacific by 30 June 1991 and, unless scientifically proved unnecessary, a global moratorium by 30 June 1992. The United Kingdom with its EC partners was able to play a major and constructive role in these discussions.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has received any correspondence from the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Department receives correspondence from the Association of Chief Police Officers on a variety of subjects on a regular basis.

  AIDS (Prisons)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice in the form of booklets or medical instruction is given to prison officers who, in the course of their duties, may come into contact with inmates who have AIDS.

  Mr. Mellor
  The staff training package "AIDS Inside", which has been in use since August 1987, includes a video film and a leaflet prepared by a committee of medical and other experts for the information of all prison service staff. For health care staff the most recent source of advice on safe practice is "Guidance for Clinical Health Care Workers: Protection Against Infection with HIV and Hepatitis Viruses" issued by the United Kingdom health departments in January this year. Such staff also receive training, where appropriate, in the clinical management and care of patients with AIDS and AIDS-related illness.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the known numbers of AIDS inmates held in prisons in England and Wales on 25 June.

  Mr. Mellor
  On the date mentioned the prison population of England and Wales included 56 prisoners reported by medical officers as having been identified as HIV antibody positive. AIDS had been diagnosed in two of these cases.

  Prison Officers, London
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the London prisons the amount of prison officer accommodation that is available for officers serving at London prisons to occupy and the present number of quarters that are empty.

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest available information, as at 1 April 1990, is as follows:

  Total number of quarters available

  Prison

  Number

  Empty

  Brixton

  221

  (3)

  Holloway

  152

  (3)

  Pentonville

  111

  (1)

  Wandsworth

  187

  (5)

  Wormwood Scrubs

  212

  (None)

  Trevi Group
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions the Trevi group of Ministers has had about arranging exchanges with officials from EEC states in order to obtain information on law enforcement, legal systems and innovations in technology;

  (2) what discussions the Trevi group of Ministers has had about introducing uniform legal provisions in the relevant parts of domestic law in each member state of the EEC;

  (3) what discussions the Trevi group of Ministers has had about EEC co-operation at frontiers and borders in relation to (a) problems of illegal immigration, (b) crossing common land when following suspects of serious crime and (c) the possibility of a new treaty to deal with these problems.

  Mr. Waddington
  The position reached by Trevi in discussing matters of police co-operation among
  583
  European Community member states is recorded in the programme of action approved in Dublin on 15 June, a copy of which is in the Library. Problems of illegal immigration are primarily a matter for the EC ad hoc immigration working group, which is currently considering a draft convention on the crossing of external frontiers of the Community.

  Police (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to how many black and ethnic minority employees the Metropolitan police employs in its civilian staff above the grade of executive officer.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Commissioner has told me that in August 1989, the latest date for which the information is available, there were 36 civilian staff from ethnic minority communities of higher executive officer grade and above in the Metropolitan police service as well as 127 executive officers. This does not include traffic wardens and industrial grades.

  Nuclear Emergency Centres
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nuclear emergency centres there are in the United Kingdom; how many are currently inoperative; and for what reasons.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on the most recently reported position in respect of local authority emergency centres, including the most common shortcomings found in those which were not operational, was given in "A Report on Implementation of the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983 in England and Wales at 30 September 1989". The report was published in May and a copy is in the Library.

  Prison Staff
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of staff in each prison establishment in each of the last 10 years with less than two years total experience in the prison service.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) men and (b) women being held on remand in prisons in England and Wales on Monday 25 June.

  Mr. Mellor
  At the end of May, the latest date for which the information is available, 9,495 male and 347 female untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners were held in prison service establishments or in police cells.

  Criminal Verdicts
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of criminal verdicts of manslaughter or murder and the relevant verdict at the inquest for each of the years 1974 to 1989, inclusive.
  584
  Mr. Waddington
  The number of criminal verdicts is given in table 4.2 of the Command Paper "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", and the number of inquest verdicts is given in table 5 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Statistics of Deaths reported to Coroners, England and Wales". Copies of both these publications are in the Library.

  The inquest verdicts exclude cases where court proceedings have been instituted. In these cases a coroner will not resume an inquest which he has adjourned, to avoid the need for two tribunals to consider the same evidence.

  Deaths (Records)
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish a national register of persons who have died and whose next of kin cannot be ascertained to enable next of kin to identify their relatives; and whether he will make the register open to the public.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. All deaths are registered locally by the registrar of births and deaths and subsequently notified to the Registrar-General who maintains a central record. We are currently considering the establishment of a national "missing persons" register which would assist in identifying bodies which are found without any form of identification and relatives could make inquiries of the register via the police.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what records are kept on the number of persons found dead each year where no relatives can be traced by the responsible authorities; and how many there are for the latest year available;

  (2) after what period of time those responsible for ascertaining and informing the next of kin terminate their inquiries;

  (3) what procedures are followed in order to ascertain the next of kin of a person found dead;

  (4) who is responsible for locating and contacting next of kin once death has been confirmed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are no central records of persons found dead where no relations can be traced, nor is there any statutory requirement for an individual or authority to report a death to the next of kin. In practice, responsibility for notification is normally assumed by whoever has the duty of care at the time of death; there are no time limits on their inquiries. There are no set procedures to follow, but the identification of the dead person must be known before relatives can be traced. If the person's identity is known or can be established, the amount of time needed to trace the next of kin depends on the circumstances of each case, for example the available documentation on the body. Where identity cannot be established, the police will arrange for details to be circulated to other forces and to New Scotland Yard to check against their missing persons records. There is no predetermined time limit for each case.

  Television Company Franchises
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning negative bidding for television company franchises; and if he will make a statement.
  585
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning negative bidding for television company franchises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  A few responses to the broadcasting White Paper suggested the possibility of negative bidding for regional Channel 3 licences.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the accommodation of prisoners as close as possible to their families, taking into account considerations of security and accommodation.

  Mr. Mellor
  Four main principles govern the allocation of sentenced prisoners to training establishments: the needs of security, the needs of control, the needs of the individual prisoners and the need to make the best use of accommodation.

  In applying these considerations, we of course recognise that it is in the interests of most prisoners to be located as near to their home area as is practicable, to ease visiting arrangements for families and friends and to help prisoners in the last part of their sentence in preparation for release.

  Prisoners held in prison service custody on remand are generally held in those establishments which are nearest to their courts of remand or trial.

  Proportional Representation
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward a Bill to introduce an electoral system based on proportional representation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  World Cup (Deportations)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations his Department has received on the subject of deportations from Italy for alleged hooliganism at the World Cup tournament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Department has received three representations relating to refusal of leave to enter Italy.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Auditing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on 19 March,Official Report, column 429, he is yet in a position to announce his Department's actions relating to Lonrho plc's noncompliance with schedule 7, paragraph 9 to the Companies Act 1985.

  Mr. Redwood
  Lonrho plc has informed my Department that it employs fewer than 250 persons, and is therefore not subject to the provisions of paragraph 9 of schedule 7 to the Companies Act 1985.

  Glamorgan Building Society
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on 9 March,Official Report, column 883, whether any partner from the firm of Mr. Anton was criticised by the joint disciplinary committee in its report on Glamorgan Building Society.

  Mr. Redwood
  Yes. An individual who was a partner in the Cardiff office of Deloitte Haskins and Sells at the relevant time was the subject of criticism by a committee of inquiry appointed by the executive committee of the joint disciplinary scheme in relation to matters arising in connection with Glamorgan Building Society. He is no longer a partner in Mr. Anton's firm which, following a merger with Coopers and Lybrand, is now known as Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on 19 March,Official Report, column 429, he will introduce legislation to require the auditor's letter of engagement to be communicated to shareholders by being read at the annual general meeting.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Condoms
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the annual production figure in the United Kingdom of condoms and how many were for sale in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and what is the estimate for each of the next five years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is not available.

  Link Schemes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the proportion of outturn expenditure on each link scheme met by industrial and private sector sponsorship.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A total of 24 link programmes have been announced so far. The financial arrangements for link programmes are standard in that Government outturn expenditure in all cases is 50 per cent. of gross incurred project costs.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list the programmed and outturn expenditure for each link scheme in each year of operation;

  (2) what is the programmed public expenditure provision for link schemes in each full year the scheme has existed, together with the actual outturn expenditure in each year; and what is the second figure as a percentage of the first.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Whilst 24 link programmes have been announced, most of the 65 current research projects under way have become active only within the last 12 months. For example, on 6 April 1989 there were only 12 active research projects, whereas by 29 May 1990 the number had risen to 65. In addition, on 29 May 1990 a further 57 were through all stages of technical approval and were awaiting final financial clearance, or the
  587
  Department was waiting for the industrial partners satisfactorily to conclude crucial collaborative agreements. Two other factors complicate providing detailed outturn expenditure figures for the two financial years April 1988 to March 1989 and April 1989 to March 1990. First, there are now six Government Departments and four research councils funding link programmes and they all have their own procedures and protocols. Secondly, industrial grants are paid in arrears, that is, after costs have been incurred, and particularly in the early days of a project claims may not be submitted for up to 12 months after the work has taken place. The outturn for the financial year 1988–89 was therefore a nominal figure. The outturn for the financial year 1989–90 has been provisionally estimated at £7 million, and was announced at a link press briefing on June 13 1990. It is not considered practical to provide detailed outturn figures for each link programme until the end of the financial year 1990–91.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list all link schemes so far established, together with the participating companies and academic institutions.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The first five link programmes were announced on 3 February 1988. Since then a further 19 programmes have been launched. The programmes are listed in the table:

  Molecular Electronics

  Advanced Semiconductor Materials

  Industrial Measurement Systems

  Eukaryotic Genetic Engineering

  Nanotechnology

  Biotransformations

  Personal Communications

  Selective Drug Delivery and Targeting

  Construction Maintenance and Refurbishment

  Food Processing Sciences

  Ventilation, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration

  Optoelectronic Systems

  Design of High Speed Machinery

  Structural Composites

  Protein Engineering

  Biochemical Engineering

  New Catalysts and Catalytic Processes

  Power Electronic Devices and Derived Systems

  Control of Plant Metabolism

  Molecular Sensors

  Technology for Analytical and Physical Measurement

  Transport Infrastructure and Operations

  Asymmetric Synthesis

  Crops for Industrial Use

  A total of 140 companies are now involved in the 65 research projects already active and of these 37 are small or medium-sized companies (indicated in the list by an asterisk). Following the list of companies involved in link projects are lists of the 40 scientific institutes involved.

  AB Electronics

  Advanced Ultrasonics Technologies Ltd.*

  AEA Technology

  Aerial Facilities

  Aircraft Research Association

  Air-Log

  Allied Breweries

  ALMA Enterprises*

  Amersham International

  AMT RI

  APV

  ASEA-Brown Boveri

  Austin Rover

  BAe Dynamics Ltd.

  BAFF

  Banbdley Chipware*

  BASS

  588

  Beaconsfield Instruments*

  Beecham

  Boots

  Brewing Research Foundation

  British Aerospace

  British Biotechnology*

  British Petroleum

  British Telecom Research Laboratories

  Campden FDRA*

  Camtex

  Cannon Electronics*

  Celltech*

  Chell*

  Chloride Power Electronic

  Ciba-Geigy

  CMB

  Cortina Electric Co.*

  Courtaulds

  CPS Ltd.*

  Cray Instruments

  Customs Interconnect Ltd.

  Davis Decade Ltd.

  DCL

  De Beers Industrial Diamonds

  Design Technologies Ltd.

  Dynamic Imaging

  Edwards HV Ltd.

  Eli Lilly

  Ensignma Ltd.*

  Enzymatix*

  Express Foods

  Farnell Instruments

  FMBRA*

  Fords

  Foxboro Ltd.

  Framatome

  GEC-Marconi Research Ltd.

  GEC-Plessey Telecommunications Ltd.

  GKN Technology Ltd.

  Glaxo

  Guinness

  Harwell Ltd.

  Heinz

  IBM (UK) Ltd.

  ICI

  ICL Material Research Centre

  IFTEL Automation

  International Biosynthetics

  International Rectifier (GB) Ltd.

  Ledatech Ltd.*

  LEE Colourtran Ltd.

  Logitech Ltd.*

  Lucas Aerospace Ltd.

  Lucas Automotive AEC

  Lyons Bakeries

  Lyons-Tetley

  M4 Data Ltd.

  Manor Bakeries

  Marks and Spencer

  Marling Lighting*

  MK Electric Ltd.

  Neotronics Ltd.*

  Orbitel Oxford Applied Research*

  Oxford Lasers Ltd.*

  Palmer Environmental Service Ltd.*

  Pedifree Petfoods

  PERA*

  Pfizer

  PG Associates*

  Philips

  Pilkington plc

  Polkinghorne

  Queensgate Instruments*

  Quest International*

  Rank Cintel

  Rank Hovis McDougall

  Rank Taylor Hobson

  Reckitt and Coleman

  REOSC

  Rhone-Poulenc

  589

  Rosita

  Royal Mint

  Sandvick Ltd.

  SB Electronics Ltd.*

  SBP

  Schlumberger

  SCIMAT

  Sealant Manufacturers Consortium

  Securis Ltd.*

  Semilab Ltd.*

  Shell

  SIFAM*

  Simon Containers Ltd.

  Smiths Industries

  Solid State Induction Ltd.*

  Sonomatic Ltd.

  Spillers

  Spriex Sarco

  STC

  Strand Lighting

  T & N Technology Ltd.

  Taywood Engineering Ltd.

  Tealgate

  Texas Instruments Ltd.

  Thorn-EMI

  Thurlby-Thander Ltd.*

  Toshiba (JAPAN)

  Transfer Technology*

  UK Corrugated Ltd.

  UK Dairy Industry Research Policy Committee

  UKDIRPAC

  Unilever Research

  Valemite Ltd.

  Verson HME Ltd.

  Vesper Thornycroft Ltd.

  VG Analytical

  VG Ionex

  Vickers Defence System Ltd.

  Vickers Laboratories

  Vision Dynamics

  Watney Mann & Truman

  Wellcome

  Westland Aerostructures

  Westland Defence Systems Ltd.

  Whitbread

  York Ltd.*

  Universities

  Bath

  Birmingham

  Bradford

  Bristol

  Brunel

  Dundee

  Durham

  Edinburgh

  Exeter

  Glasgow

  Heriot-Watt

  Hull

  Imperial College, London

  Kent

  Kings College, London

  Lancaster

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Liverpool

  Loughborough

  Manchester

  Newcastle

  Nottingham

  Oxford

  Salford

  Southampton

  Strathclyde

  Surrey

  Sussex

  Swansea

  UMIST

  UWIST

  Wales

  590

  Warwick

  Science Base (other)

  AFRC Institute of Food Research (Reading)

  AFRC Institute of Food Research (Norwich)

  Cranfield Institute of Technology

  ERA Technology Ltd

  Kingston Polytechnic

  Leicester Royal Infirmary

  Oxford Polytechnic

  Domestic Waste (Recycling)
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the total identifiable expenditure on research into developing technology aimed at recycling domestic waste in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Director General of Fair Trading
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to publish the report by the Director General of Fair Trading for 1989.

  Mr. Forth
  The 16th annual report by the Director General of Fair Trading has been published today. It covers the period from 1 January 1989 to 31 December 1989. Copies of the report have been laid before Parliament.

ENERGY

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will separate(a) any or (b) all of the costs of the Sizewell B power station from the non-fossil fuel levy at any future date.

  Mr. Baldry
  No.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the estimated date of commissioning of Sizewell B; and what definition of commissioning is to be used.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This is a matter for Nuclear Electric. However, the company informs me that it is committed to a timetable for the Sizewell B project that will lead to fuel loading in August 1994 and full commercial output in February 1995. The project is currently well ahead of that programme. Commissioning is complete at the time of full commercial output.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 332, if he will state in detail what measures he has introduced to record cattle breeding records.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the consultation document which details the proposed measures.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made an
  591
  assessment of the implications of the discontinuation of the use of chemical solvents by the meat rendering industry for the spread of BSE and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  As assessment is being made of the changes in rendering practices in the 1970s and early 1980s to determine what part this might have played in the emergence of BSE.

  Canthaxanthin
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the use of Canthaxanthin in animal feedstuffs; and if he has any proposals to restrict its use.

  Mr. Maclean
  Canthaxanthin is permitted in poultry and fish feedingstuffs under EC directive 70/524 for the purpose of enhancing the colour of egg yolks and fish flesh. It is mandatory for all member states to allow canthaxanthin to be freely marketed and used in such feedingstuffs according to the limits laid down in the directive. Representations for and against these uses have been received.

  In the United Kingdom, the use of the colourant canthaxanthin in poultry and fish feed is under review and I understand the EC Commission has also asked its Scientific Committee for Food and Scientific Committee for Animal Nutrition to do the same.

  Research
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total identifiable expenditure on research by his Department in each year since 1979; what proportion was awarded on a customer-contractor basis; and what proportion of his total departmental budget was expended on research for each year.

  Mr. Curry
  All research and development which the Department funds, with the exception of research funded by the MAFF grant in aid at the royal botanic gardens, is on a customer-contractor basis. The detailed information requested is as follows:

  Financial Year

  MAFF Expenditure on Research and Development (£ million)

  Percentage of Research and Development awarded on Customer/Contractor Basis

  Percentage of Total MAFF Budget Expended on Research and Development

  1979–80

  66·2

  97·4

  17·7

  1980–81

  83·0

  97·3

  15·5

  1981–82

  106·8

  96·7

  19·9

  1982–83

  113·9

  97·5

  19·6

  1983–84

  118·6

  97·6

  22·2

  1984–85

  119·4

  96·6

  21·8

  1985–86

  118·4

  96·3

  22·3

  1986–87

  118·3

  95·09

  22·7

  1987–88

  113·8

  95·3

  25·8

  11988–89

  115·0

  95·0

  23·9

  11989–90

  114·0

  94·8

  22·0

  1 Provisional.

  Departmental budget is net expenditure, as published in the appropriation account, for which the Minister is the accounting officer.

  Whaling
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his position in respect of the review of the moratorium on commercial whaling to be carried out by the International Whaling Commission in July.

  Mr. Gummer
  The history of whaling has been one of consistent over-exploitation of one species of whale after another. The moratorium on commercial whaling which should have operated since 1986 has in fact been fully respected only for the last two years. I am determined that whale species should not again be placed at risk by a hasty resumption of whaling.

  At the International Whaling Commission we will be carefully studying the work of the scientific committee and if there is any doubt at all about the capacity of any whale stock to bear a resumption of whaling we will firmly oppose any suggestion that whaling recommence. In any case we will insist that the International Whaling Commission must adopt a revised management procedure which will ensure that all whale stocks remain at healthy levels even if whaling is resumed in the future. I am determine that the history of over-exploitation of whale stocks must never be repeated.

  Veterinary Products
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what circumstances products yet to pass the required tests of safety and efficacy are allowed to be sold for public consumption; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Except for certain products prepared to a veterinary surgeon's order, no veterinary medicinal product may be sold in this country unless it has a product licence issued under the Medicines Act.

HEALTH

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will oblige health authorities to itemise separately in their accounts the amount spent on management consultancy;

  (2) what is his Department's estimate for the total amount spent by health authorities on management consultancies for the last full year for which an estimate is available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The employment of management consultants is a matter for individual health authorities. Information on the expenditure incurred or on which to base an estimate of the total involved is not routinely collected centrally.

  We do not intend to oblige health authorities to itemise separately any such information in their accounts as the amount paid to individual consultants is subject to commercial confidentiality.

  Infectious Diseases
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to publish an analysis of responses to the "Review of Law on Infectious Disease Control" published in October 1989.
  593
  Mr. Dorrell
  More than 500 organisations and individuals have submitted responses to the consultation document "Review of Law on Infectious Disease Control". It is clear that very careful and comprehensive consideration has been given to the options on which views were invited and we need to consider in detail the comments before deciding what action to take.

  Immunodeficiency Viruses
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which directly funded Government facilities research into AIDS, HIV and related viruses is being carried out; and what was the cost of this research in the last full year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The majority of Government-funded research into AIDS, HIV and related viruses is commissioned by the Medical Research Council (MRC) as part of its "Directed Programme" for AIDS research. Details of this work are contained in the MRC publication "AIDS Research 1990", a copy of which is available in the Library. A total of £6 million was devoted to the programme in 1989–90.

  In addition, the public health laboratory service and the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control undertake such research; funding for 1989–90 was £1.1 million and £440,000 respectively.

  Cryptosporidiosis
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to reduce the number of cases of cryptosporidiosis caused by a waterborne parasite; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 29 June at columns 363–64.

  Average daily available beds1 and in-patient cases treated, NHS hospitals, by regional health authority, 1979 and 1988–89

  1979

  1988–89

  Regional health authority

  Average daily available beds

  In-patient cases treated

  In-patients per available bed

  Average daily available beds

  In-patient cases treated

  In-patients per available bed

  Northern

  25,305

  368,578

  14·6

  21,520

  461,033

  21·4

  Yorkshire

  29,946

  433,783

  14·5

  22,765

  551,458

  24·2

  Trent

  31,712

  464,917

  14·7

  25,992

  626,102

  24·1

  East Anglian

  13,094

  201,867

  15·4

  11,827

  269,637

  22·8

  North West Thames2

  27,905

  403,264

  14·5

  20,145

  416,153

  20·7

  North East Thames2

  29,443

  455,851

  15·5

  23,285

  521,291

  22·4

  South East Thames2

  28,408

  438,889

  15·4

  19,574

  487,815

  24·9

  South West Thames2

  26,242

  312,264

  11·9

  19,066

  344,259

  18·1

  Wessex

  19,021

  302,772

  15·9

  14,824

  391,376

  26·4

  Oxford

  13,664

  251,898

  18·4

  11,024

  296,433

  26·9

  South Western

  24,456

  338,890

  13·9

  19,166

  451,586

  23·6

  West Midlands

  36,263

  547,773

  15·1

  28,784

  689,457

  24·0

  Mersey

  21,982

  282,629

  12·9

  15,776

  347,893

  22·1

  North Western

  30,812

  509,049

  16·5

  26,409

  640,548

  24·3

  Special Health Authorities2

  3,419

  87,696

  25·7

  2,780

  90,941

  32·7

  England

  361,670

  5,400,120

  14·9

  282,937

  6,585,982

  23·3

  Source: SH3 return 1979, HKo3 and SH3a returns 1988–89.

  1 Excludes neonatal cots on maternity units, also beds on wards open during the day only.

  2 Figures are not directly comparable over the period, due to NHS restructuring in 1982.

  Smoking
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost to the national health service of each smoker.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is not possible to estimate the cost of smoking to the NHS accurately, but it may be of the order of £500 million each year. It is not meaningful to apportion this cost among individual smokers, as the amount involved will depend on the nature of each individual's habit and whether it leads to sickness or death in any particular year. An estimated 110,000 deaths per year are caused by smoking-related diseases.

  Health Promotion Clinics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria he has established for what constitutes a health promotion clinic.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In order to qualify for a sessional payment, health promotion clinics must meet the criteria laid down in paragraph 30 of the GPs' "Statement of Fees and Allowances" (a copy of which is held in the Library). The main requirements are(a) the purpose of the clinic is approved by the family practitioner committee, (b) each clinic normally attracts a minimum of 10 patients and (c) it lasts for a minimum of one hour.

  In-patient Statistics
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many in-patient cases were treated per available bed in 1979 and for the latest year for which figures are available in each of the 14 health regions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Operations
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of hip replacement operations carried out in 1979 and in the latest year for which figures are available in each of the 14 health regions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Health authorities in England reported the following figures for 1988–89. The figures for 1979 are extracted from the 1979 hospital in-patient inquiry.

  Estimated number of hip replacement operations by health regions

  Region

  19791

  1988–892

  Northern

  1,780

  2,800

  Yorkshire

  1,860

  2,900

  Trent

  2,200

  3,700

  East Anglia

  1,410

  1,900

  North West Thames

  1,740

  3,300

  North East Thames

  2,330

  3,700

  South East Thames

  2,810

  3,600

  South West Thames

  2,320

  3,600

  Wessex

  2,220

  2,700

  Oxford

  1,810

  2,600

  South Western

  2,220

  5,600

  West Midlands

  3,070

  3,700

  Mersey

  850

  2,100

  North Western

  2,600

  3,500

  Board of Governors

  400

  —

  1 Source: 1979 Hospital In-Patient Inquiry.

  2 Source: July 1989 Planning Statements—1988–89 Outturn.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by county, and by year for the last five years, the number of cases of cryptosporidiosis reported.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on laboratory reports of cryptosporidium in England and Wales is available on a regional health authority basis only, as shown in the table:

  Cryptosporidium laboratory reports Regional totals

  Region

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  19891

  Northern

  5

  16

  130

  38

  132

  Yorkshire

  76

  146

  125

  148

  670

  Trent

  237

  398

  221

  325

  531

  East Anglia

  37

  87

  26

  22

  165

  North West Thames

  30

  53

  60

  57

  221

  North East Thames

  53

  116

  61

  43

  223

  South East Thames

  119

  247

  143

  99

  653

  South West Thames

  170

  274

  182

  105

  563

  Wessex

  143

  284

  315

  347

  894

  Oxford

  19

  139

  109

  105

  587

  South Western

  107

  460

  469

  450

  795

  West Midlands

  245

  477

  449

  346

  848

  Mersey

  98

  133

  144

  70

  126

  North Western

  464

  604

  554

  400

  884

  Wales

  71

  126

  289

  195

  476

  Total2

  1,874

  3,560

  3,277

  2,750

  7,768

  1 Provisional.

  2 England and Wales only.

  Source: Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre.

  Condoms
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department proposes any action to increase the production of condoms in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department does not seek to influence commercial decisions.
  596
  However, Government information about condoms, and their effectiveness in reducing the risks of infectious diseases, may increase public demand and lead to increases in production.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the remuneration of community pharmacists.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Negotiations with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee (PSNC) on the remuneration of community pharmacists for the year beginning 1 April began last December. Since then my officials have held numerous discussions with the PSNC and I have myself met the chairman of the PSNC on two occasions, once accompanied by members of his committee and once alone. I am disappointed that after months of negotiations, during which we have made significant concessions, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee was unable to agree what I regard as a fair and reasonable offer, and has declared a state of dispute. I am not prepared to see negotiations drag on indefinitely, depriving the smaller independent pharmacies in particular of the increases due to them. I have therefore reluctantly decided to implement new fee scales from 1 August, backdated to 1 April. I have written today to the chairman of the PSNC informing him of this decision.

  The settlement to be implemented is for a global target sum of £555.5 million, giving an increase in remuneration of 7.5 per cent. over the target for 1989–90. The increase in professional fees, the main element of remuneration, will be 7.5 per cent. over 1989–90 levels. Following a discount inquiry last year, a new discount scale of 9.67 per cent. will be implemented at the same time. My officials have today written to the PSNC seeking its urgent final comments on the detailed fee and discount recovery scales proposed within the global total, to enable them to be published in time to take effect from 1 August. Both scales will be backdated to 1 April, and to avoid hardship I propose to make interim payments based on estimates of the backpay due at the same time as the new rates are paid on 30 October. Adjustments in payments due following detailed recalculation will be made in payments due on 1 January. As part of the settlement I will honour two further concessions made in negotiation, that there should be a mechanism for collecting any over- or under-payment against the target for the year during the following year, triggered by variations greater than £250,000; and the establishment of a joint working party on the role of pharmacists, to reflect the wider definition of pharmaceutical services made possible by the National Health Service and Community Care Act.

  In declaring a state of dispute, the PSNC also made a reference to the pharmacists' review panel. The PSNC has already made it clear that its long-term aim is to establish a review body and reference to the pharmacists' review panel would be a step towards this. That is something I cannot accept. In my view the terms of the reference by the PSNC would represent a significant departure from the way in which the pharmacists' review panel has previously operated, and it would not be appropriate for it to accept the reference. Should it do so, my Department will of course co-operate fully and I will study any view reached by the panel, but only as background to discussions on remuneration in future years.

  Tampons
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to the number of deaths over the last five years arising from fulminating staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome related to using tampons.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) on 22 February at columns 874–75.

  District Nurses
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of district nurse training places which are currently unfilled.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I understand from the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting that in England in 1989–90 824 people undertook district nurse training courses and 406 people undertook district enrolled nurse training courses. The total numbers of training places approved by the board were 1,014 for district nurse training and 495 for district enrolled nurse training.

  Juvenile Muscular Degeneration
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of juvenile muscular degeneration are known to his Department; and approximately how many new cases are reported each year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information in this form is not held centrally. I am advised that there are many degenerative diseases of either the central nervous system or muscle which affect children and are mostly of genetic origin. The most common is muscular dystrophy which affects about one in 3,500 boys from early childhood onwards. At the current birth rate we would expect there to be about 100 new cases reported each year.

  Registration of Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the position of those persons wishing to register the birth of their child through the medium of Welsh if they are(a) domiciled in Wales but their child is born in England, (b) domiciled in England and the child is born in Wales, (c) domiciled in England and the child is born in England or (d) domiciled in Wales and the child is born in Wales.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In England and Wales the law requires that a birth must be registered by the registrar for the registration of sub-district in which it occurs, regardless of the domicile of the parents. An informant wishing to register the birth of a child through the medium of Welsh may do so provided that the informant can speak and understand Welsh and the registrar to whom the information is given can also understand Welsh. The particulars required to be entered in the register in respect of a birth in Wales may be recorded in both English and Welsh provided these conditions are met and the information is given in both lauguages to a registrar in Wales who can write Welsh. However, the birth entry of a child born in England will contain particulars recorded in English only.

  Medicines Resource Centre
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will carry legal responsibility for the information carried by the medicines resource centre.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 June 1990]Under the present administrative arrangements, legal responsibility for the information published by the medicines resource centre lies with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Research (Expenditure)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total identifiable expenditure on research by his Department in each year since 1979; what proportion was awarded on a customer-contractor basis; and what proportion of his total departmental budget was expended on research for each year.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure on R and D (£ million)

  Percentage of Budget (per cent.)

  1979–80

  11·0

  0·442

  1980–81

  14·5

  0·503

  1981–82

  9·7

  0·302

  1982–83

  9·4

  0·267

  1983–84

  14·3

  0·380

  1984–85

  11·5

  0·287

  1985–86

  13·8

  0·326

  1986–87

  17·0

  0·381

  1987–88

  16·8

  0·351

  11988–89

  19·4

  0·359

  1 (Provisional).

  With the exception of the science base, all Government R and D is now awarded on a customer-contractor basis. Disaggregation for the years 1983–84 onwards are published in the annual review of Government-funded R and D.

  Rural Regeneration
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the composition of the interdepartmental committee on rural regeneration which commenced its work in January.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The interdepartmental committee on rural development is chaired by the permanent secretary of the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. Its members are drawn from the six Northern Ireland Government Departments and from other statutory agencies with an interest in rural matters including the Industrial Development Board, the Local Enterprise Development Unit, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the Northern Ireland tourist board.

  Primary Schools, Portadown
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the capital expenditure on developments over the last five years and projected expenditure on
  599
  approved developments at Bocombra primary school, Moyallon primary school, Seagoe primary school an Edenderry primary school, Portadown; and what is the expected expenditure from public funds involved in the proposed integrated school at Kernan, Portadown.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  Last five years £

  Projected £

  i. Bocombra Primary School

  19,800

  Nil

  Moyallon Primary School

  7,200

  500,000

  Seagoe Primary School

  6,900

  900

  Edenderry Primary School

  59,700

  Nil

  ii. Grants in respect of capital expenditure at the grant-maintained integrated school at Kernan in Portadown will not be payable until the school has demonstrated its viability

  Security Statistics
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the security statistics for 1989 are now available together with details of persons charged with terrorist-type offences and convictions for scheduled offences for the year.

  Mr. Cope
  The statistics for 1989 are as follows (statistics for earlier years can be obtained from the Library):—

  Statistics on Security (January—December 1989) Part I—Statistics of terrorist activity

  Number

  Shooting incident2

  (160) 406

  Explosions

  224

  Bombs neutralised

  196

  Weight of explosives in lbs1

  12,114

  Explosions neutralised in lbs1

  13,662

  Armed robberies

  541

  Amount stolen

  £1,079,399

  Malicious fires

  307

  Part III—Convictions and sentences for scheduled offences
  Notes on the tables
  1. The offence classifications are based on those used by the Crown Court in their annual return.
  2. The tables relate to persons convicted at the Belfast Crown Court. This covers all scheduled offences tried on indictment.
  3. Some jury trials are included in cases where the Attorney-General certified out of the scheduled mode of trial, ie non-terrorist serious offences.
  4. Where a person has been convicted of more than one offence only the most serious or that which received the longest sentence is recorded in the statistics.

  Convictions and sentences for scheduled offences

  Sentence (January to December 1989)

  Offence

  Number convicted 1989

  Non-custodial sentence

  Young offenders centre training schools

  Less than 5 years

  5 years and less than 7 years

  7 years and less than 10 years

  10 years and less than 15 years

  15 years and less than 20 years

  20 years and over

  Life

  Murder

  11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  Attempted murder

  8

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  2

  0

  Conspiracy to murder

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Manslaughter

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm

  10

  3

  0

  3

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  Causing grievous bodily harm

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

  6

  5

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Causing explosion

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Placing explosives

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Possessing explosives with intent

  29

  5

  0

  0

  3

  6

  12

  3

  0

  0

  Number

  Deaths:

  Civilian

  39

  Army/UDR

  14

  RUC/RUC'R'

  9

  Injuries:

  Civilian

  606

  Army/UDR

  190

  RUC/RUC'R'

  163

  1 Estimated weight only.

  2 Figures in ( ) refers to shots heard only and are not included in the total.

  Part II—Statistics of Security Forces' activity

  Dwellings searched

  Army

  RUC

  Occupied

  726

  —

  Unoccupied

  177

  —

  Derelict

  207

  —

  Total

  1,110

  3,027

  Note Searches of dwellings frequently involve both the Army and RUC and are registered in their respective records. The totals therefore should not be aggregated and are shown separately to avoid an element of double counting.

  Finds

  Weapons

  327

  Ammunition (rounds)

  37,687

  Explosives (lbs)

  3,037

  Persons charged with terrorist-type offences

  Numbers

  Murder

  31

  Attempted murder

  48

  Firearms offences

  130

  Explosives offences

  24

  Theft act

  41

  Other

  159

  Total

  433

  Sentence (January to December 1989)

  Offence

  Number convicted 1989

  Non-custodial sentence

  Young offenders centre training schools

  Less than 5 years

  5 years and less than 7 years

  7 years and less than 10 years

  10 years and less than 15 years

  15 years and less than 20 years

  20 years and over

  Life

  Other explosives offences

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Possessing a firearm with intent

  51

  15

  3

  11

  5

  6

  11

  0

  0

  0

  Possessing a firearm

  20

  11

  2

  6

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Carrying a firearm with intent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other major firearms offences

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Minor firearms offences

  4

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Robbery

  130

  43

  11

  39

  22

  13

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Aggravated robbery

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Membership of an illegal organisation

  5

  2

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Attempted robbery

  15

  8

  0

  3

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Soliciting support for proscribed organisation

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Unlawful collection of information

  3

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Illegal training

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kidnapping and false imprisonment

  6

  0

  0

  1

  3

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Blackmail

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Contributing to resources of a proscribed organisation

  4

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Burglary

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Aggravated burglary

  7

  2

  1

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hijacking

  23

  17

  4

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Attempted hijacking

  6

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Arson

  35

  14

  14

  5

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Possession of an offensive weapon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Petrol bomb offences

  13

  13

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Escape offences

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Criminal damage

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Intimidation

  4

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Assisting offenders

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Withholding information

  9

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Possessing prohibited articles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Conspiracy to arm terrorists

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Common law riot affray

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rape

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Handling

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Making property available

  5

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  414

  176

  35

  75

  44

  31

  30

  10

  2

  11

  Female Prisoners
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many strip searches were made of female prisoners in Her Majesty's prison, Maghaberry, in each month since January; if he will give the number of persons involved and the number of times each person was searched; whether any prison contraband, smuggled item or illegal correspondence was discovered in any search, indicating which items; in how many cases prisoners refused to be searched and had to be restrained while the 602
  search was being conducted; and if he will indicate the reasons for the search, namely, making a remand appearance at court, attending trial, inter-prison visit or other reasons.

  Mr. Cope
  Details of the number of, and reasons for strip searches of female prisoners in Her Majesty's prison Maghaberry, from July 1989 to November 1989 were provided on 18 December 1989 (Vol. 164, No. 20, Col. 14–16). The statistics from December 1989 to May 1990 are as follows:
  603

  Number of searches

  December 1989

  January 1990

  February 1990

  March 1990

  April 1990

  May 1990

  Total number of searches carried out

  24

  15

  21

  31

  21

  37

  Total number of inmates searched

  19

  12

  15

  18

  17

  24

  Number of prisoners searched once

  14

  9

  9

  8

  15

  13

  Number of prisoners searched twice

  5

  3

  6

  9

  1

  10

  Number of prisoners searched more than twice

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1

  1

  1

  First Admission on Remand/Awaiting Trial

  9

  5

  2

  4

  6

  8

  First Admission on Sentence/Final Discharge

  5

  8

  13

  16

  6

  14

  Attending Remand Court

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1

  2

  Attending Trial

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Inter-Prison Visit

  1

  Nil

  2

  1

  3

  5

  Pre-Release Home Leave

  8

  2

  3

  10

  5

  6

  Compassionate Home Leave

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Visits to Outside Hospital

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Returning from Bail Application

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Attendance at Court for Bail

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Fines Paid

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Working Out Scheme

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Bail Granted

  1

  Nil

  1

  Nil

  Nil

  2

  No prohibited article was found during these searches and no prisoner refused to be searched.

  Offences
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons were proceeded against for scheduled offences in Northern Ireland in 1989; and how many persons pleaded guilty to the principal offence; and how many persons in such contested cases were found not guilty of the principal offence.

  Mr. Cope
  Four hundred and fifty-eight persons were proceeded against for scheduled offences, of whom 375 pleaded guilty. Of the remainder, 42 persons were subsequently found not guilty of the principal offence.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90 giving separately figures for(a) salary and benefits, (b) transport and communication, (c) new construction, (d) other costs, (e) total gross expenditure and (f) total net expenditure after deduction of receipts.

  Mr. Cope
  The information requested is contained in the Police Authority for Northern Ireland annual statement of account, which is published and presented to the House each year. The cost of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in 1988–89 is as follows. The statement of account for 1989–90 has not yet been published; however, the estimated outturn is as follows:

  1988–89 £ million

  11989–90 £ million

  Salaries and benefits

  320·89

  353·96

  Transport and communication

  14·74

  16·75

  New construction

  19·68

  22·30

  Other costs

  46·12

  47·64

  Total gross expenditure

  401·43

  440·65

  Total net expenditure after deduction of receipts

  383·50

  420·85

  1 Estimated.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the manpower strength of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and its reserve as between full-time, part-time, male and female operatives as at 31 December 1989.
  604
  Mr. Cope
  The information is as follows:

  Strength of the RUC and RUC Reserve as at 31 December 1989

  Male

  Female

  Total

  RUC

  7,571

  688

  8,259

  RUC Reserve (Full time)

  2,980

  38

  3,018

  RUC Reserve (Part time)

  1,219

  387

  1,606

  Security Staff Premium
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the amount of the security staff premium paid by the Government in each of the fiscal years since 1984–85.

  Mr. Cope
  The following amounts were paid under the security staff grant scheme:

  Year

  Grant paid (£ thousand)

  1984–85

  1,299

  1985–86

  1,100

  1986–87

  1,255

  1987–88

  153

  1988–89

  221

  1989–90

  245

  The decrease from 1987–88 reflects a decision to limit payments to passenger ferry companies only.

  Compensation Payments
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the amount of compensation payments made under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 in 1989.

  Mr. Cope
  No payments under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 have been made since 1978 because of the repeal of the compensation provisions of that Act by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978.

  Northern Ireland Subvention
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the amount of the direct subvention by the British Exchequer to Northern Ireland in the financial year 1989–90 as well as amounts budgeted for in future periods.

  Mr. Cope
  The information requested is as follows:—

  Subvention Provisional Outturn (£ million)

  1989–90

  1,721

  This figure excludes a payment of £265 million in connection with Shorts plc.

  Figures are not available for future years.

  Compensation Payments
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report a table giving the amounts in the fiscal years 1989–90 of payments made to (a) civilians under the Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (b) members of the security forces under the Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (c) compensation payments made under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (d) compensation payments under the Criminal Damage (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 and subsequent legislation.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is as follows:

  1989–90 £

  Compensation payments to civilians under the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (NI) Order 1977

  113,001,515

  Compensation payments to members of the security forces under the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (NI) Order 1977

  23,424,485

  Compensation payments under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978

  1,149,435

  Compensation payments under the criminal damage (Compensation) (NI) Order 1977 and earlier legislation3

  22,124,107

  1 Includes £1,594,353 paid under the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (NI) Order 1988.

  2 Includes £1,087,647 paid under the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (NI) Order 1988.

  3 The current criminal damage legislation is the Criminal Damage (Compensation) (NI) Order 1977.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in the latest available year.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: In 1989–90, £25,000 was spent on new energy efficiency measures in the Northern Ireland Government office estate.

  It is not possible to disaggregate costs for the Northern Ireland Office in London.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide figures updating those contained in his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham,606
  Ladywood (Ms. Short) on 2 May, Official Report, columns 557–58; and if he will expand upon the difference in administrative arrangements to which he refers.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 July 1990]: Up to 1 June 1990, just over 6,700 unemployed claimants in Northern Ireland were interviewed specifically about their efforts to find work. As a result, 100 claims were referred to the adjudication officer, and of these 28 were allowed and 72 disallowed. In addition, a further 13 claims were referred to the adjudication officer on grounds of refusing employment and, of these, five were disallowed.

  Whereas in Great Britain the Department of Employment is responsible for the payment of benefit to the unemployed, in Northern Ireland all social security benefits, including unemployment benefit, are paid by the Department of Health and Social Services. Employment matters are the responsibility of the Department of Economic Development.

  Friendly Societies
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will publish the names of the directors of the Foyle Co-op in the Official Report;

  (2) if he will publish the names of the directors of (a) the Derry Community Workshop and (b) the North West Centre for Learning and Development.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 July 1990]: The information requested is held by the Registrar of Friendly Societies at 64 Chichester street, Belfast, and the registrar is required to make it available to the public, during office hours, on payment of a fee.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Parliamentary Questions
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy that replies to written parliamentary questions will continue to be published in full in the Official Report following the move towards agency status of parts of his Department.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 6 June at col.615.

  Pensioners' Christmas Bonus
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to increase the Christmas bonus for pensioners in December.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no plans to do so.

  Families (Benefits)
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many families with children in low-paid work have(a) gained, (b) lost and (c) experienced no change of income from the implementation of the Social Security Act 1986, including both the changes to family credit and housing benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Illustrative information is set out in the publication "Impact of the reformed structure of Income Related Benefits" (October 1987), copies of which are available in the Library.
  607
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportions of(a) lone parents and (b) couples with children are reliant on income support.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is estimated that income support contributes to the household incomes of around two in three lone parents and just under one in 10 families with dependants.1
  1 The term "dependants" has been used as not all dependants fall within the strict definition of children, i.e. that they are aged under 16.

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much retirement pension would be for(a) a single person and (b) a couple if it had been uprated by earnings or inflation, whichever was the higher, since 1980.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  At April 1990 the retirement pension would have been £58.65 for a single person and £94.05 for a couple, had the retirement pension been raised by the higher of the movement in earnings or prices since 1980.

  It should be noted that any such cost would attract consequent increase in the national insurance contribution. It is estimated that the necessary increase in contribution rate to support the additional cost in 1990 would be 1.25 per cent. and 1.45 per cent. on the basic rate of employees' and employers' contributions respectively, increasing them to 10.25 per cent. and 11.9 per cent. respectively. This would have meant, for example, a contribution increase for an employee on average earnings of £3.18 per week, together with an additional contribution of £4.35 per week for his employer.

SCOTLAND

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information his Department has on the progress of installation of flue gas desulphurisation equipment in Scotland, and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand there are no plans at present to install flue gas desulphurisation equipment in combustion plants in Scotland.

  The level of emissions from power stations in Scotland is already very low in comparison with the major base-load coal-fired stations in England and Wales.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the percentage change in both actual and real terms between the sum spent on the YTS in Orkney and Shetland in 1989–90 and the proposed sum to be spent on youth training in the two islands areas in 1990–91.

  Mr. Lang
  Reflecting changing need, funding of youth training in Orkney has been reduced by 15.5 per cent. in cash terms and 20.7 per cent. in real terms, and in Shetland by 23 per cent. in cash terms and 27.5 per cent. in real terms.

  Acute Services, Lanarkshire
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received the acute services strategy submission from Lanarkshire health board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The board is preparing an approval in principle submission for its preferred option. I shall consider this carefully once it is submitted to me.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the number of self-employed in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Self-employment in Scotland is at its highest ever recorded level. The number, estimated to be 242,000 in December 1989, has grown by more than 50 per cent. in the last decade. This is an excellent reflection of the spirit of enterprise in Scotland.

  Roads, Borders Region
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate a timetable for future road developments in the Borders region following his appointment of consultants.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The A68 Dalkeith bypass is being progressed as the most important immediate improvement to serve the Borders and it is hoped that this scheme will commence late next year. Consultants are also to be appointed to confirm that an environmentally acceptable dualling of the A7 in the longer term from Edinburgh to the Borders can be defined. In the short term, work will commence on the package of accident remedial measures on the A1, A7, A68 and A702 and on the programme of smaller improvement schemes on the A1 and A7 south of Hawick.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when was the last time he met the chief executive of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) to discuss the steel industry.

  Mr. Lang
  I met the chief executive two days ago, when we discussed a number of matters, including the steel industry.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the effect of the closure of Ravenscraig on the local economy.

  Mr. Lang
  British Steel has confirmed that its undertaking to continue steel-making at Ravenscraig until at least 1994 still stands. In the light, however, of its proposals for the hot strip mill my right hon. and learned Friend has asked his officials and the Scottish Development Agency to consider, on a contingency basis, what could be done to encourage new employment and investment in Lanarkshire in the event of closure of the hot strip mill.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the future of the steel industry in Scotland.
  609
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his efforts to procure information from British Steel on its reasons for the closure of the Ravenscraig strip mill.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) earlier today.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the total amount of poll tax unpaid in Scotland for 1989–90; and if he will express this as a percentage of the total amount of poll tax payable for that year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand that around 87 per cent. of budgeted revenue has been collected by local authorities to date.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement about his consideration of proposed changes in the poll tax legislation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I and colleagues are looking at a number of aspects of the existing community charge arrangements. We have made it clear that we are prepared to make changes if they are required.

  A1
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the implications for road safety of the proposal that a new dual carriageway section of the A1 should end at the border.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  An A1 steering group has been formed to monitor traffic growth and to develop an appropriate programme of route improvements and accident remedial schemes between Newcastle and Edinburgh. Following the inaugural meeting of the group on 21 June, the Scottish Development Department and Department of Transport agreed to look at the possibility of further improvement to the existing road immediately north of the Marshall Meadows dualling scheme, for which a public inquiry is likely to be held later this year.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many national health service sight tests were conducted between(a) April 1988–89 and (b) April 1989–90.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The figures are 1,168,610 and 475,479 respectively.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total number of people taking sight tests in 1987, 1988, and 1989 and 1990 to date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information about the total number of people taking sight tests in Scotland is not available centrally.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the chairman of Scottish Homes to discuss housing associations; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I meet Sir James Mellon, chairman of Scottish Homes, and his board members as required. No meeting is presently scheduled to discuss housing associations.

  Road and Rail Services
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in the current year about investment in road and rail infrastructure in the north-east of Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received representations in 1990 from a number of organisations and individuals, including Members of Parliament, on the electrification of the east coast main line between Edinburgh and Aberdeen, capital allocations for local roads and transport, improvements to the A96, road links to the channel tunnel and road safety.

  Self-governing Hospitals
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from consultants concerning self-governing hospitals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Representations have been made on behalf of consultants on a number of aspects relating to self-governing hospitals. Four expressions of interest are currently being pursued.

  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the precise method and scope for consultation before a hospital can become self-governing.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Applications must be routed through health boards which, before conveying their views to the Secretary of State, are required to consult all interested parties, including potential customers, staff interests and local health councils.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of Britain's small businesses is located in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The statistical coverage of small businesses in Scotland is less comprehensive than that of the United Kingdom as a whole. Nevertheless, the Department of Employment has estimated that of the 1,574,000 United Kingdom businesses registered for VAT at the end of 1988, some 6.9 per cent. were in Scotland. The overwhelming majority of these will be relatively small businesses.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the legal quota for the employment of registered disabled people in his Department; what is the current figure employed; and if he will make a statement.
  611
  Mr. Rifkind
  My Department, in common with other Government Departments, accepts the same responsibilities for employment of the disabled as other employers of 20 or more staff. We work to a target of 3 per cent. of total staff for the total of registered disabled people. Currently the Scottish Office and associated Departments employ 82 registered disabled staff—1·4 per cent. of the total work force.

  Channel Tunnel (Rail Link)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies his Department has commissioned into the effect on the Scottish economy of a fast link from the channel tunnel to London.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department has not commissioned any such studies. However, a study on the impact of the channel tunnel on the Scottish economy was commissioned by the Scottish Development Agency from Planning, Industrial and Economic Development Advisers and was completed in 1988.

  Community Care
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the chairmen of regional health boards in Scotland and with COSLA on proposals for community care.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I hold regular meetings with Scottish health board chairmen and my hon. Friend the Minister of State met COSLA on 15 May 1990 to discuss the Government's community care proposals.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he is making in implementing the Government's plans for the reform of community care.

  Mr. Lang
  Three consultation papers have already been issued, in regard to my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals, for the inspection of residential care homes, community care plans and the payment of a specific grant to local authorities with social work responsibilities for mental illness projects. Responses to these papers are currently under consideration with a view to the preparation of formal guidance for local authorities. There will be consultations on further matters including the assessment of community care needs, co-operation between housing authorities and local authorities and arrangements for purchase by local authorities of services from private and voluntary sector agencies.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with regional and island authorities regarding community care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I have had two meetings on this subject with representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities social work committee—one on 8 September and the other on 15 May 1990. Both these discussions were useful and constructive. The more recent one served in particular to confirm that local authorities share fully in the positive response to the proposals in the White Paper "Caring for People".

  Crafts Industry
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he anticipates announcing his proposals for future support of the crafts industry in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  I expect to take decisions shortly.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total value of grants that Scotland has received from the European regional development fund since its inception.

  Mr. Lang
  Awards totalled £869 million between 1975 and 1989.

  Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals the Commission of the European Economic Community is making to revise the fishing vessels decommissioning scheme; if his Department is participating in discussions on this; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Commission has made a number of proposals for amending the existing fleet structure regulations (EEC No. 4028/86). The main proposals involve:— extending to smaller fishing vessels the availability of Community financial aid for restructuring and renewal, modernisation and adjustment of capacity;
  — greater incentives for exploratory fishing and joint ventures through higher grant assistance;
  — the introduction of redeployment operations: the exploitation of non-Community fishery resources with a view to supplying the Community market;
  — new rates of grant for decommissioning.

  Under the proposals Community reimbursement for decommissioning would be increased to 70 per cent. of eligible expenditure where vessels are scrapped; and remain at 50 per cent. for withdrawal for purposes other than fishing or for permanent export to third countries. Levels of eligible expenditure would vary depending on age and tonnage of the vessel concerned.

  All member states and their respective industries have been invited to comment on the proposals and the Government have submitted a number of points to the Commission. Given the level of overcapacity in the Community fleet generally, we have questioned the extension of grant aid to the construction of smaller fishing vessels, and have taken the view that the additional measures should be accommodated within the existing financial provisions for these activities. As far as the capacity of the United Kingdom fleet is concerned the Government remain of the view that a decommissioning grant scheme does not provide value for money and this view has been reinforced by the proposal to increase rates of grant.

  Hospital Services, Forth Valley
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet received from Forth Valley health board its proposals for the future of hospital services arising from option appraisal study.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No.

  Nuclear Waste Dumps
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when was the last time he met the convenor of Highland regional council to discuss the siting of nuclear waste dumps.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when was the last time he met the convenor of Highland regional council to discuss the siting of nuclear waste dumps.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when was the last time he met the convenor of Highland regional council to discuss the siting of nuclear waste dumps.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not met the convenor of Highland regional council to discuss this matter.

  Unemployment Trends
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed unemployment trends with the Scottish Development Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have had no recent discussions with the SDA about unemployment trends. However, my hon. Friend will welcome the continued fall in levels of unemployment in Scotland. In the year to May 1990, unemployment rates in both Scotland and the Dumfries travel-to-work area (TTWA) fell by around 16 per cent., faster than in the United Kingdom as a whole. The rate of unemployment is now down to 5 per cent. in the Dumfries TTWA. This is below both the Scottish and United Kingdom averages (unadjusted).

  Child Abuse
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will institute an appeal mechanism in association with the administrative system of compiling the at risk register of children established by his Department in conjunction with the regional authorities and the health boards.

  Mr. Lang
  Child protection registers are an essential component in the arrangements for protecting children from abuse or from risk of abuse. A child's name is normally entered on the register when a multi-disciplinary case conference concludes after assessing all the available information that an inter-agency plan is required for the care and protection of the child. We see no need to introduce a formal right of appeal against the administrative decision to register a child. Parents have full statutory rights of appeal to the sheriff court, against any decision made subsequently by the children's hearing to impose compulsory measures of care for a child.

  Law Reform
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet representatives of the Law Society of Scotland to discuss progress on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill; and if he will make a statement.
  614
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has at present no plans to do so, although he always values the Law Society's contributions to debates on the issues covered in the Bill.

  Police Staffing
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration is being given to increase the complement of new police officers available to the Lothian and Borders police force; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Lothian and Borders police board has submitted an application to the Scottish Home and Health Department for an increase of 50 police constables in the authorised police establishment, together with an increase of 20 in the civilian establishment. In accordance with the usual practice, this application is being considered in consultation with Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. The Scottish Home and Health Department expects to be in a position to respond to the board in the near future.

  Speech Therapy
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further plans he has to develop the speech therapy service in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Quotas on the intake of students have been lifted, refresher courses are being organised and a new manpower planning steering group has been established.

  Football Hooligans
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the incidence of football hooliganism at Scottish football grounds.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am encouraged by a continuing decline in hooliganism at Scottish football grounds. Since the Government took powers under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 to ban alcohol at designated sporting events, there has been a 55 per cent. reduction in arrests at Scottish football grounds, despite a 70 per cent. increase in attendances over the same period. Scottish football supporters also continue to behave well abroad and I note that with approximately 20,000 Scottish supporters in Italy for the World Cup there were no incidents and no arrests involving Scottish supporters.

  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet representatives of the knitwear, lace-making and textile industries in Scotland to discuss the effects of the multi-fibre arrangement.

  Mr. Lang
  I met the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, and representatives of the knitwear, lace-making and textile industries' interests.

  Scottish Government
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to introduce any democratic reforms into the arrangements for governing Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government have no plans for making any alterations in the arrangements
  615
  for the government of Scotland which, they believe, provide for Scotland to take its rightful place in the United Kingdom.

  Fatal Accident Inquiries
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the number of fatal accident inquiries arising from road accidents within the Clydesdale constituency each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  These statistics are not centrally held and cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next hopes to meet the procurator fiscal in Kilmarnock to discuss the procedures for fatal accident inquiries.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate meets procurators fiscal from time to time. He has no immediate plans to meet the procurator fiscal at Kilmarnock.

  Hospital Services, Lothian
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future of hospital services in Lothian.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Lothian health board announced on 24 May proposals for the rationalisation of acute services which are currently subject to public consultation.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current waiting list length and average waiting time in Lothian region for(a) cervical screening, (b) breast screening, (c) cervical treatment, (d) breast treatment, (e) hip replacement surgery, (f) gynaecology operations, (g) plastic surgery, (h) geriatric assessment, (i) geriatric long-stay hospital accommodation and (j) psychogeriatric hospital accommodation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest available information for Lothian health board is set out in the table:

  Waiting list at 30 September 1989

  Median wait (in days) at December 1988

  Cervical Screening

  1

  1

  Breast Screening

  1

  1

  Cervical Treatment

  1

  23

  Breast Treatment

  1

  16

  Hip Replacement Surgery

  1

  90

  Gynaecology Operations

  1

  21

  Plastic Surgery

  1,008

  70·5

  Geriatric Assessment

  48

  3

  Geriatric Longstay

  160

  1

  Psychogeriatric

  125

  1

  1 Information not held centrally.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the chairmen of the area health boards to discuss the national health service in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I meet the chairmen regularly. The last meeting was on 29 June.

  CBI
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland; and whether economic growth in Scotland was discussed.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I are in frequent touch with the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland on a range of matters concerning, the Scottish economy. I am sure the CBI shares our satisfaction that economic growth in Scotland in 1988 was at its highest level for 15 years, and is expected to outpace growth in the United Kingdom economy in 1989 and 1990.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  USSR (EC Aid)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on European Community economic aid to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the House on 28 June on the Dublin European Council which addressed the question of EC aid to the Soviet Union.

  Children's Rights
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has yet set a timetable for ratification of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on 9 May.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to support the aspirations of some east European states to join the EEC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  We were the first to advocate association agreements for the emerging democracies of central and eastern Europe seeking a bridge to the Community. This is now established EC policy and the Commission should soon begin discussions with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

  Vietnam
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British policy towards Vietnam.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have normal diplomatic relations with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. On 17 May, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development announced a package of humanitarian assistance for Vietnam. We now expect Vietnam to respect its obligations under international law and accept back all its citizens who are not refugees, which remains an obstacle to the development of our relations.

  Antarctica
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Australian Government on the future of Antarctica.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 13 June to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells).

  Soviet Union
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his counterpart from the Soviet Union; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last met Mr. Shevardnadze at the two-plus-four talks on 22 June, when they discussed that meeting and related security issues.

  Political Co-operation
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet other EEC Ministers to discuss political co-operation.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet other European Economic Community Ministers to discuss political co-operation.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be meeting our EC colleagues on 16 July in Brussels when there will be discussion of political co-operation matters.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has made any representations to the Government of(a) Sri Lanka and (b) India concerning the recent escalation of violence in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The British High Commission in Colombo is in regular contact with the Sri Lankan Government, and we have also made contact with the Indian Government. We are deeply concerned by the renewed fighting in Sri Lanka and by the suffering and loss of life that this is causing. We are dismayed by the decision of the Tamil Tigers to break off negotiations with the Sri Lankan Government and to resume fighting.

  Irish Terrorism
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what level of co-operation exists with the authorities in the Netherlands in the fight against Irish terrorism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are co-operating fully with the authorities in the Netherlands and will continue to do so.

  Soviet Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has expressed any views to the Soviet authorities concerning the closure of the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site and the concentration of Soviet nuclear testing at Novaya Zemlya.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Libya and Iraq (Component Sales)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has been in contact with his EEC counterparts in regard to the halting of sales of components that could aid Libya and Iraq in their respective programmes to produce nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. However, these issues are regularly discussed in the framework of European political co-operation in the working group on non-proliferation.

  Belize
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with a view to facilitating the long-term security of Belize without necessarily a United Kingdom military presence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Kingdom is an additional participant in the Belize-Guatemala joint commission and has supported the efforts being made to reach a negotiated settlement between Belize and Guatemala. Such a settlement would contribute significantly to the long-term security of Belize.

  World Cup (Deportations)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations his Department has received on the subject of deportations from Italy for alleged hooliganism at the World Cup tournament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Sixty of those persons removed from Italy have so far approached the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for assistance in recovering their personal possessions from Italy.

  In addition, I received a call on 2 July from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell).

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take to recover the belongings of innocent British citizens deported from Italy for alleged hooliganism at the World Cup tournament.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  British consular officials are helping the Italian authorities to identify and locate the personal possessions left in Italy by British nationals who were removed following recent disturbances at Rimini. To assist in this exercise, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has written to all those who gave proper addresses to the Italian police.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Italian authorities over the deportation of innocent British citizens from Italy for alleged hooliganism at the World Cup tournament.
  619
  Mr. Sainsbury
  None. We have not received any evidence about the circumstances of the removal of the British citizens from Italy which would justify representations.

  Specialist Advisers
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether external specialist advisers to his Department or the Overseas Development Administration are required to declare their pecuniary interests before appointment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Special advisers, as employees of the Crown, are asked to declare their pecuniary interests before appointment.

  Lockerbie Air Disaster
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 399, whether he has asked the Government of Syria to help in connection with the investigation of the Lockerbie air disaster.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. We would expect Governments to volunteer information in their possession of relevance to the international investigation.

  Somalia
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he is having with those local authorities which are giving help to refugees from Somalia now living in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply. The Home Office is, together with other relevant departments, considering the present arrangements for asylum seekers, including those from Somalia, to see whether any changes are necessary. Local authority associations will be involved as appropriate in future, but no discussions are taking place with them at the present time.

EMPLOYMENT

  Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each of the dates since 1982 on which the Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances met, which members of the committee representing which organisations were present, and what main items of business were discussed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have placed details of the information requested in the Library.

  Employment Service
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) whether his Department's report into the attractiveness of employment credit schemes for the long-term unemployed is to be published; and if he will make a statement on its findings;

  (2) if he will list the number of unemployed claimants whose unemployment benefit or income support has been suspended arising from doubts about their availability for
  620
  work in the six months prior to the enactment of the Social Security Act 1989 and, in the subsequent six months, the numbers of suspensions, and the proportion of suspensions upheld by subsequent adjudication, arising from doubts about whether the claimant is actively seeking work for (a) Great Britain, (b) the south-west region and (c) Avon.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Employment Service became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Lady.

  Tourism
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to seek to amend the Development of Tourism Act 1969, to enable the Wales tourist board to promote itself overseas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are no such plans.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Stretford, 24 April,Official Report, columns 170–1, if he will list (a) the number of trainees as part of the total number of inspectors within the Health and Safety Executive and (b) as a proportion of all inspectors for 1974–1989, inclusive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows(a) total inspectors within HSE and (b) trainee inspectors included in the total, for each year since 1977. For earlier years, figures for trainees could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Only two grades of staff in the Health and Safety Executive are designated as training grades: factory inspectors class II (for their first two years) and assistant agricultural inspectors (first three years). There are no trainee grades for mines, quarries, nuclear or specialist inspectors, who are recruited for their specialist knowledge and whose initial training varies according to their needs. Accordingly it would not be meaningful to express trainees as a proportion of total inspectors.

  (a) Total inspectors within HSE2

  (b) Of which trainee inspectors3

  41977

  1349·5

  213

  1978

  1392·5

  179

  1979

  1388·5

  114

  1980

  1441·5

  140

  1981

  1405·5

  101

  1982

  1331·5

  29

  1983

  1281·0

  —

  1984

  1247·0

  —

  1985

  1237·0

  45

  1986

  1231·5

  91

  11987

  1241·0

  117

  1988

  1170·5

  102

  1989

  1188·0

  99

  1 The Industrial Air Pollution Inspectorate transferred to the Department of the Environment on 1 April 1987.

  2 The total number of HSE inspectors includes those working outside inspectorates eg contributing to policy, standards work etc.

  3 The figure for 1977 includes trainee factory inspectors at 1 April. The figure for 1987 includes trainee factory inspectors at 31 March.

  4 1 March.

  621
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each of the years 1974 to 1989 inclusive if he will give(a) the number of prosecutions passed on from the Health and Safety Executive to the Crown prosecution service and (b) the results of these prosecutions.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Records are not kept of Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecutions passed to the Crown prosecution service for its consideration. Most health and safety prosecutions are undertaken by HSE inspectors.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) female and (b) male employees were covered by the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 1980; and what was the number of (a) and (b) suspended because of high blood lead levels for each year 1980 to 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is no requirement for employers to notify the number of persons in their employ covered by the Control of Lead at Work Regulations. However, the number of workers under medical surveillance under the regulations from 1982 onwards are available and are given in the table. Additionally, the table gives details of the number of persons suspended under the regulations from 1982.

  Year

  Workers under medical surveillance

  Suspension from work with lead

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  1982

  20,948

  1,269

  258

  33

  1983

  22,121

  1,333

  198

  20

  1984

  22,771

  1,651

  254

  62

  1985

  23,382

  1,550

  183

  37

  19861

  23,002

  1,543

  351

  57

  1987–882

  22,132

  1,423

  388

  33

  1988–892

  23,246

  1,313

  340

  12

  1 In 1986 there was a reduction in the maximum blood lead levels for suspension for work with lead.

  2 Year commencing 1 April.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of(a) industrial deaths, (b) HSE prosecutions, (c) the fines for these deaths and (d) the verdicts at an inquest for each of the years 1974 to 1989, inclusive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of industrial deaths for the years 1975 to 1988–89 is shown in the table. The other information requested is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Fatal injuries arising from work activity reported1 to HSC/E enforcing authorities—Great Britain

  Number of fatal injuries

  Year

  Employees

  Self employed

  Non-employed

  1974

  651

  ..

  ..

  1975

  620

  ..

  ..

  1976

  584

  ..

  ..

  1977

  524

  ..

  ..

  1978

  2622

  ..

  ..

  1979

  2615

  ..

  ..

  1980

  2579

  ..

  ..

  1981

  441

  54

  71

  1982

  472

  48

  83

  1983

  448

  65

  85

  1984

  438

  60

  105

  1985

  400

  71

  159

  1986–873

  355

  52

  92

  622

  Number of fatal injuries

  Year

  Employees

  Self employed

  Non-employed

  1987–883

  360

  84

  113

  1988–89p3

  4521

  79

  110

  .. = not available.

  p = provisional.

  1 Fatal injuries reported to enforcing authorities under various legislation eg the Factories Act 1961, Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 for the years 1974 to 1980; under the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulation, 1980 (NADOR) for the years 1981 to 1985 and under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulation, 1985 (RIDDOR) for subsequent years.

  2 Includes a number of injuries to non-employees not covered by existing legislation but which were voluntarily reported to enforcing authorities.

  3 Year commencing 1 April.

  4 Includes the 167 fatal injuries arising from the Piper Alpha disaster.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of expenditure on the sponsored placement scheme in each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  On Friday last, 29 June, the consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities" was published which contains proposals for a rebalancing of the sheltered employment programme, in favour of sheltered placements, over a transitional period of five years. There is to be a six-month period to allow interested parties to comment and at present I am therefore unable to estimate future expenditure on this aspect of the programme.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on the latest available figures what was the number of registered unemployed aged(a) 16 years, (b) 17 years and (c) 18 years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Unemployment by age is produced quarterly. The table shows in April 1990 the number of unemployed people in the United Kingdom aged 16, 17 and 18 years respectively:

  Age

  April 1990 Total

  16

  314

  17

  1,189

  18

  56,771

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many children have(a) one parent and (b) both parents who are unemployed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The labour force survey cannot provide the information in the form requested. However, the LFS can provide data that show the number of families in which one or both parents are unemployed (using the ILO definition of unemployment).

  In Great Britain in spring 1989, there were 6,532,000 families with one or more dependent children. Of these, 648,000 have one parent unemployed and 32,000 have both parents unemployed.

  Skill Centres
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give details of the negotiations with the Lakin consortium for the purchase of four skill centres, listing significant dates.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The Lakin consortium's original bid for part of the STA was unsuccessful. However, the consortium contacted Deloittes on 14 February to register that it was interested in purchasing some of the skill centres which remained unsold following the announcement of the sale on 13 February. Negotiations then took place and the consortium's offer for the purchase of Cumbria, East Lancashire, Ipswich and St. Helens skill centres was accepted on 28 February.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the expenditure, income and surplus or deficit forecasts from the skill centre sold to(a) Astra Training Services Ltd., (b) Training Business Group Ltd., (c) METEL and (d) the Lakin consortium.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The income, expenditure and operational deficit for skill centres grouped by purchaser for the year 1989–90 were:

  Income £,000

  Expenditure £,000

  Deficit £,000

  a. Astra Training

  33,013

  46,894

  13,881

  b. The Training Business

  404

  1,036

  632

  c. METEL

  548

  786

  238

  d. The Larkin Consortium

  1,149

  2,108

  959

  The expenditure figures relate to skill centres only and take no account of the contribution which skill centres were normally expected to make towards the cost of STA's head office and regional offices. They therefore understate the true deficit.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the sale price of Liverpool skill centre and the asset value of the site.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: No sale price was fixed in advance for this or other centres. Bids were invited for the training business and associated assets, and the ones that best met the Government's objectives for the sale were accepted. In the case of Liverpool this involved a payment to the Government of £65,000.

  However, I am assured that the asset value given by the Government's advisers compares favourably with the value ascribed to it by the successful purchaser and was taken fully into account in arriving at the final consideration.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the directors of Training Business Group Ltd. and purchasers had any previous experience of providing training prior to their bid for the Lambeth skill centre; what were the names of the predecessor companies to Business Training Group Ltd; and whether the accounts of these companies have been examined at Companies House.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The Training Business Group had experience of providing training prior to its bid for Lambeth skill centre.
  624
  My Department's advisers, Deloittes, investigated the standing of all purchasers including the Training Business. I have no knowledge of any predecessor companies.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what assessment was made of the potential purchasers of the skill centres before the recent privatisation;

  (2) what assessment was made of the potential purchasers of the skill centres, with regard to (a) previous experience of training, (b) financial viability and (c) involvement with other companies.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: In assessing the final offers for Skills Training Agency training businesses, the Department's professional advisers, Deloittes, undertook an analysis of the individual bidders' background, viability, their business plans and their compatibility with the Government's objectives for the sale. This analysis formed part of Deloittes' final recommendation to the Secretary of State.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether companies or individuals who had unsuccessfully bid for any or all of the skill centres were contacted about the further sales of four skill centres which were subsequently transferred to the Lakin consortium.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Apart from the Lakin consortium, three companies which had put in final offers made inquiries about some of the four skill centres eventually sold to Lakin, but did not pursue this interest or put in a bid.

  It was not judged necessary to approach bidders who had sought to purchase a large network of skill centres as during earlier negotiations it was apparent that they were interested only in purchasing large networks.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if any of the bidders for any of the skill centres was asked to resubmit bids after the final bids were received by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The final bids received by my Department were subject to some modifications during the negotiations.

  After the announcement of the main sales on 13 February 1990, negotiations took place between my Department's advisers and some companies that had made unsuccessful bids, but that subsequently expressed interest in unsold centres.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total amount of employment training expenditure to the Skills Training Agency skill centres in 1988–89, the outturn expenditure for 1989–90 and the estimated expenditure for 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: When employment training was first introduced in September 1988 contracts for the provision of training were awarded by the Training Agency on the basis of free competition. Contracts won by Skills Training Agency skill centres resulted in expenditure in 1988–89 and 1989–90 by the Training Agency of £8.6 million and £16.8 million respectively. Contracts extant at the time of the sale were transferred to the purchasers of STA skill centres or

  625
  renegotiated, at which time they moved out of the public sector domain. Payments on contracts in 1990–91 for employment training still held by skill centres up to the date of sale and those not included in the sale to the private sector are expected to amount to £3.2 million. Unsold skill centres are to be wound up once their contract liabilities have been discharged; no expenditure is expected beyond the autumn of 1990.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if there were any positive cash amounts bid for any of the four skill centres subsequently transferred to the Lakin consortium.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: At the final offer stage a positive bid was received for one of the skill centres (East Lancashire skill centre) which were eventually purchased by the consortium headed by Mr. Lakin. This bid formed part of a network offer which was unsuccessful, and the potential purchasers were not prepared to buy the single skill centre alone. No other positive offers were received at the final offer stage of the sale.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list(a) meetings held with potential bidders for the skill centres and (b) the dates on which letters were sent to prospective bidders, about the privatisation of the skill centres, in the period 19 February 1988 to November 1990.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: I regret that the full information asked for can be obtained only at disproportionate cost, and some, including details of negotiations, must be regarded as commercially confidential. However, letters were sent to all bidders between 2 October 1989 and 27 October 1989, and also on 17 November 1989, 21 November 1989, 6 December 1989, 11 December 1989, 19 December 1989, 20 December 1989, 22 December 1989, 4 January 1990, 5 January 1990, 11 January 1990, 22 January 1990, 12 February 1990 and 13 February 1990.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the dates on which the bids from(a) Astra Training Services Ltd., (b) METEL, (c) Training Business Group Ltd. and (d) the Lakin consortium for the purchase of skill centres were accepted.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The offers from the successful bidders for STA training businesses were accepted on the following: Astra Training Services Ltd.—12 February; Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd.—12 February; Training Business—2 March; the Lakin consortium—28 February.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who were listed as shareholders of Astra Training Services Ltd. in its bid for the purchase of skill centres.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Astra Training Services Ltd. set up a company prior to the indicative offer stage of the sale. It was formed solely as a vehicle to enable the management buy-out team to launch a bid and was called Vetin Ltd. The shareholders were listed as:

  Stuart Bishell

  Trevor Kent

  626

  Phillip Wells

  The name of this company was later change to Astra Training Services Ltd.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations have been received from Edinburgh chamber of commerce concerning the Edinburgh skill centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: I have received one letter about the STA privatisation from the Edinburgh chamber of commerce and manufacturers.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the operating deficits of each of the skill training centres for each of the standard regions of Wales and Scotland.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Provisional unaudited figures for 1989–90 indicate that the following operational deficits were incurred by skill centres in Wales and Scotland:

  £'000

  Wales

  Cardiff

  310

  Gwent

  302

  West Glamorgan

  65

  Wrexham

  323

  Scotland

  Bellshill

  329

  Dundee

  219

  Dunfermline

  344

  Edinburgh

  659

  Hillington

  611

  Irvine

  151

  The figures relate to skill centres only and take no account of the contribution which skill centres were normally expected to make towards the cost of STA's head office and regional offices. The true deficit is therefore understated.

  Skills Training Agency
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the total number of employees in the Skills Training Agency;(a) immediately prior to privatisation, (b) the number of redundancies announced since and (c) the current level of employment for the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: There were 2,363 staff employed in the Skills Training Agency immediately prior to privatisation. There are now 135 staff employed in the unsold units and the redundancies of 40 of these have been announced. A further 70 staff have been invited to apply for voluntary redundancy.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will publish the 1989–90 accounts for the Skills Training Agency.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The STA trading account 1988–89 stated at note 18:
  "Separate STA Trading Accounts will no longer be produced. Accounts for STA activities from 1989–90 onwards, to the date of transfer or disposal, will be included in the Training Agency White Paper Accounts."

  This decision was taken with the agreement of the Treasury and National Audit Office.
  627
  The White Paper account 1989–90 for the Training Agency will be published by my Department before the end of 1990.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the £8.6 million described as an extraordinary item of expenditure in the 1988–89 accounts of the Skills Training Agency; and what this item of expenditure has been used for.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The extraordinary item of £8.6 million in the 1988–89 trading accounts of the Skills Training Agency represented the estimated cost involved in operating a voluntary early retirement scheme as a means of reducing STA staff numbers to a level compatible with the then anticipated future business activities. This is described in note II of the accounts.

  In accordance with statements of standard accounting practice 2 and 17, and following normal commercial accounting conventions, STA management made provision for future early retirement and associated payments based on the best information then available. The £8.6 million represented the estimated cost of payments to be made in 1989–90 and in subsequent years.

  Payments of £4.088 million were actually made in 1989–90. The balance will be expended as payments in lieu of pension until those in receipt reach the age of 60, when they will receive their civil service pension.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the new guidelines prepared for the clawback of development gain as part of the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency were discussed with the National Audit Office.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The clawback arrangements on any development gain were not discussed with the National Audit Office as the responsibility for policy in this area does not lie with it. However, full account was taken of the NAO's views on clawback, as stated for example in the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General: "Ministry of Defence; Further Examination of the Sale of Royal Ordnance plc" (June 1989).

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will outline the role of Mr. Bishell, Mr. Kent and Mr. Wells in the Skills Training Agency between April 1989 and 19 February 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Mr. Bishell was head of skill centre operations, Mr. Kent head of financial services and Mr. Wells head of product development. Throughout the period April 1989 to 19 February 1990 they continued in these posts, but because of their declared interest in bidding for the business, special arrangements were made from the start of April 1989 to ensure that they were not allowed to authorise expenditure, or instruct others to incur expenditure, on behalf of the agency, or to take decisions affecting personnel. In addition, every care was taken to ensure that they were insulated from any knowledge of the STA privatisation which was not available to other prospective purchasers.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total value of the building 628
  assets of the Skills Training Agency obtained in the period between the final accounts for 1988–89 and the preparation of the privatisation prospectus by Deloitte, Haskins and Sells.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The Skills Training Agency obtained no building assets in the period between the final accounts for 1988–89 and the preparation of the privatisation prospectus by Deloittes.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what approval was given in relation to the disposal of assets to bodies other than Government Departments at less than full market value in respect of the sale of the Skills Training Agency.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: In accordance with the Government's objectives for the sale, all parts of the Skills Training Agency were offered for sale by competitive tender as training businesses on a going-concern basis. Their assets were integral parts of those businesses. The bids received reflected the current market value of the businesses as a whole.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total expenditure involved in the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency for the most recent dates available.

  Mr. Tim Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Total expenditure directly attributable to the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency brought to account up to 31 May 1990 is £1.444 million. This figure covers fees paid to advisers and the departmental staff costs incurred up to that date.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total value of the equipment of the Skills Training Agency obtained in the period between the final accounts for 1988–89 and the preparation of the privatisation prospectus by Deloitte, Haskins and Sells.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The STA privatisation prospectus was prepared in September 1989. The total value of capital equipment obtained by the Skills Training Agency between 1 April 1989 and that date was £104,000.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the clawback procedure covering development gain is written into the contract agreements with METEL, Astra Training Scheme Ltd., the Training Business Group Ltd. and the Lakin consortium for purchase of the Skills Training Agency.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Clawback has been applied to all the freehold and long leasehold properties acquired by Astra Training Services Ltd. and is covered by contract. Clawback does not apply to METEL's purchase of Liverpool skill centre nor the Lakin consortium's purchase of Cumbria skill centre. The Government received professional advice that in each of these cases there was little or no potential for development gain so that clawback was inappropriate. The remaining Lakin acquisitions and the Training Business Group purchase of Lambeth skill centre involved short to medium-term leases and clawback was therefore inappropriate.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement as to the
  629
  expenditure of £8.6 million included as an extraordinary item in the 1988–89 accounts of the Skills Training Agency; how many early retirements were to be covered by this expenditure; and how much had been spent by 31 March 1989.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The extraordinary item of £8.6 million included in the STA accounts for 1988–89 was intended, in accordance with normal accounting practice, to make provision for anticipated early retirement costs as a result of a reduction in staff numbers to a level compatible with levels of business.

  Out of the forecast surplus staff of 571, it was estimated that a reduction of 270 would be achieved by early retirement. No expenditure on these early retirements was incurred before 31 March 1989.

  £ million

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Fees from employers1

  4·6

  5·6

  8·3

  11·1

  16·5

  20·2

  Adult training from Government2

  71·3

  63·1

  65·4

  60·1

  38·4

  17·7

  YTS3

  3·8

  1·6

  1·5

  1·4

  1·4

  1·4

  Income from others4

  2·0

  2·1

  2·8

  3·4

  3·7

  1·9

  1 Covers fees from employers, ET placement providers, CITB and overseas customers.

  2 Covers adult training contracted by Training Agency. The figure for 1988–89 includes residual job training scheme for the whole year and employment training from September 1988.

  3 Covers YTS income from other managing agents and work placement providers in addition to the fees from Training Agency.

  4 Covers sublet of property, sale of non-capital items and non-training income from Training Agency.

  The figures for 1989–90 are provisional and subject to audit.

  Provision was shown in the published estimates for each year from 1984–85 to 1989–90 as follows:

  £ million

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Fees from employers1

  4·1

  7·7

  11·5

  12·0

  8·7

  11·8

  Receipts from Government2

  97·2

  73·9

  65·9

  64·9

  30·3

  29·8

  Income from others3

  1·5

  0·7

  2·2

  2·3

  1·7

  2·1

  1 Covers fees from employers and overseas customers, and youth training scheme receipts from employers and other managing agents but does not include employment training receipts from other training managers and placement providers.

  2 Covers adult training and youth training contracted by Training Agency, also employment training receipts from other managing agents and placement providers.

  3 Covers receipts from sublet of property, sale of non-capital items and non-training income from Training Agency.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total amount of income received from the sale of the Skills Training Agency for the most recent date for which information is available.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The most recent date of information is 31 May 1990, at which point the total income received amounted to £65,000. While the sale of the STA as training business is complete, there are property interests which are about to be marketed for sale.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total value of the land assets of the Skills Training Agency obtained in the period between the final accounts for 1988–89 and the preparation of the prospectus by Deloitte, Haskins and Sells.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The STA privatisation prospectus was prepared by Deloittes in September 1989. The only land asset obtained for the Skills Training Agency between 1 April 1989 and that date was the freehold interest in a leasehold site, at a cost of £297,000. The purchase of the freehold interest enabled the Department to avoid large expenditure on dilapidations on surrender of the lease.
  630
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the total appropriations in aid, broken down by(a) fees from employers, (b) receipts from Government and (c) income from others for the Skills Training Agency for each of the years 1984–85 to 1988–89, including provision and outturn; and what is the estimated total appropriation in aid for 1989–90.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: I regret that information in the form requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, I can give the following:

  Income

  Total STA income appearing in the trading account for years 1984–85 to 1988–89 and internal management accounts for 1989–90 is as follows:

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on objective (III) contained in his Department's press notice dated 13 February entitled "Management Buyout of Skills Training Agency".

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The key objectives for the sale of the Skills Training Agency (STA) training businesses were that as much as possible of STA's training business should transfer to the private sector, and that the training businesses sold should have good prospects of viability. Objective (III) was to maximise the net proceeds of the sale, consistent with these objectives. I am satisfied that this has been achieved. The disposal of the remaining property of the STA will help bring a positive return for the sale as a whole.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the total expenditure on the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency, inclusive of transfer of assets, financial assistance, administration costs and any other transfers of expenditure within the Department of Employment group budget.
  631
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: It is not possible to estimate the total expenditure on the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency as the process is not yet complete; the Government's remaining property interests, for example, have yet to be sold. However, the total expenditure to date is approximately £14.94 million. This includes the payments to Astra Training Services Ltd., the Lakin consortium and the Training Business Group; advisers' fees; help with unsuccessful management buy-out costs and staffing costs.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much was transferred from the employment training sub-head to cover the increase in expenditure and the reduction in income in the Skills Training Agency sub-head in the supply estimates between March 1989 and February 1990.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The spring supplementary estimates of the supply estimates class VII vote 1 published on 13 February 1990, introduction paragraph 3 (iii) stated:
  "Transfer of provision from Section B1 (Employment Training) of £19,183,000 to Section G (Skills Training Agency) to cover excess expenditure on running costs and £19,227,000 to cover reduced income."

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total of(a) running costs, (b) capital expenditure and (c) expenditure on purchases of equipment, repairs etc. for the Skills Training Agency in each of the years 1984–85 to 1988–89, including both provision and outturn; and what is the estimated provision for 1989–90.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]The totals of(a) running costs, (b) capital expenditure, (c) expenditure on purchases of equipment, repairs etc. for the Skills Training Agency in each of the years 1984–85 to 1988–89 and the expected outturn for 1989–90 are as follow:

  a £,000

  b £,000

  c £,000

  1984–85

  64,077

  6,011

  12,593

  1985–86

  61,655

  8,363

  10,781

  1986–87

  56,155

  4,602

  10–044

  1987–88

  57,173

  3,247

  9,283

  1988–89

  60,723

  1,244

  6,536

  1989–90

  49,161

  909

  6,586

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has received any representations from potential bidders and unsuccessful bidders about the process involved in the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Ministers received correspondence from a small number of potential bidders and unsuccessful bidders about the sale process involved in moving the Skills Training Agency to the private sector.

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list, by local education authority, the amount of money made available or planned for the technical and vocational education initiative in 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.
  632
  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 June 1990, c. 464]: I regret that the information given in my reply of 18 June 1990 was incomplete. The correct information is as follows.

  Following is a table showing by local education authority the budgets available or planned for technical and vocational education initiative extension in 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  The additional information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Extension budgets 1989–90 London

  £

  Barking

  233,433

  Barnet

  37,791

  Bexley

  223,125

  Bromley

  499,979

  Croydon

  675,951

  Ealing

  607,368

  Enfield

  826,948

  Harrow

  78,173

  Havering

  712,951

  Kingston

  56,285

  Richmond

  171,174

  Total

  4,123,283

  South East

  £

  Berkshire

  1,888,050

  Buckinghamshire

  1,556,313

  Essex

  3,963,826

  Hampshire

  4,089,115

  Hertfordshire

  2,915,486

  Isle of Wight

  273,423

  Kent

  3,549,967

  Oxfordshire

  1,235,000

  Surrey

  1,463,191

  East Sussex

  1,817,018

  West Sussex

  1,511,363

  Total

  24,262,752

  South West

  £

  Cornwall

  1,310,463

  Devon

  1,145,950

  Gloucestershire

  1,298,761

  Somerset

  1,192,075

  Wiltshire

  1,296,233

  Total

  6,243,482

  East Midlands

  £

  Bedfordshire

  1,648,399

  Cambridgeshire

  1,114,039

  Derbyshire

  1,017,900

  Leicestershire

  2,994,284

  Norfolk

  1,818,302

  Northamptonshire

  1,677,071

  Nottinghamshire

  175,382

  Suffolk

  1,143,000

  Total

  11,588,377

  633

  West Midlands

  £

  Birmingham

  2,551,091

  Coventry

  1,018,000

  Dudley

  945,878

  Hereford

  2,293,950

  Sandwell

  754,630

  Shropshire

  851,000

  Solihull

  629,350

  Staffordshire

  4,475,150

  Walsall

  286,500

  Warwickshire

  1,586,291

  Total

  15,361,840

  North West

  £

  Bolton

  755,425

  Bury

  479,751

  Cheshire

  1,289,000

  Cumbria

  789,146

  Manchester

  841,964

  Rochdale

  475,000

  Salford

  515,500

  Stockport

  825,125

  Tameside

  399,991

  Wigan

  635,700

  Wirral

  822,910

  Total

  7,829,512

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  £

  Bradford

  1,990,934

  Calderdale

  510,000

  North Yorkshire

  1,845,205

  Sheffield

  271,030

  Wakefield

  541,400

  Doncaster

  91,680

  Humberside

  175,000

  Total

  5,425,249

  Northern

  £

  Cleveland

  1,213,434

  Durham

  1,725,826

  Gateshead

  285,908

  Newcastle

  652,571

  North Tyneside

  504,592

  Northumberland

  1,106,328

  South Tyneside

  411,289

  Sunderland

  1,112,234

  Total

  7,012,182

  Wales

  £

  Clwyd

  1,021,139

  Dyfed

  392,557

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,558,613

  South Glamorgan

  442,653

  West Glamorgan

  452,940

  Gwent

  712,013

  Gwynedd

  931,219

  Powys

  265,039

  Total

  5,776,193

  634

  Scotland

  £

  Ayr

  104,289

  Borders

  206,025

  Central

  9,500

  Dumbarton

  70,800

  Dumfries

  420,250

  Fife

  899,376

  Glasgow

  1,487,372

  Lothian

  2,883,473

  Renfrew

  1,188,631

  Tayside

  82,882

  Total

  7,352,598

  Great Britain

  £

  Great Britain total

  94,975,448

  Extension Budgets 1990–91 London

  £

  Barking

  366,973

  Barnet

  232,000

  Bexley

  341,685

  Bromley

  683,274

  Croydon

  732,384

  Ealing

  750,794

  Enfield

  826,620

  Harrow

  216,000

  Havering

  791,663

  Hillingdon

  230,000

  Kingston

  215,026

  Merton

  97,000

  Newham

  224,000

  Redbridge

  165,000

  Richmond

  298,905

  Sutton

  1—

  Total

  6,171,324

  1 Development funding 1990–91 only £150,000.

  South East

  £

  Berkshire

  1,908,986

  Buckinghamshire

  1,892,778

  Essex

  4,992,371

  Hampshire

  4,274,138

  Hertfordshire

  2,724,450

  Isle of Wight

  323,289

  Kent

  4,712,424

  Oxfordshire

  1,340,700

  Surrey

  2,234,785

  East Sussex

  1,524,984

  West Sussex

  1,772,089

  Total

  27,700,994

  South West

  £

  Avon

  910,000

  Cornwall

  1,343,225

  Devon

  2,458,501

  Dorset

  325,000

  Gloucester

  1,395,945

  Somerset

  1,392,574

  Wiltshire

  1,647,498

  Total

  9,472,745

  635

  East Midlands/Eastern

  £

  Bedfordshire

  1,449,300

  Cambridgeshire

  1,946,225

  Derbyshire

  1,738,300

  Leicestershire

  2,853,760

  Lincolnshire

  433,000

  Norfolk

  2,123,000

  Northamptonshire

  1,715,939

  Nottinghamshire

  418,000

  Suffolk

  1,932,125

  Total

  14,609,649

  West Midlands

  £

  Birmingham

  4,023,579

  Coventry

  917,195

  Dudley

  942,583

  Herefordshire

  2,293,861

  Sandwell

  955,280

  Shropshire

  1,554,925

  Solihull

  694,027

  Staffordshire

  4,800,305

  Walsall

  821,996

  Warwickshire

  1,653,847

  Total

  18,657,598

  North West

  £

  Bolton

  829,225

  Bury

  544,681

  Cheshire

  2,361,600

  Cumbria

  1,176,979

  Knowsley

  182,713

  Lancashire

  870,000

  Manchester

  1,317,125

  Rochdale

  634,574

  St. Helens

  238,000

  Salford

  773,898

  Stockport

  823,910

  Tameside

  655,645

  Wigan

  901,693

  Wirral

  867,740

  Total

  12,177,783

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  £

  Barnsley

  690,331

  Bradford

  1,614,797

  Calderdale

  522,750

  Doncaster

  424,000

  Humberside

  555,000

  North Yorkshire

  2,024,144

  Rotherham

  261,000

  636

  £

  Sheffield

  830,409

  Wakefield

  864,280

  Total

  7,786,711

  Northern

  £

  Cleveland

  1,566,763

  Durham

  1,965,268

  Gateshead

  367,550

  Newcastle

  670,960

  Northumberland

  1,074,928

  North Tyneside

  483,999

  South Tyneside

  476,309

  Sunderland

  982,346

  Total

  7,588,123

  Wales

  £

  Clwyd

  1,266,023

  Dyfed

  1,026,726

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,829,441

  South Glamorgan

  1,067,911

  West Glamorgan

  1,263,292

  Gwent

  1,442,924

  Gwynedd

  843,856

  Powys

  1,266,023

  Total

  10,006,196

  Scotland

  £

  Ayr

  197,000

  Borders

  316,238

  Central

  245,000

  Dumbarton

  292,000

  Dumfries

  430,756

  Fife

  1,008,907

  Glasgow

  2,330,764

  Highland

  155,000

  Lanarkshire

  619,000

  Lothian

  2,404,203

  Renfrew

  827,354

  Tayside

  300,000

  Total

  9,126,222

  Great Britain

  £

  Great Britain total

  123,297,345

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

European Court of Justice: Powers
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they favour an extension of the powers of the European Court of Justice to enable it to fine member states for breaches of European Community law; and if so what proposals they wish to make in this regard.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in another place, there is a good case for strengthening the role of the European Court of Justice in respect of the enforcement of Community law and in ensuring compliance with its judgments. This is a matter for consideration in the present review of Community institutions.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor for that Answer. Will he indicate more specifically the lines along which the Government are thinking? How is it possible, for example, to impose fines against aberrant member states? Might the Government think in terms of extending the rules relating to competition law to other areas of policy where there is a failure to comply with the law? In that connection I have in mind invoking the power of the sanctions of fines against those responsible rather than dealing directly with governments. Can the noble Lord give the House some further specific indication in this regard?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, all the ideas mentioned by the noble Lord are worthy of consideration. We have not yet reached the stage of specific proposals. I am convinced—and I believe that this represents the Government's view—that there is a good case for strengthening the role of the European Court of Justice in this way. The precise manner in which to do so requires further consideration. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestions; I am sure that others could be made.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that we ought not to rush with too much enthusiasm into putting member states in the dock? If proposals are made, would it be sensible to ensure that before sanctions are imposed—be it a fine or whatever—there is an order giving a member state the opportunity of remedying a breach?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, there is no dock at present in the
2090
European Court of Justice at Luxembourg, so far as I recall. I am sure that we all desire the judgments of the court to be complied with, with no question of putting anyone in the dock. If we have respect for the rule of law that is what we would wish to see.
However, the Question concerned what would happen if by any chance a member state did not obey a ruling of the court. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that it would not be wise to be precipitate. One wants a reasonable procedure for trying toovercome the difficulty. It is not tolerable that if there is a judgment against a member state that state should do nothing at all about it and nothing should happen thereafter. That situation is detrimental to the rule of law.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, might the suggestion in the Question have certain implications in respect of national sovereignty? Is that not therefore a further reason for the caution which my noble and learned friend has indicated?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the situation would apply only in respect of European law which has been made part of the law of the member state concerned by the proper legislative means in that member state. I agree that caution is required. It is a difficult and delicate area and I believe that the best way forward is for a member state to implement judgments once the court has given them.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that it would be unprecedented for a court sitting outside these shores to be able to impose a fine on Her Majesty's Government? Does he further agree that the long-suffering taxpayers in this country—who have already paid £12,000 million to the Community—would not take well to fines being imposed upon them? Finally, exactly who would enforce the law? Would it be the British police, the German jackboot, or perhaps even the French gendarmerie?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps the shortest answer I can give to the noble Lord is to say that no question of a fine arises if the judgment of the court is observed. The United Kingdom Government have a uniquely good record in that respect. In the Sixth Annual Report to the European Parliament on Commission Monitoring of the Application of Community Law, it is reported that there was only one judgment against the United Kingdom with which it had failed to comply. That judgment, which had been given on 21st June 1988, would have been complied with on the adoption of the Finance Act 1989.
The United Kingdom's record is good by comparison with that of the Federal Republic of Germany, for example, which had not complied with four judgments. Belgium had not complied with 12 judgments. Denmark had not complied with two judgments and France had not complied with five judgments. Both Greece and Ireland had not complied with two judgments and Italy had not complied with 24. The Netherlands had not

2091
complied with two judgments. Those figures show that the actions of the United Kingdom speak as effectively as those of any other country in showing that we observe the Community law in an exemplary fashion. Some speak about it, but we do it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I hope that the comparative figures that the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated in relation to breaches of the law by Britain and Germany respectively will not reflect the score to night. However, I wonder whether the noble Lord—
Noble Lords: The noble and learned Lord!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have now fathomed the reason for these extraordinary House of Commons-like outbursts. I apologise. I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can indicate how long the Government are likely to take in their consideration of these matters and whether, for example, a statement will be made before the end of the year. In so far as there is no dock available for aberrant Ministers at the European Court of Justice, does not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that there may be an overwhelming case for this measure being the only effective sanction in certain instances?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is too early to come to a conclusion. This is an important subject and, as has been said, it needs to be approached with a good deal of caution and discretion. It is a matter for consideration in the Community as a whole. It is not something that we could alter at our own hand. As I have already suggested, the measure may be particularly effective in respect of certain countries. I join with the noble Lord in hoping that the figures I gave will not be reflected in the score tonight. However, I have no means of knowing when a conclusion will be reached on this matter. I hope that we shall have a constructive consideration of this matter, perhaps stimulated by this Question.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend confirm that any decision on enforcement would have to be reached unanimously and not by a majority vote?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the precise position to be adopted needs to be considered with some care. One would expect that a decision on any additional powers to be given to the European Court of Justice would need to be reached unanimously. Some of the treaty articles, particularly Article 172, could be used as a basis for developments in this area.

Regional Policy
2.47 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to make any changes in their regional policies.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, there are no plans at present to make changes to regional policy. The Government remain committed to an effective regional policy and will continue to make the necessary resources available.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, that is a disappointing Answer. Is the Minister aware that when there is a rise in unemployment, as is happening now, the regions are hit first and they are hit the hardest? Is the Minister further aware that the unemployment figures for the regions can and do hide pockets of high unemployment? In my own area, for example, yet another pit closure was announced last week with the loss of another 1,000 jobs. As the change in regional development grants has resulted in a huge loss to the regions, will the Government now consider an increase in regional assistance grants and at the same time make the administration of those grants much more flexible?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord talked about unemployment. However, our regional measures have had a significant impact on unemployment in the assisted areas. Unemployment has fallen faster in the regions during the three years to May 1990. It fell by 7 percentage points in Wales, 6·4 in the North and 6·3 in the North West, compared with 5·3 for Great Britain as a whole and 4·1 in the South East. The noble Lord also asked about regional policy and regional grants. The public expenditure survey for 1991–93 constitutes some £630 million. By any stretch of the imagination that is a large sum of money.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, how much money will be available within RESIDER in terms of European regional development funds? RESIDER is the new form of European economic aid to the regions. Will that money from RESIDER be in addition to the present level of Government aid to the regions?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot help the noble Lord regarding the RESIDER programme, but I can tell him that funds from the European Regional Development Fund in respect of the integrated development operation programmes have been agreed under the Community support framework. The sums involved are £50 million for Cleveland-Durham area and £58 million for Tyne-and-Wear-South East Northumberland area.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Viscount in respect of the RESIDER question. Is it not the case that the Treasury does not apply the doctrine of additionality; that is to say, it deducts from Treasury money whatever is received from Europe? Is that not a scandal? Furthermore, may I press the noble Viscount to be more forthcoming about the regional selective assistance programme in the light of 1992? He quoted unemployment figures when they were falling generally but they are now rising generally. Is not my noble friend Lord Dormand right in saying that the regions will suffer most as unemployment increases?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me about additionality. European Community receipts are taken into account in determining public expenditure levels. That enables programmes to be maintained at a higher level than would otherwise be possible. On the point about whether unemployment will rise faster in the regions than in the South East, my information is that because jobs in the South East are mainly in the service industries unemployment may rise faster in the South East than in the regions.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, with particular reference to the area which the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, and I both come from, can my noble friend give some idea of the progress of urban schemes and to what extent they differ from the position which existed before the Government came intooffice?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, more than 1,000 projects in nine inner area districts in the North East—in Tyne-and-Wear and Cleveland—are being supported through the Department of the Environment's urban programme. The region's urban programme allocation for 1991 is £42 million, an increase of 4 per cent. on 1989–90.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, has the Minister seen the Fraser of Allander analysis of the consequences of regional policy in which it is stated that the new policy is wrong in principle and damaging in practice? Can the Government's commitment to regional policy be reconciled with the fact that the London Docklands Development Corporation's state funding for this year is substantially more than the entire regional development assistance to the Scottish Development Agency?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we remain committed to an effective regional policy. The Scottish Development Agency combines all the effective departmental resources and supervises regional policy in that way. I return to my original contention that the figure of £630 million for the regions is a considerable sum of money.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that large sums of English taxpayers' money have been spent on regional aid for projects such as Ravenscraig and the Linwood truck plant at various times in the past, all of which have ended in failure and gone against the market and all of which have been wasted? Does he agree that an awful lot of the regional aid goes to Japanese machine tool manufacturers, has no effect whatsoever on jobs and is a distortion of subsidy?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot agree with my noble friend. Regional policies have done a great deal to support jobs, especially in the North East and the North. For historical reasons those areas have suffered a rundown of their traditional industries and it is very important that they should be provided with others.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the Minister explain to his noble friend that Scotland is not a region?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I dare say he has heard the noble Lord's words.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I turn the noble Viscount's attention to Wales for a moment? Is he aware that during the last 10 years industrial employment has fallen by 20 per cent. in Wales but the regional aid programme has been cut by 50 per cent. in the same period? How does he reconcile those two figures?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, regional policy for Wales comes under the Welsh Development Agency. One of its projects is the Welsh valleys initiative on which there is a Question to morrow. I shall be very happy to go into the matter in more detail to morrow.
Lord Blease: My Lords, is there not an urgent need to co-ordinate national policies for energy and transportation to link the whole of the United Kingdom under one regional development policy? In my view, the regions have been sacrificed because of the lack of a national policy for transport and energy.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the European Regional Development Fund is devoted to infrastructure. It will provide finance for the transport network that the noble Lord requires.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the CBI, the Forum of Private Business and the London Business School, among many other objective observers, are saying that there will be a substantial increase in unemployment, which is the basis of my Question? As he referred to the regions, will the Minister comment on the fact that the Northern region, to which he referred, after 11 years has an unemployment rate of 13·4 per cent., which is only six points from what it was in 1979?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my figure for unemployment for the North is 9·6 per cent. and for the North West 8·4 per cent. The figures have almost halved since May 1987.

Exchange Rate Mechanism
2.56 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements they intend to make to consult the British people about the advisability of the United Kingdom joining the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have made very clear their policy on joining the exchange rate mechanism. There has been ample opportunity to discuss the policy in this House and in another place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is a most unsatisfactory Answer? It may very well be that we in this place and in another place, and even those in the City and the banks, know government policy, but will he agree that there has been no widespread discussion of this matter, which affects people's jobs, the exports of this country, its financial position and the ability of the Government to run the economy as they should as elected representatives of the people? Will he not agree at least to publish a new White Paper on the subject setting out the pros and cons of the whole matter? If he does not do so, should one not expect people to believe that the Government have something to hide?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Government have nothing to hide. They have made their views on this matter perfectly clear on many occasions, not least in an Answer by my noble friend Lord Caithness to a Question from the noble Lord not so very long ago. I remind the noble Lord that this is a parliamentary democracy and the subject has been discussed in both Houses on many occasions.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, before asking the public detailed questions on these complex matters will my noble friend remind the noble Lord that the British Labour Party is fully and publicly committed to membership of the Common Market?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend but I understand that there are problems on the other side of the House in that some members of the party opposite seem to have different views on the subject.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if the Government intend to publish a White Paper on this question do they agree that in the White Paper there should be listed those Ministers who are pro and those who are con?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I did not say that the Government intended to publish a White Paper on this matter.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the Labour Party has different views, which is certainly true. Will the noble Lord tell the House how many views there are on the other side of the House and indeed within the Cabinet?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is one view and that is the Government's view.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in a most important article in to day's Daily Telegraph the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, points out that European monetary union would mean that the fiscal prerogative would no longer be exercised only at the national level and that the power to raise taxes would gradually shift to ward Europe, by which he means the EC? Is he further aware that the noble Lord goes on to suggest that we may be going a bridge too far, to use the Arnhem analogy? Can he say whether Her Majesty's Government share the noble Lord's fears?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Question does not relate to EMU. It relates to sterling joining the exchange rate mechanism. The question about EMU is slightly different from the Question on the Order Paper.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would be appropriate for us to await the report of my noble friend Lord Aldington, who is chairman of the ad hoc committee on European monetary and political union, and that we might well wait to see the conclusions of that report?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I look forward with interest to that report. Only yesterday Dr. Karl Otto Pöhl spoke to that committee.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as these matters are likely to be discussed at the meeting of the Council of Ministers to be held on 23rd July, does the noble Lord consider that the request of my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon for the public to be made more fully aware is a reasonable one? In pursuing that point perhaps I may ask him a specific question which arises in particular in view of the apparent disagreements between No. 10 and No. 11 Downing Street and with the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party. If the visible trade deficit with the EC, mainly with Germany, continues at its existing rate of some £15 billion a year, and bearing in mind our own inflation rate which is running at 9.7 per cent. and rising, will the Government consider entering the ERM with the deutschmark standing to day at 2.945? In those circumstances, do Her Majesty's Government consider any time to be the right time for entry?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, the Government do not intend to publish a White Paper. I repeat that there is no disagreement between my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In view of the noble Lord's wish to be better informed, I shall repeat what my noble friend and my right honourable friends in another place have said on many occasions; namely, that the Government are committed to join the ERM when the level of United Kingdom inflation is significantly lower, when there is capital liberalisation in the Community and when real progress has been made toward the completion of the single market, freedom of financial services and strengthened competition policy.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, do I detect in the noble Lord's reply any similarity in the Government's attitude to ward joining the ERM and their attitude to the Easter Act of 1928?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Easter Act 1928 was a somewhat long time ago. I do not think that it would serve any purpose if I were to repeat the conditions laid down by the Government for joining the ERM. I merely stated them to the House in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.
Lord Morris: My Lords, will my noble friend be surprised to learn that in dining rooms, drawing

2097
rooms, clubs, pubs and restaurants throughout the United Kingdom the desirability or otherwise of the United Kingdom joining the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system is not a favourite topic of conversation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is possible that my noble friend has been in many dining rooms, clubs and so on in the United Kingdom, but I do not know.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I am in favour of a common market. Indeed, I went round the country with the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, at the time of the referendum, trying to persuade the electors to vote for the common market. But I am not in favour of entering a federal Europe.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Glenamara: It is a question, my Lords. Anyone who appears tooppose being drawn into a federal Europe is regarded as rather odd nowadays. The Government have no mandate whatever to take this country into a federal Europe. When will the Government consult the people about this issue? We do not want to go into a federal Europe.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the matter has nothing to do with a federal Europe. I note that the noble Lord has different views from those held by some of his other friends in his party. I have repeated the Government's view that we shall enter the exchange rate mechanism when the time is right.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Question was short, but the noble Lord's answer was very unsatisfactory. Is he aware that the Prime Minister herself does not realise that to alter the bands of the exchange rate mechanism will need unanimity? So, even if it is only to inform her of the real situation, does he think it would be as well if the Government were to issue a Green Paper?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think I can take the matter any further than I have already taken it.

Electricity Supply Industry: Privatisation
3.6 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the privatisation of the electricity supply industry was carried out with adequate preparation and information, and in particular on the basis of reliable costings, and what effects these may have had on the future of the nuclear energy industry.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government are satisfied that the preparation for the flotations is taking place on the basis of the best available information and costings. They are wholly satisfied with the advice that they are receiving on the privatisation. The decision not to privatise the
2098
nuclear industry was taken in the light of all the relevant information. The future of nuclear power will be reviewed in 1994.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister will understand when I direct my supplementary question to the second half of my Question on the Order Paper. Is he aware that in an article in last Sunday's Sunday Express Mr. John Wakeham made the categorical statement that nuclear power in this country is not finished? In terms of the requirement of nuclear power on an international basis because of the population explosion, is the Minister aware that unless the moratorium of 1994 is lifted immediately it will simply mean that the French nuclear industry will continue to laugh all the way to the bank at the expense of our industry? May I plead with the Minister to urge Mr. Wakeham to lift that moratorium in the interests of everybody concerned?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we are completing Sizewell B and will review the prospects for future nuclear capacity in 1994. Apart from the contribution to diversity in fuel supply, nuclear power has important environmental benefits. It does not contribute to acid rain and Sizewell B alone will avoid the emission of 300 million tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime. I understand the noble Lord's concern about the moratorium but it is up to the nuclear industry to prove itself before that time.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Viscount confirm that there can be no reliable costings for nuclear power? Will he agree that that is so for two reasons? First, there is a lack of political decision over the future of the fast reactor, which will consume the by-products of the thermal reactor. Secondly, there is the enormously extended timescale over which these decisions can be taken. Will he further confirm that for the next 40 years Torness and Heysham II will be turning out plutonium as a by-product on which no reliable value can be placed as a credit against the cost of electricity?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Earl makes an extremely valid point. To date the nuclear programme has been undertaken on a bipartisan basis.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Viscount reminded us that in 1994 there will be a review of the future of the nuclear industry in this country. Will he indicate whether at the same time there will be a review of the privatised organisation in view of the fact that there are many people who feel that it should have been done differently and that after three or four years of experience it might well need to be reviewed?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, I can give no further undertaking.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, my noble friend's Question referred to adequate preparation and information for privatisation. Will the noble

2099
Viscount confirm that a warning that it would not be possible to privatise the nuclear industry was given in August 1988 by the financial advisers to the Government? It was given 15 months before the programme was abandoned. Will he further confirm that that warning was not sent by the department as a document to the Select Committee of another place which studied this matter? It therefore blamed the financial advisers for what was after all a Government error.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the department and the financial advisers supplied the committee with full and wide-ranging information. The Select Committee has expressed its appreciation of that. However, there were many letters and meetings between the department and its advisers over the whole period.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the Minister inform my noble friend that the nuclear industry has no future and that therefore there is no need to speculate upon it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, no, I cannot agree with the noble Lord in his premise.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Viscount—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, we have now had 33 minutes of Question time. Perhaps I may suggest that we keep an eye on the time. Three noble Lords opposite wish to intervene. I suggest that we hear the noble Lord, Lord Williams, then another noble Lord, and then the noble Lord, Lord Dean. Perhaps we can then bring this Question to an end.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I should like to press the noble Viscount on my previous question. Is it not the case that Kleinwort Benson supplied the Select Committee with two letters that it had written to the department? One was dated 11th September 1987, and one was sent on 6th November 1989. However, if the August 1988 letter, which was the crucial letter saying that this was not a viable prospect, was not supplied to the Select Committee by the Department of Energy, why not?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the various letters that were provided for the Select Committee were made available on the basis that that was the information required by the Select Committee. I go back to what I said to the noble Lord: the Select Committee was thankful, and expressed its thanks in its report, for the amount of evidence that it received from the department.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House said that three Members from the Labour Party should speak. My noble friend Lord Hanworth has risen on a number of occasions but has not been invited to speak. Will the noble Lord please comment?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Viscount. I saw three noble Lords rising on the Opposition Benches. I did not see another noble Lord. We have now had 35 minutes of Question time. I think that it is reasonable to hear the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, who was on his feet, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and then to call it a day.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with respect, it is not reasonable to have three Members from the Labour Benches speaking and none from this Bench.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am trying to be as courteous as I can to noble Lords. I am in the hands of the House. On this occasion perhaps the noble Viscount might have been a little quicker on his feet.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick, the noble Viscount said that there were certain responsibilities on the industry to supply the Government with information. Can the Minister say whether the industry has been informed of that responsibility?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I indicated to the noble Lord that it will be up to Nuclear Electric to run the nuclear industry until 1994. It will be on that record, and other matters, that a decision will be taken.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I consider the question posed by my noble friend Lord Jenkins that the nuclear industry has no future is absolute bunk? Is he aware that I was directing my Question to the pursuit of the international, not domestic, provision of power? Does he recall that your Lordships' Select Committee recently debated this very question? It indicated the need for a substantial increase of power in the near future because of the population explosion internationally. I am trying to make the point to the Government that the moratorium that they placed on the industry until 1994 is seriously damaging our nuclear industry's capacity to compete with our main competitor, the French. Will the Government consider that issue as a matter of urgency?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Lord has said. I am sure that he will note what the noble Lord has said, as I do. However, I cannot go back on what I have said about 1994.

Business
3.15 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Environmental Protection Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during the adjournment the Third Reading of the Access to Health Records Bill and the Consumer Guarantees Bill will be taken.

Environmental Protection Bill
3.16 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, before the House moves into Committee on the Environmental Protection Bill, I feel it only proper that one should make some protest at the conditions under which Members of the House are being asked to carry the weight of legislation that we are being asked to undertake by the Government.
We have before us a groupings paper that was not available until ten minutes to two this afternoon—and then I think not in the Printed Paper Office. I appreciate that the usual channels consist of representatives from all quarters of the House, and that it is not exclusively a responsibility of government to present amendments for groupings. But we are being asked to day to work on a Bill where there are 24 amendments in the second grouping of the Sixth Marshalled List. It was almost impossible to go through it in the time available and to identify the 24 amendments intelligently. The printers have also found life too difficult for them. If one looks at page 10 of the Marshalled List, Amendment No. 353 appears after, instead of before, Amendment No. 354. On page 11, Amendment No. 354 appears after Amendment No. 355.
I am speaking because I believe that the House is being asked to undertake too much legislation at too rapid a speed. It is making it very difficult indeed for ordinary Members of the House—who have minimal secretarial help—to keep pace with the speed at which the Government expect us to get through complicated and very important legislation.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I must apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for the fact that the groupings are late. I think that I am right in saying that it is the only day this Session that they have come late. It is not for the convenience of your Lordships. The noble Baroness is owed an apology. I unreservedly give her that apology.
However, decisions on groupings are not in the hands of the Government alone. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, chose the groupings on the second group that the noble Baroness has identified. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will not mind my saying that groupings are for the convenience of the House. If any noble Lord or noble Baroness does not wish a particular amendment to be within that group, that noble Lord or noble Baroness can make the point clear, and can make it clear that he or she wishes to speak—and indeed to vote—separately on that particular amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in response to what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has just said, it is only fair to say that we received a draft set of groupings from the Government yesterday afternoon. It took us most of this morning to make our own revision as to what we thought was necessary. I am also very pleased to confirm what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said: that there is an opportunity to speak on any
2102
amendment as and when it arises, whatever the grouping may have been. The intention of the work on the groupings this morning was to simplify matters rather than to complicate them. I hope that my noble friend will find that that is in fact the case.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hesketh).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Campbell of Croy: With leave, before we start, perhaps I may call attention to a defect in the Marshalled List. It is one of some importance. I refer to Amendment No. 344ZKA. It is attributed to three names, one of which is mine. It is certainly not our amendment. It seems that a name or names has been omitted from above the amendment. Some of us would like to know whose amendment it is. It is due to come up in the second debate. If the information is not available immediately, perhaps by raising it now I shall give time for the information to be given to us.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot lie; it is my amendment.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 343:
Before Clause 118, insert the following new clause:
("Countryside Council of the United Kingdom

.—(1) (a) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Countryside Council of the United Kingdom (in this Part referred to as "the Council") for the purpose of carrying out the functions assigned or transferred to it under this Part.

(b) The Council shall consist of not less than eight nor more than fifteen members, appointed by the Secretary of State.

(c) The Secretary of State shall designate one of the members appointed by him as chairman of the Council and may, if he thinks fit, designate another member of the Council as the deputy chairman of the Council.

(d) In appointing a person to be a member of the Council, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of appointing a person who has experience of, and has shown capacity in, some matter relevant to the functions of the Council, as conferred by subsection (4) below.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Council—

(a) to establish and maintain regional advisory committees, consisting of persons who are not members of the Council, for the different regions of the United Kingdom;

(b) to consult the advisory committee for any region as to any proposals of the Council relating generally to the manner in which the Council carries out its functions in that region; and

(c) to consider any representations made to it by the advisory committee for any region (whether in response to consultation under paragraph (b) above or otherwise) as to the manner in which the Council carries out its functions in that region.

(3) The duty to establish and maintain advisory committees imposed by subsection (2) above is a duty—

(a) to establish and maintain an advisory committee for each region of the United Kingdom, as may be determined by the Council; and

2103

(b) to ensure that the persons appointed by the Council to each such committee are persons who appear to the Council to have an interest in matters likely to be affected by the manner in which the Council carries out any of its functions in the region in question.

(4) The Council shall be charged with the following functions—

(a) the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty in the United Kingdom:

(b) the provision or improvement of facilities for the enjoyment of the countryside;

(c) the conservation of flora, fauna, geological or physiographical features;

(d) the provision of advice for the Secretary of State or any other Minister on the development and implementation of policies for or affecting countryside and nature conservation in the United Kingdom, and for achieving relevant international obligations;

(e) the provision of advice and dissemination of information about countryside and nature conservation;

(f) the establishment, maintenance and management of National Parks, Nature Reserves, areas of outstanding natural beauty and areas of special scientific interest:

(g) the commissioning or support (whether by financial means or otherwise) or research relevant to the functions of the Council.

(5) In subsection (4) above "countryside and nature conservation" means the conservation of natural beauty and amenity, and of flora, fauna, geological or physiographical features.").
The noble Earl said: I have just returned from a treat. This morning I woke up and looked over the Grand Canal in Venice. As I was preparing my papers for to day's debate one or two thoughts crossed my mind with a certain amount of irony. Had Attila the Hun attended the Ramsar Convention it is probable that Venice would still be a heavily protected wetlands site. Had Theodoric had a regional fund there is not the slightest doubt that he would not have invested it in Venice hoping that it would be the centre of the spice trade between the eastern Mediterranean and the Western world. Had the blind doge Danolo been subject to building regulations there would have been no buildings. I bring that historical perspective to my few words. It indicates that we must be immensely careful when undertaking any concept of planning or control of our surroundings and countryside. Almost invariably we have got it wrong.
The whole of the English, Scottish and Welsh countryside is man-made. There is not a single square inch which remains unaltered by man. Therefore, it requires to be looked after most caefully. The stone walls in Derbyshire are akin to those in Scotland and Wales. The river valleys of the Tweed or the Severn straddling the borders of the kingdoms of Scotland and England and the Principality of Wales should be regarded as such. The idea that the merganser on the north of the Tweed should have a tartan wing and be run by one conservation body while its starboard wing wearing north-country tweed is run by another body, both designed to appease Scottish pride, verges on the unreasonable.
When the Government first came to power in 1979 it was said that a great swathing axe would be cutting through the quangos. The favourites for amalgamation were the Nature Conservancy Council
2104
and the Countryside Commission. That did not materialise and I believe that there was a sound reason for keeping them apart. However, I have always believed that there is a more sound reason for joining them together. The countryside should be regarded as a whole and examined for its many facets and uses.
I was taken by a noble friend to see a bird which had not inhabited this country for a long time. I was rightly told to say nothing about where it was or what it was and I have not done so. Until that time its presence was unknown in the United Kingdom. That part of the countryside had to be protected and kept as free from interference as was humanly possible. Large areas of the Pennine Way are being used by too many people and the paths are being eroded. That damage can be seen also in the Welsh mountains and in parts of Scotland. The problems of the British countryside are not the sole concern of the kingdoms of Scotland and England or the Principality of Wales. They are connected with the pressure created by a growing population which is rightly—and thank goodness for it—more conservation minded.
There is a genuine care for our countryside and a desire for access to it under responsible and reasonable conditions. There is a desire that our countryside should not merely be a machine for making food. In other words, we must garden and gamekeep our countryside. The idea that it should be cared for in one way north of the Border, in another way in the principality and in a third way in England is nothing short of nationalist whingeing. It is time to look at the problem on a sensible, natural basis rather than in the light of political borders.
Needless to say, the amendment was drafted for me by someone else because I am much too idle and not nearly clever enough to do so. The new body combines the duties of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission and it is modelled on the National Rivers Authority. The duties set out in subsection (4) sum up the way in which we should treat our countryside, be it Scottish, English or Welsh. We should look at the problem in that non-nationalist way which reflects the needs of the countryside as a whole. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: This is a probing amendment. As a result of a rumour that the noble Earl might not be able to attend the Committee this afternoon I added my name to it yesterday. I believe strongly that it goes some way towards establishing the kind of structure which might have resulted from the White Paper promised this autumn if only the Government had given it a chance and had not been so quick to dismember the NCC without any discussions with bodies outside this Committee which are anxious about what is happening.
I am sitting on these Benches with a Scottish colleague next to me and another behind me. By derivation I too am Scottish. Any reference to Scotland being a region will be sat on quickly by my colleagues. Therefore, I do not associate myself with the word "region" in this context. It is a nation, as is Wales. However, the amendment goes some way towards what the Government should be achieving

2105
if they want to establish an overall UK view of nature conservation, countryside issues, forestry, and so forth. The bodies in Scotland and Wales should have executive functions and should not be purely advisory, but there must be an overall UK view. The body must have some power and it must be advisory and receive finance. I support the amendment if only to hear what the Government have to say about it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My noble friend is proposing a countryside council but clearly it will cover nature conservation. Indeed, subsections (4) (c) and (d) indicate that. The amendment aims to replace the Government's proposals which are to be added to by their amendments proposing four bodies, including the joint committee. I should prefer to build, on what exists already and on the functions of Ministers and their departments which Parliament has laid down. I entirely understand the spirit in which my noble friend tabled the clause as an alternative. However, I do not believe that its provisions would fit in easily with many statutes which set out the duties of Ministers and their departments. The Government's Bill which we are now considering does not affect those duties. That was confirmed by the Minister when I raised that point on the first day in Committee. This amendment enables us to make a few general comments on Part VII at the beginning of our discussion.
I was invited to serve on the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology chaired by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who presided outstandingly in that capacity. I was glad to have that privilege and I believe that the proposals which the Carver Commitee put forward, most of which the Government have now accepted, lead in the right direction from the point of view of reaching a satisfactory structure which is better than the present one.
The four chairmen designate of the bodies clearly agree. Their letter in The Times on 23rd June supports those proposals. I should like to make it clear that that is the line which I should prefer to follow rather than that put forward by my noble friend.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has expressed the thoughts which I had about this amendment and, of course, has done so better than I should have done. I add only that, if we are seriously considering adding this new clause to the Bill, the consequentials involved by way of amending previous legislation, amending this Bill and dovetailing this new clause with what is already in the Bill, will take several parliamentary days of great endeavour.
Therefore, I hope that it does not disappoint my noble friend Lord Onslow and those who support him to say that, although I think his sentiments are admirable and that we should regard most of these matters as one problem, we have a legislative foundation dealing with them separately and in somewhat specialised ways. As my noble friend Lord Campbell said, we should try to build on that.
Baroness David: I was very glad to add my name to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, as it is the only amendment on this vast list which gives one the opportunity to say how hostile one is to the way in which this organisation has come about. One asks why, when a White Paper is to be published in the autumn, there is such unseemly haste to push forward these proposals, which are ill-thought out, uncosted and give maximum anxiety and uncertainty to those working in the NCC and in all those voluntary bodies which have done so much for conservation in this country; for example, the World Wildlife Fund, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and others which have done such marvellous work. This is the only amendment which positively asks for Part VII to be removed.
No one has attempted to say that there should be no reorganisation of the NCC. In fact, the Government have still not explained why the scheme for devolution of the NCC which had been prepared by the council and was ready on the very day on which the bombshell burst on 11th July—and that is a year next Wednesday—has not been considered. Indeed, it has not even been discussed.
Of course, there are many possibilities for reorganisation. Discussion after a White Paper would be the ideal way to explore them. In this amendment the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has proposed one possibility based on the National Rivers Authority model, namely a national body with regional arms. That would appear to be a possible way forward and an excellent basis for discussion. I applaud him for his initiative in moving the amendment. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says, although I can guess what will be the tenor of his remarks.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I must say to the noble Baroness who has just spoken that, from the point of view of the people of Scotland, the proposals made in this amendment are breathtakingly inappropriate. I hope that she realises that.
I do not know how serious is my noble friend in moving the amendment. It has been spoken to from the Front Bench of the Liberal Party. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, said that he thought it was a probing amendment. I do not know if that is what it is in the eyes of my noble friend Lord Onslow. I do not know what it is in the eyes of the noble Baroness, Lady David. She is a prominent Front Bench spokesman although she has spoken from the Back Benches today. She is a very prominent member of the Labour Party in this Chamber. A Liberal Front Bench spokesman spoke in favour of the amendment. That demonstrates the problems which both the Labour and Liberal Parties have nowadays on the subject of devolution.
This amendment not only frustrates the Government's intention to devolve nature conservancy to Scotland, it also takes away from Scotland, as I read it, the existing powers which we have as to how we use and enjoy our own countryside.

2107
Members of the Committee may have noticed that this proposal refers to and treats Scotland as a region of the United Kingdom. If the proposed council is gracious enough to designate us as a region, we should be allowed no more than an advisory committee which would say what it thought should happen in Scotland but would have no power to make decisions. That would apply not only to nature conservancy but also to how we use and enjoy our countryside. On countryside matters, that would put the clock back 21 years. Scotland has had its own Countryside Commission since 1968.
We are always being told that the Labour Party, and indeed the Liberal Party, are parties of devolution and are in favour of policies which enable the people of Scotland to decide for themselves. What does this amendment and the other amendments which we shall discuss later tell us? They will attempt to weaken the extent of devolution for Scotland and Wales proposed in the Bill.
I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady David, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and any of their noble friends who support them in this matter or in other matters which attempt to weaken the Bill, that they should tune in somewhat more to their Scottish colleagues. Perhaps we shall hear from them when discussing this amendment. In particular Members of the Committee belonging to the Labour Party should tune in to remarks made by their honourable friend in another place which are recorded at col. 81 of Hansard for 15th January. His speech was to the effect that the southern-based environmental lobby, including the Nature Conservancy Council, has been seen by what he described as "ordinary highlanders" as aloof, insensitive, remote and sadly lacking in any appreciation of the special history and culture of the Highlands and Islands.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Order!
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am not quoting, I am paraphrasing. Members of the Committee opposite should tune in to those remarks. The way to persuade the people of Scotland—and I dare say the people of Wales too—to identify with nature conservancy is by devolution of powers to them. That is what the Bill achieves and that is what this amendment to tally frustrates. I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That was a direct challenge to the Labour Front Bench and I must respond. The noble Baroness claimed to be making a passionate defence on behalf of the Scottish people. I always believe it to be unwise for Members of this Chamber especially to be making passionate claims that they are representing the people. It is also unwise for the noble Baroness to run the risk of unwittingly breaching the rules of this Chamber by quoting my honourable friend in another place without naming the Member to whom she was referring. That makes life exceedingly difficult.
There is no concealment on any side of this Chamber that there are different views on this matter. Some noble Lords, particularly those from
2108
Scotland and Wales, feel very strongly that the Government's proposals are an improvement on the existing situation. Others, who have a concern for nature conservation and the countryside on an island-wide basis, feel very strongly that there is a great deal to be lost by the arrangements proposed by the Government. Those differing views are held by individuals in all parties. I have not concealed the fact that there are differing views in my party.
The position I took on Second Reading—I do not want to repeat a Second Reading speech—which I believe was accepted by most of my noble friends, was that it would be inappropriate at Committee stage to seek to take out the whole of Part VII of the Bill. Our approach should be to look at the detailed arrangements proposed by the Government for the replacement of the Nature Conservancy Council by country councils and a joint committee; to seek to improve the arrangements as best we can using the procedures of the Committee as available to this Chamber; and then to look at the result at the end of the Committee stage and decide whether we need more radical measures.
That was the view that we took and the view expressed from this Dispatch Box. I adhere to that view and that is the way we have approached this Committee stage. I am bound to say to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that, as has been made clear by other noble Lords, his amendment would in effect take out Part VII of the Bill. It would not allow the detailed attempt to scrutinise and amend the Government's proposals which are the subject of today's business. On that basis—I believe I speak on behalf of all my noble friends—having given us a valuable opportunity to discuss the matter, I hope that the noble Earl will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: It may be helpful if I add to that point now. Of course I will not press the amendment to a Division. It seems to me that this is an intelligent way to approach nature conservancy and countryside matters for the whole of the United Kingdom. As my noble friend, Lady Carnegy, has obviously not grasped, I was trying to apply the new Scottish and Welsh system to England as a whole.
This is not a nationalist matter. It is a question of looking after the countryside, whether in Scotland, Surrey, Caithness, Cumberland or wherever. It is nothing to do with nationalism or such other petty views. It is concerned with looking after the immensely varied and valuable countryside in the whole of the United Kingdom. That is what I hope to discuss.
I agree with the noble Lord. Lord McIntosh, that the amendment would in effect take out Part VII. I am trying to suggest an alternative, which it is not inappropriate to discuss at this moment. However, I accept that it would be inappropriate to insist on it going into the Bill.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I hate to step in before the distinguished noble Lords behind me, but on behalf of the Liberal Party I wish to welcome the conversion of my noble neighbour, Lady Carnegy,

2109
to devolution. It is a remarkable conversion and I look forward to her carrying it into other fields.
My noble friend Lord Ross of Newport made a sensible and valuable short contribution. He voiced the disquiet of many people who have been desperately interested in conservation over a long period of time and who view the Government's measures as being rushed and without sufficient consultation. For that reason it is perfectly reasonable to put one's name to an amendment which radically probes the whole approach.
I am grateful for the kind words correcting the normal English attitude towards Scotland as a region. I also agree with the noble Earl that one cannot separate conservation in an island as small as ours If an eagle which normally prefers Scotland strays into Cumbria, it should not encounter a different set of rules. That would be nonsense.
Again as my noble neighbour Lady Carnegy said, the administration of a policy for the United Kingdom is often better carried out by a devolved body. In that respect I am sure that the application to Scotland of conservation measures for the whole of the British Isles will be very much better understood by the people of Scotland if the executive power is in the hands of a Scottish body. I welcome the probing effect of the amendment; I cannot say that I agree with the content.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: The case submitted today by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is not only inappropriate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, suggested, but I regard it as insulting. There is an implication that the Scots are not concerned about conservation and cannot be trusted to look after their own affairs in that field. I regard that as insulting, and it is to tally wrong.
For some years I was chairman of the Forestry Commission, the biggest landowner in the country. I had to deal daily with problems of conservation; I had to consult the Countryside Commission, local landlords and everyone who was concerned with the countryside. The Countryside Commission for Scotland at that time was devolved and still is devolved. It is a separate Countryside Commission. We worked with them in harmony; we discussed on the ground some of the problems of land management. Those issues cannot be discussed in Peterborough.
There was an article in The Times on Saturday, centre page, in which one of the conservationists suggested that as politicians in this country are under pressure from constituents, they cannot be trusted to manage the countryside, and the whole of our conservation and national parks' policy should be determined in Brussels—not in Scotland, London or Wales, but in Brussels. That is carrying the matter a little too far.
In Scotland at the moment the figures are quite interesting. The number of SSSIs—sites of special scientific interest, designated by the Nature Conservancy Council—total 773,000 hectares. That represents more than 10 per cent. of the entire land area of Scotland. I suggest therefore that there is a
2110
special Scottish dimension and that we might just be trusted to be concerned about the nature of Scottish conservation as much as people from Peterborough, London or elsewhere.
Lord Ross of Newport: Or Edinburgh; is not the headquarters of the Forestry Commission in Edinburgh?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: One of the jewels in my crown is that I moved the Forestry Commission headquarters from 25 Savile Row, where it was when I became chairman, to Edinburgh. The first question I asked was, "Where is the planting taking place?" I found that 95 per cent. of all new planting was taking place in Scotland. I said that that is where the headquarters should be. By the same token, in view of the substantial impact of the activities of the Nature Conservancy Council in Scotland, I suggest that the nearer we get to the ground, the better.
There are problems beyond the conservation of certain flora and fauna. There are problems beyond caring for the birds, important though they are. There are problems of caring for people. Increasingly in the Highlands of Scotland people are becoming the endangered species. The Nature Conservancy Council held a press conference in London, of all places, and decided that no more trees should be planted in the flow country. The flow country has a nice ring about it. I do not know how many Members of the Committee have been there. It is dull marshland and important for protecting certain species of birds. However, it is also important for people to earn their living there, as they have been doing for years. Nevertheless, the Nature Conservancy Council decided that there should be no planting of trees in the flow country because it would affect the habitat of certain birds.
The council did not consult the local authority which has some responsibility for the welfare of the community and whose members are the elected representatives of the people. The council did not consult the Highlands and Islands Development Board to which the Government give grants in order to protect industrial, commercial and environmental interests in the Highlands. The decision was made here, in London. I suggest that there is a case for devolution in this matter. Consideration not only of the rights of people but of birds, forestry and other land use can best be studied and satisfied close to the areas affected.
I deeply resent the suggestion that this is a plea for Scottish nationalism. It is a plea for devolution, and I am a devolutionist in these matters. It has been implied that there is some kind of conspiracy on the part of the Government to reduce the power and the authority of the Nature Conservancy Council. That is not borne out by the facts. In 1984–85 the grant-in-aid to the Nature Conservancy Council in this country was £14.9 million. Last year, after five years, that figure had risen to over £40 million. In view of all the other claims on government funds that is a remarkable figure. It represents surely a certain sensitivity on the part of the Government to the needs of nature conservancy.

2111
With an organisation growing so rapidly there is inevitably a danger of bureaucracy. It happens in all companies. Therefore, to counter the danger of increasing bureaucracy from a central authority I suggest that there is a great deal of sense in decentralising responsibility to people on the ground and having sensible co-operation in Scotland of the Countryside Commission, with its special responsibilities, and the Nature Conservancy Council, with its special responsibilities. In that way, the Government's proposals are certainly welcomed by the various bodies, voluntary organisations and others concerned with environmental protection in Scotland. Therefore, I suggest that the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, should be heavily rejected.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: I rise briefly to deal with the international aspect, which is almost invariably ignored. We have nothing but inward-looking domestic debates on this whole issue. Perhaps I should say first in view of the fervency of previous speakers, that I have had a second home in the north-west of Scotland for a long time. My daughter is now living there. Although I live in England and am English I find that I know far more about the flow country than do most Scotsmen. It is utterly ridiculous for the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to imply that only Englishmen can understand conservation in England. The reason I resigned from the Nature Conservancy Council was that it was embarrassing to hear Scotsmen implying that only Scotsmen know about conservation in Scotland.
We live at a time when the Government, led by the Prime Minister, are endeavouring to mobilise third world countries into supporting conservation measures for the whole of the environment. How can we possibly stand up and say that we think we can do that better in three little bits? I know that this is water under the bridge but I want to support the presentation of this amendment, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ross. It has enabled us to make some very important points and to keep the subject on the level at which it should be addressed—not in a parochial manner.
In Africa, experts of all nationalities have contributed for 50 years to the conservation of parks in north, south, east and west Africa. They are still involved in that task. It is welcomed by the nations. The experts are not told, "Go back, you are the wrong colour" or "You come from the wrong country". Conservation is a global, international matter. The Americans are at present helping the King and the Government of Bhutan to work out an environmental conservation scheme for Bhutan in the Himalayas. It does not matter whether they are Americans, Chinese, Dutch, or whatever. Conservation is an international matter; it is not local, parochial or domestic.
The hole in the ozone layer was not discovered by penguins and elephant seals but by English scientists in Cambridge. The penguins are not objecting! It is probably of great assistance to everyone that the hole has been discovered by Englishmen. Perhaps I may express a personal position. For 25 years I assisted
2112
in the conservation of the Galapagos Islands. The President of Ecuador, I am proud to announce, has given me a noble award—a sort of Ecuadorian knighthood—for my work in contributing to the conservation of those islands. Therefore, all I ask is that we keep the debate on a proper level.
Unfortunately, as has been said, the Government's proposals were made with no consultation; otherwise many of us could have been of great assistance in avoiding all these pitfalls and in pointing the way forward. We all agree about devolution of administration and management. The Nature Conservancy Council itself agrees and was working on that. All that has happened is that we have got the cart before the horse and the wrong horse behind the wrong cart. Somehow, during the progress of this Bill, we must get it right.
Lord Shackleton: Perhaps I may intervene in this debate. I am comforted to remember that my father was an Irishman. Having seen the fury of the Scots and the beginning of the fury of the English I hope I can lower tempers a little.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, made an unfortunate speech in that she brought party politics into the debate. It is apparent, as my noble friend on the Front Bench and others have made clear, that this is not a party political issue. Moreover, the noble Baroness did not give way to my noble friend Lady David. It is the custom of this Chamber—and courtesy demands it save in exceptional circumstances—to give way for interventions. It is a pity that that raised the temper of the debate.
I intervene only briefly because this is a Committee stage and noble Lords will recall that practically every Committee stage begins with a second reading debate. We do not want to have that now. However, I am bound to make one point. The noble Lord who was a co-opted member of the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology referred to the very good job done by the committee. However, the committee reserved its position on the merits of the Government's proposals on the various councils. The committee said it was not within its terms of reference and compiled a report which was predicated on the assumption that the Government would continue with their plans.
My noble friend Lady David pointed out that the Government have made an awful nonsense of this matter. My inclination therefore would have been to support the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, but we are bound to test the Government's intentions on our amendments. I hope the Government will be inclined to accept them, because if not some of us are bound to return at a later stage and seek to take the whole of Part VII out of the Bill.
The Government have made a nonsense of this issue. I shall not go into arguments. The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, made clear that there are powerful arguments. There are split views within the Nature Conservancy Council. Despite what my noble friend Lord Taylor said, the Scottish conservation organisations are critical of the Government's

2113
proposals. Therefore, I hope that the Government will pay attention to some of the issues that will be raised later.
4 p.m.
Lord Hunt: I rise to support the intention behind the amendment moved by the noble Earl. I understand that he does not intend to press it to a Division. However, I shall support one of the subsequent amendments to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. That will have the same effect as regards a joint committee proposed by the Government as is suggested in the noble Earl's amendment.
In effect, I am following the noble Lord, Lord Buxton. I shall be extremely brief. Today there is concern about the environment both globally and, no less important, locally. That concern is widespread. Everyone is concerned, including all the political parties, for this subject is high on the political agenda. It is extraordinary that the Government apparently still do not accept the need for a United Kingdom authority. I am not thinking of it as a national authority any more than the noble Lord, Lord Buxton. No one is thinking of such an authority except the government department concerned. It should have the remit, powers and finance to oversee the environment as a whole.
It is no less extraordinary that the Government apparently do not accept the notion that the countryside, including urban areas, covers and embraces all the scientific sites and the flora and fauna which are the present remit of the Nature Conservancy Council. That became apparent during the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act of a decade ago, with which I was involved. These two considerations are far above national considerations such as those voiced on both sides of the Committee this afternoon. These considerations argue for a body or an authority with the kind of remit and powers which the noble Earl has in mind.
Lord Borthwick: I support my noble friend Lady Carnegy and parts of what other Members of the Committee have said. I wish to come down to ground level. People count for a great deal in this matter and a great deal more than paper. One has to consider the people who are selected for particular jobs. Local people know far more than those who live in another county. For example, the postman will call some mornings and make a complaint about something. The person addressed can then walk out and look at what the postman has described. The postman may be wrong or be may be right.
Other people will come along and they will learn a great deal about the area in which they live which they would not have done living down in Peterborough. A complaint came to me the other day to the effect that Peterborough is not very happy and does not appear to get on and deal with matters. I do not blame Peterborough for that because the information required may not be available or the people concerned are not local. They may not know the post man or anyone else in the area.
That is why I am keen to have a body to back up those who are working in the area under discussion.
2114
For example, we need some authority in Scotland. It may be a little scouting patrol. There has to be someone bringing in information from Scotland. Scotland depends a great deal on fishing and at the moment there is a considerable amount of farm fishing. The situation is bad there. However, fishing will not be dealt with by the committee. A great deal of what is taking place in Scotland will not be the concern of the committee. It is all right having a committee and calling it that, but there is a need for wisdom, co-operation and knowledge to go with it.
Baroness White: It would be regrettable if there were no voice from Wales. We have heard a good deal from Scotland. The Scots are rather talkative people. There are many of us who are distressed at the manner in which this legislation has been brought forward. It is most unsatisfactory. It would be very nice to start again and in a much more sensible way, but we have to deal with matters as they are.
I could bandy statistics with my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I point out that 25 per cent. of the total land area of Wales is either a national park or an area of outstanding natural beauty. Proportionately, we have as many sites of scientific interest as there are in Scotland. I do not intend to pursue that. I simply make the point that many of us would have been far happier if Part VII had not been included in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, will appreciate that while the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales has the greatest possible sympathy for its partner, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, it was not included in the list of names in the petition which he presented to the House. The reason is that in Wales we already have an organisation, and a prospective organisation which, with all its faults, will be better than a regional advisory committee as proposed in the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.
That would not be a satisfactory pattern for the Principality. We have a Secretary of State for Wales and a Welsh Office. In other words, we have an administrative pattern in Wales which should be used to better advantage than that envisaged in the Bill as it now stands. However, it would not be satisfactory to accept the proposals put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, even though they are supported by my noble friend Lady David. I have the greatest sympathy with her. For those reasons I am glad that the noble Earl does not intend to press this matter to a Division.
Viscount Blakenham: This is neither a party nor a devolutionary issue. We are talking about conservation in the British Isles. If necessary we can move the headquarters of the NCC to Scotland. That would be a perfectly satisfactory solution as far as I am concerned. We are talking about an issue that, unfortunately, raises emotions. There are organisations in Scotland as well as in other parts of the British Isles. They are represented by about 80 organisations in respect of which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, presented the petition. About a dozen of those bodies are Scottish organisations.

2115
This should not be a nationalistic issue. If we support my noble friend's amendment we could probably be accused of running into the same problems as those faced by the Government's proposals; namely, that they were ill thought through. We should put forward the constructive amendments that are before us and, if they are not accepted by the Government, only then should we consider very seriously our scheme for the withdrawal of the whole of Part VII and for it to be dealt with at a later date.
Lord Grimond: I rise to do something which I do not often do and that is to say a word in defence of the Government and another word in defence of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I thought she made a rather good speech, though she does not need any defence from me. I think she stated some of the things that many people in Scotland are thinking. The Government's proposals contained in the Bill are sensible, unlike most of their proposals in most Bills.
There is now a great demand in Scotland for some form of devolution. The Government have sensibly said, "Here is an example. Scotland can look after some of its own affairs in connection with the countryside and the environment". After all, the countryside in Shetland is quite different from the countryside in Surrey. It is absurd to suppose that they can be protected in exactly the same way.
It is certainly necessary to have overall liaison because many of the problems are global. But some of the problems of medicine are also global. That does not prevent us from devolving some control of medical matters to different countries. In Scotland there is a certain sensitivity about absentee landlords. I know that there is no question of ownership in the Bill but there is sensitivity among crofters about being pushed around by faraway people in Peterborough, London or Edinburgh. In my old constituency we were profoundly suspicious of Edinburgh. It was at any rate rather nearer than London or Peterborough. That suspicion goes back to the time when landlords or their factors never came near the place and simply handed down directions about rent and so forth. That lingers on.
It is quite unnecessary to create a great division between those who want overall control and those who want a certain amount of devolution. The proposals before us are perfectly sensible. There will be a combination of similar bodies in Scotland, Wales and England. No doubt they will liaise and no doubt they may want some overall body. But the essential devolution is, I believe, right and will be appreciated in Scotland. I hope therefore that the Government will stick to their guns. Having said that, I believe that it was perfectly fair to raise the matter. This is an admirable probing amendment. It has given us the opportunity to put forward attitudes held not only in Scotland but in Wales and in great parts of England too.
Earl Peel: I do not wish to become involved in devolution arguments. It seems to me that the Government are attempting to sort out for all of Great Britain the most effective and efficient way of
2116
running nature conservation. That surely is the key issue. When I spoke at Second Reading I thoroughly endorsed what the Government are trying to do in the Bill. I repeat that now. I am sure that this is the way forward. To use the countries in this way is obvious and sensible. But that is not necessarily the reason behind it. Having said that I want to raise one matter in relation to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on the flow country. I hope very much that a Scottish council would behave towards the flow country exactly as the Nature Conservancy Council has done to date. We are talking about a site of international importance. The damage that has been done by planting and forestry has to be seen to be believed. I hear what the noble Lord has said, but I believe that the matter cannot be allowed to go unremarked upon.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Can the noble Earl indicate how much of the flow country is planted and how much remains for the birds?
4.15 p.m.
Earl Peel: I am aware of the point. The bird species in that part of the world require large areas, a fact established by the Nature Conservancy Council on many occasions. I do not wish to get involved in a detailed debate with the noble Lord. I simply make the point.
I wish to move on to one part of my noble friend's amendment which I think is worthy of comment. Subsection (4)(f) refers to the maintenance and management of national parks being the function of the proposed council. I am very much aware that the whole question of national parks is being discussed at the moment, particularly in Scotland. I live in a national park: I have a degree of experience of the way they are working. I am worried—extremely worried—about some aspects of the standard of management within national parks themselves. They are not working efficiently. In many cases there is a higher degree of habitat loss inside the national parks than outside. The lack of consultation between the national parks and landowners and farmers living within the parks is at times pitiful. I do not refer to all national parks. But there is no doubt that one or two are failing in their duty to consult. That leads to bad feeling and to breakdown of communications. I seriously question whether the present structure is the right one. There is a real danger that the national parks may end up destroying the very thing that they were set up to try to conserve.
The merger of the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council should be welcomed. I understand the Government's reasons for not bringing the merger forward at this stage; but I believe that it will happen. Leading on from that, that is the correct body to administer the national parks in this country. I question whether the whole idea of designation as such is a good thing. People tend to home in on such areas. We are seeing the designated areas of Great Britain suffering from this huge influx of people. I welcome my noble friend's amendment from that point of view and from that point of view alone. It may enable us to concentrate our mind on that very real problem. Having said

2117
that, I am totally committed to the principle of what the Government propose in the Bill.
Lord Burton: We have heard a good deal of opposition to devolution. It is opposition not necessarily to the devolution of powers to Scotland, but to the area concerned. Scotland is a very large part of it—about one-third of the British Isles. There was a good deal of controversy earlier concerning the powers that should or should not be devolved to Europe, We have been told by some people today that conservation should be an international affair. What would have happened had it been only a European affair? Would those same people have been as happy if the Italians and Spaniards were looking after nature conservation in Britain?
We have the same feelings in the north of Scotland. We are not happy about the way things have been looked at from Peterborough. The National Farmers Union in Scotland, the Scottish Landowners Federation in Scotland and the Highlands and Islands Development Board are emphatic on this point. They say that we must have this devolution. My noble friend Lord Onslow said that all the countryside is man-made. I agree with him. By whom has it been made? It has been made by the very bodies which want this transfer to Scotland. Why are English Peers, Welsh Peers, and I think some Peers of Irish extraction, opposing the amendment? It seems for once that the Government really have it right, although I often disagree with them.
The officials of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission in Scotland are in favour of this proposal, so how the noble Baroness, Lady David, can say that it has caused a great deal of worry I do not know. It may have caused worry in Peterborough which is losing some of its influence, but it has not caused worry in Scotland where both those bodies are anxious that the Government legislation should go through.
I do not want to become involved in the controversy over the so-called Flow country which is part of Caithness and Sutherland but the planting of forests was asking for trouble. That having been done, the Nature Conservancy Council also asked for trouble. It went to the other end of the spectrum and slapped a complete blanket on the matter, which was quite unnecessary and caused a good deal of ill-feeling. That is not the only matter on which it has caused ill feeling. As other Members of the Committee have said, the designated areas of SSSIs in Scotland are enormous. It may well be that there are more actual sites in Wales, but the designated area in Scotland is vastly greater than anywhere else and what has been done is stagnating the area. The local authorities are most disturbed by the way matters are proceeding as are, so far as I am aware, all the bodies involved in Scotland except, possibly, a few so-called conservationists—although I often wonder if that is the right word to use—who seem to have other vested interests in keeping things in Peterborough.
Much has been said—and I do not wish to go into the details—of what the Nature Conservancy Council has and has not done in Scotland. However, perhaps I may give just one example. I refer to the
2118
case of the deer on Creag Meagaidh. They were being murdered quite indiscriminately to the extent that helicopters were required to carry them off the ground. No such action has ever been required before in connection with that ground and it is still not required. At the other end of the spectrum, on the Isle of Rhum, they were trying not to kill any deer. But that would have resulted in the wretched animals dying of starvation in the winter because they had no teeth left. Therefore, one can go from one end of the spectrum to the other. I really believe that these facts are not widely known in Britain. If this form of control should come to Scotland, with a little luck, people will know what is going on and will be able to get in touch with their representatives on the various councils.
Lord Moran: The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, said that this was a probing amendment as regards the general principle of Part VII of the Bill. Therefore, I should like to ask the Minister one question. Can he tell us at this early stage of the Committee proceedings what the Government's proposals will cost? I believe that two days ago the noble Baroness, Lady David, asked a question in order to elicit that information. However, the Answer seemed to tell us very little. In my view, when this Chamber considers the Government's proposals it is very important that we should know what they will cost. It is an essential part of the matter. At present we have reports and we have heard rumours; but we have had no authoritative statement of what the proposals will cost. I hope that the Minister will cover that point in his reply.
Lord Shackleton: Perhaps the Minister could also give us the figures as regards manpower. Of course, as he knows, there will have been an estimate which will have been put before the legislative committee. Therefore, there must be an estimate in existence. This factor is most crucial in relation to the question of money.
Lord Howie of Troon: I have one worry about this part of the Bill and the amendment with which we are dealing. Do the Government's proposals make the conservation industry stronger or weaker? If they strengthen the conservation industry, I tend to be against them; if they weaken the industry, I tend to be in their favour. I do not know the answer to the question, but it will certainly influence how I vote on the matter.
What I have in mind is an issue which arises from the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe and the noble Lord who has just spoken. I refer to the large number of sites of special scientific interest in various parts of the world. My belief is that there are far too many of these. If we strengthen the conservation industry, there will be more of them. We shall find ourselves in a country which consists largely of sites of special scientific interest and listed buildings with which nothing can be done. The industry is burgeoning and it ought to be curbed. We should watch the situation very carefully. I do not greatly care whether it means control for London, Edinburgh or the Flow country. However, I think that it should rapidly be put into reverse.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Is my noble friend suggesting that we should establish sites of special engineering potential?
Lord Howie of Troon: Most certainly. I should point out that I am speaking for the people.
Earl Peel: I think it is worth pointing out that the area designated to SSSIs is a meagre 7 per cent. I do not think that that is an overlarge area of land for specialised nature conservation.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: It is 10 per cent. of the area of Scotland.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may intervene for just a moment. It seems to me that I have let several hares out of the bag and they are running all over the place. It may be that they should not be preserved at all. I think that it would be best if the Committee were to hear what the Minister has to say, after which I can withdraw the amendment. That will enable noble Lords to move on to the next issue.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I rise to speak slightly later than I anticipated with regard to this first amendment. I can answer the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, immediately: further expenditure will be involved. He drew noble Lords' attention to my two favourite subjects; namely, the Committee stage of the Bill which is now being considered by this Chamber and listed buildings for which I hold responsibility when I am not in this place.
This amendment proposes a complete restructuring of all the conservation and countryside agencies, to create a "Countryside Council for the UK" which would presumably combine the functions of the existing Nature Conservancy Council, Countryside Commission and Countryside Commission for Scotland. It would in fact amount to an even more centralised model than we have at present, particularly as the "regional committees" in my noble friend's amendment would have purely advisory powers. I am afraid that the whole thrust of this conflicts with the Government's strategy of creating more sensitive and effective agencies at local level.
When I introduced this part of the Bill on Second Reading in this Chamber I said that the Government believed that the case for this first comprehensive reform of our conservation agencies for 40 years stood undiminished. It would be of benefit to the Committee if I crave noble Lords' indulgence in giving a rather comprehensive outline of the position of the Government at this stage, rather than repeating it in dribs and drabs throughout the proceedings on Part VII of the Bill. As I explained on Second Reading, there are six fundamental objectives which lie at the root of reorganisation. These are, first, clearer accountability to Ministers, secondly, improved sensitivity to local circumstances; thirdly, a reduction in bureaucracy; fourthly, retention of the existing legal framework for wildlife conservation created by the 1981 Act; fifthly, effective coverage of national and global
2120
nature conservation issues; and, finally, protection of the Nature Conservancy Council's science base built up over 40 years.
I shall deal first with accountability to Ministers. I want to start by reminding the Committee today that the current arrangements for the Nature Conservancy Council—hallowed though they may be by the passage of time—actually stand comparison with most other executive non-departmental public bodies acting in the environmental field. In almost every other field within my department's ambit—the built heritage, water, rural development, sport, housing associations—there are separate NDPBs for Scotland, and, in some cases, for Wales. They report to the territorial Secretaries of State. This a prosaic but, nevertheless, fundamental aspect of the machinery of government and its relationship with NDPBs, which critics of the proposals continue to overlook—although those who know how government works, like my noble friend Lord Campbell, are well aware that the current arrangements are a recipe for confusion and disputes—to the ultimate detriment of conservation. I accept that the NCC has done its best to try and overcome the effects of this problem.
However, the present arrangements have become even more difficult to defend as NCC's role has changed from the small quasi research council of the old Nature Conservancy of 1949 to its current status as a major executive agency deploying extensive powers under the 1981 Act. Where any NDPB has these kind of powers, I believe that Parliament will want the reporting lines to Ministers to be as clear as possible; for it is Ministers who eventually have to account for the use of those powers, for funding the agencies and for deciding the broad framework of policies and priorities for conservation. It is certainly not a soft option. In fact, my colleagues in the territorial departments are well aware that they will be taking on a deeper responsibility for the well-being of the wildlife and countryside in their areas when the new agencies are established.
I should like to take the next two objectives—improved local sensitivity and less bureaucracy—together as they are inter-related. The existing NCC has many strengths, not the least of which are the skills and dedication of its scientists. However, it has long been an introvert body, both in the sense that it has a tendency to preach only to the converted and in its own internal workings where tiers of officials are geared to inward struggles and arguments rather than to dealing with the outside world, especially its key clients among country dwellers, industry, the wider public and, not least, local and central government. There is no doubt in the minds of most objective observers of the NCC that its long lines of communication—from its UK headquarters in Peterborough through three country headquarters and then to regional offices, area offices and individual nature reserves—have damaged the effectiveness of the organisation.
The effects have varied from area to area. In some parts of Great Britain, the NCC has undoubtedly become highly unpopular, to such an extent that it is counter-productive for conservation. When one

2121
reads in the John O' Groat Journal and the Caithness Courier—occasional bedtime reading—of elected local councillors referring to the NCC as indulging in "creeping Stalinism" and comparing its activities with the memories of the Highland clearances, one becomes anxious about the way things have gone in that part of the world. It is all very well for English-based conservationists to encourage the NCC to take up battle lines on this or that issue, but once we reach the point where local support is alienated, the object of the exercise—to conserve our wildlife heritage—is defeated.
Those problems have been recognised by senior figures within the NCC itself. Its former chief scientist, Dr. Peter Bridgewater, who viewed the organisation with the refreshing dispassion that Australians often show in dealing with our great institutions, wrote a most perceptive article in the New Scientist earlier this year, in which he said:
"The potential for better conservation delivery is inherent in the Government's proposals".
In March, Mr. Alexander Trotter, the retiring chairman of the NCC's Scottish Advisory Committee, publicly referred to the NCC as "a paper chain".
Reorganisation will provide the right framework to resolve those problems. An entire tier of the existing command structure will be removed and lines of communication dramatically shortened. In Wales, and later in Scotland, we shall create integrated agencies merging wildlife and countryside responsibilities, which will allow "one stop shopping". In time too we shall see even more of the NCC's work being done from its regional offices, close to the "coal face" of conservation.
The opportunities are there. That is reflected by the quality of the three men who have accepted the Government's invitation to be the first chairmen of the country agencies—my noble friend Lord Cranbrook for England, Michael Griffith for Wales and Magnus Magnusson for Scotland. They are already working hard to prepare for the implementation of the changes next April when this measure becomes law. This is our chance to bring conservation back to the grass roots and, as Magnus Magnusson put it himself:
"We are at the start of something hugely exhilarating and constructive".
The fourth objective is to retain the gains made through the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act. Here, more than elsewhere, we come up against a clash between myth and reality. The myth is that the Government are in some way motivated by a desire to destabilise state protection for wildlife. To that is added a dash of the conspiracy theory—that some kind of deal has been done with big landowners and foresters to weaken the NCC. That line has been pushed endlessly in debates in another place. They were, as ever, rather short of factual material to back it up; but I suppose that it all added to the entertainment of the debate.
The reality, as ever, is less exciting but thoroughly reassuring for all serious conservationists. It is that this Bill will pass on every one of the NCC's existing statutory responsibilities to protect wildlife to the new councils. Each will be required to designate and
2122
protect sites of special scientific interest, to establish and manage national and marine nature reserves and to advise Ministers and the public. On 1st April next year, every existing SSSI and NNR designated over the last 40 years will become the responsibility of the new council in whose territory it lies.
Lord Shackleton: Perhaps I may interrupt and ask a question about the important statement made by the noble Lord. Under the Bill, who will have the power now possessed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act by the Nature Conservancy Council to draw attention to a major conservation issue? Will that be dealt with by the co-ordinating committee or by the three separate councils? Who will raise an issue of national importance? At present there is a power under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
Lord Hesketh: The powers of designation will go to the new country councils and then either the new committee, because it may oversee a site, or the country council itself will draw the matter to the committee's attention. The matter could be dealt with in either way depending on the circumstances of the case.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I point out that only recently there was a great scare about marine shellfish—prawns and so on—in an area which stretched up the east coast from the middle of England to the middle of Scotland. The question of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is important. Who would speak with authority on that subject for the Government?
Lord Hesketh: The Joint Nature Conservation Committee will speak on national issues. I believe that my noble friend refers to the case of the blue crabs which occurred about a month ago.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Will the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries draw attention to such matters, as it did in that case?
Lord Hesketh: I must correct myself. The ultimate responsibility for the case that my noble friend Lord Buxton drew to my attention would rest with the Department of Health.
While we are discussing designated sites, I should like to refer to two recent developments which will add to their number. First, the Nature Conservancy Council is pressing forward with a renewed programme of designations of National Nature Reserves in England. As a result, the NCC plans to declare about 16 new reserves this year, making a total of 137, which will be a wonderful dowry for the new council for England next April. They include some outstanding sites, such as the Somerset Moors NNR, with its ornithological interest which was designated three weeks ago, the Medway Marshes, Hambledon Hill and Wedholme Flow.
The second development is the announcement by the Secretary of State for Wales that he is to declare Britain's second statutory Marine Nature Reserve to protect the outstanding but fragile waters around the island of Skomer in West Wales. I understand that

2123
the public advertisements which will confirm that designation are to be placed in the newspapers by the end of next week.
Finally, I am sure that the Committee will have noted the announcement last week by the Secretary of State for Scotland of his response to the Highland Regional Council structure plan review. In particular, he has proposed that the HRC's policy to develop skiing in Lurcher's Gully in the Cairngorms should be deleted. In reaching that view, the Secretary of State had regard to the national and international value of the area for conservation. I am sure that the Committee will welcome the announcement.
In ensuring that the existing NCC conservation functions and sites are passed on to its successors, we have, I believe correctly, argued that the present Bill is not the right vehicle through which we should attempt any major reform of the 1981 Act, even assuming that such a reform was desirable in itself. Were we to do so, we would muddy the waters hopelessly for the new councils. When I recall the number of amendments to the 1981 Bill which were considered by this place—I believe that there were about 2,300 in all—I think that the Committee will pause for thought. Nevertheless, I have been impressed by the arguments made by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook for some relatively technical reforms which will assist the new agencies to carry out the 1981 Act more effectively. I hope to give a positive response to several of the amendments that he has put down later in the Committee stage.
To return to my six objectives the fifth is an extremely important one—to ensure effective coverage of national and international nature conservation issues. That is where the role of the statutory Joint Committee to be established under Clause 123 of the Bill will be so crucial. It is the object of the majority of the major government amendments that we have put down for consideration by the Committee. We shall be able to look at the structure that we propose more closely when we discuss those amendments.
However, I should like to make two general points at the outset. First, the government amendments stem directly from the commitments that we gave last month when we responded to the report prepared by your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology, under the chairmanship of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. As we said then, the Government recognise the valuable contribution made by the Select Committee Report and have accepted nearly all its recommendations. The constitution and role of the joint committee set out in the Government's amendments follows the prescriptions of the report very closely indeed. When we come to consider some further amendments put down by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver and other noble Lords, I shall be able to give further reassurances to this Committee.
The other general point I want to make is to acknowledge quite freely how the composition and role of the joint committee had evolved since the Secretary of State announced last November that a
2124
statutory committee was to be created to deal with British and international matters. This had undoubtedly been the most difficult part of Part VII to get right. I cannot over-emphasise that the Government entirely share the view of the Select Committee that the joint committee must not become an independent quango, while at the same time sharing its view that its role should be set out as strongly and unambiguously as possible in the legislation. This has presented counsel with a considerable challenge. I believe that he has risen to the occasion in the amendments that we have put down.
The result will be a statutory committee, which we now intend to call the joint nature conservation committee, and which will not only perform the joint functions set out in Clause 123, but also, I believe, will be in a position to do so even more effectively than the current NCC. This is because the joint committee will deliberately not be burdened with executive functions, which will be fully dealt with by the councils acting individually. Free from that responsibility, the committee will be able to take a cool and strategic look at some of the key issues affecting wildlife at the national and global level, not the least of which will be the effects of climate change on our natural and semi-natural habitat. A further advantage not present under the current arrangements is that the joint committee will include two representatives from Northern Ireland, who will help to ensure that a United Kingdom view can be formed on key issues.
The joint committee will be guided in its work by a chairman of outstanding calibre in Professor Sir Frederick Holliday, and three independent members of great distinction in their fields: Professor John Harper, emeritus Professor of Botany in the University of Wales; Professor John Knill, Chairman of the Natural Environment Research Council and Professor of Geology at Imperial College; and Professor Robert May, the Royal Society Research Professor of Zoology and Professor of Zoology at the University of Oxford and Imperial College.
The sixth and final objective is also very important: to protect the science base which the NCC has built up over the past 40 years. This point also exercised your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology, and I commend the text of the report to the Committee. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I run through the main measures which the Government have taken to protect the science base during reorganisation. The most important asset of an organisation like the NCC is its staff. The Government took very prompt action to retain the confidence of existing NCC staff after reorganisation was announced last July. On 27th July, I announced to the House that the Government would ensure that all members of the NCC's staff employed by the council at the date of transfer would be offered employment on terms and conditions as a whole no less favourable than those which they have at present.
Lord Shackleton: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. Does he include the large number of contract staff who are essentially part-time? Will they be offered jobs?
Lord Hesketh: I shall come to that later in relation to the first question which the noble Lord asked when he spoke earlier and also in relation to his second question. I shall deal with those points at the end.
The commitment, which was later extended to Countryside Commission staff based in Wales, has been fully delivered by Clause 127 and Schedule 9 of the Bill. Work is progressing well on preparing organisational structures for each of the new councils and the joint committee. When this is complete, each member of staff who wishes to join one of the new bodies will be offered a post, taking account of personal skills and family circumstances. In that way, we should ensure that as many of the skilled staff as possible are available to the new councils.
This brings me to the next point about protecting the science base, which is that each of the new councils—and the joint committee—will have a substantial scientific capacity of its own, ranged under a chief scientist or equivalent who will hold a senior grade in the organisation. This is very much the pattern envisaged by Dr. Bridgewater in his article in the New Scientist to which I referred earlier this afternoon. In addition, the Government have accepted that the joint committee must have its own scientific and secretarial support unit comprising staff on secondment from the country councils. As the report of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver put it, they will form the axis around which experts from the country councils and academic institutions will rotate. The noble and gallant Lord recommended that the unit should contain up to 20 professional scientific staff, with supporting secretarial and technical services. We have looked at this area in detail, and I am pleased to be able to tell the Committee today that the likely final complement for the joint unit will be about 50 staff in all, of whom about half will be in scientific or senior grades. I hope that the noble and gallant Lord will not think me immodest if I say that the Government believe that this will represent a generous interpretation of his report, and one which will be welcome to the conservation world.
I wish to assure the Committee that, having taken some time, I shall make no remarks with regard to devolution as I feel that the subject has been well aired in the Committee this afternoon. I shall however make one remark concerning the interesting point made by my noble friend Lord Burton. He asked, if at some future time this Bill came up in a bigger Europe and if I were standing here proposing a European nature conservancy council based in Turin, what would be its reception in your Lordships' House.
With regard to contract staff to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred, existing contracts will all be honoured in full.
The Earl of Onslow: We have had 86 minutes of full and frank debate—I believe that is the expression used in such circumstances. I totally support the aims of the Government, but I am not to tally convinced that a slightly larger body with greater downward management devolution would not be more appropriate.
2126
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that Surrey and Shetland are different is exactly the one that I made. The corollary is that some of the Perthshire moors and the moors where my noble friend Lord Peel lives, may have much in common. There are rich farmlands in Scotland and rich farmlands in England; there are rich farmlands in Wales and poor uplands and farmlands in Wales and in England. There are conservation problems common to all parts of the United Kingdom. The point made by my noble friend Lord Buxton about the crab crossing the Border by sea across the mouth of the Tweed seems to me valid. The problem now has to be dealt with by the Ministry of Health and not by the Department of the Environment or the Department of Agriculture.
I hope that this will work; I have certain doubts. I hope that the duplication of all these councils will not mean duplication of the science base with four scientific establishments, none of which is strong enough. That worries me somewhat.
However, all I can do is to thank Members of the Committee for their remarks and for such a wide variety of views—some nationalist, some supra-nationalist; some parochial and some global. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 118 [Creation and constitution of new Councils]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 343A:
Page 123, line 16, leave out ("to be") and insert ("(established for the purposes of nature conservation in their respective countries)").
The noble Lord said: Now that we have had the Second Reading debate on the Nature Conservancy Council abolition Bill and the Nature Conservancy Council abolition (amendment) Bill, I suggest that we turn to the Committee stage of this Bill! In moving Amendment No. 343A, I wish also to speak to my Amendments Nos. 343B, 354, 355, 356, 356B to 356D, 360B and 361. I understand that it will also be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendment No. 344 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, government Amendments Nos. 344ZB, 344ZC, 344ZD and 344ZJ. The latter gives rise to my Amendments Nos. 344ZJA and Amendments Nos. 344ZKA, 344ZK in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 354A, 355AZA, 355ZAD, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Chorley, and others, and Amendment No. 373ZC in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. I hope that I have covered that adequately.
It is necessary to put this on record because of the complexity of the debate that we have before us. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say something about the way in which I see the debate developing. Some effort has been put into turning something that could otherwise be a total shambles into something that is at any rate marginally comprehensible. The intention of this series of amendments is to deal with the issue of the

2127
joint committee, or as the Government propose, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. They seek in particular to deal with the issue which is raised in my Amendment No. 343B which concerns the responsibility of the committee for countryside matters as well as for nature conservation matters.
The Government have rightly decided that their amendments should be debated with my amendment. Therefore we shall deal with a number of matters about the establishment of the statutory committee, including the membership and some of the aspects of staffing, resources and other matters which are expressed in the government amendments. Further amendments on the countryside stand in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I shall comment on those amendments in a minute or two. The amendments I have referred to constitute a single group of amendments. It may seem complex, but all those amendments have to be discussed together if we are going to look at the establishment of the joint committee, or as the Government would have it, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
There is a second major group of amendments to discuss this afternoon. It starts with Amendment No. 344ZL standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross. That is followed by an amendment standing in the names of my noble friends Lady David and Lady Nicol. Those amendments are concerned with the resources for the joint committee. They are grouped with Amendment No. 344ZN which is the Government's amendment on the same matter. There is a further large group of amendments on the joint committee starting with the Government's Amendment No. 353C. That is followed by further amendments standing in my name and that of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, which concern the functions of the joint committee.
The first major group of amendments to consider concern the establishment of the joint committee and countryside functions. The second major group concerns resources, and the third group concerns the functions of the joint committee and its areas of responsibility. If that rather drastic summary of the major elements in this afternoon's business helps the Committee, I shall feel that the time I have spent on it has not been entirely wasted.
The objective of our approach to these matters throughout, as we made clear on Second Reading, has been the constructive reform of amendments which we firmly believe were introduced into the nature conservation arrangements in this country without adequate consideration or consultation and, even in the light of the government amendments now proposed, without adequate regard to a number of important functions which should be performed on a national or an international basis. They were certainly introduced without adequate regard to the resources which will be necessary for that. I say that even in the light of the interesting statement which the Minister has just made in response to the previous amendment. We certainly welcome the fact
2128
that he provided figures which he was unable to give to my noble friend Lady David only two days ago. We also welcome the fact that the Minister answered—I do not know whether he answered this to his satisfaction—some of the questions posed by my noble friend Lord Shackleton.
However, there are still many matters about which we are not satisfied and where we believe that it is necessary for the Committee to tease out information from the Government and, if necessary, overturn the Government's decision if we are to have a coherent body of nature conservation legislation in this country.
I shall deal briefly with my amendments and say a few words about the other amendments in this group. Amendment No. 343A reflects the recommendation numbered 4.6 in the report of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. The amendment makes it clear that there must be a statutory basis for the joint committee. That is now recognised more fully by the Government than it was when this amendment was first tabled. Therefore I do not propose to seek the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 343A, but I shall instead pursue the wider issues raised in Amendment No. 343B. Those issues add to the statutory basis of the joint committee the issue of the protection of the countryside.
There are many Members of the Committee here this afternoon who know much more than I about the work of the Countryside Commission and that of the many statutory and voluntary bodies concerned with the protection of the countryside. They will be able to explain why the extension of the role of the joint committee is essential. In all the concessions that have been made, there has been no concession in that direction. As an amateur or an outsider I shall merely say that I cannot conceive how we can adopt a wider view of nature conservation, which includes the enhancement of our natural environment, unless we take countryside responsibilities into account. I cannot see how the compromise which has been reached in the Government's proposals; that is that there will be a bringing together of countryside and conservation functions in Scotland and Wales but not in England, can be thought to be a coherent response. For that reason, despite the concessions which are proposed on the membership of the joint committee by the Government's amendments, we still believe it is essential to pursue this matter in our amendments. I commend to the Committee in particular the amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and his noble friends. In due course, in favour of those amendments I shall gladly withdraw my Amendments Nos. 355, 356 and 357 which were tabled at an earlier date.
I shall now turn to the issues raised by the Government's amendments, of which the most important is the Government's Amendment No. 344ZJ. That amendment sets out the composition and some of the details of operation of the new Joint Nature Conservation Committee. In many ways these concessions reflect—the Minister has mentioned this—not only what was undertaken in another place and on Second Reading, but also some

2129
of the arguments which have been put forward throughout the country. In other words, these amendments are reasonably satisfactory as regards the structure of membership, although we should like to see better representation of voluntary organisations. However, they are still quite unsatisfactory on the budget, staffing and on the provision for an annual report on the issue of grants, on common standards and on the resolution of disputes. A number of amendments in this group cover those points.
Our Amendment No. 344ZJA specifically covers the need for assessors who should be non-voting. Our Amendment No. 344ZKA covers the need for better rules about staff, a budget and resources. Our Amendment No. 359A covers the need for annual reports. That matter is also covered by amendments standing in the names of other Members of the Committee and also in the recommendation numbered 4.19 of the Carver Committee's report. We have tabled amendments which cover the need to pay for the initial expenses of the joint committee and to deal with any dispute on functions which may arise.
There are other amendments on the subject of an annual report, notably Amendment No. 373ZC in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. I am sorry that this matter continues to be complex, but I think the coherence of this group will be obvious to the Committee. Unless we discuss all these matters together when we consider the establishment of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, we shall not be able to make a successful judgment of the adequacy of the Government's new proposals in their amendments.
I put it to the Committee that if we agree now to Amendment No. 343B, which both establishes the statutory basis of the Joint Committee and the need for its countryside functions, we shall have agreed to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and his colleagues, to the amendment in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and to one or other of the amendments about the annual report. If the Government then decide, that they wish to withdraw their amendments—and this is important because I do not know what they will do—we shall proceed with the amendments which do the same job as the government amendments but in our view do it better. On the other hand, on the assumption that we win Amendment No. 343B, if the Government decide to proceed with their amendments we shall persist with our amendments to the Government's Amendment No. 344ZJ.
In other words, whatever the Government decide to do with their amendments, we have a coherent programme for the reform and strengthening of the Joint Committee. We can do it with the Government or we can do it without the Government. That does not matter very much to us; but we must have a coherent form of protection for nature conservation as a nationwide activity. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Chorley: Perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at his invitation, and begin by congratulating him on the exceptionally lucid and masterly way in which he took us through a very complex grouping of more than 20 amendments. As he said, they are all concerned with aspects of the work of the Joint Committee.
I wish to speak primarily to the three amendments to Clause 123 which stand in my name; namely, Amendments Nos. 354A, 355AZA and 355ZAD. I shall explain their purpose. The essence of the amendments is simple: to widen the functions of the Joint Committee so as to include wider countryside conservation considerations. In that respect only do they increase the functions of the Joint Committee as presently set out in the Bill. The need for this was identified by a number of Peers on all sides of the Chamber during the Second Reading and by the report of the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology chaired by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver.
I should like to begin by emphasising that these are all-party amendments. I am pleased that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has added his name to them. The amendments are supported by a number of organisations—the National Trust, the CPRE, the CPRW, the Countryside Commission, the Countryside Commission for Scotland and several other bodies.
For my part, I must start by declaring an interest in that I have the honour to be an elected member of the council of the National Trust and also a member of its executive committee. My views and my reasons for putting down the amendments reflect the experience of the National Trust. The National Trust now has almost 2 million members. It is the leading conservation body in England and Wales. It has therefore a strong, direct and practical interest in the matter. That interest is not just because it is a custodian on behalf of the nation of extensive landholdings—over half a million acres and more than 500 miles of coastline, much of it land of the highest landscape quality. What is more important is that those landholdings include 21 national nature reserves and 8 per cent. by area of all declared SSSIs in England and Wales.
In managing that great estate, we have to balance and co-ordinate nature conservation needs with other needs—what one might loosely call Countryside Commission interests and economic and social factors. That is a very complex matter. I am happy to say that in carrying out that task, not only have we worked very closely with the NCC and the Countryside Commission but we enjoy very good relations with those organisations and receive much help and advice from them. I am equally glad to say that in acquiring properties and running them, we have received considerable help from them in the past.
Having said that, I hope that the Committee will agree that the National Trust's views on the functions of the Joint Committee are relevant. They are, as I have said, derived from very practical considerations of land management, of carrying out a very difficult

2131
and sensitive task and in carrying out the statutory responsibilities laid upon us by our own Act of Parliament. It is therefore of the greatest importance to the trust that the administrative arrangements for co-ordinating countryside matters are properly dealt with.
The Carver Committee—if the noble and gallant Lord will forgive me for attaching his name to the Select Committee's report for convenience—was quite clear on the problem. It conducted a most detailed and thorough inquiry and took extensive evidence. Paragraph 3.25 of the report states that:
"There are compelling arguments for bringing nature conservation closer together with countryside conservation".
The report went on to explain and expand on that statement; but I shall leave it to the noble and gallant Lord and others to elaborate the argument. The Committee recommended, in paragraph 4.11, that:
"The remit of the Joint Committee should extend to countryside and landscape conservation (under the Countryside Acts) as well as to nature conservation."
We come to the Government's response, which was produced just before Second Reading. The Government accepted a number of the report's recommendations, but they rejected that particular recommendation on the grounds that it implied:
"a potentially huge extension of the role of the Joint Committee"
and that it would lead to a significant change in focus of the Committee's remit. I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks on the previous amendment but I did not detect any advance on that position. If I have misinterpreted him he will no doubt correct me.
I shall make just three observations. First, I believe that the Government's fears are exaggerated. After all, the extension of role relates only to those aspects which need to be dealt with at a Great Britain level. Secondly, the view of all those directly involved in the matter, the experts, do not support the Government. In particular, the Countryside Commission, which might be supposed to suffer some diminution of authority, seeks a wider remit for the Joint Committee. Thirdly, it is the view of the Carver Committee (in paragraph 3.27) that it is:
"totally illogical to amalgamate nature conservation and countryside conservation in Scotland and Wales and to perpetuate the divide in England".
However, the Government went on to accept in their response that
"there are areas where the 2 interests overlap, and occasionally conflict",
and that the wider considerations could be taken into account by Countryside Commission representation on the Joint Committee. That was a further recommendation of the Carver Committee, a recommendation which accordingly was accepted by the Government.
The Government, having accepted that there is overlap and may be conflict do not, astonishingly, go further. This is an area of major interaction between two sets of interests. It is an area in which strategic co-ordination is vital and where, as the Government pointed out, that need and the complexities are growing every year. I find it
2132
astonishing that it is not thought necessary in those circumstances to spell out by statute the requirement of a wider function for the Joint Committee.
Representation of the Countryside Commission on the Joint Committee would certainly be useful. We welcome it, but it is not a sufficient condition. How can representation be sufficient when the functions set out in the Bill make no reference to those wider considerations?
So as things stand we have what I can only describe as a rather bizarre situation. The Government accept that there is an overlap of interest. They dealt with the overlap in Wales and propose to deal with it in Scotland but not in England. They now propose to give the Welsh body and presumably in due course the Scottish body the right to bring countryside issues to the joint committee. I take that to be the effect of a new amendment tabled by the Government, Amendment No. 352B. The Government steadfastly refuse to give the same right to England. I am bound to say that the new amendment serves only to emphasise even more strongly the illogicality of the Government's approach.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships just one specific example that has come to my attention. The Government recognise that an integrated approach is appropriate in upland areas. As I understand it that is how they justify the structures in Scotland and Wales. They seem oblivious to the existence of major upland areas in England. What, one is entitled to ask, about the Lake District, the Peak District, the North Yorkshire Moors, Dartmoor and so on? Is an integrated approach not necessary for them?
Finally, by the same token, it beats me how one can argue that there are no strategic considerations for Great Britain as a whole on these matters of the uplands.
If we are to accept the Government's view, we are entitled to a much more cogent development of their case. I hope very much that the Minister, even if he is unable to accept the amendments in the form in which they are tabled, will feel able to accept their general intent. They have been drafted to reflect how we believe that recognition of wider countryside considerations and the work of the joint committee should best be reflected on the statute book. Nevertheless, I accept that there may be better ways to achieve that objective. I am not seeking to be confrontational. I prefer that we should agree the general principle today and then work out how best it can be secured.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Norrie: I shall speak specifically to Amendment No. 343B and then go on to deal with Amendments Nos. 356B, 356C and 356D and, lastly, Amendment No. 373ZC. The purpose of Amendment No. 343B is to establish proper integration of countryside and landscape functions with nature conservation within the remit of the joint committee. The Select Committee chaired by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, recommended such integration. I believe that that is one issue for which—the Government apart—there is almost universal support.

2133
The chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, in a recent letter to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, referred to the Government's failure to integrate countryside and recreational interests with nature conservation as illogical, provisional, incomplete and untenable. The Government's thinking is remarkably muddled. On 14th June the Secretary of State, in his reply to the CPRE, acknowledged that there would be an advantage in the Countryside Commission being represented on the joint committee so that it,
"can have the benefit of advice on countryside matters to set its deliberations in a wider context".
That sounds like an argument for extending the committee's remit to include countryside matters. It is the argument used by the Government in favour of integrating nature and countryside conservation in Wiles and Scotland. However, it is conveniently forgotten when it comes to the joint committee. Representatives from those countries are apparently supposed to abandon all principles of integration when they attend the joint committee and to consider only issues of nature conservation. If the logic of integration is true at the grass roots level, as the Government argue, it is also true at the United Kingdom level. For the joint committee to consider nature conservation in isolation from countryside matters defies the logic of integration at any level. To include the Countryside Committee on the joint committee, welcome though that is, without extending the remit to include countryside matters, compounds the confusion.
Neither do I understand the Government's attitude to integration in England. To say, as the Government have said, that it is more appropriate to keep the NCC and the Countryside Commission separate in England does not hold water. The committee chaired by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, exploded that argument by saying that for precisely those same reasons integration in England was all the more logical.
I hope that when he comes to respond, my noble friend will be able to give a firm commitment that the Government will follow through their own logic and set in motion a proper timetable with adequate consultation to achieve full integration of nature conservation and countryside matters in England at the earliest opportunity.
What is perhaps especially disappointing about the Government's proposals is that such a great opportunity has been missed to overcome the historical (and rather unfortunate) divide between nature conservation and wider countryside interests and the lack of UK or GB advice on countryside and recreational issues in the past. I firmly believe that some of the insensitive delivery of nature conservation in the past, so often quoted by the Government in support of these proposals, could have been avoided if nature conservation had been seen in the wider countryside context.
I hope that by now my noble friend will have seen the importance of proper integration of nature conservation and countryside matters and will understand the value of achieving that in the joint committee and, in turn, in England. If not, I hope
2134
that the Committee will have no hesitation in wholeheartedly supporting the amendment.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 356B, 356C and 356D. These amendments seek in part to achieve what the Government have already accepted; namely, that there will be 11 voting members on the joint committee and an independent chairman of that committee. Both proposals were recommended by the committee of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and accepted by the Government. However, it is important that those voting members of the joint committee who are not members of the country councils should be individuals with expertise in matters relating to the functions of the joint committee. Similarly, any non-voting assessors should also be representative of the interests being considered by the committee and, for instance, might be selected from relevant voluntary organisations.
I believe that many Members of your Lordships' Committee from all sides of the Chamber support the principle that countryside matters should be integrated with nature conservation in the remit of the joint committee. That being the case, voting and non-voting members quite rightly should be individuals who have expertise relevant to the committee's functions, which will include nature conservation and countryside, landscape and recreation interests. These amendments seek to achieve just that.
I turn finally to Amendment No. 373ZC, which is also in the grouping. This amendment is similar to Amendment No. 344ZK and goes beyond a conventional annual report. It will require the joint committee to assess the extent to which the new country councils have carried out their statutory functions and how far international obligations have been met. This will provide for parliamentary scrutiny and accountabilty of the country agencies both individually and collectively. The report will also provide an assessment of the extent to which the respective Secretaries of State in England, Scotland and Wales have complied with international obligations. I urge the Committee to support these amendments.
Lord Carver: There are three matters in the Select Committee's report with which this group of amendments is concerned. The first, on which my noble friend Lord Chorley has already spoken, is that of extending the remit of the joint committee to countryside affairs. The second concerns the composition of the joint committee itself. Amendments Nos. 354A, 355AZA and 355ZAD, to which I put my name, relate to the first issue. The second point—the composition of the committee—is largely covered by the Government's amendment, Amendment No. 344ZJ. There is also the question of a report by the joint committee. I shall speak to my own amendment, Amendment No. 344ZK. Amendment No. 373ZC, which the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has just mentioned, is relevant to it.
With regard to the matter of extension to the countryside, my noble friend Lord Chorley has already drawn attention to Recommendation 4.11 of the Select Committee. He quoted the first sentence

2135
of the paragraph of the report which was relevant. Perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I continue beyond the first sentence.
The report stated that the two interests—countryside conservation and nature conservation—are inter-related. It said:
"They need some of the same data and expertise, they tend to concentrate attention on the same landscapes. Nature conservation is moving on from interests in individual species of flora and fauna or narrow habitats to a more synoptic interest in groups of species, wider ecosystems and the relationship between wildlife and the whole environment".
It has been called the shift from autoecology to synecology.
"The principle of sustainable development is preferable, in the long term, to a form of nature conservation which is based on fossilising single sites and defending them against all corners. This makes the separation between nature conservation and countryside conservation begin to look dated".
All that we have heard from the last three speakers has emphasised that.
In the Government's reply, they state:
"The Government sees some advantage … in the Committee's being able to take account of considerations of landscape and wider countryside matters".
They expect—this was said at Second Reading—that the representation of the Countryside Commission of England on such issues would be sufficient. I do not feel that it is sufficient. I have put my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, which will put matters right.
We come now to the composition of the committee. It is set out by the Government in Amendment No. 344ZJ. I certainly recognise the difficulty involved in our recommendation that the joint committee should be strong enough to drive forward the cause of nature conservation at a national level. However, we accepted that it should not be an independent quango and should derive its funds through the country councils.
We are extremely glad to see that the Government have moved so far. They moved some of the way while we were carrying out our study. They have moved further since, and have accepted our recommendations, first, that there should be an independent chairman, and that not only should there be three independent members but that they should have votes. Originally the Government intended that they should not. That move is extremely welcome.
I draw attention to the importance of subsections (1) and (2) of the amendment after Schedule 6 in the Marshalled List, which relates to the importance of the chairman when choosing the independent members. One of the difficulties about the Bill is that when one reads "Secretary of State" it does not necessarily mean the Secretary of State for the Environment in London. It can also mean the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales. Our recommendation is that the independent members should be appointed on the recommendation of the chairman. It was made specifically in order to try to avoid the suggestion that one independent member should be nominated by the Secretary of State for the Environment in England, one by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and one by the Secretary of State for Wales. Those
2136
members should be chosen for their scientific qualifications. I am glad to see that it is quite clear in the Government's amendment that it will be on the recommendation of the chairman.
Recommendation 4.19 was that the joint committee make its own report. The Government's reply was very weak. It was that the chairman would draft something to be put into each country council report. That seems not only a ridiculous method but one which did not bring enough public notice to the importance of the joint committee's responsibility both for national and international affairs. That is why I have put down the amendment which stands also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Lady, Baroness Nicol. Amendment No. 344ZK would make it necessary for the joint committee to report on its own responsibilities separately from the country councils.
In this group of amendments, those are the three matters which are affected by our Select Committee recommedations. The functions and powers of the council arise in later amendments.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for having grouped so many amendments together and having explained so clearly how they come together. It means that we can deal with the subject of the setting up of this joint committee in one debate. It is necessary that there should be a joint committee. Its purposes broadly are, first, co-ordination within the United Kingdom, and secondly, to handle where necessary international matters.
I support what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has just been saying about the recommendations which affect the issue of the sub-committee's report. Amendment No. 344ZK stands in my name also. It would require the joint committee to make an annual report which should be concise and to the point. It need not occupy many man-hours but I believe that it is a useful addition.
Mention has been made of devolution in the earlier debate in Committee. I remind noble Lords on considering these amendments that the functions of Ministers and their departments are already devolved. Administrative devolution where England and Scotland are concerned has existed for many years. The noble and gallant Lord pointed out, as I have done before, that when "Secretary of State" appears in the Bill in the singular, in this part of the Bill it applies to three Secretaries of State acting singly or together.
The Department of the Environment and its predecessor of 20 years ago—the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—have not operated in Scotland. Decisions in Scotland in this field have been made the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland by Parliament. There is now a need to bring nomenclature up to date. I may be in a unique position not only in the committee but in this Chamber, as a former Secretary of State for Scotland—I started in that 20 years ago—to speak on Recommendation 4.23 in the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which suggests that the name of the Scottish Development Department should be changed. I should like to

2137
explain why I believe that it is important and not simply cosmetic.
The Government have replied to that recommendation saying that it is now being considered by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am therefore speaking before a decision is taken.
The Scottish Development Department (SDD) was created by regrouping subjects, and was named some 30 years ago. Within the Scottish Office it brought together in Scotland what the Ministry of Housing and Local Government did in England and Wales. The Welsh Office was not then in existence. In addition the SDD covered roads, electricity, tourism and sponsoring the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the new town corporations.
Development department was not a felicitous name but the department's many functions could not be conveyed in a short title. About 10 years later the Ministry of Housing and Local Government was renamed the Department of the Environment, still dealing with England and Wales. I remember that the word "environment" seemed very strange to the public at that time. It had not been much used before then. The word is now widely understood and the adjective "environmental' is much used and its meaning is clear.
Soon afterwards, in the early 1970s, a new department in the Scottish Office was formed called the Scottish Economic Planning Department. It was created mainly to deal with the new offshore oil industry and associated subjects. There was no Department of Energy in the UK until 1974. The new department also took some of the functions from the SDD. Later it was succeeded by a department known as the Industry Department, Scotland in which were concentrated industrial and development subjects. As a result a much larger part of the SDD's work is now concerned with environmental subjects. Its name is misleading because it can give the impression that its purpose is to promote development, generate jobs and assist industry at almost any cost.
There is another widespread misunderstanding—that the Department of the Environment operates in Scotland. It has never had functions in Scotland other than the inherited Ministry of Works duties in relation to government-owned property now being privatised. A clearer public understanding of the true situation and where responsibilities lie would be achieved by renaming the SDD. It would also help to dispel the two misconceptions that I have just mentioned.
Members of the Committee may ask what it should be called. I suggest "the Environment Department, Scotland". In these days of initials and acronyms "the Scottish Environment Department" would be confused with the Scottish Education Department SED which has existed for many years. The new name would match the designation already used by one of the junior Ministers in the Scottish Office. He is described as the Minister for Local Government and the Environment, reflecting his duties in two of the roles of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Other Ministers in the Scottish Office are labelled similarly; for example, Ministers for health, agriculture or education. Having urged a
2138
change of name it is only right that I should offer a suggestion. It is important that the word "environment" should be included and that a new name should be given to the SDD.
As I said on the first day of the Committee, although the Secretary of State for the Environment deals with England and has no statutory functions in Scotland, I believe that he should be and continue to be the lead Minister on United Kingdom policy and international affairs. That will be more important in the future than it has been in the past.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: I too thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for explaining how the amendments fit together. However, I sometimes felt that he was a skilful spider spinning a web into which a rather fat Tory fly would flop and find himself voting against the Government on a number of issues about which he did not believe the Government were wrong. I give the warning that he is a fly old fly and can struggle his way out of many a web.
I wish to speak in support of Amendments Nos. 354A, 355AZA and 355ZAD which were so eloquently proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and supported by my noble friend Lord Norrie and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I wish to wear my Countryside Commission hat for one moment. As was mentioned the commission is thoroughly in support of the amendments. The joint committee will be the one piece of co-ordinating machinery which will address conservation issues at the UK level. It would be illogical if its remit were so narrowly drawn as to exclude consideration of conservation and enjoyment of natural beauty which is the Countryside Commission's area of interest.
The Commission is required to co-operate with others at the UK level in a wide range of responsibilities: for example; it must advise government and Parliament on European Community matters; advise Ministers on the designation of environmentally-sensitive areas; formulate policies and advice for the coast, national parks and other special areas of the countryside; monitor landscape change by satellite image and aerial photography; understand the social and economic forces behind recreation pressures on the countryside; and promote knowledge internationally of the British approach to conservation. A more broadly-based joint committee with a wider remit is needed for seven reasons. It is needed to give government and Parliament advice on topics such as the following, in so far as they need to be considered at UK level: agriculture and the countryside; forestry and the countryside; planning as it affects the countryside; the relationship between tourism, recreation and access and conservation; the economic and social needs of rural communities; the link between energy and transport policy and conservation; and pollution impacts on the environment.
The amendments would demonstrate the Government's belief that a new agency in Scotland and Wales should give equal status to nature conservation and the enjoyment and appreciation of the natural beauty of the countryside by the public.

2139
However, the present proposals tend to fuel the fear that wider countryside issues will come a poor second best to site-based nature conservation. Even the new title of the committee—the joint nature conservation committee—fuels my worries about that aspect.
I was delighted that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, supported the amendment. He gave the reasons why his Select Committee thought that it was an important matter. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will think long and seriously before turning down at least this small group of amendments.
Lord Ross of Newport: Some of the amendments are tabled in my name and I shall speak only briefly because I do not wish to repeat what has already been said. If the Government cannot accept the additional responsibility of the joint committee to cover countryside and wider issues they should at least give the matter consideration and come back on Report. I hope that they will do so because their answer to the Carver Committee at paragraph 4.22, referring to the amalgamation of the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council, indicates that the option for institutional change across the whole range of bodies concerned with the environment is being considered in the context of an environment White Paper and that the Government are considering the question of furthering that context.
We cannot continue to have constant changes and amalgamations during the next few years. Already we have a situation in Scotland in which the NCC will continue for one year before being merged with the Countryside Commission for Scotland. Members on all sides of the Committee have said that they would like to see a wider remit. Surely it would be better for the Government to say that they will consider the proposal, come back on Report and delay the implementation. A later amendment tabled by the Government appears to suggest that implementation will now be in October 1991. I believe that it would be sensible to extend the date for at least six to 12 months in order that we can get it right once and for all. I hope that the Minister will consider the suggestion.
Baroness Nicol: I have added my name to four amendments in the group; three were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and one was spoken to by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I shall be brief because all the points have already been made. However, I wish to emphasise two of them. First, the Government's response to the Carver recommendations on countryside issues and the joint committee was that the recommendations imply a potentially huge extension of the role of the joint committee. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that is not so because few countryside issues would have a UK dimension. It is to tally illogical to leave that responsibility outside the role of the joint committee.
Secondly, I wish to stress the need for an annual report to Parliament. At present the NCC reports
2140
annually to Parliament and the countryside councils will do so under Schedule 6, paragraph 19. However, the joint committee has important functions other than its co-ordinating duties in relation to the countryside councils. Parliament will be particularly concerned with the working of the UK and international aspects of its responsibilities. Once the Bill has left this House and become an Act we must rely entirely on annual reports from the relevant bodies in order to know how it is working. Therefore, it is quite proper that such a report should be available.
A further point is that if the joint committee is to achieve consistent policies towards nature conservation in Great Britain, it must have some small sanction—perhaps sanction is too strong a word to use but I cannot think of a better one—to influence the country agencies. Therefore, it should have an opportunity to report annually on the activities of the country agencies. Such reports must be objective and capable of being critical if necessary. Therefore, they must come separately from the joint committee. I hope that that amendment can be accepted.
Earl Peel: With regard to Amendment No. 354A, whereas I appreciate that that applies to GB matters and therefore is the responsibility of the joint committee, the implementation of the responsibilities as laid out in Amendment No. 354A will inevitably affect the country councils. That is fine as regards Wales where we shall see an amalgamation of the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. In Scotland that will happen. However, in England that is not proposed at this stage. It seems to me that this amendment may well put responsibilities on the Nature Conservancy Council in England which are presently those of the Countryside Commission. That may lead to confusion. I should be interested to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, on that point.
Lord Chorley: My understanding is that the Countryside Commission accepts that. I tried to indicate that in my speech. Nevertheless, for all sorts of reasons it would prefer to have a proper standing as regards functions on the joint committee.
Earl Peel: The Countryside Commission may well accept that. However, I am wearing my Nature Conservancy Council hat. I should be worried if at this stage new responsibilities with which we were not able to cope were foisted upon us.
Lord Chorley: The joint committee would have the extra responsibilities. The Countryside Commission for England still continues.
Earl Peel: It seems to me that the responsibilities of the joint committee would inevitably seep down to the various country councils. I do not believe that that can be avoided.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Listening to the debate so far, it is quite obvious that the Committee is of the opinion that nature conservancy and the

2141
countryside go together. That is obvious, and I hope that the Government will agree to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and others.
I disagree very strongly, although politely, with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. In the setting up of the joint committee nationalist feeling will want to know whether the joint committee is a creature of the councils in the various countries or whether the councils in the various countries are a creature of the joint committee as proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. That needs to be clear. If the joint committee is to have sanctions on its parent bodies, it is rather illogical that the parent body should set up the joint committee.
Amendment No. 343B states:
"for the purposes of nature conservation across Great Britain as a whole, exercising functions in relation to countryside and landscape conservation".
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whether that means that the three councils will have a remit to control the actions of the parent bodies or whether they will exercise, as in the last sentence of the amendment:
"functions assigned to it under section 123(1)".
As regards the position in Scotland, we realise the immense importance of a joint committee for joint work on international obligations. However, we should be rather worried if we obtained a budget from the Government of a reasonable character in order to set up university studies for research purposes and from which we planned conservation for Scotland, only to find that that money had been taken away for ventures approved by a joint committee on which we do not have a majority and would not expect to have one. Without direct government funding of those projects, that is a pitfall. I hope that the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will look at that problem.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Clause 123(1) is concerned with the provision of advice and the maintenance of common standards and is not concerned with executive action. I believe that the noble Lord's fears are unfounded.
Lord Craigton: With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, my amendment has nothing to do with the joint committee. My Amendment No. 344 requires two members of the Nature Conservancy Council for England to represent the Countryside Commission for England. That deals with the points made by my noble friend Lord Peel. At a later stage it may be right to combine the English Countryside Commission with the English Nature Conservancy Council. I should like that to happen, but it will take time. In the meantime, it must be right to put England on the same footing as regards joint representation as is already the situation in Wales. I ask only that two members of the Nature Conservancy Council for England shall represent the interests of the Countryside Commission for England.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that the Countryside
2142
Commission for Scotland supports the idea of adding countryside matters to the remit of the joint committee. I do not agree with it on that from the Scottish point of view or indeed any point of view. Of course, consideration of conservation matters cannot be carried out without considerable reference to countryside matters. That is why the chairman of the Countryside Commission and the other two merged bodies dealing with countryside matters are on the joint committee.
However, if that new area of responsibility is added to the remit of the joint committee, all sorts of matters will need to be discussed in addition to those which would need to be discussed under the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said that that would not make a great deal of difference because not many countryside matters have a UK or an international dimension. However, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, read out a long list of examples. My noble friend Lord Peel, from experience of the Nature Conservancy Council, realised that the joint committee would have many extra responsibilities.
It is very important that the joint committee should concentrate on that which is essential in order to get right the international or UK dimension. Broad matters such as how the countryside is used and preserved are better carried out by the bodies in the countries without a lot of extra advice. Such advice might conflict with advice received from local authorities which would complicate the issue. I believe that that would add to the rather unwieldy animal which has been arrived at. I hope that that will not happen.
I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Hesketh one question. Until the two bodies are merged, the chairman of the body with countryside interests in Scotland will not be a member of the joint committee because under the Bill, the chairman of the merged committee is a member. On an interim basis will he consider that the chairman of the Countryside Commission for Scotland should be a member until the merger takes place, if and when it does, in order to ensure that there is countryside input from Scotland when conservation issues are discussed?
Lord Hunt: I take up the point raised by the noble Baroness purely for clarification. She voiced the view that the two broad interests—nature conservancy and the wider countryside—should not be brought under a single umbrella at the level of the joint committee, for all kinds of reasons. I should like to ask, through the Committee, whether the noble Baroness is saying that the intended Countryside Council for Wales, which has exactly that overall function, and the proposed merger between the two bodies in Scotland, will not work either.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I think they will work very well. For Wales and Scotland it would be a mistake to add the countryside element to the joint committee because there might be dual discussion of all kinds of matters. I deliberately did not make the point because we are discussing the joint committee for the whole of the UK. I respect the views of the area where the two bodies may stay

2143
separated, but it would be better not to introduce that element. It will inevitably come into the discussion and the relevant people will bring that area of interest, and the experience of England, Wales and Scotland, to bear on the discussions. However, if one adds the remit it will make for very unwieldy business.
Lord Moran: I was a member of the Carver Committee. I should like briefly to support two of its recommendations which are reflected in this group of amendments. The first is that the remit of the joint committee should extend to countryside and landscape conservation. That seems to me to be common sense. It would be absurd if the two representatives from the Countryside Council for Wales, who would be representing under the Government's proposals an integrated organisation, were to have to come to the joint committee, divest themselves of their countryside functions and consider problems only from a nature conservation point of view. It is important, as the committee recommended, that the remit should be extended.
At Second Reading I raised the question of the joint committee making its own report. I felt that the initial response of the Government to this recommendation of the Carver Committee was not very satisfactory. It is important that the joint committee should itself make a report which can be considered in this Chamber. That was what the Carver Committee recommended. In a sense it would be a touchstone of whether the Government take the joint committee seriously that they should allow it to report direct, as the country councils will do.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My name has already been mentioned and my position in this Committee is clear. Since 1st April I have been a member of the Nature Conservancy Council; I am the current chairman of the existing advisory committee for England and my name has been mentioned today as the chairman designate for the new agency for England. In that capacity I am a member of the shadow joint nature conservation committee which has already met once.
My concern in intervening in the debate is to ensure that ultimately what is given to me to operate, should the Bill be enacted, is workable. I therefore have some questions. I entirely appreciate the tone of this series of amendments in requiring the joint committee to be concerned with the preservation, enhancement and enjoyment of natural beauty. I should be glad to learn where the term "natural beauty" came from. It is confusing that Section 52(3) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 states:
"References in this Part to the conservation of the natural beauty of any land shall be construed as including references to the conservation of its flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features".
"Natural beauty" is not defined in the Bill. In the Water Act 1989 "natural beauty" is defined in similar terms to those I have read out. Therefore, if the term is to be used and if I am to end up with a workable Act, the intent must be clarified.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Earl continues, perhaps he could refer to Amendment No. 34A in his name and the names of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, relating to the Countryside Council for Wales. Subsection (3)(b) refers to the "enjoyment of the countryside", and subsection (5) to the "natural beauty" of the countryside. The answers to the noble Earl's question lie in his own amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: That amendment simply picks up the Countryside Commission aspect. The amendment, which we have yet to discuss, brings into the Welsh council its Countryside Commission inheritance. There is a conflict which needs to be sorted out.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Perhaps my noble friend will give way. I may be able to help. No doubt the Minister will be able to confirm what I say, but the term, "area of outstanding natural beauty" appears in Scottish legislation. Scotland does not have legislation for national parks. In bringing all the various terms together it is no surprise to me that that term should appear. That may help my noble friend.
The Earl of Cranbrook: It is no surprise to me, but the term needs clarifying. My second point is that, taking on board this series of amendments, I have been discussing with Countryside Commission members exactly what is the main difference in the activities of the joint committee that would be achieved. The joint committee would inherit the overall United Kingdom activities of the Nature Conservancy Council. If we look at a document that is already available, the latest annual report, we can see what the Nature Conservancy Council is already doing. We can consider its publications, Ecological Changes in the Uplands; The Conservation of Cornfield Flowers, the Conservation of Meadows and Pastures; the exhibition, "The Wider Environment" and the many other activities in which the Nature Conservancy Council already plays a major part in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, said that he wished to see incorporated into the activities of the joint committee the duty to pay attention to the conservation of the wider environment. That aspect is already cared for. It is already within the remit of the joint committee as inheritor of the Nature Conservancy Council's activities. I am not sure what more is wanted.
That the joint committee should publish its own annual report, I find, speaking personally, entirely commendable.
Lord Hesketh: I rise to speak for the second time this afternoon. These amendments include the first of a series tabled by the Government which are designed to fulfil the commitments given in our response in May to the report published earlier in the year by your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology under the chairmanship of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver.
Amendment No. 344ZB establishes the committee which is to carry out certain key functions jointly on

2145
behalf of the three country agencies. We propose to change its formal name from joint committee to joint nature conservation committee on the recommendation of the noble and gallant Lord. The Government believe that this is a more apt and accurate title for a body whose remit is to deal with nature conservation matters which transcend the country boundaries.
Amendments Nos. 344ZC, 344ZD and 344ZJ are perhaps the most important of all those which the Government are bringing forward today. Their effect will be to add an entirely new schedule to the Bill prescribing arrangements for the composition, financing and functioning of the joint nature conservation committee, and replacing part of the existing Clause 123(2)(a) and 123(3). Paragraph 2 of the schedule sets out the membership of the committee, which is to have 11 voting members, exactly as recommended by paragraph 4.8 of the Carver Report. These will comprise an independent chairman appointed by the Secretary of State; three independent members appointed by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the chairman for their scientific knowledge or experience in nature conservation; two members of each of the country councils (including the chairmen of each council); and the chairman of the Countryside Commission who will, as the Government explained in their response to Recommendation 4.11 of the report, help the JNCC to take account of landscape and wider countryside considerations.
There will also be two non-voting representatives of Northern Ireland conservation interests to be appointed by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, as foreshadowed in the Government's original announcement about the decision to create a joint committee last November and endorsed by Recommendation 4.10 of the report. This will help to fulfil the Government's objective that the JNCC should be able to take a UK-wide view where necessary and to act as focus for the exchange of information between all four countries.
The schedule goes on to make standard provision for the personal remuneration and expenses of committee members. Paragraph 7 replaces Clause 123(3) and considerably then strengthens the provisions for the financing and staffing of the committee by placing a duty on the councils to provide the JNCC with appropriate staff, accommodation and other facilities, as well as financial resources and giving the Secretary of State a reserve power to determine such matters if the councils cannot agree. This change needs to be read with Amendment No. 344ZN which will also give the Secretary of State powers to attach specific conditions about the funding of the JNCC to the grants-in-aid received by the country councils. Together, these changes mean that the commitments we have given to guarantee or, as some people put it, "ring-fence" the budget of the joint committee can be securely delivered by Ministers as promised in our response to another of the recommendations in the report.
The remainder of the schedule deals with the proceedings of the JNCC and delegation. The
2146
provisions are once again quite standard for this type of legislation. I appreciate that there is some concern on the part of the NCC, and perhaps of some noble Lords, that the power of the JNCC to delegate to a country council could be misused to sidestep the entire concept of the joint committee. That is not so. The delegation powers must be read as subsidiary to the key provisions of Clause 123 which will require certain key nature conservation functions to be exercised jointly by the country councils acting through the JNCC. Blanket delegation to the country councils would not in fact be delegation but an abrogation of the duties under Clause 123. However it is important that the option of delegation should be there to allow the joint committee to carry out certain activities by asking one or other of the country councils with a particular area of specialist knowledge or expertise to carry out work on a "lead agency" basis. A good example of this is likely to be work of national and international importance carried out by the NCC's Seabirds at Sea team in Scotland. We expect the team itself to be transferred to the new Scottish Council which will then contract with the JNCC to provide the necessary work required for national or international purposes.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 343A and 343B. There are two main objections. The first is that by attempting to delineate too sharply between the country councils and the joint committee they would undermine a key principle of the Bill that the wider British and international functions under Clause 123 are to be exercised jointly by all three country councils but acting through the joint committee. It is very important to stick to this principle which means that the country councils must have wider horizons. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would not actually argue with that objective.
Amendment No. 343B would conflict with the Government's policy that it would be unwise to extend the remit of the joint committee to cover landscape and other countryside issues, carrying the risk that the joint committee would be transformed into a quango supervising what would then be little more than regional agencies. I do, of course, accept that this was a subject on which we begged to differ from the conclusions reached in the report; though it was in fact the only major recommendation among the 24 which the Government could not accept. I would point out that by accepting the report's recommendation to appoint the chairman of the Countryside Commission to the JNCC the Government recognised the need for the joint committee to have access to broader thinking about the countryside but without muddying the statutory responsibility of the committee. The Government's stance is responsible and reasonable.
6 p.m.
Baroness White: Before the noble Lord moves on to the next amendment I remind the Committee that the Carver Committee was restricted by its terms of reference in the same way as the Select Committee on Science and Technology. The Carver Committee did not consider in any depth the countryside aspects of

2147
the work of the joint committee. It was in no position to do so. One cannot therefore rely entirely on the admirable work of the Carver Committee when looking at the wider aspects of landscape and countryside which will be part of the remit of the Scottish and Welsh situation and which will be represented—I fear not entirely adequately—only by the chairman of the Countryside Commission representing the English scene.
Lord Hesketh: I will be returning to that point a little later. Noble Lords suggested that in perpetually seeking satisfactory solutions we could find ourselves in the position of never formulating legislation. I remind the Committee that there is a White Paper coming out in the autumn. The preservation of the countryside is an on-going activity. A part of that activity is covered in this Bill but I would be the first to admit that it is certainly not the last.
Lord Shackleton: Does the noble Lord envisage amendments to this Bill being suggested in the White Paper?
Lord Hesketh: No, but I do visualise a White Paper proposing further primary legislation which will have some interest as regards the countryside.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: But not until the next Session.
Lord Hesketh: I do not know about that.
Amendments Nos. 344ZK, 361 and 373ZC deal with the question of annual reporting arrangements by the joint nature conservation committee. This was also the subject of a recommendation by the report. In responding the Government drew attention to the fact that, as drafted, paragraph 19 of Schedule 6 to the Bill already requires each council to report annually on all its functions, including those carried out under Clause 123 through the JNCC. We had envisaged a common section of each report to be drafted by the chairman of the JNCC which would deal with the activities of his committee.
The Earl of Onslow: Did I understand my noble friend to say that we have to go through all this again in September after the new White Paper? Surely that must be getting things the wrong way round. First, there is a Bill to which an immense amount of amendments are tabled, then there is to be a White Paper and eventually another Bill which changes everything. Swift wrote some very funny stories about such situations about 300 years ago.
Lord Hesketh: My noble friend probably slightly misheard me. I was not a regular attender of this Chamber in 1981 but even I could not avoid newspaper coverage. The subject of this Bill will be perpetually before the government of the day for the foreseeable future.
I come back to the three amendments. We have had further discussions with the noble and gallant Lord about the recommendation in his report following the comments he made in this House at Second Reading. I can accept that he and many
2148
other noble Lords attach importance to securing a provision which gives the joint committee an unfettered right and duty to report on its activities direct to Ministers and to Parliament. I am therefore happy to accept Amendment No. 344ZK tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy.
I hope that this will help to persuade the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross, not to press Amendment No. 361 and my noble friend Lord Norrie not to press Amendment No. 373ZC. The amendment I have accepted would achieve their central objective of requiring the JNCC to prepare and publish an annual report. I appreciate that their amendments also contain a list of particular items which they wish to see included in the annual report. Except for the references to a wider role for the committee, to which I have already explained the Government's objections, I can see nothing wrong with most of the items suggested and I am sure that the JNCC would include material of this kind. However, it would be unusual for the contents of the report to be prescribed in such detail by statute. We must leave it to the committee to decide, in the light of changing circumstances and priorities, which material it wishes to include and highlight in its report. I feel sure that a chairman of the calibre and with the integrity of Professor Sir Fred Holliday will give a full and incisive report.
As regards Amendments Nos. 344ZJA and 344ZKA, tabled by the noble Lord. Lord McIntosh, the joint committee will need to take account of the views and specialisms that will not always be provided by the statutorily-appointed members. The committee has powers to regulate its procedure. That will include the power to invite non-voting observers to its meetings for such purposes. I can assure the Committee that the chairman-elect will use this power where necessary. He has already agreed to invite the chairman of the Countryside Commission for Scotland to attend JNCC meetings in an observer capacity until the CCS merges with the NCC in Scotland. I hope that covers the point made earlier by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Does that mean that he can contribute? It is not much good just listening.
Lord Hesketh: I am sure it means that he can contribute. As regards Amendment No. 344ZKA, we feel that the noble Lord's intentions go a little too far in the direction of turning the joint committee into an independent quango in its own right. That is a course of action which the Government will have to resist. It was also rejected by the Select Committee in its report. For example, paragraph 7.1 would give the JNCC power to act as an employer in its own right, while paragraph 7.2 would virtually remove any discretion whatever from the country councils in deciding what could be afforded in financing the joint committee's activities.
I find the final subparagraph of subsection (3) rather extraordinary. No such provision exists or is sought by the Opposition in relation to existing expenditure by the NCC or its successor country

2149
councils. The underlying assumption seems to be that, despite the Government's record in financing the NCC since 1979—I remind the Committee that its budget has increased by over 160 per cent. in real terms—and despite the assurances that we have given about providing adequate funding for all the activities of the new bodies, including those carried out through the JNCC, there is a belief that the country councils will in some way try to do down the joint committee.
Amendments Nos. 354, 354A, 355, 355AZA and 355ZAD, would conflict with the policy that it would be unwise to extend the remit of the joint committee to cover landscape and other countryside issues, carrying the risk that the joint committee will be transformed into a quango supervising what will then be little more than regional agencies. I accept that this is a subject on which we beg to differ from the conclusions reached in the report of the Select Committee. I also remind the Committee that on this matter we differed with only one of the 24 conclusions.
I also remind the Committee of the intervention of my noble friend Lord Peel. He is absolutely right when he says that, as drafted, the amendments would place countryside responsibilities for the GB dimension on to the Nature Conservancy Councils and not on the JNCC itself. Therefore, leaving aside any other consideration, the amendments are defective. That is not a technical point. The fact is that the committee exists as a vehicle for the three country councils to exercise their joint functions and not for the responsibilities that they do not have in their own territories.
Amendment No. 356, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Ross, I take to be a probing amendment. I hope that the noble Lords will agree that it would be odd to legislate for specific subject areas in which Ministers responsible to Parliament would first have to consult with a body like the joint committee. If that is its purpose I am happy to assure Members of the Committee that, just as the views of the NCC about nature conservation at the GB or international level are already taken into account by Ministers in many different policy areas, so will the views of the joint committee be listened to most carefully on the same subjects. Professor Holliday will also have direct access to Ministers, as will the chairmen of the new country councils. I cannot see that diminishing the influence of nature conservation on government thinking.
Amendment No. 344, in accordance with the current practice, provides that appointments to the Nature Conservancy Council for England will be made on the basis of the appointees' personal qualities and not because they represent any particular interest. As the Government have already said in their response to the proposals contained in the report of your Lordships' committee, we do not believe that this is the appropriate time to consider the merger between the Countryside Commission and the English Nature Conservancy Council. We believe that it would be inappropriate to confuse the roles of the NCC for England and the Countryside Commission. I believe that this amendment does precisely that.
2150
The main thrust of Amendments Nos. 356B, 356C, 356D and 357 has already been accepted by the Government in their new schedule covering the composition of the joint Nature Conservation Committee. I repeat that the joint committee may, through its powers, regulate its own procedures to invite observers or assessors to attend its meetings in a non-voting capacity. I am sure that Members of the Committee would not wish to see the joint committee turned into a conference of delegates mandated by other bodies, however worthy those bodies might be.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy raised a point that I do not think was covered by any of the substantial list of amendments that I have responded to. I can give him an assurance that the Government will look sympathetically at the proposal to rename the Scottish Development Department and that they will react entirely positively in the near future.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this inevitably complex debate and to the Minister for the clarity of his winding-up speech. Perhaps I may in one sentence say what I think we shall be doing as the immediate result of this debate. I take it that we shall be making a decision on Amendment No. 343B, as I made clear. I take that amendment as being a paving amendment for Amendments Nos. 354A, 355AZA and 355ZAD, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and his colleagues. I think that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, understands. I understand that he wished to add his name to Amendment No. 343B and thought that he had. That is the immediate issue.
I am saying this for the benefit of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who fears that I may be trying to entrap him into further commitments that he does not adhere to. I would not expect anyone who supported this matter to go further than those four amendments.
The Earl of Swinton: I do not think the noble Lord will trap me with that one.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall come back to that matter before closing. We can with gratitude thank the Minister for his acceptance of Amendment No. 344ZK. That amendment is primarily in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I think the Minister is right in saying that, on the basis of the acceptance, I shall not move Amendment No. 361. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, will feel the same about Amendment No. 373ZC. The point is that the principle of an annual report has been accepted. I am sure that, with goodwill, the amendment which is to be accepted will work very well indeed.
There are issues which have been properly debated together with the matters that we have discussed so far; namely, issues about staff, the budget and the resources of the joint committee, whatever name it takes. Though I believe that the discussion has been extremely valuable, I do not suppose for one moment that it has completely closed all further discussion.

2151
I do not expect to move Amendment No. 344ZKA, in response to the government's amendment, without the opportunity of further debate. I certainly would not expect anybody who supported us on Amendment No. 343B necessarily to support us on the other amendment. However, if we are to take the government amendments regardless of the result of this debate, I make it clear that I shall not move my alternative amendments, Amendments Nos. 357 and 359A as they will no longer be necessary. They will be dealt with in amendments to government amendments. I hope that I have cleared up the matters with which we are not concerned. Perhaps I may briefly return to the matter with which we are concerned.
The Government have got themselves into a strange position. They are, as the Minister acknowledged, not accepting one of the 24 recommendations of the Carver Committee—one and only one. The Minister described it as going a little too far. But if one looks at the wording of the amendments, one sees that there is no legal basis for suggesting that what we are doing in the amendments and what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and his colleagues are doing in their amendments is somehow making the joint committee a quango and turning the other country councils into regional agencies. What we are proposing is no change in the legal basis of the joint committee other than that already proposed by the Government.
What we are proposing, however, is that the inclusion of the chairman of the Countryside Commission and the inclusion of members with countryside interests should be matched by the inclusion of countryside matters in the remit of the joint committee. It astonishes me that the Government do not recognise that this concerns the single most important function of the joint committee. The coherence of our approach to countryside and nature conservation matters depends upon it. It is not a challenge to the legal structure of the joint committee as proposed by the Government. It concerns only the functions and the size of the committee.
As the Government have unfortunately made no movements towards recognising the justice of the argument expressed not just by those who have put their names to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, but by Members of the Committee on all sides, and as the amendments are being opposed on a basis which has no legal foundation, I am afraid that, unless any other Member of the Committee has anything to add, I shall feel it necessary on Amendment No. 343B to seek the opinion of the Committee. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 343A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 343B:
Page 123, line 19, at end insert:
("(1A) The three Councils created under subsection (1) above shall establish a committee to be known as the Joint Committee for the purposes of nature conservation across Great Britain as a whole, exercising functions in relation to
2152
countryside and landscape conservation, and carrying out the functions assigned to it under section 123(1) below.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
6.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 343B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 99.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bancroft, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Barnett, L.

Kennet, L.

Birk, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Melchett, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Meston, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Moran, L.

Carver, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Chorley, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Norrie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Falkender, B.

Seear, B.

Foot, L.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Shackleton, L.

Galpern, L.

Shannon, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Sherfield, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Thurlow, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Varley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hunt, L.

Walpole, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ailesbury, M.

Carnock, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Coleraine, L.

Ampthill, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Arran, E.

Cox, B.

Auckland, L.

Craigton, L.

Balfour, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Belstead, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Blakenham, V.

Cross, V.

Blatch, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Boardman, L.

Davidson. V. [Teller.]

Borthwick, L.

Denham. L. [Teller.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elton, L.

Brentford, V.

Flather, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Gainsborough, E.

Gisborough, L.

Burton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Grimond, L.

Caccia, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Caldecote, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

2153

Henley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hesketh, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hives, L.

Radnor, E.

Holderness, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Reay, L.

Hooper, B.

Rees, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Renton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rochdale, V.

Kimball, L.

Rodney, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Sharples, B.

Mancroft, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Margadale, L.

Somerset, D.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Munster, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Newall, L.

Sudeley, L.

Onslow, E.

Swinfen, L.

Orkney, E.

Swinton, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ullswater, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Vinson, L.

Peel, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Pender L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.30 p.m.
[Amendment No. 344 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 344AZA:
Page 123, line 27, at end insert ("who in appointing the members for Wales shall have due regard not only to the conservation functions of the council but also to those functions which encourage and facilitate access to, and recreational use of, the countryside.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 349A. The basis of Amendment 344AZA is contained in the remarks which I made on Second Reading. The Minister will recall that at that time I had received advice from the Sports Council for Wales on the need for the arrangements for nature conservancy matters to allow for a proper balance to be struck between conservation on the one hand and access to the countryside and recreation on the other. The amendment seeks to introduce an obligation on the Secretary of State to make appointments to the new Countryside Council for Wales in such a way as to give some confidence to the governing bodies of sports, and to those with a particular interest in outdoor recreation, that due regard is being given to the recreational point of view.
I must tell Members of the Committee that a similar amendment was tabled in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Paul Murphy. On that occasion, the Minister explained that if you give sport and recreation a special status you must do the same for such interests as forestry and agriculture. The amendment I move today seeks to avoid that difficulty. We are not asking for the appointment of a representative of the recreation lobby; but we do ask that in the traditional debate between commercial use and conservation—that important third party—access to the countryside for pleasurable recreation should not be downgraded. I am not talking about theme parks or football
2154
stadiums; I am talking about walking, canoeing, cycling, caving and climbing and many other excellent outdoor pursuits which we all want to encourage in our schools and, in particular, among our young people.
The Countryside Commission in Wales, which has now been abolished, had plenty to do besides monitoring the recreational use of the countryside. The commission did its best given its numerous duties and created a recreation and access branch at its headquarters. It liaised with increasing effectiveness with the Sports Council for Wales on a series of joint projects. However, because of its amalgamation with the Nature Conservancy Council, there is now a clear worry that recreation and access will become even more peripheral to the main concerns of the new council.
There are many outdoor sports—for example, canoeing or water skiing—which many conservationists find intrusive in terms of enjoyment of the countryside. However, the participants in these sports need to feel that they are being treated fairly and that the interests of informal and passive enjoyment of the countryside such as simple walking, which are perfectly valid interests in themselves, do not dominate the situation unfairly. If there are conflicts in this area—and there are bound to be—a conciliatory approach around the same council table is preferable, in so far as it is practicable, to a noisy public debate between different bodies representing different interests. Therefore, I ask the Minister to look again at the wording of the power to make appointments to see whether he can find a form of words which would provide greater reassurance to the sports bodies in Wales.
I turn now to deal with Amendment No. 349A. This amendment returns to the same theme which I have already raised. Again, I have received advice on the matter from the Sports Council for Wales. It refers to consultation rights. As I said before when I moved the earlier amendment, there is a need to ensure that in our zeal for the protection of conservation rights we do not lose sight of the fact that for many people the key issue is access to the countryside for recreational purposes. That is especially true for young people.
I am sure that we all acknowledge the importance of conservation but, equally, we must all acknowledge the fact that conservation is not about preserving our countryside in aspic; we need to acknowledge that sporting and recreational use is inevitable and that it should be encouraged and not unduly hindered. The legislation recognises that fact as there is specific reference in the Countryside Act 1968 to the need to secure public access to the countryside for the purpose of open air recreation. That will be a duty of the new Countryside Council for Wales, as indeed it was of the old Countryside Commission. There is also a duty to consult with local planning authorities and such bodies as appear to the commission to have an interest in the area in which it is involved.
The view of the sporting bodies in Wales is that the Sports Council for Wales should be specifically named as a consultee. It is the only body which has a direct link with the multifarious sporting endeavours

2155
which take place today in the outdoors—that includes everything from mountaineering and caving to ballooning and hang-gliding. Nearly all those organisations have their own representative bodies. However, the appropriate consultee in this connection should be the Sports Council for Wales which contributes to their development and keeps a friendly eye on them. It should also be said that the council often takes the lead in encouraging policies of restraint, codes of conduct and voluntary restrictions.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will note that when the Water Bill went through Parliament a similar amendment was accepted by the, Government—namely, what has now become Section 10(4) of the Water Act 1989—in which the sports councils were specifically mentioned. In my view this is also an appropriate occasion for naming the Sports Council for Wales as a consultee. It may seem a small point to him, but it is a considerable point of principle for Wales. I beg to move.
Baroness White: In some ways I am most grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I have the greatest sympathy with what he said about the Sports Council for Wales and about the natural desire of many people to exercise their preferences. However, I am somewhat concerned about the proposal to name the sports council specifically because there are a number of other bodies which are also very much concerned in various ways about access to the countryside. Some of those organisations come rapidly to my mind; for example, the Ramblers Association, the Youth Hostels Association, the Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society and various aspects of the Council for National Parks of which I am vice-president and so on. They are all very much concerned about access.
There are certainly differences of interest between certain sports and bird watching, which needs peace and quiet and no disturbances, and there are also certain difficulties between anglers and canoeists. However, I feel that it may not serve the best interests of those wishing to secure access to the countryside in the Principality if we name one body to the exclusion of others. Clearly it is highly desirable that there should be reasonably wide consultation in making such appointments. If we were to name one body specifically, it would probably create more problems than it would solve.
Lord Hunt: I rise to express my support for the two amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Apart from what has already been said, I think that the point should be made about the enormous numbers of what I would call "outsiders" who are now visiting the Principality for the very purposes which the noble Baroness, Lady White, just mentioned. In addition to the concern about potential conflicts of interest which may arise between what one might call the recreation bodies and those concerned with countryside and landscape issues, there is the need to watch over the spread of the use of the facilities—that is, the mountains, the moorlands and
2156
the inland and coastal waters—so as to minimise such conflicts.
Although it is not covered in the first amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—I believe that it comes up in a later amendment to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton—there is the question of the consideration that must be given by the Countryside Council for Wales to the fact that the vast majority of those who come in for recreational and enjoyment purposes—tourists, walkers, climbers and so on—are outsiders. The interests and sensitivities of the people of Wales must be taken carefully into account in view of what one might call a growing invasion which is at the moment tolerated and brings great advantages to the Principality. Those are all reasons for supporting the proposal in the first of the two amendments to which the noble Lord spoke.
Baroness White: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I am not against the first amendment. It is the second amendment with which I have difficulty.
Lord Shackleton: I should like to support the amendment. I find it slightly embarrassing to put myself alongside the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as a mountaineer. The fact that I climbed Snowdon in my seventies, is not equivalent to climbing Everest in one's forties or fifties. I have seen something of the work of the Sports Council in Wales. I admire its professional skill, commitment and its ability to show people how to do things and to stop silly fools like me getting stuck on Tryfan because I do not have the right skills. There are many mountaineering associations who can give advice, but the Sports Council has a particular role to play in Wales, as it has in other parts of the United Kingdom. I took some young people to Wales. One or two of the boys had never seen a mountain and the help given to me by the Sports Council was very professional. That professionalism should be represented in the consideration of such matters.
Lord Renton: I am a little puzzled. I would have thought that, if the amendment is sound in principle, it should not be confined to Wales, but it should apply equally to the Nature Conservancy Councils for England and for Scotland respectively. However, I doubt whether it is necessary because the Secretary of State, when making those appointments, will choose people who are capable and useful at advising on the responsibilities stated in the Bill. It would therefore rather surprise me if my noble friend on the Front Bench were to advise that the amendment should be accepted.
Earl Peel: I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about these being sensitive issues. He put his finger on the main point. However, bearing in mind the activities that will be represented by the Sports Council, it seems logical to counteract that aspect—if I may put it that way—that we should also have representatives from the owners' side. They must put up with a great deal of increased pressure—much of it perfectly justifiable—but there is the other side. If you insist that the Sports council

2157
is represented, there should also be an insistence that the landowning side be represented.
Lord Moran: Although I sympathise with the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in moving this amendment, I share the doubts expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady White, about the second of the two amendments.
As I understood the Minister earlier, appointments will be made to the country councils on the basis of the personal qualities of the appointees and not in any sense on the basis of their representative capacity. That principle might be breached if there were to be representatives of the Sports Council. The Countryside Council for Wales will have to have close relations with the Sports Council for Wales in order to deal with all those problems. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, they are frequently delicate matters, but I am inclined to think that we should leave them to the good sense of the Secretary of State in making his appointments, and to the good sense of the Countryside Council for Wales, when it is in operation, to deal with those admittedly important problems.
6.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): Perhaps I may give the Government's view of these two amendments. I shall take first Amendment No. 344AZA. As several noble Lords have said, members of the new councils will be appointed for their personal qualities and not to represent any particular interest or body. That is the basis on which appointments to the NCC have always been made. However, in appointing members, the respective Secretaries of State will undoubtedly have due regard for the functions of the council concerned, including, in respect of the new Welsh council, the countryside functions.
Tuning to Amendment No. 349A, Section 2(2) of the Countryside Act 1968, as already amended by this Bill, requires the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales to keep under review all matters relating to the provision and improvement of facilities for the enjoyment of the countryside, the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside and the need to secure public access to the countryside for the purpose of open-air recreation. The subsection goes on to require the commission and the council to consult such planning authorities and other bodies as appear to them to have an interest in those matters.
The noble Lord's amendment would insert
"and in Wales, the Sports Council for Wales"
after "planning authorities". On a purely technical point, the amendment destroys the structure of that part of the subsection and creates uncertainty. Is it intended that the Sports Council for Wales shall be consulted in all matters concerning Wales, whether or not they are likely to have an interest in the subject at issue, or is it intended that consultation will be subject to the qualifying words at the end of the subsection
"as appears to the Council to have an interest in those matters"?
2158
It is also interesting that there is no proposal that in England the Sports Council should be consulted. Why is there a need for mandatory consultation in Wales but not in England, a point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton?
As to the substance of the amendments, we do not consider that the noble Lord has made a case for singling out the Sports Council for Wales for special mention in this subsection. There are many other organisations which could be included, but it is surely better to use the present umbrella provision, which clearly includes the Sports Council for Wales when it would be appropriate to consult it.
If the intention is only that the Sports Council for Wales should be consulted when appropriate, then that is already provided for in the existing provision and the amendment would achieve nothing. For that reason and bearing in mind the doubt about interpretation and the exclusion of an equivalent provision for England, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister. The case had to be made. It has generated a great deal of interest. Those outside this place will be grateful for all the comments; but I know when I am beaten. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 344ZB:
Page 123, line 31, at end insert:
("(3A) The Councils shall establish a committee to he called the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (in this Part referred to as "the joint committee" ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 344ZC and 344ZD:
Page 123, line 32, leave out ("Schedule 6") and insert ("Schedules 6 and (The Joint Nature Conservation Committee).
Page 123, line 33, after ("Councils") insert ("and of the joint committee').
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 344ZA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 118, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [The Nature Conservancy Councils for England and Scotland and the Countryside Council for Wales: Constitution]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 344ZE:
Page 169, line 8, after ("member") insert ("or former member").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 344ZF and 344ZG. These are simple, straightforward drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 344ZF and 344 ZG:
Page 169, line 30, after ("employees") insert ("or former employees").
Page 171, line 20, leave out from ("papers") to ("give") in line 21 and insert ("and").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 344ZH:
Page 171, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (1) above, the report of the Countryside Council for Wales for any year shall include a statement of the action taken by the Council to promote the enjoyment of the countryside by members of the public who are disabled.").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend, I wish to move Amendment No. 344ZH. The Countryside Commission is at present required to include in its annual report to Parliament a statement of the action taken by the commission to promote the enjoyment of the countryside by members of the public who are disabled. This was inadvertently omitted when the annual report provisions were drawn up for the new countryside council for Wales. This amendment ensures that the commission and the council will have similar responsibilities in this respect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 344ZJ:
After Schedule 6, insert the following new schedule:
("The Joint Nature Conservation Committee
Preliminary
1. In this Schedule—
"chairman" means (except in paragraph 2(1) below) the chairman of the committee);
"the committee" means the Joint Nature Conservation Committee; and
"council" means a council established by section 118(1) of this Act.
Membership
2.—(1) The committee shall consist of eleven voting members, namely—

(a) a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State;

(b) three members appointed by the Secretary of State;

(c) the chairman of each council and one other member of each council appointed by that council; and

(d) the chairman of the Countryside Commission;

and two non-voting members appointed by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.
(2) The committee may appoint any voting member to be deputy chairman.
3. The chairman and the three members appointed by the Secretary of State shall be persons who are not members of any of the councils and shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of their appointments.
4.—(1) The three members appointed by the Secretary of State shall be persons appearing to the Secretary of State to have experience in or scientific knowledge of nature conservation; and the Secretary of State shall, in determining who to appoint, have regard to any recommendations made to him by the Chairman.
(2) Before appointing such a member the Secretary of State shall consult the chairman and such persons having scientific knowledge of nature conservation as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
Remuneration and allowances for members
5.—(1) The councils shall—

(a) pay to the chairman such remuneration and allowances; and

(b) pay such pension, allowance or gratuity to or in respect of the chairman or make such payments towards the provision of such pension, allowance or gratuity;

2160
as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine.
(2) If a person ceases to be chairman and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right that he should receive compensation, the Secretary of State may require the councils to pay to that person a sum of such amount as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine.
6. The councils shall pay to the three members appointed by the Secretary of State, and to the non-voting members, such remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine.
Staff etc. and expenses
7.—(1) The councils shall provide the committee with such staff, accommodation and other facilities, and such financial resources, as the councils, after consultation with the committee, consider appropriate for the proper discharge of the functions conferred by section 123(1) and (2) of this Act.
(2) The expenses of the committee shall be defrayed by the councils in such proportions as the councils may agree.
(3) In default of agreement between the councils as to any question arising under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above the Secretary of State shall determine that question.
Proceedings
8.—(1) The committee may regulate their own procedure (including making provision in relation to the quorum of voting members).
(2) The proceedings of the committee shall not be invalidated by any vacancy amongst their members or defect in the appointment of any member.
Delegation of functions
9.—(1) Anything authorised or required to be done by the committee may be done by any member of the committee, by any council or by any employee of a council who is authorised (generally or specially) for the purpose by the committee.
(2) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1) above shall prevent the committee from doing anything that another person has been authorised to do.").
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): I call, as an amendment to Amendment No. 344ZJ, Amendment No. 344ZJA.
[Amendment No. 344ZJA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 344ZJ, not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): I call as a second amendment to the new Schedule, Amendment No. 344ZKA. The amendments have been wrongly marshalled.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 344ZJ, Amendment No. 344ZKA:
Line 52, leave out paragraph 7 and insert:
("7.—(1) The Joint Committee may appoint—

(a) a Director;

(b) persons to such other posts as the Secretary of State may agree;

(c) such other persons on secondment who are employed by a Council as that Council may agree.

(2) The Joint Committee shall notify the Councils and the Secretary of State in respect of each financial year as to the amount which it considers necessary to enable it to fulfil its functions, and the Councils shall make available that amount in such proportions between them as they may agree or in the absence of such agreement as the Secretary of State may determine.
(3) The Secretary of State shall in respect of each financial year, having regard to any representations made by the Committee or the Councils, satisfy himself that the resources
available to the Councils and the Committee are adequate to enable them to fulfil their functions under this Part.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been debated. It is a matter of major importance that we should get the membership, the staffing, financing and security of financing of the joint committee right. I beg to move Amendment no. 344ZKA.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment proposed, as an amendment to Amendment No. 344ZJ—there is a marshalling mistake—line 52, leave out paragraph 7 and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. This amendment has been debated.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has moved this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The matter has been debated by the Committee. I did not propose to prolong the debate. However, I reserve my right to seek the opinion of the Committee on my amendment.
Bareness Nicol: The amendment of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, to which the Government agreed, has not been called. Should it not be called at this stage?
Lord Campbell of Croy: We have already heard from the Chair that the amendments are marshalled in the wrong order. Can the matter be clarified?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: We shall not take Amendment No. 344ZK yet. I shall put the Question on Amendment No. 344ZKA. The Question is that Amendment No. 344ZKA shall be agreed to?
6.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 344ZKA), as an amendment to Amendment No. 344ZJ, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 92.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Birk, B.

Hunt, L.

Blakenham, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Blease, L.

Jay, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jeger, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Chorley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Melchett, L.

Foot, L.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Hampton, L.

Shackleton, L.

2162

Stedman, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Strabolgi, L.

White, B.

Tordoff, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Balfour, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Mancroft, L.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Blatch, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Boardman, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Borthwick, L.

Merrivale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Munster, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Newall, L.

Burton, L.

Norrie, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Onslow, E.

Caccia, L.

Orkney, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Carnock, L.

Peel, E.

Carver, L.

Pender, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Coleraine, L.

Radnor, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cox, B.

Reay, L.

Craigton, L.

Rees, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Renton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Rochdale, V.

Cross, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Cumberlege, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Sharples, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sherfield, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Flather, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Gisborough, L.

Sudeley, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinton, E.

Tranmire, L.

Halsbury, E.

Ullswater, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Vinson, L.

Hesketh, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hives, L.

Walpole, L.

Holderness, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Hooper, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 344ZKA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 344ZJ, disagreed to accordingly.
7 P.m.
Lord Carver Lord Carver moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 344ZJ, Amendment No. 344ZK:
At end insert:
("10.—(1) The committee shall:—

(a) as soon as possible after 31st March following the date appointed under section 121(3) of this Act make to the Secretary of State a report on their activities down to that date; and

(b) make a similar report to him as to each period of twelve months thereafter as soon as possible after its end:

and a copy of each such report shall be laid before each House of Parliament by the Secretary of State.
(2) The committee shall, at the same time as they make a report under sub-paragraph (1) above, send a copy of it to each of the councils.").
The noble and gallant Lord said: I am most grateful to the Government for having accepted this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment No. 344ZK, as an amendment to Amendment No. 344ZJ, agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton: I am grateful that the chairman of the Countryside Commission was made a member of this body. However, does this literally mean that it must be the chairman alone who fulfils that function and that he cannot send a delegate if he is taken ill or suffers a long illness? I do not expect my noble friend to reply to that straight away; perhaps he can write to me before Report.
Lord Hesketh: I believe I am correct in saying that it is only the chairman of the Countryside Commission who can fulfil that function as the legislation is currently drafted.
Amendment No. 344ZJ, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Reay: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I propose that we return to this business at 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Access to Health Records Bill
7.2 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Without wishing to take up more than a few minutes of your Lordships' time, I want to reiterate my thanks to all noble Lords who have made such constructive contributions to the debate on this Bill. I particularly wish to express my gratitude to the Minister and to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who have given the Bill both great encouragement and a fair wind.
I wish to raise two points which have not been mentioned to date. Naturally, I do not expect the Minister to respond to those points, but I hope that they may be borne in mind when regulations or departmental guidance are drawn up. My first point concerns appeals. The Bill provides a two-stage process for appeals on the part of someone who believes that the requirements of the legislation are not being met. Initially a complaint would have to go through an internal complaints procedure to be laid down in regulations. Only when that procedure is exhausted will such a person be entitled to appeal to the court. My concern is that the internal procedure should not involve excessive delay and that there should be a time limit by which a decision on the complaint must be reached. I raise this matter because the health service already has various complaints systems. Sometimes, however, it takes more than a year to deal with complaints. I understand that steps are being taken to speed matters up.
The regulations under the Bill may well use or adapt existing procedures. Under the Bill complaints issues will be relatively simple compared with, say, those dealt with by the clinical complaints procedure used by health authorities where grave allegations, perhaps about the cause of a patient's death, may be
2164
investigated. In the present context we are dealing with people who merely want to see their own records and who will still be waiting to see them while an internal appeal takes place. I hope it will prove possible to specify a time limit by which an appeal must be dealt with, and perhaps to say that if no decision is reached by that time the applicant will be deemed to have complied with the requirements of Clause 8(2) and will be free to take the complaint to the court.
My second point concerns the requirement in Clause 7 that a health authority or other health service body must consult "the appropriate health professional" before reaching any decision about withholding information. The Bill's definition of "the appropriate health professional" suggests that if the patient is under the clinical care of a doctor the health professional to be consulted is that doctor, even if the records that are sought are those of another health professional such as a health visitor, midwife or member of the nursing staff. However, those records may not be under the control of the doctor. The doctor may not normally see or contribute to them and may not know whether the information within them has already been discussed with the patient. It would make sense in those circumstances for the decision on access to depend on the advice of the health professional to whom the records belong. I raise this matter as a point which I hope may be addressed when the time comes to draw up guidance on the procedures to be followed in implementing the Bill.
Although I know there is a strong competitor for your Lordships' time at the present moment, I believe this to be a useful Bill. It is an important step forward in the long march towards establishing greater freedom of information. I believe that its provisions will create better understanding and greater trust between doctors and their patients.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Baroness Ewart-Biggs.)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, in giving the Bill their support the Government have always been aware of the reservations expressed by and on behalf of the medical profession on access to records. It is right that those concerns should be subject to public debate, as they have been in this House. I believe that on the whole points raised by your Lordships on Second Reading which required clarification from the Department of Health have been met either during that debate or in subsequent correspondence. However, the noble Baroness has now mentioned a couple more points which I shall be happy to respond to. I should also like to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lady Blatch for holding the fort, as it were, on Second Reading.
We have said that as regards opening up nursing records, we shall undertake consultation with the appropriate health professional. In that case the professional would be the health visitor and not a doctor. The health visitor may however seek the advice of a doctor before allowing access if the nursing record contains information which has been

2165
extracted from medical records, or otherwise received from a doctor.
On the question of using hospital complaints procedures as an appeal mechanism against a refusal to allow access to health records, we intend to use the hospital complaints procedures to review appeals. There is no apparent reason why inordinate delays should develop. However, our guidance to the National Health Service will propose specific time limits for action. We anticipate that both those issues will be covered by guidance and that the people concerned will be consulted before the guidance is finalised. I hope that that assurance is helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs.
It may also be useful if I comment on a matter which exercised your Lordships during the debate at Second Reading relating to the question of when an application for access is deemed to have been made. I understand that that question was resolved. The Bill provides for a patient's right of access to be excluded in certain circumstances. In order that that provision can be exercised properly a thorough knowledge and understanding of the applicant's medical history is required. The exclusion should therefore be determined by the holder of the record only after careful consideration. That would indicate that in all fairness the holder of the record must be given the prescribed time to respond, starting from the time when the application is brought to his or her personal attention.
On a more general point, and in response to doubts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that the provisions of the Bill could well induce him to second thoughts when as a practising doctor he prepares his notes since what he records could be seen by his patient, I remind your Lordships that the provisions of the Bill, once enacted, will take effect from November 1991. That long lead time should give health professionals plenty of opportunity to adapt to the new regime. It should also allow for it to begin with the support of everyone concerned. We hope that that will be very much the case. It will also allow training to be organised and procedures implemented.
The principal aim of the Bill is one which, as has been said, the Government are happy to support. It is clearly one which also has wide public support. I am happy to be able to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, on bringing the Bill successfully through this House and I wish it well.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Consumer Guarantees Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.13 to 8.5 p.m.]

Environmental Protection Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 119 [Grants by Secretary of State to new Councils]:
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 344ZL:
Page 123, line 36, after ("Councils") insert (and the Joint Committee (as defined in section 123(2)(a) below)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment appears on the Marshalled List under my name coupled with that of the noble Baroness, Lady David. It would add the words "and the Joint Committee"—in other words, it would enable the Secretary of State to fund not only the country councils but the joint committee as well.
I anticipate that this amendment may be anathema to the government spokesman when he comes to reply. I want to delay the committee a little on this matter because there is great concern about the funding of this joint committee and there have as yet been no real answers from the Government. Earlier today we were told—I welcome it—that the joint committee will be properly staffed. We have heard mentioned a figure of up to 50 full-time staff. We have also been told that contracts with outside bodies contracted to the NCC will be honoured. We have heard rumours of a fairly substantial sum of money having been promised to the incoming chairman of the new council in Scotland and we wonder where the rest of the money will come from.
Will the Government give some indication during this debate—I trust they will—as to what they consider will be the likely cost and how much money the Treasury will allow the Secretaries of State to spend on what I think will be an expensive exercise?
I say to the noble Baroness on the other side of the Committee that I am in no way against devolution. I am a devolutionist. I am to tally in favour of devolution and want to see far more power given back to the local authorities in this country. I think that a great deal more decision-making at local level would be a very good thing. I am not at all against that. But I want to see a proper federal structure.
As I understand it, a federal structure means that the joint committee as we now have it should be properly funded and should have responsibility for dealing with matters which have a United Kingdom context. I find it hard that Scots in particular seem to think that this is an attack upon them. It is not—not in any way, shape or form. However we have signed international conventions—the Bonn convention, the Berne convention and CITES. We are signatories to all those conventions. The Secretaries of State who go to Brussels and other cities speak for the United Kingdom.
We want to know exactly whether the joint committee will be the body to which the Secretary of State will turn for advice on matters of this kind. Will it be properly financed or must we simply hope that the country councils will cough up the money which they think is adequate to maintain the kind of body that we hope will support the joint

2167
committee? It is not just the NGOs, such as the RSPB and so on, which are very concerned that the joint committee will not be adequately financed and that they in turn will suffer.
A week ago some Members of this Chamber attended the opening of Bats Week. Assistance had been given through NCC funds by Dr. Stebbings, now an independent consultant. However, bats do not stop at the Border. They are in Scotland and Wales. Many of us are very concerned about the depletion of bats in the country. What will happen in the future if we wish to launch a bats week? Who will fund it? Will it depend on the joint committee council? If Scotland decides to opt out, what will happen? Some method of direct funding of the joint committee ought to be written into the Bill.
The NCC has recently issued photo graphs and descriptions to our North Sea fishermen, such as are left, of seven different varieties of turtles. It hopes that when they are picked up in the nets the fishermen will put them straight back into the sea. We wish the turtles to survive. They do not breed here but they are in our waters. In future, will such a project be funded by the joint committee, or will it have to be separately funded by the three individual councils? If Scotland or Wales does not wish to contribute, will the whole project fall to the ground?
Those will be the day-to-day issues that arise. I wish to hear from the Government in their response some indication that they are prepared to match their words with the necessary finance. We must have an answer.
We know that there has been an internal operation partly funded by the Department of the Environment and partly by the NCC to indicate the likely cost of the changes. We hear that the staff complement may increase by as much as 50 per cent. At least £20 million or £30 million is involved. Some people have said that it will be rather more. What will happen if the joint committee proposes a budget that the three councils find excessive? The joint committee may say that it cannot carry out its work adequately from the funding by the joint councils. Can it turn to the Secretary of State for additional funding? Presumably at the moment it cannot.
Those are the issues that I raise in the amendment. It is important that we have a proper response today. The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked this question in the Chamber two or three days ago. We did not receive a proper answer. We did not have a proper answer when the Minister replied to the earlier debates. We expect one now. I beg to move.
Lord Craigton: Having read the amendment and having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, I tend to agree with him. He asked who will fund a bats week supposing that one of the councils does not wish to do so. It seems an untidy and unnecessary way of handing on money. The joint committee will have to have a separate, different sum. I cannot understand why it is not funded directly. I do not see the logic of the Government's thinking. I hope that the Minister will either accept the amendment or consider it before the next stage.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness David: I wish to raise two points on the amendment. First, independent funding for the joint committees is extremely important. Secondly, I wish to complain about the lack of information that we have had. The Government received my Written Question about a fortnight ago. I received a very unsatisfactory answer: that the Government could not tell me anything. I asked an oral Question on Monday. I received no information then. I asked whether information would be available today. I was told that it would not.
I admit that we have had information about the number of staff, but we have not had information about funding. That is the subject of these amendments. It is extremely important that we should know the answer. It is an insult to the Committee, having reached this stage of the Bill, that we have had no information about the amount of money that will be available to fund the various committees. The Government admit that this system will be much more expensive. We have been told repeatedly that there will be adequate funding. But we have been told no amount, or whether the Treasury is willing to fund this folly that the Government propose.
We very much wish to know to night what is happening. I hope that the Minister will have some information. He is referring to his file. I hope that we shall receive some good information. We have had information about staffing but nothing on finance. I hope that we shall hear some rather more positive information.
We have been told that there has been an investigation by consultants, and by the relevant organisation in the NCC, about the numbers of staff and the funding necessary for the three country councils and the joint committee. We therefore know that the Government have had information on this issue. The consultants were P. E. International plc of Egham, Surrey. Much work has been done on this matter. If the Minister cares to listen to what I say, I hope that we shall have information on what the consultancy firm and the NCC have produced, and whether the Government accept what they say.
The figures that we have been given are much greater than the amount which has been spent on the NCC in the past year or two. We want information. I hope that we shall receive it.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: Perhaps I may briefly support the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and the noble Baroness. I hope that I may be able to assist the Minister. The history of the matter occurred, happily, before the issue fell into his lap.
I am very worried about the position of the independent committee. My main concern is the UK's standing in international conservation and environmental matters. There is no doubt that the committee is a very unfortunate poor relation. It should stand out as the representative body in international circles. But how can it do so when it is subject for its pay, control and even the payment of its chairman to the councils that have been established? We know perfectly well, whether in

2169
industry, politics or charities, that the people who control the budget and the purse strings are in a dominant position. The person who is subject to those dominating partners is in a weak position. Yet the committee is supposed to be the national representative on international matters concerning the environment and conservation.
I therefore implore my noble friend to consider this matter extremely carefully. It will not embarrass him if I recount the history. When the announcement was made about the break up of the NCC there was no mention of a committee, science, or a UK overview. Then, fortunately, we had the report of the Carver Committee and ultimately the new committee was set up. Frankly, that was window dressing designed to meet the requirements in the Carver Report and to deal with the furore which arose on the announcement of the break-up. The problem has not yet been solved. It remains to be attended to and looked at extremely carefully. As things stand, the committee, which is supposed to represent the United Kingdom, will be a poor relation of the country councils.
Baroness Nicol: I wish to address most of my remarks to Amendment No. 344ZMA. It is an attempt to put into effect the recommendation of the Carver Committee set out at paragraph 4.3. The paragraph states:
"Each country council must have a strong scientific base appropriate to its own needs. This will be considerably more expensive than the present arrangements and the Government, having taken the decision to devolve, must provide the necessary resources".
The Government replied that it does not necessarily follow that the new arrangements need be considerably more expensive than the present arrangements.
Since then we have received estimates from a number of organisations. We also have news of a report which is said to be in the Government's hands showing that at least 600 additional members of staff will be needed by the NCC alone in order to cope with the present level of work. Can the Government tell the Committee whether all the reports are wrong? If they are wrong, can the Government say on what they base their argument if they do not have any information?
Amendment No. 344ZMA does not require that the joint committee should have separate funding. It allows far the joint committee to be funded by the ring-fencing provided in the Minister's amendment, Amendment No. 344ZN. We are not suggesting that it is necessary for the joint committee to be separately funded. However, in the amendment we propose that the general level of resources should be adequate and the Government have said that that is their intention. In particular, we propose that the funds available to the joint committee should be supplied directly or ring-fenced in such a way that its funds are adequate for its task.
Lord Carver: At paragraph 4.6 of our report we accepted that the joint committee should not be an independent quango and should derive its funds through the country councils. In the following recommendation we state:
2170
"The Government's proposals for guaranteeing the Joint Committee's funds by 'ring-fencing' must be implemented".
The Government accepted that. I believe that the Government's amendment, Amendment No. 344ZN, provides the guarantee of ring-fencing which we sought.
Baroness Nicol: Although the guarantee of ring-fencing is introduced in the Minister's amendment, the level of resourcing is not fixed. It is that about which I am anxious.
Lord Shackleton: I was not a member of the committee which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, chaired so brilliantly and which has achieved great success. However, from the outset I was sceptical about the willingness and ability of the Government to provide the necessary funds and I remain so.
My noble friends have given certain expected figures. It is no use seeking to carry through the plan unless the money is adequate. The Government have given several assurances that the money will be available. However, I should like the Minister to comment on the figures which are available and which are authoritative. He will know what has been studied and produced by consultants and the funds that will be required.
The ring-fencing sounds beautiful, as do many of the proposals, but if the money is not available the scheme will not be successful. It is on that ground that I have remained sceptical about the financing. Perhaps the Scots will receive the money because the Secretary of State for Scotland appears to have a particular pull with the Treasury in certain circumstances. However, I do not know whether the English and the joint committee will receive the money.
Frankly, I do not believe that the scheme will work. For that reason I should have wished to have had the whole of Part VII deleted from the Bill. I hope that the Government will give the anticipated figures for manpower and for the money available to the joint committee. I shall be surprised if they meet the estimates that have been made and about which some of us have the detail. I appeal to the Minister to be frank about the matter because without the funds the scheme will not work.
Lord Moran: I too support the amendments and agree with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. It is profoundly unsatisfactory that the Government's scheme, which was announced a long time ago, should now be before the Committee when we have no idea what it will cost because the Government will not tell us. With great restraint the Carver Committee said that it would be considerably more expensive. However, the committee was not in a position to judge how much more expensive it would be. Only the Government can know that.
I have now raised the matter twice without receiving a reply. That is most worrying: the information is fundamental to our debate. If we do not know whether the money will be forthcoming we do not know whether the scheme will work and

2171
whether we should support it. Therefore, I echo the appeal made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. The Minister should tell the Committee in round figures what the extra cost will be.
Baroness White: I should like to give the Minister more time to study the papers that have been handed to him one by one. I reinforce what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. We are within one week of it being 12 months since the announcement was made by Mr. Ridley, then the Minister responsible. Rather disrespectfully, some of us have called the whole exercise "Ridley's last kick". The Government have had almost 12 months in which to make some kind of estimate. What are we to make of the Government if they cannot give a reasonable estimate of the main areas of expenditure?
I am astonished. Ministers are under an obligation to appear before the Committee. Well, one talks of "going naked into the conference chamber". That was a quotation from Mr. Bevan but said before the Minister's time. I have every sympathy with Ministers if they do not have the material to respond to the requests that are made. In those circumstances we can say only that we are sorry for them. However, we must also say that it is beneath the dignity of this Committee to be expected to pass legislation if it cannot be given rational assurances about the magnitude of expenditure. As my noble friend Lady David said, the NCC has provided computations, but I did not find them convincing. They seemed to me to be somewhat overestimated. On the other hand, there will be considerably greater expense. Nobody can doubt that. The Government must have made some kind of estimate. A government of a different complexion would probably say about us what we are thinking about them. What would the Government think of a company in the private sector to which they are so dedicated trying to float a share issue or something along those lines with the lack of information which they expect us to swallow?
8.30 p.m.
Baroness David: I suppose that it is the DoE which employed the consultants, PE International of Egham. Presumably some attention is paid to consultants, otherwise it is rather a waste of money to employ them. Can we hear more about that?
Viscount Blakenham: I support the views of the previous eight Members of the Committee who have spoken. It is impossible to judge the likely success of the new arrangements without being given a fairly clear idea of what the funding will be. We know that it will be much more expensive to deliver the same amount of conservation. We are told on the one hand that funding will be available and adequate and yet on the other hand we are told that it will not amount to much more than it was before. That leaves us in no position to judge whether or not the scheme will be workable.
Earl Peel: In addition to the question of the overall financial sums available, there is another point—which may have been answered and, if it
2172
has, I apologise—which is the question of how the funding will be administered. Will it be paid directly to the joint committee or will it be paid to the country councils or will it be a combination of both? The arrangements under which it will be paid are as important as the overall amount which will be made available. I should be grateful if my noble friend could answer that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hesitate to intervene in this debate because the argument has been so well put by my noble friend and all Members of the Committee who have spoken. I fear that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, is being too generous in his interpretation of the government amendment. It is true that Amendment No. 344ZN states:
"including in particular conditions as to the use of the money for purposes of the joint committee".
However, that must be read in the context of Clause 119(2), which states:
"A grant under this section may be made subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may … think fit".
It does not say that it "shall be made subject to such conditions". It does not say that the conditions "shall be adequate". It does not say that conditions will be imposed by the Secretary of State. This is a permissive power to the Secretary of State to add to the conditions which he imposes on any grant to the country councils. In truth, it adds nothing to what the Bill already says because those conditions are unrestricted in Clause 119 as it stands at present.
I am afraid that no amount of tinkering with that sort of formulation and wording will do the trick. If it is to work effectively, the joint committee needs independent funding.
Lord Hesketh: I assure the noble Baroness, Lady White, that, although I have a poor academic and educational record, I am well aware of the achievements and, more importantly, the words of Aneurin Bevan. I should not like her to think that I was unaware of nakedness or the conference chamber.
Government Amendment No. 344ZN needs to be read with paragraph (7) of the new schedule dealing with the joint Nature Conservation Committee. It helps to deliver the commitment which we gave in response to Recommendation 4.7 of the Carver Report about ring-fencing the resources of the joint committee. In practice the conditions attached to the grants in aid of the country councils will be contained in the financial memoranda which are now being drawn up by the Government. Those will ensure both that the Secretary of State has the final say in how much the joint committee budget should be in any financial year and that, if the councils later wished to amend it significantly, ministerial consent would be needed.
Baroness David: Perhaps the Minister could speak rather more slowly. It is very difficult to follow what he is saying.
Lord Hesketh: I apologise. I hope that the effect of the government amendment will persuade the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and the noble Baronesses,

2173
Lady David and Lady Nicol, that their amendment is unnecessary. It is identically worded to Amendment No. 344 ZMA. These would in any event go much further than we intend, and would more or less make the joint committee into an independent quango in its own right by giving it a direct grant-in-aid from the Secretary of State on exactly the same basis as the country councils. Also I have already explained in dealing with amendments to the new schedule that I think it is unnecessary to amend the Bill on the assumption that the country councils will be less willing to spend resources on their joint activities than on their country-based ones.
I understand the fears which exist about the funding of the joint committee. However, we should always remember that the committee is a mechanism whereby the crucial national and international conservation responsibilities of the new councils will be carried out. The councils cannot sidestep their joint responsibilities to provide necessary resources and neither—this is important—can Ministers, as the ultimate source of funds. The amendment which we have proposed to Clause 119 will ensure that Ministers can direct funds to the joint committee if it ever becomes necessary.
I have already announced today that we are prepared to agree and finance a support unit of 50 staff for the joint committee. Our record on increasing the NCC's budget by over £35 million in the past decade is not open to dispute. That is a 160 per cent. increase in real terms. Adequate resources will be found for the joint committee and we shall announce the figures in the autumn at the end of our usual discussions with the Treasury which I drew to the noble Baroness's attention some two days ago. To answer the question posed by my noble friend Lord Peel, the joint committee's funds will come solely from the country councils.
When we return to the disparity of figures which has been alluded to this evening, it is worth pointing out that the figure given by the Worldwide Fund for Nature in April referred to a complement for Scotland of 557 staff compared with a complement of only 250 today. The Government are entitled to treat that figure with a certain amount of caution.
With regard to consultancies, to which the noble Baroness, Lady David, referred, the reports of the consultants will not be available until later in the summer. Therefore, I am unable to provide the figure which she thought I had to hand. Much paper has travelled up and down this Chamber this evening but that figure was not on those pieces of paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, referred to national initiatives and events such as Bat Week and Wild Flower Week. It is true to say that money can be targeted to particular areas, some of which may be nationwide. However, the powers contained in Clause 104 give the country councils the maximum flexibility to continue grants on a more localised basis.
With regard to the financial situation, the Government's record and their commitment since 1979 have been second to none. In response to Recommendation 4.3 of the second report, we answered that we would provide the necessary
2174
money. The Government accept that this scheme will cost more money. However, we do not accept that it will cost as much money as has been suggested. We believe that the amendment provides the necessary protection. I was grateful to hear the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord. Lord Carver, as to the assumption that there will be ring-fencing.
Lord Shackleton: We are grateful for the attempts of the noble Lord. He dismisses—which he is entitled to do—some of the outside estimates. However, what about the PE estimate? He must have that. Does he know what that is? That is a very respectable and well known firm of consultants. I do not believe that the Government will provide the money. I wish that I did. That is really the test of whether the scheme will work. I do not believe that the money will be there.
The Minister speaks of the good record of the Government. Their record may be good in comparison with other governments, but the Nature Conservancy Council is underfunded. It will go into the new scheme with three new councils again with a shortage of manpower. The money is needed immediately, as soon as they start operating.
We should like to know what the Government estimate, regardless of what happens when they examine the public expenditure survey. We have no indication of what the Government have in mind. It is still my view—I do not know whether it is the view of my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver—that we are sceptical of the Government's estimate. Can the Minister give any figure either for the joint committee or for the three regional committees? The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, will not be able to do his job if so much of the money is ring-fenced for the joint committee. I should like to hear a little more, because this will be the real test of whether we believe in this scheme.
Baroness Nicol: Before the Minister replies, does he recall that I asked on Monday whether the Government expected the new country councils to be ready to operate on 1st April 1991? I pointed out that it was estimated that considerably more staff would be needed in advance of that date. Can the Minister say whether staff are being recruited, and whether the Government are making extra money available to take on these new members of staff?
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I may return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady White, concerning the private sector. There is one survey, which is the PE consultancy survey. If the Government were operating this scheme in the private sector, there would be no question of their committing themselves to figures until all consultancy figures had been assessed.
As I pointed out to the noble Baroness, Lady David, two days ago the Treasury would not be impressed if my department approached them with a half-finished figure. That is the key. We are already spending £1·4 million more this year to make allowance for the extra costs involved. I am sure that we would not receive a very happy reception from the Treasury unless we arrived properly prepared with all the information to hand.
Lord Shackleton: The Minister has not answered my question. Could he give the figures of the PE study? I presume they are in the hands of his department.
Lord Hesketh: The department not only has figures for the PE study—which I do not have with me—but they also have figures which I referred to earlier regarding the Worldwide Fund for Nature. As I say, the department cannot make its assessment unless it has all the figures and not just some of them.
Baroness David: I thought that PE consultants were employed by the DoE. Is the department not going to pay attention to the people they employ? That seems to be rather a waste of money.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Baroness, Lady David, is right, but we have to have all the figures from all the consultants and not just some of them.
Baroness David: How many consultants are being employed?
Lord Shackleton: Perhaps the Minister needs a little time to obtain an answer on this topic. The Minister indicates three, but I do not know what that means. Perhaps his advisers know. The Government must have a figure. I am not interested in, and noble Lords are not standing by, the figures that various voluntary bodies have attempted to estimate. We congratulate them on that. We are looking at the official figures provided under the auspices of the Nature Conservancy Council. Does the Minister now have the figures?
Lord Hesketh: I thought the figure was three; but I was wrong, and I stand corrected. There are four consultants. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is referring to one. I am saying that the responsibility and onus on the department is to wait until we have the other three.
Lord Shackleton: Which are the other three?
Lord Hesketh: On this occasion I shall have to write to the noble Lord and inform him of the other three consultants.
Lord Shackleton: The purpose of a Committee stage is to examine the detail of these matters. I sympathise with the Minister. He has stood up extremely well to this badgering and I congratulate him on his courtesy and self control. But we should like to know what figures the Government have. If they could give the separate totals, it would be useful. We do not believe the Government will finance this change adequately.
Lord Hesketh: I do not believe that I can usefully add a great deal to what I have already said. The Government's record is 110 per cent. indicative of coming up with the goods. The Government have a responsibility to wait until all the information available to them is correct before they present it to the Treasury.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness White: Would it be helpful if we adjourn this debate until October? We can then discuss these matters more intelligently. We shall not finish the Bill before the end of July in any case because broadcasting takes precedence over the environment. I should have thought adjournment until October would be useful.
Lord Shackleton: We will then have the figures in the White Paper.
Lord Hesketh: The Government's view is very clear. We want to do something now for the benefit of conservation. If we adjourn this matter until October, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, suggests, we shall lose this part of the Bill for the benefit of conservation. We shall have to wait until there is time available to present a restructured Bill. I remind the noble Baroness of my remarks earlier this afternoon when I suggested that looking after the countryside of these fair islands depends on a continuous process of legislation. We would lose more than we would gain if we were to accept her suggestion.
Baroness White: October is the spill-over period. I am not suggesting that we wait until the Queen's Speech. I am willing to come back in September if necessary.
Lord Ross of Newport: The Minister has certainly kept his cool. This is a Chamber where we are not supposed to be rude to each other, but if a Member of the Opposition were putting forward this proposal, the first thing the Government would say would be, "What will it cost?" We are now told that the Government do not know what it will cost and we do not know whether the Treasury will come up with the goods.
It is true that the Government have been generous to the Nature Conservancy Council. However, they were not particularly generous two years ago; they actually cut its budget two years ago. It is only this past year that they have increased the budget, and I congratulate the present Secretary of State on that.
All noble Lords on this side of the Chamber, and many on the other side, are concerned that when the real facts are known and the Secretary of State goes to the Treasury, the Treasury will say no. It has all sorts of other problems to consider. It has to do with something about poll tax and housing. The Scottish Budget may be different. It sometimes appears that public money in Scotland and Wales is far more forthcoming than in England. It is time that the English stood up. I am certain that at the end of the day it will be the English side of nature conservancy and the Countryside Commission that will suffer.
I see that the chairman-elect is sitting opposite. I hope that he is pushing this point. He may have some information, and it may be that I am over-stressing the position; but I doubt it. All who have spoken in this debate are very anxious. We welcome the concessions that have been made. We want the scheme to work, but we are certain that

2177
it cannot work unless we see that the money is forthcoming.
I did not use the World Wildlife Fund figures. I spoke in terms of what we believe, and what has been leaked to a certain extent—quite honestly and without any actual quotes—from what one of the internal surveys has disclosed. We are now told that there are four consultants. Heaven knows what that is costing! That alone indicates to us that at least another £20 million or so will be needed. Would the Minister confirm or deny that figure?
Lord Hesketh: The only point that I can confirm or deny is that the PE survey was carried out for the Nature Conservancy Council and not for the department. Speaking of surveys generally, we have a further three. We have the common services, the IT and the joint committee unit. The first two are not yet complete. The figure of £20 million is a ridiculous sum for the cost of those surveys.
I must respond to the noble Lord by saying that responsible government depends on assessing the information. If the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is happily willing to proceed on the basis that it is responsible for the Government not to pay attention to figures not yet collated or added to, and if he feels that that is the proper way to handle the Government's business, then fine. But I do not agree.
Baroness Nicol: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ross, withdraws his amendment, if that is his intention, I remind the Minister that it is a year next Wednesday since the announcement was made. When were the investigations put in train? When were the consultants employed? How long has the investigation been going on? It seems to me that, 51 weeks after the announcement by the Secretary of State, we should have more information. It is unthinkable that we are still in such a vague state.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Perhaps I may add my voice here in regard to what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. The proposals have been considerably added to and changed. During the course of today's discussions we have encouraged and welcomed them. Therefore, the situation is not the same. I, for one, am satisfied that the Government have taken on board the fact that extra money will be necessary. I do not expect the Government to give exact figures today. If they tried to do that we might end up with less than we need. Therefore, it is not necessary to press the Government for exact figures at this stage.
Lord Ross of Newport: We know from the Bill that the cost to date will be between £1 million and £1·5 million. We have had the Minister's response that he believes it will be less than £20 million. If it is less than £20 million and if, as we suspect, the Treasury says that we can only have £X then undoubtedly the county councils will get the money. They will say that they need all the money in order to carry out their job. What will then happen to the joint committee? It will have to go back to the Secretary of State and say that it cannot operate with so little finance. For starters, it will not be able to pay for its 50 members of staff. The whole
2178
arrangement will start off on an appalling basis. That is why we are determined to have some definite information.
I did not want to divided the Committee to night. I did not think that it would be right. However, I honestly believe that I should now ask the Committee whether or not we have had a satisfactory answer.
8.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 344ZL) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 65.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Attlee, E.

McNair, L.

Blakenham, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Blease, L.

Moran, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Rochester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Shackleton, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hacking, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hampton, L.

White, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hesketh, L.

Arran, E.

Hives, L.

Balfour, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Lindsay, E.

Borthwick, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Norrie, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Burton, L.

Peel, E.

Caithness, E.

Radnor, E.

Caldecote, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Reay, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Renton, L.

Carnock, L.

Rochdale, V.

Carver, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Sharples, B.

Chorley, L.

Sherfield, L.

Cox, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Craigton, L.

Somerset, D.

Cranbrook, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Strange, B.

Donegall, M.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Flather, B.

Swinton, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Gisborough, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Walpole, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Henley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.59 p.m.
[Amendment No. 344ZM had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 344ZMA not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 344ZN:
Page 123, line 38, at end insert ("(including in particular conditions as to the use of the money for purposes of the joint committee)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 119, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 120 [Countryside functions of Welsh Council]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 344A:
Page 124, line 11, at end insert:
("(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) above the Countryside Council for Wales shall exercise their functions so as to—

(a) conserve and enhance the natural environment of Wales and

(b) improve and extend opportunities for public appreciation and enjoyment of the countryside and public access thereto for informal recreation in a manner consistent with subsection (3)(a) above.

(4) In discharging their functions the Countryside Council for Wales shall have regard to the desirability of promoting sustainable forms of social and economic development which conserve and enhance the natural environment of Wales.
(5) References in this section to the "natural environment" shall be construed as including references to the natural beauty of the countryside, fauna and flora and their habitats and geological and physiographical features.").
The noble Earl said: With Clause 120 we move to perhaps the slightly more peaceful waters of the Principality of Wales. I say that because I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has added his name to this amendment which is basically on much the same subject as we debated earlier this evening; namely, the wider countryside values being placed alongside those of pure nature conservancy. I am very glad that he had added his name to the amendment. It shows that there is no disagreement whatever here between the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council.
The two existing bodies are quite different in style of operation and size. The NCC is heavily science-based and devotes a great deal of time to designating, monitoring and managing sites of special scientific interest and national nature reserves, and in preparing management agreements. It works mainly on an executive basis through the use of its own staff and resources. But in contrast the commission covers a wider field of work, much of which is achieved through the agency of local authorities, voluntary bodies and the private owners of land, often with the incentive of grant aid.
Thus, while the commission has a permanent establishment in Wales of only 12 compared with the NCC's 93, the commission funds the appointment of nearly 150 countryside staff throughout the Principality. The commission's small team in Newtown is responsible for several hundred schemes where active work is going ahead to help farmers, the rural community and the general public to ensure that the natural beauty of Wales is protected.
This work covers not only nature conservation and the conservation of landscape features, but also the development of opportunities to enjoy the countryside through schemes as varied as national trails and picnic sites. In all its work the commission seeks to ensure that people can enjoy the countryside without interfering with the daily life and work of the rural communities who make their living from the land.
The new Countryside Council for Wales therefore has the opportunity to draw on the best and most successful aspects of the working methods of the commission and the NCC, as well as linking both conservation and recreation to the social and economic development of rural communities and strengthening its activities in urban areas. However, it is not enough just to transfer the existing remits from the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council to the new council.
The benefits of merger will only arise if these two approaches are completely integrated. In particular, it is essential that a proper balance is struck between countryside conservation and nature conservation; between landscape and nature conservation and public enjoyment of the countryside.
If these objectives are to be truly integrated and potential conflict avoided, there needs to be a complete fusing of the aims and objectives of the two existing organisations and the new unified body. To achieve that fusion it seems only common sense to replace the existing separate duties of the Countryside Commission and the NCC with a single, brief statement of purpose. Such a statement would provide the council, the staff and the general public with a point of focus. Its existence would encourage the abandonment of former loyalties for separate organisations and the early emergence of a new and coherent identity for the new Countryside Council for Wales.
Partly in response to these arguments, Ministers, in a Statement to Parliament on 6th March 1990, published draft forms of reference that will be the basis for discussion with the new Countryside Council for Wales. This Statement is welcomed, and in particular the emphasis that it gives to the commission's own responsibilities for conservation and enjoyment of the natural beauty of the countryside. However, a Ministerial Statement is not an adequate substitute for the proper statutory integration of responsibilities.
Moreover, the version published in March is lengthy and somewhat generalised. A short clause in the Bill containing a succinct exposition of the new council's remit and bringing together the main responsibilities of the council into a unified mandate would be much more effective. It would be more enduring than a Ministerial Statement. I need not remind Members of the Committee that, unfortunately, Ministers tend to come and go.
Incidentally, that argument found favour with the House of Lords' Select Committee on Science and Technology. It is on the basis of the draft referred to in the report prepared by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, that that amendment has been prepared.
More specifically, the amendment as drafted would make clear that the council should give equal weight to both the conservation of nature and landscape protection within the all-embracing term "natural environment". There is a well-founded fear that otherwise the narrower but more precise duties of nature conservation will take precedence over wider countryside interests. The amendment would make it clear that access to and enjoyment and appreciation of the countryside would be a primary duty of the council and that this should be pursued in a manner consistent with the council's conservation duty. It would encourage the council to adopt a positive approach to those forms of rural development which are good for the Welsh environment. It would thus also provide a test for those forms of development which it should oppose.
I believe that the new Countryside Council for Wales must have a clear and concise statutory remit. I consider that this amendment will greatly strengthen the new council and make it more effective. I beg to move.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I support this amendment for two reasons. First, it seems important that the new Countryside Council for Wales should have very clearly its own independent and somewhat unique terms of reference laid down on the face of the Bill. Secondly, it provides a particular definition, which has functions only within this clause, of the phrase "natural environment".
In general, the Bill has been criticised in a number of quarters for the wide range and variety of definitions of the term "environment" that appear in different and successive stages of the Bill. I admit that this amendment is yet another and to that extent it is somewhat awkward. Nonetheless, it is clear that for this particular clause the concept of natural beauty is something that amplifies and goes beyond and outside the conservation of
"fauna and flora and their habitats and geological and physiographical features".
That was the point that I raised earlier when it was not clear from the amendment proposed that natural beauty was an additional feature of the environment over and above the organisms and the substrata that constitute it. For those two reasons I support the amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am pleased to support the amendment. Perhaps it will take some of the sting out of the earlier debate. I am in favour of devolution and I wish the new Countryside Council for Wales every success. It has every chance of succeeding. I was asked by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to support the amendment. I am pleased to have been one of those who supported it.
Baroness White: I find myself in an awkward position. I think that I am the only almost pure Welsh Member in the Chamber. I had one Somersetshire great grandmother. Otherwise, I am to tally Welsh.
I am very glad indeed that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, introduced the amendment so comprehensively. He fully justified it in my opinion.
2182
It is a welcome amendment. It goes a good deal further than some people may have expected. It is absolutely on the right lines. If we are to have a Countryside Council for Wales it should be on the lines of this amendment. It is important that something should appear on the face of the Bill and that the matter should not be left to the generality of a parliamentary statement, which may or may not remain authoritative according to changes of Ministers, which are fairly frequent, or changes in government.
The amendment would give an auspicious start as the basis for the proposed Countryside Council for Wales. It goes into even more detail than I had frankly thought might be suggested by the noble Earl. He is entirely on the right lines, particularly when we are thinking primarily of rural Wales. In rural Wales our face is our fortune. The amendment would deal successfully with the situation.
I do not wish to detain the Committee. We have had long discussions on previous amendments. To the voluntary organisations in Wales with which I am associated this is a welcome proposition.
Lord Moran: I shall be very brief. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has put the case for the amendment very eloquently. As someone who lives in Wales, I congratulate him. He should now regard himself as an honorary Welshman like myself. Something on these lines is a valuable addition to the Bill. I hope very much that the Government will accept the amendment or something very much like it.
Lord Hesketh: Accept an amendment! I have listened very carefully to the speech of the noble Earl and to those of other noble Lords to see if I would better appreciate the arguments in support of the amendment. This is not the first time that the subject of a statutory mandate for the Countryside Council for Wales has been raised. The main proponents of the idea have been the Countryside Commission, of which the noble Earl is a member. I have seen some of its correspondence on the subject with the Minister of State for Wales, Sir Wyn Roberts.
I have to say that I am still not persuaded of the benefits of such a mandate, particularly in the terms now proposed. The amendment before us is firmly based on the suggested mandate submitted to the committee of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, by the Countryside Commission and recorded on page 71 of Part II of that report. I wrote to the noble Earl in June to point out that virtually all the key phrases in the commission's draft mandate are already in existing legislation.
I shall not detain the Committee by making all the comparisons but I should like to draw attention to the central part of the first paragraph of the amendment. It states that,
"the Countryside Council for Wales shall exercise their functions so as to—

(a) conserve and enhance the natural environment of Wales and

(b) improve and extend opportunities for public appreciation and enjoyment of the countryside and public access thereto for informal recreation".

2183
Let us compare that with Section 1(2) of the Countryside Act 1968 as it will read as amended by the Bill. It states:
"The functions conferred by this Act on the Commission and the Council are to be exercised for the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside in their respective areas, and encouraging the provision and improvement, for persons resorting to the countryside, of facilities for the enjoyment of the countryside and of open air recreation in the countryside".
The access point is covered by Section 2(2) of the same Act which, as amended by this Bill, will read:
"The Commission and the Council shall keep under review all matters relating to".
There follows a list. So the first part of the amendment is little more than a restatement of Section 1(2) and Section 2(2) of the 1968 Act in slightly different words. Subsection (4) of the amendment is very similar to Section 37 of the same Act and subsection (5) is based on Section 49(4) of the same Act.
The Bill is long enough without adding provisions which are already in existing legislation. I hardly need remind the Committee of the undesirability of making similar provisions in Acts in different words. Which version does one consider in the event of a dispute? To the extent that there is a difference between the two versions, it would mean that the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales would have different basic functions which might sow the seeds of confusion.
The Welsh Office accepts that the Countryside Council for Wales needs some guidance on its functions. A draft statement of policy has already been prepared and made public. Copies have been lodged in your Lordships' Library and it is open to anyone to comment on the draft statement before it is finalised. The document runs to five pages and gives the council a real framework upon which to build its policies.
I accept that the statement of policy is not enshrined in the legislation; but some would see this as a strength rather than a weakness as this enables it to be modified as policy develops over the years. There are strong grounds for thinking that a document of this description should not be set in concrete. Nevertheless, I recognise the strength of feeling on the issue and the underlying reasons for it. I am therefore willing to reconsider the question.
The Earl of Swinton: Like the Welsh dragon, the sting is in the tail. I am most grateful to those Members of the Committee who have supported me. This is a new Act of Parliament establishing a new authority in Wales and it seems to me to be most strange that we cannot write into the legislation exactly what it means. Instead, we have to refer to the Countryside Act 1968, only to find that it is amended by paragraph 2(2)(b) of Schedule VII to the Bill, and so on. Surely it would be much better to have this written on the face of the Bill. As I said, this is a new Bill which establishes a new authority and all this should be clearly written into the legislation. I hope that my noble friend will continue to do battle so that there will be rejoicing in the
2184
valleys. In view of the remarks made by my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 120 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Amendment of Enactments relating to Countryside Matters]:
9.15 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 345:
Page 172, line 16, after ("preservation") insert ("and enhancement").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 346 and 347. I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 345 and 346. The Countryside Commission's current responsibility is to enhance as well as to preserve natural beauty. I am sure that the Minister will wish that to continue.
I shall now deal with Amendment No. 347. Under Schedule 7, the Countryside Commissions for England and Wales must encourage and improve open-air recreation and nature study in the national parks. Those pleasures can, and usually do, conflict. But nowhere in the schedule has the commission power to say, "Not there!" in respect of either facility, and especially in respect of recreation.
The term "recreation" includes hikers, campers, motor-cyclists and those driving dune-buggies, and so on. Indeed, one never knows what will happen, or what disagreements may arise. Therefore, it seems wiser that the commissions should have, if necessary, a say in how an area is to be used or whether for a period of time it is not to be used. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I should like to say a few words about Amendments Nos. 345 and 346. If these amendments are not accepted, the work of the Countryside Commission and the new countryside councils will be confined simply to preserving the natural beauty of landscape. These bodies would be precluded from a wide variety of activities to enhance the landscape, such as amenity tree planting, and the creation of community parks, improving the community forests around cities and towns, and grant aiding country parks. I am sure that this omission must have been an oversight. I hope that the Government will accept these two amendments.
Earl Peel: As a matter of interest, is it possible to enhance natural beauty? Is it not finite?
The Earl of Swinton: I disagree. I am sure that my noble friend is enhancing the natural beauty of Swalesdale and much of the tree planting. That is what needs to be done here. I have seen what he is doing. I think that it is possible to enhance natural beauty. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment.
The Earl of Arran: Had it not been for my noble friend Lord Craigton and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, the Government would have laid these amendments before the Committee. We accept them with pleasure and alacrity.

2185
However, having said that, I turn now to deal with Amendment No. 347. While we appreciate the concern about our national parks which lies behind the amendment, it must be said that it introduces a number of problems. On the one hand, it might be argued that the amendment is not really necessary as the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales would scarcely encourage the provision or improvement of facilities in the national parks other than in areas which meet with their approval. On the other hand, it could perhaps be interpreted as meaning that any proposal for the provision or improvement of facilities in a national park which could conceivably be attributed to encouragement by the commission or council would have to be approved, so far as concerns the suitability of the site, by the commission or council.
To the extent that such proposals might require planning permission, that would need to be obtained from the national park committee or planning board and approval by the commission or council would introduce yet another level of control. To the extent that the proposal would not necessitate planning permission, we would not want to introduce a new form of control which would not apparently carry with it any rights of appeal.
In view of the reasons that I have outlined, I ask my noble friend and the noble Baroness not to press the amendments further this evening.
Lord Craigton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: It sounded as if my noble friend on the Front Bench was prepared to accept the first two amendments, in which case I had hoped that they would be moved. I understood that the third one was unsatisfactory.
The Earl of Arran: That is quite correct.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 346:
Page 172, line 20, after ("preservation") insert ("and enhancement").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 346A:
Page 172, line 22, after ("designated") insert ("under this Act").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 348B to 350A.
These are simple amendments. Amendment No. 346A is a minor drafting amendment. Amendment No. 348B merely corrects a minor grammatical error. Amendment No. 350A is a drafting amendment for the removal of any possible doubt. If any noble Lord seeks further information on the final amendment, I shall be only too glad to give it.
Baroness White: Perhaps I may ask a question about the amendment. Why is it necessary to insert "under this Act" for the designation of a national park? No doubt all noble Lords here to night know that an investigation into the future of national parks is proceeding. If by any chance there should be
2186
some suggestion of further designations, do we need further primary legislation in order to implement that?
A noble Lord: Wait for the White Paper!
The Earl of Arran: Perhaps I may help the noble Baroness on this amendment. It modifies paragraph 4 of Schedule 7 so that it makes clear that the consultation required of the Secretary of State before he determines national park supplementary grants is with the Countryside Commission as respects national parks in England and with the Countryside Council for Wales as respects national parks in Wales.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 347 not moved.]
Lord Walpole Lord Walpole moved Amendment No. 348:
Page 172, line 28, at end insert:
("(3) In this Act the word "natural" when applied to beauty, includes beauty which is not exclusively natural and beauty which arose as a by-product of archaeological features and buildings where they are intrinsic elements in the wider landscape").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 352.
This amendment, which is supported by the Council for British Archaeology, is designed to clear up and define more nearly the term "natural beauty" when applied to landscape. It seeks to include anthropogenic features—those features which have their origins in the activities of man. It was some six-and-a-half hours ago that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, suggested that everything in the country was under the influence of man anyway. Examples are probably not necessary at this time of night. It is more difficult to find genuine nature which is not interfered with by man in this country. We have already touched on the lack of consultation before the Bill came out. I feel that my amendment is the second best option for sorting out the problem. I shall be particularly interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
The proposal is aimed at ensuring that the new bodies are more aware of man's influence on the countryside. That is not to say that they are not aware of it at the moment. For instance, in the set-aside proposals of the Ministry of Agriculture, the premium scheme which is administered by the Countryside Commission allows certain topping-up moneys for habitat restoration, such as for wooded margins and similar improvements to the landscape. It does not in any way take into account archaeology, which is a pity. It might have been possible under set-aside arrangements to prevent people—as I suggested to the House last October—ploughing long barrows. It might stop people cultivating deserted medieval villages and might have taken out of cropping certain archaeological sites which await investigation.
I do not believe that the Government should be in any way nervous about the amendment. It seeks slightly to tip the balance towards archaeology. It seeks co-operation between the new bodies which are set up under the Bill and the existing bodies which are responsible for archaeology and will

2187
remain. I cannot see that any extra resources are involved, with the possible exception of time. The amendment seeks to prevent any duplication of effort. Above all, it seeks an integrated approach to the conservation of archaeological remains, wildlife habitats and management of the historic countryside.
Amendment No. 348 amends the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 with the words on the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 349 amends the Countryside Act 1968. As regards Schedule 8, Amendment No. 364 amends the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949; Amendment No. 365 amends the Countryside Act 1968; Amendment No. 367 amends the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Those amendments are put forward to fit in with the amendment proposed under Clause 121. I await the Minister's reply with interest. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I support the amendment for all the reasons that the noble Lord has given. It seems to me that the matters for discussion are similar to those raised during the passage of the Water Bill. At that time the Government were sympathetic to the principle. I hope that they will extend that sympathy to the noble Lord's amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: The intention in this series of amendments is to bring into the realm both of the new national nature conservancy agencies and bodies such as English Heritage a common interest in archaeological features. It is a truism in England to say that virtually all the environmental features which the Nature Conservancy Council today wishes to preserve are man-made. However, the purpose of Amendment No. 348 as the foundation to this series of amendments is to list the features as:
"a by-product of archaeological features and buildings".
My suggestion for the appropriate way forward would be not to take this as an amendment to the Bill but to look to the Nature Conservancy Council of today or its successors to reach an 'agreed statement of intent with the Council of British Archaeology or a similar body as regards sites of overlapping interest. The Nature Conservancy Council already has such existing statements of intent with bodies whose activities affect the conservation issues in the countryside. It has them, for instance, with the Ministry of Defence which manages many SSSIs in battle school areas, and also with the opencast executive. I believe that this is the appropriate way forward.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: We must admit that we find the first amendment a little confusing as it purports to define the word "natural", whereas it really defines the words "natural beauty". This also leads to an unsatisfactory cross-reference in the second amendment.
It is doubtful whether the amendment would serve any real purpose as the Countryside Commission and national park authorities already take account of archaeological features and buildings in the countryside for the very reasons referred to in the
2188
amendment; namely, that they are intrinsic elements in the landscape. We are sure the Countryside Council for Wales will adopt the same approach when it assumes its responsibilities. Similarly, they take account of beauty which is not exclusively natural. Indeed it would be difficult for them to do otherwise as there are few areas of this country which are not significantly influenced by man, especially through his agricultural activities. There is also a danger that the amendment might be contrived as limiting the scope of the term "natural beauty" in the context of archaeological features and buildings in a way which may be undesirable. How does one decide, for example, whether an archaeological feature or a building is an intrinsic element in the wider landscape? We may well be creating problems where none exists.
There is a danger that the amendment will be seen as placing a responsibility on these bodies for archaeological features which would conflict with the functions of Cadw in Wales and English Heritage. As the present wording has applied for over 40 years without causing any problems we would ask the noble Lord if he would withdraw this amendment and the following one which flows from it, as we fear they could cause more problems that they would solve.
Amendments Nos. 352, 364, 365 and 367 seek to extend the definition of nature conservation and would widen the remit of the NCC to notify SSSIs and declare nature reserves for archaeological reasons. In the Government's view it would be inappropriate to convey an archaeological remit on the new councils that they would not have the competence to fulfil. However, we would be quite happy to give the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, an assurance that the NCC is prepared to agree a joint statement of intent with English Heritage over the management of land notified as a site of special scientific interest to ensure that their interests are fully taken into account so that no feature of anthropogenic interest is damaged—subject of course to the primacy of nature conservation interests. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendment.
Lord Walpole: No doubt we shall be able to see the statement of intent before we come to Report stage. With the assurance that I have been given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 348A:
Page 172, line 28, at end insert:
("(3) The Commission and the Council shall have powers to apply to the county court for an order for the removal of unlawful buildings, fences or other works on common land and the restoration of the land to the condition in which it was before the work was erected or constructed.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 363A. Both Amendment No. 363A and Amendment No. 348A have essentially the same purport. One of the amendments falls in Schedule 7, and the other in Schedule 8. Both amendments have the intention of

2189
righting an ancient wrong. Under the Law of Property Act 1925 the only people who can take action in the courts when someone erects a building, fence or other construction on common land without consent are county councils, district councils, the lord of the manor and any other person who has an interest in the common—for example, a registered commoner.
Lords of the manor and registered commoners are hardly likely to take action as very often they will be the people responsible for erecting the building, fence, car park or other construction. Although county councils and district councils may well be pressed by people who want to use the common land and their rights to the common land, they have other matters to deal with and they may not necessarily act on requests from ordinary people to protect common land.
This problem was recognised by the Common Land Forum in its 1986 report. The solution proposed by that body was that county councils should have a duty to take action in the courts against infringements, and that the public should have the power to take action against infringements. That recommendation of the Common Land Forum in 1986 found a place in the Conservative manifesto in 1987. One would have thought that when there was an opportunity for it to come before your Lordships' House in this Bill the Government would have sought to adhere to their 1987 manifesto and bring in such a provision. However, they have not done so and therefore it is up to us to seek to preserve the purity of Conservative policy.
We have not done so in exactly the form of the amendment which the Common Land Forum wanted because we are dealing with the powers of the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales. We propose a very modest alternative which provides that the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales should be added to the list of those who can take action in the courts against infringements of public rights on common land.
In case anyone should think that this is a purely theoretical matter, the Open Spaces Society has a considerable list of infringements on common land, both in England and in Wales. They relate particularly to fencing but also to car parks and sometimes barns, go-kart tracks or sheds. There have been quite a number of different infringements of common land. The existing law is not adequate to deal with the matter. I hope that these modest amendments will find favour with the Committee and the Government and help to put things right. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: I do not wish to appear pedantic, but there is a rather important point that I should like to put to the noble Lord regarding the amendment. It concerns the comma that comes after the word "buildings". Its presence could cause it to be construed that the adjective "unlawful" refers only to buildings and does not refer to "fences and other works". If that is the case it would imply that any fence or any work could be dealt with through the commission of the council applying to the county
2190
court for an order. We must make it absolutely clear that there are certain fences and other works which are perfectly legal on common land. It is a drafting question, but if there is any doubt at all about the matter then the amendment is technically incorrect.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can only respond to that by saying that there are commas in Section 194(1) of the 1925 Act.
Lord Moran: I should like to give my strong support to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on this amendment. It is extremely important that the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales should have those powers. There is a good deal of unlawful building on commons, certainly in my part of Wales. The Open Spaces Society had identified two cases in Powys and there may be many more. It is very important that the point should be covered. If there is a defect in the amendment as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has suggested, I am sure that it can be corrected because if is obviously important that the wording is correct. In general I support the amendment very strongly.
Lord Reay: Section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925 provides for the relevant county, borough or district council, the lord of the manor or any other person interested in the common (which means a person with a legal interest in the common, such as a commoner) to apply to the appropriate county court for an order for the removal of any building or fence erected or other work constructed on certain common land without the consent of the Secretary of State where that consent is required by the section.
The intention of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in putting down the amendment is clearly to add the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales to the list of those who can apply to the county court for such an order. Amendment No. 363A specifically adds those two bodies to Section 194(2) of the 1925 Act. Amendment No. 348A in itself is unsatisfactory in that it creates uncertainty as to the meaning of the word "unlawful" in this context. Moreover, a county court order under Section 194 carries with it a right of appeal to the High Court but an order under this amendment would not do so.
The noble Lord's other amendment, Amendment No. 363A, better achieves his purpose, if I may say so. However, even though it is technically an improvement we still should not want to accept it. The Government consider that there is already adequate access to the country court. Although the commission and the council have no direct access to apply for an order it is open to them, as it is to anybody else who considers that an order should be issued, to ask the appropriate local authority, the lord of the manor or a person with a legal interest in the common to make an application to court.
This Bill is not the proper vehicle for making piecemeal amendments to the legislation on common land, which is a very complex subject. It is the Government's intention to introduce comprehensive commons legislation when

2191
parliamentary time permits, and that would be a better occasion on which to consider such a change. This measure has nothing to do with NCC reorganisation and in our view reorganisation legislation is not the right vehicle for it. In view of those remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am prepared to be told that Amendment No. 348A is defective in drafting terms, and I reserve the right to come back with a better draft. So far as concerns Amendment No. 363A, the Government have made clear that they will not now adhere to their manifesto commitment. We shall certainly seek an opportunity to take this matter further when we come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 348B:
Page 173, line 36, leave out ("it applies") and insert ("they apply").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 349 and 349A not moved.]
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 350:
Page 175, line 6, at end insert:
("(h) there shall be inserted a new subsection as follows—
"(10) The Commission may oppose Bills in Parliament or may oppose applications for orders, byelaws, schemes or awards to be made under any Act." ").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 353, which is a related amendment. Amendment No. 353 is in fact my major interest but the two amendments are closely related.
As the Committee very well knows, in England and Wales late developers have used private Bills to promote developments. Several of those developments have affected SSSIs and the Nature Conservancy Council has therefore become involved in the private Bill procedure. At one stage the NCC commented on the proposals in private Bills by means of reporting through its parent department but that procedure does not allow the Nature Conservancy Council's representatives to appear before Select Committees on private Bills to present their own evidence with greater force. Therefore the NCC sought to petition, regarding that as a more effective method to make its views known on the issues covered by private Bills.
In 1986 the Private Bill Office in the House of Commons wrote to the Department of the Environment saying that the House authorities would not object in principle to petitions from statutory amenity bodies on private Bills. Subsequently the department made the rule that the NCC must decide whether it is to petition or to present its views through the department. If the NCC is not granted locus to petition by the House authorities, the facility to report through the department is no longer available.
However, in law at present there is no explicit power for the NCC in this respect. When the NCC petitioned the King's Cross Railway Bill, the promoters—British Rail—challenged the petition on the basis, among other grounds, that the NCC had no powers to petition Private Bills. English Heritage, which was also petitioning, was similarly challenged. In that case the NCC withdrew its petition. English Heritage was denied locus standi and was unable to petition.
The Countryside Commission is in a similar position. The NCC, English Heritage and the Countryside Commission all have an interest in acquiring the power to become involved in private Bills. They are faced equally with the situation that their petition with regard to a private Bill may be challenged on the basis that they lack explicit powers.
Amendment No. 350 seeks to establish the vires of the Countryside Commission. It is an amendment to Schedule 7. Amendment No. 353 inserts a clause on the face of the present Bill with regard to the Nature Conservancy Council. The effect of the amendments is to give both the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council explicit power to oppose private Bills. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: The noble Earl has made clear that his amendment is intended to refer to private Bills but not to any public Bill. Perhaps the position should be clarified so that the amendment refers to "private Bills" instead of merely "Bills".
I believe that the amendment would be strengthened if it were to read,
"The Commission may support or oppose private Bills in Parliament or promote amendments".
I can imagine circumstances in which the body felt that opposing a Bill might not be feasible but would like it amended. Therefore, power not merely to oppose but to promote amendments might be helpful.
Perhaps I may suggest that, provided my noble friends on the Front Bench feel that there should be an amendment along these lines, my noble friend might withdraw the amendment and table a fresh amendment at Report stage dealing with those matters that I have mentioned.
The Earl of Swinton: I support what both my noble friends have said. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook has put the case which also worries the Countryside Commission. Procedurally if my noble friend accepts the amendment, I shall not be worried if it is amended at a later stage. If it is in the Bill it can be amended later. I am not unhappy at the suggestion by my noble friend Lord Renton that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook withdraws the amendment and returns with a revised version later.
Baroness Nicol: I support the amendments. The use of private Bills as development measures has increased dramatically in the past few years. It has been remarked on many occasions that by such a measure proper investigation of possible environmental damage is often avoided. I believe

2193
that the provision would be very useful. I hope that the Minister is prepared to accept the amendment, if not in these terms in some other form.
Lord Campbell of Croy: While my noble friend prepares his reply perhaps I may add my voice. The right to petition is very widespread in this country. So far as I know—and my noble friend may confirm this—individuals have that right. Clearly there has been some doubt as to whether those bodies come direct to a Select Committee of Parliament for opposed private legislation or whether they come to the Department of the Environment. It would be best for the matter to be cleared up.
Baroness White: I believe I am right in saying that there are now steps to reduce the number of private Bills. However, there will still be private Bill procedures. I hope that the amendment will be helpful even if it needs redrafting.
Lord Hesketh: I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling these amendments and so giving me an opportunity to explain what powers non-departmental public bodies, including the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission, already have in relation to petitioning against private Bills and promoting Bills.
The position on private Bills is quite clear. The House authorities have confirmed that the NCC and other non-departmental public bodies are able to petition against private Bills, subject to certain conditions. These are, essentially, that a petition must be made in an independent capacity and not as advisers to the Secretary of State; and that in each case the NDPB should be able to satisfy the Court of Referees, or the appropriate committee in your Lordships' House, that it has a genuine interest affected by the Bill.
As for promoting Bills, it is not the policy to allow government bodies—even non-departmental ones—to promote matters that affect public interest. The procedure is for the NDPB to advise the relevant department, which would then deal with the matter through a public Bill if it were found necessary.
2194
I very much hope that my noble friend considers that a satisfactory explanation and that, as a consequence, he will not press these amendments.
Lord Renton: Can my noble friend make it clear that the right to petition also includes the right to promote amendments?
The Earl of Cranbrook: I wish to draw my noble friend's attention to the fact that recently the Nature Conservancy Council has been involved in several petitions. It was involved in the petition on the Cardiff Bay barrage, which will result in the loss of the Taff-Ely SSSI. Many other barrages are proposed for British estuaries, including the Severn, which will affect the SSSIs. It is always possible that the private Bill procedure will be used in such cases. The NCC was involved in petitioning against a Bill to reopen the Montgomery Canal which affected a nationally important wetland SSSI. There is also the problem of hybrid Bills, which perhaps I should have mentioned earlier. The NCC petitioned against the Channel Tunnel Bill. It appears likely that the second Severn crossing will also be a hybrid Bill against which the NCC is likely to be interested in petitioning.
Lord Hesketh: The answer to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Renton is yes.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Surely that part of a hybrid Bill which is considered to be private legislation is normally treated in exactly the same way as a private Bill. I hope that there is no doubt on that score.
Lord Hesketh: The answer to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy is also yes.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Having heard that helpful statement from my noble friend on the Front Bench, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 350A:
Page 176, line 25, leave out from ("inserted") to second ("and") and insert ("the words "(as respects National Parks in England) and the Countryside Council for Wales (as respects National Parks in Wales)" ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 121 [Nature conservation functions: preliminary]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 350B:
Page 124, line 16, after ("conferred") insert ("on them").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 350C:
Page 124, line 24, after ("may") insert ("after consultation in each case with the Councils").
The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 351B. This is a slightly more complicated issue. The effect of the amendment would be that, prior to issuing a direction under Clause 121(4), consultation should be carried out with each of the three councils prior to the issue of any direction, and that, when a direction is issued, there will be a statutory requirement that a council shall provide particulars in its annual report of the direction received.
At present the Secretary of State is enabled by the 1981 Act to give the NCC specific directions only in relation to grants, loans and certain other matters relating to direct expenditure. Clause 121(4) extends that power of specific direction to other functions of the councils, including the establishment, maintenance and management of nature reserves, advice to Ministers, advice and dissemination of knowledge about nature conservation and the commissioning of, and support for, research.
The reason given for the extension of specific directions is that the power to give directions of a general character is, in practice, so draconian in effect that for all practical purposes the Secretary of State would not use it. If he is to have a usable power, it needs to be specific.
That power of direction does not apply to functions listed in Schedule 8. That means that it does not apply to, for example, the notification of SSSIs, management agreements, the declaration of national nature reserves, licensing or the quinquennial review of protected animals or plants. However, it would apply to such matters as land acquisition for nature reserve purposes, grants and loans, advice to the Secretary of State and all research.
That power of direction would enable different directions to be given to different councils on the same or different issues. Therefore in practice the exercise of that power could lead to distortions in the development of the manner in which nature
2196
conservation is delivered in the three countries. Exceptionally, such directions might be necessary. However, to help ensure that distortions do not occur as a result, before any direction is given consultation with each of the councils should be undertaken to allow them the opportunity of making representations about the proposal. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I understand that we are discussing also my Amendments Nos. 351, 358 and 360. I should like to introduce them briefly, because they are complementary to my noble friend's amendment, which I support.
Amendment No. 358 seeks to restrict directions to the country councils to matters of finance and new work. In brief, that returns to the situation of control which the Secretary of State has over the Nature Conservancy Council instead of the very much wider power of direction of both a general and specific nature which is given to the Secretary of State under Clause 121 as drafted. I do not believe that anybody will accuse me, after this afternoon's debate, of being excessively jealous of the terms of reference of the country councils. However, in this respect, I believe that they must be protected against what is virtually a statement that the Secretary of State can do what he likes. That is what it comes to.
Amendment No. 358 is a comparable amendment in Clause 123. It is intended to protect the independence of the joint committee in its dealings with the Secretary of State and it removes the power which the Secretary of State would have under the Bill as drafted to move functions back from the joint committee to the country councils.
We have been discussing in considerable detail the relationship between the joint committee and the country councils. It would be fairly pointless if, as a result of our discussion, we reached the conclusion about what should be the balance between the country councils and the joint committee and then find that the Secretary of State—and I repeat the phrase—has the power to do what he likes after the Bill has been passed.
Amendment No. 360 would give the joint committee a direction-making power operated in concert with the country councils although ultimately applicable to such a council. That is not unrestricted. The amendment sets out four areas in which such a direction-making power would be appropriate. They relate to the application or improvement of common standards in relation to SSSIs, NNRs, AONBs or national parks; the designation of sites in those categories which do not fall wholly within the boundaries of one of the country councils—not, I hasten to say, designation in general; the determination and maintenance of common standards in relation to information and statistics concerning wildlife and conservation, and the development of conservation policies in respect of which action is being, or in the opinion of the joint committee ought to be, taken by more than one of the country councils. The amendment should say "country councils" and not "county councils" as appears in the Marshalled List.

2197
It will be clear from what I have just said that the amendment is not seeking to give executive powers to the joint committee. The amendment is restricted to the maintenance or improvement of common standards. The only executive powers which are appropriate are those where an area such as an SSSI crosses a country boundary or where, in the opinion of the joint committee, action should be taken by more than one country council. It could be that the SSSI is entirely within the area of one country, but has an effect on the nature conservation in another country. Both of those cases are very restrictive and need not occur very frequently. But I hope the Committee will feel that they complement and add to the case made by my noble friend Lady Nicol.
10 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I should like some clarification of Amendment No. 360, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred. It is clear that there are three misprints. He stumbled on one, but "county councils" is referred to three times. I am sure that it is meant to be "country councils". It is important because if it were county councils it could not apply to Scotland. There are no counties in Scotland. The equivalent of a county council in Scotland is a regional council. Before we continue with the debate that should be made clear. I hope I am right in thinking that in each case where "county councils" appears it should read "country councils".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord is correct. The amendment is intended to refer to country councils wherever the phrase "county councils" is printed.
The Earl of Cranbrook: We recognise that it is important, in order to carry out nature conservation under the proposed system, that we should be protected against distortions in the different ways in which different councils will operate. The two amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, examine possible distortions through directions given by the Secretary of State.
We must also recognise that in this Bill the Secretary of State has extended powers of such direction, greater than exist in the Act of 1981. It is regarded as important not only among the voluntary conservation organisations but also within the Nature Conservancy Council that the future delivery of nature conservation within the United Kingdom should be free of the kinds of distortions which can arise. The consultation process which the noble Baroness seeks to implant would be a protective weapon to prevent such distortions and therefore has my support.
Lord Hesketh: Government Amendment No. 351A makes clear that any reference to the councils in this clause includes the JNCC. For example, the JNCC will have to take account of ecological changes. The amendment also makes clear that directions may be given by the Secretary of State to the joint committee.
Baroness Nicol: Perhaps the noble Lord could speak more slowly. I cannot understand the gist of what he is saying.
Lord Hesketh: Government Amendment No. 351A makes clear that any reference to the councils in this clause includes the JNCC. For example, the JNCC will therefore have to take account of ecological changes. The amendment also makes clear that the directions may be given direct by the Secretary of State to the joint committee in respect of any of the joint functions except those under Clause 123(1)(aa) which include specific duties such as preparing advice on endangered British species under the quinquennial review where it would be inadvisable for the Secretary of State to have a reserve power of direction. The direction power is important as a reserve measure. We hope that it never has to be used but it is the sensible answer to the theoretical possibilities of disputes arising between the councils and the JNCC and much to be preferred over attempts to build in detailed statutory "umpiring" in advance. Although the Select Committee would have preferred to see a specific power for the joint committee to resolve disputes—which the Government cannot accept on legal or policy grounds—I hope that the Committee will recognise that the amendment goes a considerable way towards meeting the spirit of the recommendation.
Subsection (4) enables the Secretary of State to give the council (and now also the joint committee) for which he is responsible directions of a general or specific character concerning the discharge of their functions under Clauses 122 to 124. With the exception of those in Clause 122(1)(a) and Clause 123(1)(aa) the subsection will replace two existing direction-making powers in the current NCC legislation. The first, in Section 1(6) of the 1973 Act, covers all NCC functions in Section 1(1)(a) of that Act. The second, in Section 38(5) of the 1981 Act, covers grant- and loan-making powers in that section.
There is often provision of a direction-making power when public bodies are established. Although other similar provisions have sometimes contained a requirement that the body concerned should comply with any direction it received, this is considered to be unnecessary. The implication of a power to issue directions is that the body must comply with it. The subsection does not allow the Secretary of State to give directions in relation to the conservation functions which councils will exercise under various enactments by virtue of Clause 122(1)(a), Clause 123(1)(aa) and Schedule 8. This is consistent with the approach and direction-making powers adopted in the 1973 Act which did not apply to the functions exercised by the NCC under outlying legislation. Such powers are thought to be unnecessary and, in some cases, inconsistent with the enactments themselves where a role is already exercised by Ministers as well as the NCC.
Amendment No. 350C would require the Secretary of State to consult the councils before issuing a direction. It is a change which the NCC itself is seeking. Consultation is perfectly reasonable as a working assumption on how things would

2199
normally happen if the reserve power was invoked. However, mandatory consultation, as proposed in this amendment, would make it impossible for the Secretary of State to say "cease this action" immediately; for example, if he felt that a council was acting improperly over a grant to a private individual or organisation. The normal practice in the case of this kind of provision is that consultation is not a compulsory requirement. I hope that the noble Baroness will therefore resist the temptation to press her amendment.
I now turn to Amendment No. 351 put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. This would restrict the direction-making power to financial matters or policy innovations and undermine its value as a reserve power, which I have already mentioned. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government have no intention of intervening unnecessarily. Indeed, we hope the power never has to be used, but it seems unwise to draft it in such a limiting way that it could not be used successfully if a real justification arose.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, seeks through Amendment No. 351B to require any council which receives a direction to publish the details in its annual report. Once again, I can see the attractions of this and in practice there is nothing to stop the council from publishing the entire direction in its annual report if it so wishes. However, I am again not persuaded that we need to make this a mandatory requirement, even though the Countryside Commission has been under such a remit since 1949. More recent legislation does not often make it mandatory and with good reason. For example, if a direction referred to impropriety which became a matter for the courts, or concerned a matter that was later resolved between the council and the Minister, I cannot see why the council should be under a compulsion to parade its dirty washing for the record. Again, that seems to be a matter where common sense and discretion should prevail.
I hope that Amendment No. 358 will not be pressed because it is essential that the Secretary of State should be able to direct a single country council to exercise Clause 123 functions as part of the safety net against the possibility of disputes. Indeed, the power will probably be invoked before the wider powers of direction in Clause 121.
The element in Amendment No. 360 is the draconian power given to the joint committee to issue directions to the country councils in relation not only to site designation but also to licensing and even policy formulation. Members of the Committee will know why I am sceptical about introducing dogs into the debate on any part of this Bill. I have to say that the effect of this amendment will be to undermine the entire Bill by relegating the country councils to mere poodles of their own committees. The other detailed matters mentioned in this amendment, such as the provision for cross-boundary designation, data standards and habitat designation guidelines, are already dealt with in the Bill as it stands or in the government amendments that we have already put forward. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Ross of Newport: I hope that I have not missed something. This may be a very naive question: who will carry out the quinquennial review which is due next year? Will it be done by the joint committee or by the individual country councils working together?
Lord Hesketh: I am reliably informed that it will be done by the joint committee.
Baroness Nicol: The Minister's reply to Amendment No. 350C was even more complicated than my introduction of it. I shall need to read very carefully what he has said. As regards Amendment No. 351B, we should have used "may" instead of "shall". However, I wish to look at that matter again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 351 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 351A:
Page 124, line 27, at end insert:
("( ) Any reference in this section to the Councils includes a reference to the joint committee and, accordingly, directions under subsection (4) above may be given to the joint committee as respects any of the functions dischargeable by them (other than under section 123(1A)(aa).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 351E and 352 not moved.]
Clause 121, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 122 (General functions of the Councils]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 352A:
Page 124, line 33, leave out from ("the") to end of line and insert ("Acts amended by").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 352B, 352C and 354B. These are simple and straightforward amendments to improve or correct the drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 352B and 352C:
Page 124, line 35, leave out ("to those enactments").
Page 124, line 44, leave out ("other person") and insert ("persons").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 352D:
Page 125, line 3, at end insert:
("and, the Councils shall, in discharging their functions under this section, have regard to any advice given to them by the joint committee under section 123(2) below.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 353A and 353B. Once again, this group of amendments stems from commitments given in the Government's response to the Select Committee of your Lordships' House. In response to Recommendation 4.16, we undertook to make it clear that the joint nature conservation committee could give advice to country councils, and that the country councils

2201
would be placed under a reciprocal duty to have regard to such advice. The amendments in fact deliver the latter part of that undertaking.
The former will be covered by Amendment No. 356ZA to Clause 123. Amendment No. 353B also clarifies the powers for the councils to give information or advice to the JNCC. These changes are important because they remove any doubts which may have existed about the powers for the bodies to exchange information and for the JNCC to be able to give advice to the country councils. It is advice, and not instructions. There is a delicate balance here between placing the JNCC in an overbearing position, which would be against the Government's devolutionary policy, and giving it no influence at all. I should like to believe that we have the balance right.
Lord Carver: I have certain reservations about the amendment. Taken together with Amendment No. 356ZA it appears to weaken the Bill as published. Perhaps I may refer again to Recommendation 4.5 of the Select Committee that the joint committee should be strong enough to drive forward the cause of nature conservation at a national level. Clause 123(2) of the Bill states:
"No function falling within subsection (1) above shall be exert sable except—
(a) through the discharge of that function by a committee of the Councils (to be known as the Joint Committee)".
I am no lawyer and I am therefore hesitant to know exactly what "have regard to any advice" means. I know what it might mean if someone gave me advice and I had regard to it. I would courteously accept it and then I would decide what to do on my own. To amend the Bill by saying that the joint committee may give advice and that the council shall,
"in discharging their functions under this section, have regard to any advice given to them",
is a weakening of the position in the original Bill. The Bill stated:
"No function falling within subsection (1) above shall be exercisable except".
I am concerned that this could be interpreted as a weakening of the relationship between the joint committee and the country councils. With this issue we come to the heart of the whole reason for the joint committee. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain why this change was made. The original wording seemed all right. Can he assure the Committee that "having regard to any advice" really means that the councils will act on that advice?
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may presume to try to allay the doubts of the noble and gallant Lord with regard to the meaning of the words in this context "have regard to any advice". I suggest that it means that the councils are obliged to receive and consider any advice given but that they are not obliged to follow it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble and gallant Lord and other noble Lords will no doubt remember the opening chapter of G. K. Chesterton's The Napoleon of Notting Hill in which he describes the favourite English game—I think it was an English
2202
game rather than a British game—of cheat the prophet. What the English people do, says Chesterton, is to receive the prophet with a great deal of reverence, listen with great care to what he says and go away and do something else. I fear that the noble and gallant Lord has it right and that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has confirmed it. It is not a strong enough phrase. There is too much scope for ignoring the advice given.
I am also concerned by the weakening in Amendment No. 353B which makes it clear that the country councils are free to give advice or information to the joint committee about any matter relating to any of the functions dischargeable by them. What it does not say, and what it surely ought to say, is that they ought to be obliged to comply with reasonable requests for information and advice from the joint committee. If the joint committee is to fulfil the functions set out in the Government's own amendments let alone in the report of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, it should be considering matters which cover the interests of more than one country. In order to consider those matters it would necessarily, because of the limitations on its staff and resources in its terms of reference, be seeking information from the country councils. The Bill should contain a provision that the country councils should meet such reasonable requests. However, this is perhaps a matter to which we should return at a later stage.
Lord Hesketh: I can bring two points to bear on the Committee. One is anecdotal and the other is factual. I believe that there is a slight misunderstanding over the original wording, which relates only to the special functions. Those may still only be exercised through the joint committee. However, the requirement to have regard relates to all the other functions of the country councils; that is, those in Clause 122. That is a substantial extension of the joint committee's powers in relation to the original context to which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, referred.
I do not wish to run the risk of repeating myself as regards the noble and gallant Lord, but for the benefit of the Committee I must say that I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for his apt description in respect of the words "have regard". However, I should point out to Members of the Committee that many are the times I have been sent in to bat at this Dispatch Box to resist on pain of death the inclusion of those words in an amendment put forward by the Benches opposite in respect of other Bills which have come before this Chamber.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 353 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 353A and 353B:
Page 125, line 18, after first ("Councils") insert ("(a)").
Page 125, line 20, at end insert ("; or
(b) from giving advice or information to the joint committee about any matter relating to any of the functions dischargeable by them.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 122, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 123 [Special functions of Councils]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 353C:
Page 125, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 23 and insert ("The Councils shall jointly have the following functions which may, however, be discharged only through the joint committee; and in this section the functions so dischargeable are referred to as "special functions".
(1A) The special functions of the Councils are—
(aa) such of the functions previously discharged by the Nature Conservancy Council under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as are assigned to the Councils jointly as special functions in accordance with the amendments to that Act effected by Schedule 8 to this Act;").
The noble Lord said: This is a very important group of government amendments which will transform the drafting of Clause 123, covering the special or joint functions of the councils, in a way which is consistent with our response to the report. They have not been particularly easy to draft because we have to maintain the essential principle that the Joint Nature Conservation Committee is not to be an independent quango in its own right. In preparing the final version of those and other related amendments to be tabled, I have had the benefit of discussions with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and with the Nature Conservancy Council. I believe that they recognise the strides which we have made towards improving this part of the Bill in a way which will help conservation and the maintenance of our science base.
The key to this group, and the Government's approach to Clause 123, lies in Amendment No. 353C. This makes it clear that the special functions, including those for nature conservation at a national and global level, are to be vested jointly in the three councils. The councils are then required to carry out their joint functions through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, whose composition and construction are to be modified in line with the recommendations made by the Select Committee through the new schedule which we have already agreed.
There is then an addition via Amendments Nos. 353C, 366H and 366J to the joint functions under Clause 123(1). The amendments will deliver undertakings made by government in another place that the duty of the NCC to give advice to Ministers about species in danger of extinction in Great Britain under Sections 22(3) and 24 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 will become a joint responsibility to be exercised through the JNCC. That includes the quinquennial review, which will thus be overseen by the JNCC in future.
The next import change is to the geographical definition of the JNCC's remit. At present, the Bill requires it to give advice about nature conservation,
"in Great Britain or elsewhere".
We are changing this via Amendments Nos. 353D and 354C to read:
"for Great Britain as a whole or nature conservation outside Great Britain"
to make it clearer that the JNCC's role is to look at the sum of the parts, and at the international dimension. Amendment No. 356ZA then gives a definition of Great Britain as a whole which is deliberately designed to encompass the JNCC's role
2204
in giving advice to the country councils about issues which are common to all three countries as well as issues which are of national or international importance.
I know that there has been concern to ensure that the JNCC is empowered to issue guidelines to the country councils about the criteria for the designation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. That work falls exactly within the defintion of a common issue under subsection 123(3)(b) of Amendment No. 356ZA. I can also assure the committee that Professor Sir Fred Holliday and his shadow committee are quite clear that they will take over responsibility from the NCC for site designation guidelines, not just for SSSIs but for sites of national and international importance too, including National Nature Reserves and international designations under the Ramsar and Berne Conventions.
I have already mentioned the other main innovation in this group—the inclusion in Amendment No. 356ZA of a new duty on the JNCC to give advice to the country councils about matters arising in connection with their country functions under Clause 122. That is not designed to encourage the JNCC to second-guess the country councils on country issues, but to provide a locus for the committee to give advice or information if it thinks that it is sensible to do so.
Finally, I should mention Amendment No. 355ZAB, which will clarify the JNCC's role in setting monitoring and research standards throughout Great Britain. That is an important role and one which we believe can be more effectively carried out by the JNCC than by the NCC at present, as the JNCC will include special support staff to oversee standards for peer review and the collection of data in each area on a compatible basis. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: This group of amendments is the most complicated and difficult to follow of any group of amendments that we have had to consider under the Bill. Although I tried hard to concentrate on the lengthy and rapid explanation which my noble friend gave, I am none the wiser. I tried to work them through before my noble friend spoke and I shall naturally read with interest what he has said. It is an extremely complicated matter. It might not matter so much but for its importance. We are dealing here with the functions of the reconstituted bodies and we must understand what is happening.
Having made those general observations, I have only one detailed observation to make. One could take up a great deal of what remains of tonight in going into too much detail. With regard to Amendment No. 353C, will my noble friend explain the significance of the word "assigned"? The amendment reads:
"such of the functions previously discharged by the Nature Conservancy Council under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as are assigned to the Councils jointly as special functions in accordance with the amendments to that Act effected by Schedule 8 to this Act".
By whom are these functions assigned? Quite frankly, they do not appear to be assigned by the Bill at all. I have looked at Schedule 8. Perhaps I have

2205
not looked thoroughly enough—it is very long—but I cannot find a reference to the assignment of these functions. Perhaps my noble friend will explain how they are assigned, by whom and by what method. Then one might begin to understand this group of amendments.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Perhaps I may ask for clarification on how many amendments we are taking. From my copy of the grouping list, it looks as though there is an indented second line which includes Amendment No. 355ZAC in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I want to be clear whether we are taking a group of two lines, as appears in the grouping list, and whether that includes the official Opposition amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is quite right; we are taking two lines. The group includes my Amendment No. 355ZAC as well as my amendments on the first of the two lines, Amendments Nos. 355AZB and 355AZC. I wish to speak to those three amendments.
Perhaps I may start by saying that if the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is none the wiser from a study of the government amendments, what hope is there for the rest of us? Like him, I have looked at the existing drafting of Clause 123 and the new draft particularly of Amendment No. 353C. I fail to see what substantive difference there is between them. Clause 123, as printed, provides for the special functions which are listed in subsection (1). Subsection (2) states that—and we go in for double negatives here—"No function" of this kind,
"shall be exercisable except … through the discharge of that function by a committee of the Councils (to be known as the Joint Committee)".
The amendment proposed removes the double negative and states that it shall be,
"discharged only through the joint committee".
Although it is an improvement to remove a double negative, it does not change the meaning very much. I find it difficult to see what substantive point is being made by the amendment.
That does not mean that there are not valuable additions in the amendment generally. We think that in Amendment No. 356ZA the wider advice-giving power which is given to the joint committee for standards and designations, and so on, is valuable. But it seems to us that subsection (4) of Amendment No. 356ZA makes nonsense of the claim that the functions are being discharged only through the joint committee. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment on that.
My purpose in speaking to my three amendments is that they follow directly from the report of the Carver Committee. I commend them to the Committee on that basis. Amendment No. 355AZB concerns advice on international obligations. That is in accordance with the Carver recommendations in paragraphs 3.16 and 3.41. I should have thought it was fairly obvious from government statements about the legislation that it was intended that the
2206
joint committee should have the responsibility for giving advice on matters directly related to our international and European Community obligations and the selection of sites for international designation.
Amendment No. 355AZC again refers directly to the Carver committee recommendations which are mentioned in paragraph 322.12(f) of the report on the provision of common scientific facilities, including information technology, for the use of the councils and the review of the scientific work of such councils. We are to some extent reassured by the statement made earlier today about the scientific staff. We were told that 50 staff will be assigned to the joint committee, of whom half will be scientific or senior staff. However, we would like to know the significance of the balance between scientific and senior staff and how many will be qualified in science if we are to be happy that the assurance is meaningful.
Amendment No. 355ZAC refers to,
"common standards and operating criteria for … Sites of Special Scientific Interest … and … National and Marine Nature Reserves".
That reflects the recommendations of the Carver Committee in paragraph 3.22 12(c) and 12(d). All of these provisions refer directly back to the wise recommendations of the Carver Committee. We hope that they will find favour with the Committee and that the Government will agree they should be included on the face of the Bill. Indeed that is in accordance with the Government's own intentions. None of this interferes with the structure of the country councils or the joint committee. It simply makes clear those joint committee functions which are inescapably national, international and scientific obligations.
Lord Carver: As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, the Select Committee listed what it recommended should be the functions of the joint committee. Neither the Bill nor the amendments go into much detail about those functions or are specific about them. Some amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are specific; for example, Amendment No. 355AZC which concerns the provision of common scientific facilities.
In talking about this group of amendments, I must refer to three other amendments which are not grouped with them. I cannot understand why that is so. Amendments Nos. 355ZAA and 355ZAE in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, refer to exactly the same thing as the amendments in this group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I should have thought that Amendment No. 360A which also stands in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, which states:
"Any question as to whether a particular function falls within the provisions of subsection (1) above or within the provisions of section 122(1) above"
is also relevant to this group of amendments.
Amendments Nos. 355ZAA and 355ZAE were tabled because I am concerned that, as the Bill stands, the special functions mention monitoring

2207
and the establishment of common standards for monitoring but are not specific about the extremely important issue of the,
"establishment of common standards and criteria for the notification of areas of special scientific interest".
It is extremely important that there should not be different standards in the three country areas. Although the noble Lord has said that he quite understands that that consideration will be part of the functions of the joint committee, I believe it is important that it should be put on the face of the Bill.
None of the other amendments makes provision for the extremely important business not just of monitoring the standards but of monitoring the implementation of the standards. That is why we have tabled Amendment No. 355ZAE. One can lay down standards and make them common standards, but someone must monitor the implementation of those standards and ensure they are being implemented and call attention to them. That is an extremely important matter to include in the Bill. If differences of opinion between the country councils and the joint committee are not continually to be referred to the Secretary of State it is important both for practical and possibly for legal reasons that it should be made clear that where there is a difference of opinion the final decision should rest with the joint committee.
All of those points are relevant to this group of amendments dealing with the functions of the joint committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may say that I agree entirely with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, that his amendments fall within the grouping. However, neither the Government nor we have the right to group his amendments. We can only take our own amendments and put them together in the most sensible shape. The noble and gallant Lord must take responsibility for where his own amendments fall within the groupings.
Lord Ross of Newport: One of the problems is that our amendments were put down before the Minister's, which were only put down last Friday. I am having great difficulty in deciding whether the Minister's amendments cover all the points. Having heard the advice of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, it is clear that they do not. I believe that in some respects the Government have not gone far enough. However, they have gone a long way and I congratulate them on the fact that it is now fairly clear what the role of the joint committee is to be. It has a role in respect of international and European Community obligations and also in trying to achieve common standards throughout the UK.
I am no wiser than the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is much more able in these matters than I am, but I assume that the wording covering the assignment of functions is intended to avoid the joint committee having direct executive powers. In other words, the powers are assigned to the three country councils which in turn go through the joint committee to operate those powers. I presume that
2208
the jargon is intended to get over that problem. It might be better if we allowed the joint committee to have its own executive powers, but I shall not dwell on that point now. I believe that I understand the reason for the wording and I wait to hear whether the Minister agrees with that interpretation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: In discussion with the Countryside Commission for Scotland I found that it welcomed warmly the clarification in subsection (1A)(aa) of Amendment No. 353C that the special functions are assigned to the councils jointly. The commission finds the word "jointly" very helpful, and I agree.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend Lord Hesketh the meaning of the first paragraph of that amendment:
"the following functions … may … be discharged only through the joint committee".
Does that mean that the functions may be discharged only after consideration by the joint committee or does it mean that the joint committee has to formulate those functions?
I believe that my amendments—Amendments Nos. 355A and 356A—should have been grouped with these amendments. Perhaps it is my fault that they are not. Like my noble friend Lord Renton, I have been a little confused by what the Minister has said. My amendments are aimed at ensuring as far as possible the advisory nature of the joint committee and keeping the executive function to a minimum. I believe that that objective has been met by the strengthening of the advisory nature of the joint committee by the Government's Amendment No. 352D which we have already agreed and, if it is passed, by Amendment No. 356ZA. If we pass that amendment I shall read with care what the Minister has said. I shall not move the amendments now and if necessary I shall come back to the matter at Report. Therefore, I should just like to have clarification of the first paragraph of Amendment No. 353C.
Earl Peel: I should like briefly to say that I have a great deal of concern for what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, said on this matter. I am very much of the opinion that the country councils should develop their relationship with the joint committee as freely as possible. But there will undoubtedly have to be standards which must be adhered to. Particularly in the case of sites of special scientific interest, that is of fundamental concern to the way that nature conservation is to be run in this country.
I hope that we can instil into this Bill some form of standard which will ensure that we go forward on an even keel; otherwise, as some noble Lords have said, we shall have continuous references to the Secretary of State which will lead to all kinds of difficulties.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: There is a slight element of confusion here because, owing to a misguided inability to add up the numbers, I did not respond to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I intend to do that now and return to the points raised

2209
by other noble Lords with regard to the government amendments that preceded the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he spoke to his amendments.
With regard to Amendment No. 355AZB, the Government do not consider it necessary to specify in the way suggested that the JNCC will be the vehicle for the provision of advice affecting our European and international nature conservation responsibilities. Undoubtedly the JNCC will have a major role here and the government amendments will clarify the international role through the use of the phrase "nature conservation outside Great Britain", as I have already said. I can also assure the noble Lord that the JNCC will have an international branch, probably of about eight staff (which specifically covers the numbers about which he inquired) to deal with these matters. I hope therefore that he will agree not to press that amendment.
Amendments Nos. 355AZC and 355ZAC concern common standards for the designation and monitoring of sites, including SSSIs. I have already explained when I presented the Government's amendments to Clause 123 that these amendments had been deliberately designed to ensure that the JNCC provides such guidelines. I should add that the NCC is also satisfied that our amendments give full scope for the JNCC to take an overview of the implementation of any standards which it promulgates for specific categories of habitats.
Amendment No. 355AZC would again extend the role of the JNCC by requiring it to provide common facilities for the country councils. That is the opposite of the way that Part VII is intended to operate. It is not a large central bureaucracy under the JNCC which will support the councils but the councils which will support the JNCC itself. There will be scope for the councils and the JNCC to share facilities, including computers, and we have commissioned consultants to look at the options. But we are opposed to the reinvention of the NCC as a large central body.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, inquired whether subsection (4)(b) weakens the JNCC's powers. Subsection (4)(b) of Amendment No. 356ZA is a reserve power to allow the GB body an international function to be carried out by a single country council under direction from the Secretary of State. That power would only be used in extremis if the joint committee could not carry out that activity.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, referred to common standards for SSSIs. I know that there has been concern to ensure that the JNCC is empowered to issue guidelines to the country councils about the criteria for the designation of sites of special scientific interest. This work falls exactly within the definition of a common issue under Amendment No. 356ZA. I would add that the NCC is content that this amendment will secure the objective that I have stated and that the revised Clause 123 will also give full scope to the JNCC to oversee the monitoring of standards of implementation of SSSI designation.
My noble friend Lord Renton, who always has an ability at a late hour to ensure that the Government
2210
are paying maximum attention to the finer points and the correct presentation of the material within a Bill, referred to an assignment. I believe it means that the functions are given for the joint committee by the amendments to the 1981 Act made in Schedule 8.
Lord Renton: I have read those amendments. I should be so grateful if my noble friend could point out where the assignment takes place in those amendments. I cannot see that it does. Admittedly, it is a tremendously complicated and lengthy piece of legislation by reference. If the assignment is achieved in those amendments listed in Schedule 8, it is only by implication. There is nothing express about it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: While my noble friend is considering that point, perhaps I may say that I am glad the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, pointed out that the amendments which stand in his name and mine are relevant to this group. Therefore they are being discussed with the group which starts with Amendment No. 353C.
My noble friend has just given an answer. I wish to make sure that I have understood correctly. He said that the NCC at present is satisfied that the point raised in Amendment No. 355ZAE concerning monitoring will be covered in the arrangements set out in the Bill. That was one of the important points made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, when moving our amendment.
I raise the issue now. As the amendments are being considered as part of the larger group, for the convenience of the Committee, I presume that they will not be moved later.
Lord Hesketh: I apologise to the noble and gallant I Lord. It would have been proper for me to have responded to his two amendments. I did not do so.
Perhaps I may initially reply to my noble friend Lord Renton in the hope that I can provide a satisfactory answer to his question. The assignment is that the amendment itself provides that function of the NCC which will now be covered by the JNCC.
While my noble friend Lord Renton considers the quality or otherwise of my reply on the third occasion to his question, perhaps I may reply to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. Amendment No. 355ZAA concerns the standards for the designation of the sites including SSSIs. I have already explained, when presenting the Government's amendments to Clause 123, that they have been deliberately designed to ensure that the JNCC provides such guidelines. I hope that that will be satisfactory to the noble and gallant Lord.
I refer to Amendment No. 355ZAE. I hope that I can give the noble and gallant Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, the assurance that they seek. I have explained that the Government's amendments to Clause 123 have been designed to ensure that the JNCC can provide guidelines and common standards for the designation and monitoring of SSSIs. The government amendments—and this is the point accepted by the NCC—also give full scope for the JNCC to take an

2211
overview of the implementation of any standards that they promulgate for specific categories of habitat, thus I hope meeting the point and the spirit of Amendment No. 355ZAE.
Lord Carver: The noble Earl, Lord Peel, reinforced this important point. The provision does not relate to giving guidelines about standards for or monitoring of SSSIs. It relates to providing common standards for SSSIs which apply throughout Great Britain. It is the responsibility of the joint nature conservancy committee to monitor the implementation of those standards throughout Great Britain. The wording used fudges the issue. I would prefer it to be taken away and strengthened in the way that we have suggested.
Lord Hesketh: We believe that the revised Clause 123 will give full scope to the JNCC to oversee the monitoring of standards in the implementation of SSSIs.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 354 and 354A not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 353D and 354B:
Page 125, line 26, leave out from ("conservation") to end of line and insert ("for Great Britain as a whole or nature conservation outside Great Britain").
Page 125, line 27, at end insert ("to any persons").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 355 and 355AZA not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 354C:
Page 125, line 28, leave out from ("conservation") to end of line and insert ("for Great Britain as a whole or nature conservation outside Great Britain;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 355AZB and 355AZC not moved.]
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 355ZA:
Page 125, line 28, at end insert:
("(bb) the provision of advice for or making of recommendations to the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 1 of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 (restriction on importation and exportation of certain animals and plants) and section 3 of the said Act of 1976 (power to modify Schedules),").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment relates to the trade in endangered species of wildlife. The United Kingdom Government are party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, colloquially knows as CITES. One of the functions of the Nature Conservancy Council is to provide advice to the Secretary of State on the conservation implications of importing and exporting wildlife species or their derivatives; such as handbags made from Nile crocodile skins. To illustrate the significance of the Nature Conservancy Council's role in this important matter, I point out that last year it dealt with 20,000 applications for import and export licences and gave advice to the Government about them. The work is currently handled by the Nature Conservancy Council's chief scientist directorate.
2212
The Government have indicated a need for a co-ordination of the NCC's licensing functions. The Department of the Environment has confirmed that the new agencies and the joint committee will assume responsibility for advisory work connected with CITES. That is to be welcomed. However, the distribution of responsibility is not clear. The amendment clarifies the situation and will give the joint committee special responsibility for providing advice to the Secretary of State on the conservation implications of individual applications for licences to trade in endangered species or their derivatives.
It is impossible for the three new country councils to inherit this function due to its specialised nature. Moreover, decentralising the provision of advice will require a triplication of staff resources and technical data. It will also leave the system open to abuse by unscrupulous dealers; for example, a dealer who is refused a licence to import ivory piano keys into Scotland may make an application to import the same items into England and transport them up the A1 to Scotland. That may sound a wild exaggeration, but the loophole currently exists in Europe in relation to the parrot trade and it has been exploited considerably. Since the Nature Conservancy Council currently provides advice on 20,000 licence applications each year the potential to exploit a muddled and fragmented system is infinite.
If the Minister is not minded to accept the amendment, I have three questions to put to him. What safeguards will be introduced to ensure that loopholes are not allowed to develop in the CITES arrangements; secondly, will the joint committee be given any specific responsibilities in relation to CITES; and, thirdly, how many staff will the joint committee employ for the purposes of advising the Government on CITES?
I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment as it stands. However, if not, I look forward to hearing his answers to those questions. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: With my noble friend's amendment, we are discussing also Amendments Nos. 355C and 355D. They are in my name and I believe them to be fully complementary to the excellent amendment which my noble friend has just moved.
Amendment No. 355C seeks to ensure that the issuing of licences for protected and non-native species should be the responsibility of the joint committee rather than of country councils. The reason for that is fairly obvious. As my noble friend said, you could finish up with a situation where something is permitted in one country in the British Isles and not in another country.
We return to the question of international obligations, to which the Minister responded when replying to one of my earlier amendments. He assured me that the NCC was satisfied with the provision in the powers of the joint committee that international obligations would be respected and would be part of the duties of the joint committee. We must have that on the face of the Bill more clearly than it is at present.

2213
Those international obligations are listed in Schedules 1, 5 and 8 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. They are listed there for very good reasons: first, to ensure that there is a consistent view about the protection of species in other countries so that we are not importing endangered species here and damaging their survival elsewhere; and, secondly, from the point of view of our protection, so that we are not importing species, including protected and non-native species, which would cause damage here. Therefore, from both points of view, the whole thrust of our international obligations must be that we are taking a national view and not merely a country view about them. We should not run the risk of duplication and even inconsistency as between the activities of the country councils.
On Amendment No. 355D, the Minister confirmed earlier that the quinquennial reports were the responsibility of the joint committee. We now seek to ensure that the quinquennial reports will include statements of any amendments to Schedules 5 and 8 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which deal with the listing of wild animals and plants. I am sure that that need not be a matter of principle. It is a very logical extension of the principle which the Government have already accepted in agreeing that the joint committee, or the JNCC as it is now to be called, will make that quinquennial report.
Lard Ross of Newport: My name is attached to this amendment. This issue is absolutely vital. It will be total nonsense if it is not to be the responsibility of the JNCC to deal with those matters. I implore the Minister to accept these amendments or something like them.
Lord Reay: I understand that grouped also with these amendments is Amendment No. 363ZA, in the name of my noble friend Lord Norrie. I do not know if he wishes to speak to his amendment.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful to my noble friend. My amendment extends and clarifies the role of the joint committee. The Nature Conservancy Council currently has a duty under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to review every five years the status of animals and plants in Great Britain and to advise the Secretary of State whether endangered species are deserving of legal protection. That is known as the quinquennial review.
The Government said in Committee in another place that the joint committee would assume responsibility for the quinquennial review. However, the RSPB is anxious to ensure that this quinquennial review also covers wild birds. Such advice would materially assist the Secretary of State to fulfil his obligations under the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds. The status of birds that are widely dispersed or migratory should be considered on a GB or UK basis.
The amendment proposes that in addition to a review of the status of species, a review of the main habitat types, such as broad-leaved woodland, graze marshes, estuaries or upland moorlands, should be
2214
undertaken and results recorded every five years. As the great majority of such habitats are found throughout Great Britain, it is sensible that there should be co-ordination by the joint committee. The new clause includes that important provision; I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Reay: These amendments would add a range of specific advisory and executive functions to the JNCC's statutory remit. In asking for them to be withdrawn I would make three main points. First, the Government have already covered some of the ground in their own amendments, notably in providing for the joint committee to make its own annual report, as sought in Amendment No. 363ZA, and in making advice on species covered by Schedule 5 and 8 to the 1981 Act a JNCC responsibility, as sought in Amendments Nos. 363ZA and 355D. I would add that the Government also intend to obtain advice on CITES and trade in endangered species from the joint committee's support unit which will be staffed for this purpose. No amendment to the 1976 or 1981 Acts is in fact required for this purpose, but the spirit of Amendment No. 355ZA is accepted.
To make myself clearer I should say that the JNCC will take on the CITES work although no statutory change is required. Regarding the amount of staff about which the noble Baroness asked, of the 50 staff assigned to the JNCC there will be an international branch of around eight who will handle all the CITES work currently undertaken by the NCC in Peterborough.
Secondly, the Government remain opposed to extending the remit of the JNCC to cover executive functions such as licensing, as suggested by Amendment No. 355C. We are prepared to make administrative arrangements to secure as much streamlining and "one-stop shopping" as possible between the country councils themselves on licensing, and the shadow chairmen are looking at possible options. However, it would defeat the object of the Bill—and incidentally go far beyond the recommendations of the Carver Committee—if we were to try and re-centralise functions like licensing in Peterborough.
Thirdly, we believe that advice on birds—here I address the amendment of my noble friend—should come in the main from the country councils. The provisions for animal and plant species covered by Schedules 5 and 8 to the 1981 Act have been allocated to the JNCC because the law already requires a national (that is, a Great Britain) view to be taken. That is not the case for birds. Indeed, much more of the government side of the work is already done by the territorial Ministers, and it would be logical for them to deal with their respective country councils.
Country councils will have a major role of their own; for example, giving advice on severe weather orders or on local and country issues affecting birds. I should also emphasise that the majority of ornithologists working for the new bodies will be based with the country agencies, although their expertise will be available to the JNCC. That does not, of course, mean that the JNCC cannot, if it wishes, provide advice on birds from a GB, UK or

2215
international dimension; it is already empowered to do so under Clause 123.
Lord Norrie: Before the Minister sits down perhaps he can clarify one point. Can he confirm that the NCC's present advisory committee on birds will continue to exist and co-ordinate bird conservation matters for the joint committee?
Lord Reay: My understanding is that it will not.
Baroness Nicol: The reply of the Minister appears to meet the requirements of Amendment No. 355ZA. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 355ZAA and 355ZAC not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): In calling Amendment No. 355ZAB, I should inform the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 355ZAD.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 355ZAB:
Page 125, line 29, leave out from ("standards") to ("the") in line 30 and insert ("throughout Great Britain for the monitoring of nature conservation and for research into nature conservation and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 355ZAD, 355ZAE, and 355A not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 355B:
Page 125, line 33, leave out from ("in") to ("to ") in line 34 and insert ("the opinion of the joint committee is relevant to any matter mentioned in paragraphs (aa)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments No. 355C and 355D not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 355E:
Page 125, line 35, leave out from ("the") to ("as") in line 36 and insert ("special functions").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 356 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: I now call Amendment No. 356ZA. If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 356A, 356B, 361A or 363ZB.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 356ZA:
Page 125, leave out lines 38 to 49 and insert—
("(2) The joint committee may give advice or information to any of the Councils on any matter arising in connection with the functions of that Council under section 122 above which, in the opinion of the committee, concerns nature conservation for Great Britain as a whole or nature conservation outside Great Britain.
(3) For the purposes of this section, references to nature conservation for Great Britain as a whole are references to—

(a) any nature conservation matter of national or international importance or which otherwise affects the interests of Great Britain as a whole; or

(b) any nature conservation matter which arises throughout Great Britain and raises issues common to England, Scotland and Wales,

2216
and it is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) above that a matter arises only in relation to England, to Scotland or to Wales.
(4) The Secretary of State may, as respects any matter arising in connection with—

(a) any special function of the councils, or

(b) the function of the joint committee under subsection (2) above,

give directions to any of the Councils requiring that Council (instead of the joint committee) to discharge that function in relation to that matter.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 356A to 356D, 357 and 358 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 359:
Page 125, line 46, at end insert—
("(2A) The Joint Committee referred to in subsection (2) above shall meet in public").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. Its purpose is to require meetings of the joint committee to be held in public. It is generally agreed, and certainly we recognise on this side of the Committee, that there have been considerable changes in attitude by the Government during the Committee stage of the Bill on the issue of access to environmental information. As we have said, that is extremely welcome and I am glad to reiterate it.
An extension of Government thinking on this matter would be to allow meetings of the joint committee to be held in public. On 31st October 1988 the European Commission submitted a proposal for a directive on freedom of access to information on the environment which would allow the public right of access to environmental information held by public authorities. The Council reached a common decision on 27th March 1990. Having received this political agreement the proposal can be expected to go through in its present form at any time.
The implications of the directive are that any information held by public bodies will be available without the public needing to display an interest. Although many member states already operate freedom of information legislation, this directive will have the effect of harmonising and strengthening citizens' rights throughout the Community. Individuals and pressure groups will find it easier to bring legal action in their own right. Adoption of the directive, coupled with adoption of the civil liability directive, will have a profound effect on company liability. Consequently, it seems appropriate that at a time when local authorities allow public access to most committee meetings, government and/or quasi-government committees should adopt the same policy. Public confidence can only be gained by public access to such meetings and information gleaned from them.
Considerable disquiet has been expressed about government appointments to such committees. I believe that the public would have more confidence in the independence of this joint committee if, first, all discussion on appointments was heard in public and, secondly, the committee's proceedings were similarly accessible. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: The Government are not persuaded that nature conservation will benefit if the joint committee is required to hold its deliberations in public. The Government expect from the committee the highest standard of scientific detachment and advice that will carry weight. It is not being formed to act as a lobby group or as some kind of buffer or consultation body between the Government and the NGCs. For those reasons, this step would not in our view be in the long-term interest of nature conservation. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment, particularly in the light of the fact that the Government have today agreed that the JNCC will be required to give an independent and public report of its activities to the council, Ministers and Parliament.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is a most disappointing response. I appreciate that the night is long and I am as anxious to get away as the Minister. What he is saying is that he is satisfied that the work of the committee will be carried on properly; that in his view its work is not likely to be of interest to the public; and that members of the public who want to come along and listen to democracy in practice are being tiresome and irksome. He is saying that these issues should be left to the committee, the Minister and his advisers. I am sure that those outside this Chamber who read what the Government have said will be extremely disappointed. I may very well come back to this matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 359A and 360 not moved.]
Lord Carver Lord Carver moved Amendment No. 360A:
Page 125, line 46, at end insert—
"( ) Any question as to whether a particular function falls within the provisions of subsection (1) above or within the provisions of section 122(1) above shall be determined by the Joint Committee.").
The noble and gallant Lord said: I raised this matter very briefly when we were discussing another amendment, but I did not get an answer. This amendment relates to a matter on which the Select Committee felt quite strongly. The amendment comes directly from Recommendation 4.16 of our report. It is designed to meet a situation in which a country council disputes whether a particular function is a special function of the joint committee or whether it is within the country council's own remit to deal with.
In their response the Government suggested that this kind of argument was unlikely to happen very much and that in any case there was bound to be a certain overlap between what could be said to be matters for the country council and those which would fall to the joint committee. I must accept that the government's acceptance of our recommendation that the independent members of the commitee are to be voting members has made a difference to the importance which we attach to this measure. Nevertheless, I feel that it would be a useful
2218
addition to the Bill to save having to refer such disagreements to the Secretary of State. We then return to the argument as to who is the Secretary of State. What happens if different Secretaries of State disagree with each other?
It is possible that this may be quite important from the legal point of view. Someone might challenge the competence of the joint committee in a certain area, saying that an issue did not fall within the special function of the joint committee but within the function of the country council. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Subsection (2B) of Amendment No. 259A in fact contains a similar provision that the JNCC shall have the final word on whether an activity falls within Clause 122 or Clause 123. The Government gave a clear answer to this suggestion when we responded to Recommendation 4.16 of the Select Committee report. Only the courts can interpret the law, and it is not practicable to give such a power to the JNCC. The fundamental concept of the joint committee is that of a mechanism to enable the country councils to work together on national and international issues. In that duty they will be assisted by an independent chairman and independent members. The representatives of the country councils and the independent chairman and members will be able to vote. The chairman will have a casting vote to be used if necessary.
The Government do not believe that further provision is necessary or desirable. As we also said in our response to the report of the Select Committee, attempts to tighten the legislation unduly could be counter-productive in depriving either a country agency or the committee of a legitimate conservation function. In practice, any disagreements should be rare and will be subject to the final arbitration of the Secretary of State under the powers of direction in Clause 121(4), which we intend to amend to make clear that the directions can be given to the joint committee as well as to the country councils. The Government have also honoured their undertaking to empower the joint committee to give advice to the country councils and to require the country councils to have regard to such advice.
Lord Carver: Of course the courts interpret the law, but the law is what the Bill says. We want to avoid bringing in the courts to decide these matters. I accept that the changes to the voting pattern in the joint committee have made this less important than it was when we felt so strongly about in the Select Committee. I hope that the noble Lord will think again about the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 360B to 361A not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 362:
Page 125, line 49, at end insert—
("(4) The Joint Committee may, in accordance with a general authorisation given by the Secretary of State, and from funds made available to it for that purpose, give financial assistance by way of grant or loan (or partly in one way and partly in the other) to any person in respect of expenditure incurred or to

2219
be incurred by him in doing anything which in its opinion is conducive to nature conservation or fostering the understanding of nature conservation in the United Kingdom as a whole or at an international level").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 374, 374ZA and 374A. These amendments relate to the same point. A range of matters that are likely to be the subject of grant do not respect country boundaries. I give as illustrations, first, areas of land which fall across boundaries; secondly, coastal waters or areas of coast, which in this context cross boundaries by definition; thirdly, research or other work on species of plants or animals which are either common across more than one country or which migrate across boundaries. In all those circumstances there are powerful arguments for enabling Great Britain-based grants to be given by the joint committee.
Amendment No. 374ZA seeks to give the joint committee a grant-making power in projects and organisations of interest to more than one country council. There must be grant assistance via the constituency agencies for projects or organisations working at Great Britain or international level to be undertaken under direction from the joint co-ordinating committee, using funds specifically ring fenced for that purpose, as the country councils will naturally only want to fund projects working within their country boundaries. The joint committee is the logical body through which such Great Britain-wide work should be funded.
Examples that can be quoted are grants that are currently made to bodies for research such as the RSPB, the RSNC and marine organisations. The country councils individually would not feel in a position to fund such research work that extended outside their country. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: Amendment No. 374A stands in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David. It deals with grants and loans by the joint committee. The amendment would give the joint committee statutory powers to provide financial assistance in the form of grants or loans. The NCC already has the power to make grants. Each year it processes around 1,000 applications from landowners, schools and conservation organisations.
Clause 124 of the Bill transfers the NCC's grant-giving powers to the new country councils. In some ways, this is to be welcomed. However, more than half of the NCC's expenditure on grants, which totalled some £1·3 million last year, is provided for organisations with a Great Britain remit for projects which relate to more than one country. I referred earlier to the bat week. There is also the problem of peat extraction which is being examined in a national context. In addition a report is being undertaken by the NCC—it is, I understand, at an advanced stage—on the threat to our many estuaries throughout the United Kingdom. Those are but three examples of such projects. The grants are processed and paid for out of the central funding. Therefore, it is only logical that the proposed joint committee should also be given grant-giving powers.
2220
If grant applications in respect of Great Britain projects have to be made to each of the country councils, there is a very real danger that funds will not be forthcoming from one or more of the councils. Given the tight squeeze which we anticipate on the NCC's funding as a result of fragmentation, we are likely to witness a reduction in urgently needed conservation grants for projects with a Great Britain or international dimension. I hope very much that the Minister will take that fact on board. I say that because some of the NGOs which have received grant-aid in the past will, undoubtedly, be making applications for grants. However, they are not, at present, constituted in such a way as to be able to apply differently in the different parts of the three countries for loans or grants. It will take them some time to re-establish themselves in that way if, in fact, that is what the Government insist upon. It seems to me to be a stupid way of implementing the system.
There should be some sort of federal funding for the purpose. If that is not what the Government have in mind, will funds be made available to the joint committee for the purpose of making grants to organisations with a GB or a UK remit? How many staff will the joint committee have to employ to administer GB grants? If the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment, will they provide safeguards against a short-fall in grants available to GB organisations such as those I have mentioned, including the Marine Conservation Society, the RSNC and others?
Lord Norrie: I rise to express support for Amendment No. 374ZA. In supporting the amendment I stress that our purpose is not to cut across the proposed new regional system but to make provision over and above it for activities which clearly have an inter-regional or national significance. The new devolved bodies will naturally provide their hard-pressed funds first to conservation work central to their area. We must ensure that this logic does not prohibit or disrupt projects that are too expensive for a single council to support or which seem insufficiently relevant to local needs to gain all the support they require. Perhaps I may illustrate my point with a few examples.
The Game Conservancy Trust recently conducted some excellent research work, partly funded by the NCC, on the ecology of the black grouse. Although the work was done in Scotland, it will be invaluable to those studying or conserving the black grouse throughout its territorial range in the British Isles. That range includes parts of England and Wales. The outstanding work done by the Hawk and Owl Trust into the long-term causes of the decline of the barn owl achieved its breakthrough in the Lincolnshire Fen country. However, the ecological solution devised and promoted by the trust will need implementation throughout the bird's UK and European range.
Several recreational bodies foresee difficulties in helping to protect the environment where their members practise hobbies. The British Mountaineering Council has recently published an invaluable booklet, entitled Tread Lightly, which

2221
advises mountaineers, climbers and hill walkers on good environmental practice. The council approached the NCC at its Peterborough head office and won financial support for its excellent document. The Youth Hostels Association receives support from the Countryside Commission for its countryside information centre. The centre gives advice on matters throughout the British Isles, but is located in England—in Bristol. Should small and lightly resourced bodies have to approach three different country offices it would be an unnecessarily exhaustive exercise in time and motion.
The inclusion of the amendment in the Bill would allow the joint committee to ensure continued support for the valuable work, not only of the bodies mentioned but also of others contributing to our rural heritage on a national basis such as the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and the Central Council of Physical Recreation.
Baroness David: My name is attached to Amendment No. 374A to which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport has already spoken. I should like to emphasise one point. The noble Lord said that the NCC already has power to make grants and that each year it processes around 1,000 applications from land owners, schools and conservation organisations.
I should like to make the point about the schools. Unless the joint committee has the right to make grants, the schools may suffer. I hope we all agree that we want to educate young people about the environment, nature conservation, and so on. It is important that those bodies should be able to give grants to schools. I hope that the amendment will be supported with that point in mind.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I wish that every time the noble Baroness made a late impassioned appeal I was able to be of assistance, as I was last time.
The amendments are designed to give the joint committee an executive function of giving grants or loans, and, in recommending that, they go beyond the conclusions reached in the Select Committee's report. I apologise to the Committee if I repeat myself, but the joint committee is designed to be an advisory committee looking at national and global issues. In the Government's view, it will do that more effectively if it is not burdened with executive duties such as grant giving which is exactly the kind of responsibility that should be exercised by the country agencies.
There is nothing to stop the country agencies agreeing between themselves how they should handle grants for projects which transcend country boundaries, but that is surely not a unique or insurmountable problem when so many other public agencies, already organise on a country basis and have relevant experience which can be shared with the new conservation agencies. We have deliberately drafted Clause 124 to be as wide as possible so that no worthwhile project will be deterred from seeking grant or legal grounds.
Lord Ross of Newport: This is an important point. I realise that the Minister is trying to avoid giving the joint committee executive powers. However, will he at least state that it is the Government's wish that the three country councils should jointly set up a body so that they can consider as one applications from such organisations as the RSPB?
Surely he realises that it is nonsense to say, with regard to something which should be funded and which is of interest to the United Kingdom as a whole or internationally, that the bodies concerned should have to make three separate applications. If they could have an informal get-together to consider grants and loans jointly—not necessarily through the joint committee—that would be a major step forward. Outside bodies would then know where to apply and would not have to trail all round the country. That would be mad. The Government desperately need the help of the voluntary organisations to make the proposal work; otherwise they will be shooting themselves in the foot. I beg them to do something in that regard.
Lord Hesketh: We must lower the tone of excitement. The object of having three agencies rather than one is in order to respond better at a local level. I should have through that that was a great Liberal tradition. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, says that it will be difficult for the RSPB, which is a rich and well-organised body, to make three applications when it knows perfectly well where to make the applications to obtain grants. However, if we balance that against the small voluntary organisations which do not operate on a unitarian basis and which will find it much more user friendly to be able to go to their own country organisation, the Government's proposals will benefit those who most need help.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and, I suspect, of others who have spoken in this series of debates. I do not doubt that the Government recognise that grants such as we are discussing here are likely to be called for, but they say that the method that we propose may not be right. Those people outside this place who read with great interest what the Minister has said will have to decide whether the proposal is satisfactory. The Minister is saying that together they ought to be able to come to sensible arrangements. We have sought to write on the face of the Bill what we and they consider to be a sensible arrangement. It is quite clear however that the Minister and his advisers have a certain view. I hope that when the country councils come up with an ad hoc arrangement which can provide a mechanism whereby they can do this, the Minister will not say that it is ultra vires. That would be wrong.
Those outside the House are entitled to believe that the Minister recognises that in the circumstances that have been imposed there will be times when one wants to make grants that transcend the territorial boundaries of the councils' remit. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to those suggestions. It is possible that we shall propose another amendment

2223
at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 363 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 363ZB not moved.]
Clause 123, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 363ZA not moved.]
Schedule 8 [Amendment of Enactments conferring Nature Conservancy Functions]:
[Amendment No. 363A not moved.]
Lord Carver: Should not Amendment No. 363ZB come before the end of Clause 123?
The Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 363ZB was pre-empted by Amendment No. 356ZA to which your Lordships agreed. I said at the time that I could not call the later amendment.
[Amendment No. 364 not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 364A:
Page 178, leave out lines 23 to 26.
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend I should like to move Amendment No. 364A and speak to Amendments Nos. 364B, 364C, 366A, 366B and 366C. These are drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 364B and 364C:
Page 178, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("relating") in line 40 and insert:
("4. In paragraph 7 of section 39(1) of the Superannuation Act 1965 (public offices)—

(a) there shall be inserted in the appropriate place the following entry—
"The Countryside Council for Wales."; and

(b) for the entry").

Page 178, leave out line 44.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 365 not moved.]
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 366:
Page 179, line 13, after ("interest)") insert:
("(a) subsection (2) shall be deleted and in its place there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2) Where, for the purposes of conserving those flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features, it appears to the Council expedient to do so the Council may enter into an agreement
(a) with the owners, lessees and occupiers of any such land or of any land adjoining such land and
(b) with any person having an easement, profit, right or privilege over such land which imposes restrictions of the exercise of rights over such land by the persons who can be bound by the agreement." (b) ").
2224
The noble Earl said: This is an amendment to Section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968. At present subsection (2) of that section is one of the most important tools of the Nature Conservancy Council. It allows the council to enter into management agreements with,
"owners, lessees and occupiers of land which imposes restrictions on the exercise of rights over land by the persons who can be bound by the agreement".
The amendment introduces two additional classes of person with whom Section 15 management agreements could in future be negotiated if this amendment is accepted. First, there is the class of persons who are,
"owners, lessees and occupiers of … land … adjoining"
the SSSI. It is quite frequent that the occupiers of land adjoining SSSIs can do things on that land which affects the conservation value of the SSSI itself. For instance, in a wetland site the occupiers can drain their land and thereby affect the water level on the special site. They can own and farm perfectly legitimately arable land adjoining pasture SSSIs. Spray drift can cause great damage to the scientific interest of the SSSI. The Nature Conservancy Council is anxious to be able to enter into management agreements with such persons and thereby provide them with compensation for not carrying out potentially damaging operations. The second class of persons, covered in paragraph (b) of my amendment, are those who have,
"an easement, profit, right or privilege over such land".
These people include persons with common rights over land—for instance, people who have grazing rights and the right to run cattle on SSSIs. However, by exercising those rights they can damage the scientific interest of sites. Therefore the Nature Conservancy Council seeks to enter into management agreements with such people to provide them with compensation because the exercise of their rights is restricted.
The effect of this amendment is to strengthen the capacity of the Nature Conservancy Council and its successor councils to protect sites of special scientific interest. It is important to note that this provision is not obligatory on the councils, but they may enter into management agreements with any of these persons for the purpose of conserving the special interest of an SSSI. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: Before the noble Lord sits down I should add that I support this amendment which will give the new councils the power to reach agreements with those who have rights on SSSIs and with owners and occupiers of land adjacent to SSSI land. I consider this to be a necessary power which will prove helpful in the safeguarding of SSSIs.
I wish to highlight the problem of the Nature Conservancy Council not being able to enter into an agreement with an owner or occupier of land which is adjacent to an SSSI with a view to modifying the management of that land. This is a major problem because many SSSIs are vulnerable to what happens on adjacent land. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, referred to wetland sites. Such a site would depend for its survival on what happens on the land around

2225
it. For example in the Somerset Levels—the area of land which stretches from Glastonbury to the Bristol Channel—the NCC is paying some farmers who own SSSIs to keep up the water levels while other farmers who own adjacent land continue to drain their grazing marshes because the NCC is unable to enter into a management agreement with them. If the Government consider that this situation is already covered by existing legislation, will the Minister give an assurance that funds will be made available to enter into this kind of management agreement?
Earl Peel: I, too, wish to support the amendment. As regards covering those with common rights, there is no doubt that much damage has been caused to SSSIs in this respect. The Committee will no doubt recall a recent list of damaged SSSIs. I believe that list was released by Friends of the Earth. I think I am right in saying that the damage to the majority of those sites originated on common land where the Nature Conservancy Council was unable to enter into management agreements with those who held common rights. Therefore I most definitely welcome this amendment.
Lord Hesketh: I am grateful to the noble Earl for bringing forward this amendment. The Nature Conservancy Council is at present empowered under Section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 to enter into management agreements only with owners and occupiers of land within a site of special scientific interest when it appears to the NCC to be in the national interest to do so. This power is crucial to the NCC's ability to safeguard SSSIs, but the reference to "national importance" in Section 15 of the 1968 Act serves no useful purpose as the section applies to all SSSIs.
I now turn to the question of the NCC entering into agreements with persons who are not owners and occupiers but who either have rights over the land, or who manage land adjoining SSSIs in a manner adversely affecting an SSSI. The NCC has advised that its inability to enter into agreements where it would be expedient to do so is leading to a deterioration of some SSSIs even where the owners and occupiers are sympathetic. As I understand it, the problem is becoming serious, for example in areas of Cumbria where damage is occurring because of overgrazing by livestock owned by commoners.
In those circumstances I would be pleased to accept this amendment, but some small technical drafting errors have been identified so I will undertake to bring foward at the Report stage an amendment to have the same effect as that proposed here.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I am most grateful to my noble fiend for those remarks.
Lord Hesketh: I said that there were a couple of small technical flaws in the amendment. Therefore I propose to produce a similar amendment at Report stage.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Under those circumstances. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 366A:
Page 179, line 39, leave out from ("the") to ("; and") in line 40 and insert ("words from "the Nature" to "functions" there shall be substituted the words "each of the following bodies, namely, the Nature Conservancy Council for England, the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Council for Wales as to the exercise in the respective areas of those Councils of the functions of those Ministers").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 366B and 366C:
Page 180, leave out lines 4 and 5.
Page 180, line 33, after ("Council") insert ("under section 122 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 366B and 366C en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 366D to 366J:
Page 180, leave out line 39.
Page 180, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) In section 15(2) (endangered species) for the word "Council" there shall be substituted the words "Councils".").
Page 180, line 45, at end insert ("and, after the word "exercise" there shall be inserted the words "in the area of that Council".").
Page 181, line 9, leave out ("all of").
Page 181, line 10, at end insert ("and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the words—
("and the functions of the Nature Conservancy Councils under this subsection shall be special functions of the Councils for the purposes of section 123 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990" ").
Page 181, line 13, at end insert (", for the words "the passing of this Act" there shall be substituted the words "30 October 1991" and at the end there shall be inserted the words—
"and the functions of the Nature Conservancy Councils under this subsection shall be special functions of the Councils for the purposes of section 123 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990".").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 366D to 366J are drafting amendments. On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 366K to 366P:
Page 181, line 14, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 15 and insert ("words from "the Council" there shall be substituted the words "to the advice being given.").
Page 181, line 16, leave out from beginning to ("lay") in line 17 and insert ("for subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(3) The Secretary of State shall").
Page 181, line 18, leave out from ("given") to ("and") in line 19.
Page 181, line 20, at end insert ("; and
(d) in subsection (4), for the word "Council" there shall be inserted the words "Nature Conservancy Councils".").
Page 181, line 21, leave out ("for Part II") and insert ("of Part I").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 366K to 366P are also drafting amendments and, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 366Q to 366S:
Page 181, line 35, after second ("in") insert (", or land covered by waters adjacent to,").
Page 181, line 37, after second ("in") insert (", or land covered by waters adjacent to,").
Page 181, line 39, after second ("in") insert (", or land covered by waters adjacent to,").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 366Q to 366S, 372B and 373ZA are straightforward drafting amendments. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 366Q to 366S en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 367 not moved.]
Lord Carver Lord Carver moved Amendment No. 367A:
Page 181, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) In section 28(1) (areas of special scientific interest) after the words "Nature Conservancy Council" there shall be inserted the words "or the Joint Committee constituted under section 123(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990" ").
The noble and gallant Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 367A I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 371B, which is a similar amendment dealing with marine nature reserves.
Amendment No. 367A amends Section 28(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which reads:
"Where the Nature Conservancy Council are of the opinion that any area of land is of special interest by reason of any of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiogrpahical features, it shall be the duty of the Council to notify that fact—

(a) to the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated;

(b) to every owner and occupier of any of that land; and

(c) to the Secretary of State".

As the Act is amended by the schedule, "Nature Conservancy Council" would include the three country councils. However, it would not include the joint committee itself. The object of the amendment is to make it possible for the joint committee, acting in the national interest or representing international interests, itself to identify an SSSI and, in the case of Amendment 371B, a marine nature reserve, presumably because none of the country councils was prepared to do so.
I believe that it is an important amendment. The joint committee has the responsibility of acting in the interests of Great Britain and in the international interest and the amendments would allow it to do so in the case of both SSSIs and marine nature reserves. I feel that this is an important matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: In supporting the noble and gallant Lord's amendment, perhaps I may add that the future of the marine nature conservation review is not clear. I do not know whether the Minister can give an answer on that point to night. The position is not helped by uncertainty over future funding. Since so many marine conservation matters cross country borders it is essential that there should be a Great Britain overview.
I remind the Committee that, of the seven marine nature reserve sites which were identified in 1981, only two have so far been designated. If the
2228
programme is to be slowed any further by uncertainty it will be a great tragedy. I support the amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Simply on the ground of practicability, I cannot see how this amendment can work. I do not want to expound at length on the processes by which SSSIs are notified, but there is an enormous amount of casework involved and legwork on the ground. The whole system by which the process is organised depends on the active deployment of assistant regional officers and staff on the ground. It is work which the joint committee simply will not be equipped to undertake.
It is impractical to think that from a remote and comparatively small joint committee of this nature one can suddenly decide that an area is an SSSI and notify it without having done the groundwork and casework involved.
Baroness Nicol: As I understand it, the amendment gives the alternative. It says "or" the joint committee. Presumably the joint committee would only exercise its authority or function when it appeared to be necessary to do so. One would hope that the country councils would act properly in respect of marine nature matters, as I am sure they will in everything else. But I think that as a reserve power this is a very useful measure to include in the Bill.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Perhaps I should say for clarification that I was referring simply to Amendment No. 367A, in the names of the noble Baroness and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. That amendment does not mention marine matters.
Lord Carver: As I understand it—and I am not an expert on the matter, as is the noble Earl—the situation with which this amendment is meant to deal is where a great deal of the detailed work has been done and yet agreement has not been reached that the site should be notified as an SSSI.
Lord Reay: The effect of this amendment would be to confer on the joint committee an executive function; namely, the notification of sites of special scientific interest under Section 28(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The country councils would then be obliged to notify any SSSI recommended for notification by the JNCC.
As we said earlier, it is not the Government's intention to confer on the JNCC executive functions of that kind. It would have the effect of turning the joint committee into a fourth quango, which is something that the Government have strenuously tried to avoid. The actual designation of SSSIs is clearly a country matter.
Where the JNCC has an interest is in the setting and monitoring of common standards for SSSI designation. I would point out that that is a function covered in Clause 123 of the Bill, which we have already discussed at some length. I remind the Committee that we have given clear assurances to night that the joint committee will give guidelines for SSSIs and monitor their implementation.
Lord Carver: If this amendment is not accepted, and I realise that the Government are reluctant to accept it, the procedure that would have to be followed in the case that I suggested is that the joint committee would then have to turn to the Secretary of State and get him to issue directions. That can happen, and this amendment would have been a way of avoiding that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 368:
Page if 181, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) In section 28 (areas of special scientific interest), the following new subsection shall be inserted—
"(15) Where the Council are of the opinion that it would be conducive to the protection or proper management of any area of land notified under subsection (1) they may notify any person appearing to them to have an interest in or rights over that land or part thereof and the provisions of this section shall apply to such notification as if it had been made under subsection (1)(b) hereof'.")
The noble Earl said: We are still considering the amendments to Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which is the section dealing with the notification of areas of special scientific interest.
The effect of this amendment is to extend the categories of persons who can be notified to persons who hold common rights. At present Section 28(1)(b) requires the Nature Conservancy Council to notify every owner or occupier of a site of special interest. Other subsections require the Nature Conservancy Council to specify in that notification the nature of the special interest and any operation that is likely to damage the interest. The owner or occupier is thereafter required to give the Nature Conservancy Council prior written notice of any intention to carry out the potentially damaging operations. That is essentially the site safeguarding mechanism operating through SSSIs.
Part II of the Act, which contains Section 28, does not define "owner" or "occupier". The lack of definition of an owner has not proved a problem; but the lack of definition of an occupier has caused problems in relation to persons who have the right of enter land and to carry out works and those who have common rights and sporting rights over the land. The Nature Conservancy Council has received conflicting legal advice as to whether such persons can be treated as occupiers for the purposes of the Act. The balance of opinion is that they cannot.
Nonetheless, as was made clear in the earlier debate on the previous clause about persons holding common rights, the activities of such persons can damage the special interest of the site. The problems are particularly acute with regard to SSSIs that lie within common land. A quarter of a million hectares of SSSIs lie within common land in England and Wales. That is about a quarter of the total SSSI area in those countries. That very large area is not afforded the full safeguard provisions in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. As a consequence it is suffering damage in many cases.
The Nature Conservancy Council is not able to use the preferred safeguard mechanism of offering a management agreement to commoners because of
2230
the legal opinion that such people are not considered to be occupiers within the terms of the Act. If the operations proposed could damage the special interest, such an offer could be made either under Section 28 of the SSSI legislation, or under Section 29 where the Secretary of State has made a nature conservation order.
It is therefore important to the Nature Conservancy Council that such persons should be treated as occupiers, or that the definition of persons who can be notified be extended in the manner proposed in the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: In rising to support the amendment, I should like to emphasise that at present the SSSI provisions do not apply to common right holders. Peat cutters, turf cutters and grazers are examples.
Amendment No. 368 would bring common right holders within the scope of the SSSI procedures and provide a mechanism for discussing and agreeing management of the land. The amendment is an enabling one only and would permit the NCC to notify right holders if it so wished.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment gives the NCC a discretionary power to notify persons such as commoners of the scientific importance of a site and of the potentially damaging operation affecting that site.
I am interested to hear the noble Lord's arguments. Some of the damage may be unwittingly done to SSSIs by persons who are not owners and occupiers of land but who nevertheless by carrying out the legitimate activities can affect the special interest of land by inappropriate management. As things stand at present, the NCC is not empowered to draw the attention of other than the owner and occupier to the importance of such land. However, the Interpretation Act 1978 already provides that land includes any right or interest in land. It may be that in applying to owners of land the 1981 Act will already apply to people with the interests in land which were mentioned by both noble Lords.
We are in sympathy with the aims of the amendment. I shall consider very carefully what has been said. If there is a gap in the legislation I shall return to the matter at Report stage.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I am grateful for the information about the 1978 Act which had not previously been drawn to my attention. Having heard what my noble friend has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 369:
Page 181, line 42, at end insert:
("( ) In section 28 (areas of special scientific interest), the following new subsection shall be inserted—
"(16) Where the Council are of the opinion that any area of land notified under subsection (1) has for any reason ceased to be of such special interest then the Council may give notice of that fact to the persons mentioned in that subsection and where appropriate to the relevant body or bodies mentioned in section (9) of the Water Act 1989 and on the giving of such notice the notification shall cease to have effect.".").
The noble Earl said: We are still dealing with the same section of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The amendment gives the Nature Conservancy Council and its successors the power to denotify sites of special scientific interest where, in the opinion of the council, that special interest no longer exists. Where the special interest of a site has been lost, for whatever reason, the Nature Conservancy Council has a responsibility to inform the relevant persons who have been notified previously that that is so. It is important that that act is undertaken in a formal and legal way. It demonstrates that the Nature Conservancy Council is taking its duties seriously by rigorously applying the criteria for special interest which have been worked out.
The practical effect is that the denotification rescinds the obligations placed upon the relevant persons. Denotification is not a new exercise. The NCC has denotified hundreds of sites over the years because their special interest had been lost. Even during my short term as chairman of the Advisory Committee for England I recommended the denotification of several sites.
Problems can arise if such denotification is considered to have the effect of removing from the owner, occupier or other person notified what he or she considers to be a benefit. For example, land which has been acquired by a county naturalist trust as a nature reserve has a reasonable expectation of being able to be supported by management grants when the land is an SSSI. If it is denotified such expectation is lessened or destroyed. Similarly, there are conditional exemptions for personal taxes, including inheritance tax, which may or may not be related to the designation of land as an SSSI. Therefore, the NCC requires positive powers of denotification and that would be the effect of the amendment. I beg to move.
12 midnight
Lord Norrie: It is obviously sensible that when land that has been notified as being of special scientific interest ceases to possess that special interest it should be denotified and the owners and occcupiers should no longer be bound by the provisions relating to SSSIs. The omission of the power to denotify SSSIs from Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act was surely an oversight. It is right that the new council should have such and explicit power. For that reason I support the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I believe that the figure 9 in the subsection of the amendment should not be in parenthesis.
Earl Peel: I support the amendment in principle. However, it is possible that a farmer may change his farming activities in order to comply with the recommendations of the original SSSI. If, for whatever reason, the NCC deems the site not worthy of such a designation, the farmer may not receive compensation and the land will not provide a return. That situation would be unfair on the farmer.
The Earl of Cranbrook: If the NCC or its successor bodies are to operate the designation process
2232
according to established guidelines which will be monitored and supervised by the joint committee those actions must be taken with rigour. If land ceases to be of scientific interest it cannot continue to carry that designation, whatever the consequences. However, the farmer would be free to farm in an unfettered fashion and would no longer be bound by the restrictions placed upon him in any management agreement.
Earl Peel: I accept that statement but it may take some time for the farmer to return to a profitable system. I wondered whether it would be possible to include in the amendment some form of compensation to lighten those circumstances.
Lord Hesketh: I am grateful to the noble Earl for introducing this amendment, which would clarify the position concerning the existing powers of the NCC to denotify a site of special scientific interest.
Since the 1985 amendment Act there has been a power to withdraw a notification within nine months of notification and an implied power to denotify is contained in Section 28(5), which uses the words:
"while the notification remains in force."
However, the Government accept that there is not a general power which enables the Nature Conservancy Council to withdraw the notification of a SSSI whenever appropriate and that it would be appropriate to add such a procedure.
We are therefore happy to consider the amendment. However, we should be grateful to have an opportunity to consider the details of the amendment in relation to other provisions of the 1981 Act, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Peel, and to return to the matter on Report.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Again, having heard the words of my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 370:
Page 181, line 42, at end insert:
("( ) In section 29 (special protection for certain areas of special scientific interest) subsection (4)(a), for the words "commencement date" there shall be substituted the words "making of the Order".").
The noble Earl said: We now move on to Section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which deals with special protection orders issued by the Secretary of State. In effect there is defective wording in the existing provisions of the 1981 Act in so far as the requirements placed on an owner or occupier of land subject to a Section 29 order are to give prior notice of an intention to carry out a potentially damaging operation and either to wait out the period of notice or to undertake the operation in accordance with the Nature Conservancy Council's consent or under the terms of an agreement.
The defective wording in the Act is that, as interpreted by Section 71, notice can be given at any time after the coming into effect of the Act whereas it is intended that notice can be given at any time after the commencement of the order.
Therefore, the effect of the amendment is to tidy up what is obviously a drafting error in the original Act. Similar defective wording was also formerly used in provisions relating to SSSIs but that was amended by the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985. Unfortunately, the wording relating to Section 29 was not amended at the same time and this amendment seeks to rectify that. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: I support this amendment, which closes a loophole that currently exists in relation to nature conservation orders under Section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Those orders are the last resort available to the NCC to prevent an SSSI from being damaged or destroyed. They are granted by the relevant Secretary of State. Fortunately, only a handful are used every year.
As currently drafted, the landowner is allowed to give notice to the NCC in anticipation of his land being subject to a nature conservation order. That was never Parliament's intention, since the notification arrangements should apply after a nature conservation order has been made by the Secretary of State.
Lord Reay: This amendment seeks to clarify an anomaly between Sections 28 and 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 concerning the notification of potentially damaging operations. It makes clear that an owner or occupier of land which is the subject of a nature conservation order should, once the NCO comes into force, give notice of his intention to carry out a PDO. We are happy to accept the amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 371:
Page 181, line 42, at end insert:
("( ) In section 29 (special protection for certain areas of special scientific interest), in subsection (4)(a), after the word "Council" there shall be inserted the word "written".").
The noble Earl said: This is the last in my short series of amendments to the 1981 Act, all of which are regarded as important by the Nature Conservancy Council in order to improve the delivery of conservation within the United Kingdom and, therefore, important to the successor bodies.
In this case the word "written" is introduced into Section 29(4). At present, notices from owners and occupiers of their intent to carry out an operation, which is likely to damage the special interest of an SSSI in relation to Section 28, have to be in writing.
In Section 29, the necessity for written notice is not specified. The result of this anomaly is that when Nature Conservancy Council staff have been told orally by an owner or occupier of proposals of that nature, they are uncertain whether or not that constitutes valid notice. One must realise that for a great deal of the time the Nature Conservancy
2234
Council officers operate in the field, dealing with farmers and landowners much of whose business is conducted orally. Remarks are made over the hedge and it is not clear to the officer whether or not the spoken intention to carry out an operation is notice under the terms of the Act.
The proposed amendment would require consistency within the Act; it would require that notices from owners and occupiers of their intent to carry out an operation likely to damage a site of special interest be in writing. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: The amendment corrects an apparent drafting error in the original Bill and brings Section 29(4)(a) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which provides for the giving of notice to carry out a potentially damaging operation in respect of land subject to a nature conservation order, into line with the equivalent provision in Section 28(5)(a) in respect of SSSIs. The Government are pleased to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 371A:
Page 181, line 46, at end insert—
("(8A) In Part II (nature conservation etc), before section 30 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Right of Nature Conservancy Council to apply1Or Nature Conservation Order.
29A.—(1) Where it appears to the Nature Conservancy Council that any feature of interest by reason of its biological, geological or physiographical importance is likely to be destroyed or damaged by any operation the Nature Conservancy Council may notify the owner or occupier of the relevant land, or the person who is to carry out, or is carrying out, the damaging operation of their intention to apply to the Secretary of State for a Nature Conservation Order under section 29 above.
(2) Any person notified under subsection (1) above who carries out an operation to which the notice relates shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) A notice made under this section shall take effect immediately upon being served and shall cease to have effect three days after being served".").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 371A too is concerned with Section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Although it is phrased in the form of a new clause to be inserted in the Act, it is a very modest amendment. Under Section 29, where there is a risk of damage to a feature of interest, the Nature Conservancy Council has the power to impose a nature conservation order to protect that feature of interest. Section 29 is supposed to do that but there have been delays. It has been difficult to enforce this provision of the 1981 Act and therefore damage to sites has occurred.
We are proposing that the Nature Conservancy Council should have the opportunity to notify the owner or occupier of the land, or the person who is to carry out or is carrying out the damaging operations, of its intention to apply for a nature conservation order and that under subsection (2) the person so notified has to comply with that order and is guilty of an offence if he does not. In other words, this is a stop notice order which is intended to speed up the process of implementing a provision which has existed in the Wildlife and Countryside Act since it was enacted in 1981.
Amendment 381ZB, to which, with the permission of the Committee, I shall also speak, is a comparable protection, but it is outside the scope of the 1981 Act. It therefore has to be expressed in the form of a new clause. It provides—I apologise that it does so at some length—that there shall be something called a "Special Countryside Feature Protection Order" which can be put forward by a planning authority either on the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council or when the planning authority considers that the amenity interest is justified, to preserve special countryside features. The special countryside features to which the new clause refers are specified in subsection (6). They include,
"any individual plant or group of plants, hedgerows, ponds, walls used as a habitat by any plant or animal, rocks, boulders or other physiographic feature, and any other features of interest for biological, geological and physiographical features".
I note that the amendment reads "features". The last word should be "reasons". I apologise for that error, which I have only just noticed.
Other subsections of the new clause provide powers to prevent the chopping down or uprooting of plants, using pesticides on plants or water, draining ponds or dumping substances in them. There are powers under subsection (5) for the Secretary of State to set out the form of the orders and the procedures for them so that there is adequate protection for occupiers to have notice and to provide for objections, and so on.
These are relatively minor amendments but they help to make effective the protection which is necessary, and which the experience of the Wildlife and Countryside Act has shown to be necessary, against damage to special features and to protect the environment. I beg to move.
12.15 a.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: In practical terms I do not know who advised the noble Lord on this amendment. I cannot for the moment see the practicality of a three-day stop order in a process which takes several months to operate. The minimum notice required under Section 29(5)(c) is three months and during that process naturally the Nature Conservancy Council is obliged to try to obtain a management agreement. If such a management agreement is not obtainable, clearly the officers of the NCC become increasingly edgy as time proceeds. In general, however, it takes about three weeks to issue a nature conservation order. There is plenty of time within the notice period for this to happen under ordinary circumstances. Given the length of the notice period I cannot see what the provision of three days extra is intended to achieve.
Lord Reay: The effect of the amendment is to require the NCC to give to landowners advance notice of an intention to ask the Secretary of State to make a nature conservation order. Such a notice would be effective for only three days. The effect would be to forewarn landowners and enable the unscrupulous landowner to exploit the potential loophole whereby he need only wait for the notice to expire before carrying out damaging activities. The amendment undermines the existing powers of
2236
the Secretary of State and is contrary to the voluntary principles of the 1981 Act.
The noble Lord may have misunderstood the purpose of procedures for the making of nature conservation orders by the Secretary of State in the exercise of his powers under Section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Such orders are not made lightly, and then only when it becomes clear that additional protection is required to safeguard land or species of national or international importance. I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that advance notice by the NCC of a request to the Secretary of State for an order is not necessary. Such a notice would be contrary to the voluntary principles of the legislation and in a small minority of cases might give the opportunity for unscrupulous landowners to carry out a damaging activity. For that reason we are opposed to the amendment.
Amendment No. 381ZB would bring in substantial powers for local authorities to intrude on the operation of landowners and farmers. The spirit of the amendment runs counter to the voluntary principle on which all the Government's countryside conservation policies are based. There does not appear to be a provision for an appeal against a local authority's decisions.
Our policies of encouraging conservation through the set-aside scheme, through environmentally sensitive areas, the countryside premium, and so on, are to be preferred. These point the way to winning the support of country communities for the objective of conserving the character of the wildlife in our countryside, which I know is shared on all sides of the Committee although we may differ on the best means of achieving that objective. In our view the amendment points the wrong way and I hope that it will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister's response and the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, certainly deserve careful attention. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 371B:
Page 181, line 48, at end insert—
("( ) In section 36(1) (marine nature reserves) after the words "Nature Conservancy Council" there shall be inserted the words "or the Joint Committee constituted under section 123(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990" ").
The noble Baroness said: The noble and gallant Lord spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 367A. I now wish to move it formally in order to give the Minister the opportunity of replying to my question about the future of the marine nature conservation review. In his reply to Amendment No. 367A he spoke of SSSIs but, so far as I can recall, he did not mention marine nature reserves. I hope that the Minister now has an answer for me. This amendment is grouped with others, and I do not know whether the sponsors of the other amendments wish to carry on with the debate while the Minister gets an answer. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I shall be able to supply the noble Baroness with a perfectly satisfactory answer. However, I propose to wait to hear my noble friend Lord Cranbrook speak to his amendments which are grouped with this amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Since my Amendment No. 372 is grouped with this amendment, it is appropriate that I speak to my amendment now. We are venturing into the general area of marine conservation, which is extremely important. In this connection, unfortunately, the 1981 Act has not proved to be as successful as was hoped by those of us who supported the moving of the original clauses which were concerned with marine nature reserves.
At resent, the marine nature reserve is the only conservation designation which covers the sea below the low-water mark under Section 36 of the 1981 Act. Since 1981, only one marine nature conservation reserve has been designated at Lundy, though earlier on today we heard the good news that Skomer may be very nearly with us. The procedures have proved to be very lengthy. There are a large number of preliminary stages and consultations that have to be gone through, and agreements have to be obtained.
Marine nature reserves under our present 1981 Act are likely to achieve the protection of only a small area of the important marine nature conservation resource of this country. It is the general feeling within the Nature Conservancy Council that a simpler designation is needed so that all those bodies whose activities affect the marine nature resource become aware of this special interest and can take precautionary measures.
As has been mentioned earlier this evening, the Nature Conservancy Council is undertaking a marine nature conservation review which will involve the systematic survey of the coastal waters of Great Britain together with areas of particular interest for species of marine birds, fish and marine mammals including the dolphin nurseries in the Moray Firth and Cardigan Bay. The marine conservation review will identify the sites which are appropriate for protective action.
The effect of this amendment will provide a process of notification by which the council can notify the special interest of the marine site to the Secretary of State, to Ministers and relevant authorities. In that notification, potentially damaging operations on such land and the waters covering it can be defined. Under subsection (2) of the new section, in the exercise of their function in relation to such notified sites, the Secretary of State, Ministers and the relevant authorities would be obliged to take into account the conservation of flora and fauna and geological and physiological features. In so doing, it can seek the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council.
In a sense this is a consultative process. It will give the NCC the powers that it needs to notify marine sites. It would also place requirements on others to consult in the case of any potentially injurious operations. One hopes that this will permit them to take in to account the conservation of the features of special interest in connection with any activity.
Earl Peel: I go along with what my noble friend has said on this amendment. The 1981 Act, successful though it has been in regard to land conservation through the voluntary system, has meant a raw deal for marine conservation. Anything we can do to try to improve matters must be welcomed. As my noble friend said, only two reserves have so far been agreed. It has taken an inordinate amount of time to have those agreed. I hope that we can speed up matters and I welcome anything that can help.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I note that my Amendment No. 373 has also been grouped with this marine collection. This is an alternative approach to bring the SSSI system out, as it were, into the waters. Treasury counsel's present opinion is that SSSIs are tied to planning law and the land to which they can apply is therefore restricted by the application of that law. One of the implications of that is that SSSIs may not be notified below mean low water in England and Wales and mean low water springs in Scotland. That has caused considerable difficulties in as much as nature conservation interests do not terminate at mean low water or mean low water springs nor are they restricted to local planning authority areas.
Problems are encountered in two ways. First, there are problems with regard to offshore sand banks which are important for wader feeding and seal basking—for instance, the offshore banks of the Wash, which is the country's largest SSSI. Secondly, there are problems in relation to parts of estuaries which are outside the jurisdiction of local planning authorities or below the low water mark yet may be important for the marine flora and fauna. Examples of deeper estuaries which are SSSIs are the Severn and the Solway. Developments in those two areas can be detrimental to the nature conservation interests within the site but SSSI legislation is not applicable. There are therefore no safeguards for these interests and in many instances the Nature Conservancy Council is not consulted about proposed developments.
The types of activities that cause concern include dredging, fish farming and certain methods of fishing, including suction dredging. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has the power to control such activities but is not obliged to consult the Nature Conservancy Council. Dredging to maintain navigation channels is a duty placed on harbour authorities. Again, the Nature Conservancy Council would like to be able to designate and notify marine SSSIs and then be consulted about the timing of works and the disposal of the soil.
There are other practical problems. Restricting SSSIs by definition involves the mean low water or mean low water springs mark in so far as such boundaries are not fixed. The position of sandbanks can change and so the actual borders of the land exposed at low water vary in time. The effect of the amendment would be to enable the Nature Conservancy Council to notify SSSIs under Section 28 in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) of the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may intervene in regard to paragraph (c) of the amendment, where we find the words:
"which at low tide does not exceed six metres".
I wonder whether in dealing with this problem it might not be to the Government's advantage and to the advantage of nature conservancy to refer to the Admiralty chart tables on which the astronomical level of low water is marked and is clearly defined. The problem of low tides—be they mean tides or spring tides—can make a considerable difference to the situation.
12.30 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendments Nos. 374K and 379C, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, are also included in this grouping. My noble friend apologises through me, for the fact that he is unable to be present this evening. These amendments are also concerned with the conservation of marine zones, but they go somewhat wider than the marine nature reserves the designation of which, as I am sure noble Lords will agree, has been very slow. I hesitate to say that they have been a disappointment; but if, after all the time that has passed since the 1981 Act, there is only one so far designated at Lundy and one close to being designated at Skomer, then clearly this is not the most speedy form of legislation.
The problem is that the European Commission has issued a directive on the protection of wild birds. We should be very concerned about the dangers of being in breach of that directive. There is also the Ramsar Convention on wetlands to which we are signatories and which we should also be careful not to breach.
The marine conservation zones which are proposed in my noble friend's amendment—Amendment No. 374K which is amplified by the advertising provisions in Amendment No. 379C—provide two new features to the existing legislation. First, they lay emphasis on the active management of the marine environment through a mechanism of consultation and management plans; and, secondly, they provide that which the marine nature reserves do not provide at present: greater protection for birds at sea. After all, marine birds spend only part of their life on land in the nature reserves; they also spend a considerable part of their lives at sea where they are at great risk from pollution. We know of this risk from the discussions which have taken place at the various North Sea conferences.
I hope that noble Lords will feel that the concept of a marine conservation zone adds to the existing legislation, which is not entirely satisfactory. I commend these amendments to the Committee.
Lord Hesketh: I have sympathy with my noble friend's intentions in introducing these amendments. I have to say, however, that we have come to the view that the law as it relates to the sea and to activities within it and on it is too complex for us to be able to accept further statutory complications without first understanding better
2240
what more needs to be done to achieve our conservation objectives.
I hope that noble Lords will be in no doubt about the Government's intention to make progress in this area. Our record of positive actions in relation to successive North Sea conferences speaks for itself. At the last conference, the UK led an initiative further to protect marine wildlife. Much needed international co-operation on research aimed at providing a better understanding of what is happening in the North Sea is now underway. We have decided in the light of this and other experience on the establishment of marine nature reserves that it would be wrong to introduce further piecemeal legislative changes which are not founded on any clear idea of what needs to be done or what overall is the best way forward.
We want to make progress, but we do not want to take ad hoc legislative suggestions which may at the end of the day prove to be more an impediment than a help to achieving our objectives. We want, in fact, to deliver the substance, in nature conservation terms, of what my noble friend is proposing, but without the complication of piecemeal legislative provisions. Therefore, while we support wholeheartedly the voluntary approach that permeates Amendment No. 372, we cannot at this state accept further statutory duties for the new councils in marine areas.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides for the establishment of marine nature reserves. The designation of the second such reserve, at Skomer, has very recently been announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales—the first MNR is at Lundy. While this is a welcome advance, we accept that progress has been disappointedly slow, as my noble friend Lord Peel pointed out. The difficulties of persuading marine interests to accept statutory restrictions on ancient rights have been formidable. Yet it remains the case that the most effective way of achieving conservation in practice is through the voluntary co-operation of all concerned. The truism that it is impossible to put a fence round an MNR has been quoted many times before but remains valid.
To try to overcome some of the major difficulties of establishing MNRs we will undertake actively to consider voluntary consultation arrangements for sensitive marine areas. In our view a way forward might be to extend the scheme already established with some success in Scotland throughout the English and Welsh coastal areas.
In many respects that would be a consolidation of the consultation arrangements that already exist. For example the Crown Estates commissioners already consult the NCC on marine aggregate dredging proposals; the Department of Transport closely involves the NCC in marine pollution incidents; and the Department of Energy consults before issuing offshore oil exploration licenses. We want to build on these foundations and to learn from the experience gained from the marine nature reserve programme.
If this course seems appropriate, we would intend to issue guidelines on how marine agencies should participate in these arrangements, and, in particular,

2241
relate their activities to the nature conservation interest of these areas. I understand that the NCC has undertaken a considerable volume of work on identifying sites of importance as part of its marine conservation review and will soon be sufficiently advanced for us to be able to identify where it would be appropriate to establish such areas. We shall actively pursue their establishment. It would be our hope that formal MNRs might follow in appropriate areas when the voluntary arrangements have been seen to have been tried and tested by the local communities.
We shall however also set in hand an examination of existing legislation to determine the extent to which it is appropriate to secure nature conservation objectives and if necessary, after appropriate consultation, we shall bring forward proposals to meet any needs that are identified. In parallel we shall look to the new councils and others to gather evidence on how marine activities affect the marine environment to advance our present knowledge of appropriate and effective measures to secure our natural heritage of the sea. This will necessarily take time and we shall wish to proceed with suitable regard to all relevant interests. But, at the end of the day, our clear objective is to secure policies, mechanisms and programmes that will in practice deliver the conservation objectives which I believe are shared throughout your Lordships' House.
With regard to Amendment No. 373, it is already well established that the land referred to in Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 includes land covered by water within the boundaries of a local planning authority; so the first two insets of the amendment are otiose. With regard to the third inset, I must repeat our reluctance to accept a piecemeal measure that would intrude on a very complex area. I have to say also that the SSSI concept does not transfer readily to the marine environment. The protection offered by SSSI notification is through the development control system. By agreements with landowners and users to compensate them for the profit forgone by not pursuing potentially damaging operations on the land, is also possible for landowners to be remibursed for the costs of management activities that would benefit the nature conservation interest but which would otherwise be unprofitable. This concept of compensation for landowners pursuing less than optimum profit is not valid in the marine environment where in most cases we would be dealing with the effects of exercising international, ancient, common or specific legal rights.
If, as seems to be the case, the noble Lord's concern is to secure that the NCC is consulted about operations in sensitive areas, our proposals will achieve that objective without the complications of inappropriate legislation. As I have said, experience over the past decade has shown that the whole question needs careful examination before we can determine the best way foward to achieve our longer term goals. In the meantime our proposals for encouraging voluntary action, will, I hope the Committee agrees, provide a useful step forward and further valuable experience.
2242
The effect of Amendment No. 371B would be to give the joint committee the executive function of making application to the Secretary of State for an order designating specific areas of marine waters as a marine nature reserve. I have said many times that the Government do not intend the joint committee to have executive functions. These are for the council operating in each country. It will be open to the joint committee to agree criteria that should govern the selection of such areas. That would be entirely proper. The advice would be passed to the councils to act upon it. That is a good illustration of how the new system will work. In answer to the question of the noble Baroness with regard to marine nature conservation, this will continue under the auspices of the joint committee and there will be no disruption to work in hand.
The arguments I have put forward for resisting the previous amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook apply also to those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I will not repeat them except to reinforce the point that the questions of ancient rights, common law rights, international and national law as they relate to the sea and its shores is an immensely complex subject, at which we have already undertaken to take a careful and thorough look.
Existing rights cannot be ridden over rough-shod in a cavalier manner. It is the Government's firm conviction that successful conservation in the sea, as on the land, will only be achieved by the willing co-operation of all relevant interests. We remain most reluctant to depart from this voluntary principle and will do so only with the utmost caution. The amendment proposed runs counter to the voluntary principle. In the Government's view the proposed measures would be bound to be resented by other legitimate interests, and because they would not win co-operation, would fail in a welter of legalistic wrangling.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is only because it is so late at night that the noble Lord can get away with that farrago. I have never heard a series of weaker arguments expressed in a more violent form. The violence of the form grew as the arguments became weaker. All the noble Lord is saying is that the Government are not going to do anything about this problem. They recognise that things are wrong, as a number of the noble friends of the Minister have indicated, but the Government are not going to do a blind thing about it.
The Earl of Cranbrook: That is not fair because I did not place that interpretation on the response to Amendments Nos. 372 and 373, which I believe are under discussion. However, I wish to point out to my noble friend that his right honourable friend in another place was a signatory to the final declaration of the third international conference on the protection of the North Sea on 8th March where he agreed, along with other Ministers, to give further protection to marine wildlife in the North Sea.

2243
Many non-governmental organisations and the Nature Conservancy Council attach great importance to that declaration signed by Ministers at the last North Sea conference.
Paragraph 39 of the declaration entails the adoption of a common approach to species and habitat protection in accordance with measures listed in Annex 5. Annex 5 to the declaration requires states to carry out surveys in order to
"identify sites of national or international importance"
and, in paragraph 3,
"to implement appropriate methods for conservation management and protection"
for such sites. Paragraph 3 further states that such methods may include the identification of
"potentially damaging operations to be subject to a mandatory notification scheme for … coastal sites … and consultation in other areas offshore; … legal controls over particular sea uses in designated areas".
I wish to point out that the appropriate methods referred to in the declaration signed by Ministers at the last North Sea conference are just the kind of methods which are being aired in Amendments Nos. 372 and 373. While I do not intend to press the amendments this evening having heard what my noble friend has said, I look forward to positive action going forward with the other environment Ministers at the North Sea conference regarding this important zone of our coastal waters.
Baroness Nicol: I am grateful for the Minister's answer on the marine nature conservation programme. However, as he would expect, I was disappointed by his reply to Amendment No. 371B. However, at this late hour I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 372 not moved.]
12.45 a.m.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 372A:
Page 181, line 48, at end insert:
("(9A) In section 39 (management agreements with owners and occupiers of land) there shall be inserted a new subsection as follows
"(7) The Secretary of State may by order either generally or in relation to a specific purpose referred to in subsection (1) amend subsection (5) to include within the definition of "relevant authority" (in relation to any area of land) such other person or body as he may consider appropriate." ").
The noble Earl said: At the moment Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act allows local authorities, including the national park authorities, to enter into management agreements; in other words to make annual payments for profits foregone.
The Nature Conservancy Council while entitled to do this within sites of special scientific interest, is prohibited from doing so in the wider countryside. This amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to include within the definition of "relevant authority" any body or individual that he considers fit to carry out this task.
It seems appropriate that the statutory body for nature conservation in this country, or the equivalent authorities under the Bill, should have that power
2244
and not simply be restricted to the 7 per cent. of land comprising SSSIs, vital though of course they are to the whole structure of nature conservation. Whereas resources will inevitably determine the extent to which the NCC can become involved in the countryside, it seems a rather narrow-minded and dangerous approach to restrict its powers to such areas. There are a number of species which cannot be fully conserved in viable populations on a limited series of high-quality sites alone. It is therefore important to be able to support appropriate management of land outside SSSIs where that is necessary to conserve the characteristic wildlife of an area.
There are many instances where even a small financial commitment from the Nature Conservancy Council could persuade a farmer or landowner to change his management to a style that would have enormous advantages for nature conservation without having to go through the somewhat rigorous procedures of the SSSI agreements. On many occasions I have expressed my concern about the wider environment and I am very much aware of the danger of developing a policy which is too clearly selective between conservation here and farming there. I believe that the amendment would go a little way, but an important way, towards addressing that particular problem.
As the amendment is worded, all such schemes would require specific approval by the Secretary of State and could be limited in ways that he thought desirable. It would also allow the most appropriate body to deal with the wider range of environmental problems rather than going indirectly through other bodies. In other words, if the Secretary of State so wished, it could be done by the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission or the new bodies.
Finally, I appreciate that under Secton 38 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 the Nature Conservancy Council has power to give grants and loans. That has been carried through to Clause 124 of the Bill. However, that relates to outgoings in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred. It does not relate to compensatory payments to persons for income foregone which they would have received if they had not farmed in a way conducive to nature conservation. It is a small step forward to allowing the Nature Conservancy Council and other bodies to play a greater part in the wider environment.
My noble friend was good enough to accept Amendment No. 366 of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and I feel that that was a step towards his accepting the present amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: I rise to support the amendment, which would allow the NCC to make management agreements to protect wildlife outside sites of special scientific interest. We all know that the wildlife of this country is not confined to SSSIs and that many areas which fall outside statutory protection are very important in local terms. Therefore I would welcome the extension of the NCC's powers in this way, while pointing out that as ever, the obligations for compensation might prove a deterrent.

2245
The amendment is also another good reason for integrating the NCC's responsibilities with those of the Countryside Commission in England, and the sooner we see the countryside as a whole as important, rather than just the special areas, the better.
Lord Ross of Newport: I support the amendment so able moved by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. It is a very worthwhile extra facility to provide to the Nature Conservancy Council. It could have a very desirable effect in the countryside.
Reverting to the previous amendment, I have some sympathy with the Minister about the marine nature reserves. I tried to set one up at Bembridge in the Isle of Wight and I was told exactly where I got off It is not an easy subject.
The Duke of Somerset: I too should like to support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Peel. It is rather more all-embracing but similar to an amendment I wish to move shortly. The noble Earl has put the case very adequately, but I should just like to establish one point.
The amendment states:
"The Secretary of State may … amend … the definition of 'relevant authority' … to include … such other person or body as he may consider appropriate".
Can the noble Earl confirm that his amendment would enable the Secretary of State to include both the councils and the Countryside Commission as relevant authorities? If he is minded to accept this amendment, perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is his understanding too. I hope that he will also be able to declare his intention to give the councils and the Countryside Commission these powers.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I should like to make absolutely clear my opinion that for the conservation of nature and the natural resources of this country in the end a limited site specific strategy will be not be enough. An extension into the wider countryside is immensely important. The amendment proposed is in accordance with the voluntary principle, and I commend it.
Lord Reay: As my noble friend explained, this amendment seeks powers for the Secretary of State to extend the scope of Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to give the NCC power to enter into management agreements anywhere that it chooses. In our view, it is for local authorities and national parks authorities to decide if and where management agreements are appropriate in the wider countryside. As my noble friend Lord Peel pointed out, we accepted an amendment which would allow the NCC to enter into agreements on land adjoining an SSSI. We should prefer the NCC to confine its expenditure to that necessary to defend SSSIs.
The NCC has power to give grants or loans to any person for any purpose which in its view is conducive to nature conservation. But I believe that the Committee will want to pause for thought before considering an extension of the "net profit forgone"
2246
principle of management agreements outside SSSIs; in other words, to more than 90 per cent. of the land surface of Great Britain. Potentially the cost could run into hundreds of millions of pounds.
At present management agreements target resources on the very best habitats of the SSSIs. It is a system which has proved its worth and we should be careful not to devalue the currency. I listened carefully to what my noble friends and other noble Lords said. I see the point of their arguments but I hope, for the reasons which I have given, that my noble friend will reconsider his amendment.
Earl Peel: I need hardly say that I am extremely disappointed with the response which my noble friend has given me, although I must express my gratitude to those noble Lords from all sides of the Committee who supported the amendment. In response to the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, I would say yes. As I understand it, the relevant authorities would include the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council, and in fact any authority on which the Secretary of State wished to confer that power.
Obviously the major concern of my noble friend was cost. As I tried to point out when I moved the amendment, the cost will be restricted by the amount of finance available to the various bodies. There are statutory obligations to sites of special scientific interest, national nature reserves, and so forth, which inevitably will mean that they will have very little money to carry out what I suggest. I do not think that it would run into the many millions of pounds that my noble friend on the Front Bench suggests.
I believe that if we reject this amendment we shall be in real danger of rejecting the opportunity for the NCC or any such authority to get to grips with nature conservation outside these areas. I believe also that that is absolutely fundamental. I do not have any intention of pressing the amendment at this stage, but in view of the considerable support that I have had from all sides of the Chamber it would be fair to consider it again and possibly come back at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 372B:
Page 182, line 1, leave out ("for Part III") and insert ("of Part II").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 373 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 373ZA:
Page 182, line 39, after (" "Wales" ") insert (", where it first appears,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 373ZB:
Before Clause 124, insert the following new clause:
("Special Functions of Joint Committee
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the Joint Committee shall have the following functions in addition to those specified in section 123 of this Act, namely—

(a) the determination of priorities for the development and implementation by the Councils of policies for nature conservation in Great Britain:

2247

(b) the establishment of common standards for the exercise by the Councils of such of the functions previously discharged by the Nature Conservancy Council under the enactments specified in Schedule 8 to this Act as are assigned to the Councils in accordance with the amendments to those enactments effected by that Schedule;

(c) the establishment of common standards for the provision of advice by the Councils to the Secretary of State on compliance with an international obligation;

(d) the determination of any dispute between the Councils, or of such other matters as the Joint Committee may consider expedient, as to the exercise by the Councils of their functions in respect of any land or marine areas not falling wholly within their area;

and the Joint Committee may give directions of a general or specific character requiring the Councils to comply with their ruling on such matters.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)(b) and (c) above the Joint Committee shall establish common standards for the exercise by the Councils of functions in respect of—

(a) section 28 (Areas of special scientific interest) and section 29 (Special protection for certain areas of special scientific interest) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;

(b) the establishment, maintenance and management of nature reserves (within the meaning of section 15 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949).").

The noble Lords said: If the Government's proposals are to bring benefits to nature conservation across Britain it is essential that policies and practices are applied consistently from Canterbury to Caithness and from Aberystwyth to Aldeburgh. The purpose of the new clause is to provide a focus for the drawing up of conservation standards and priorities on a GB basis. For such purposes the clause would empower the joint committee to establish the priorities and key functions of the country councils or act as broker in the event of demarcation disputes or uncertainties.
In their formal response to the Carver Report, the Government stated, among other things, that in addition to advising on and establishing standards it would be appropriate for the joint committee to take an overview of the implementation of those standards and criteria in a GB context. The new clause would give the joint committee special responsibility for establishing standards and criteria for SSSI selection and other functions of the country councils. It would also allow the joint committee to advise where two councils share a common interest in respect of a site which lies along the boundary of two countries. The estuary of the Welsh Dee, for instance, is not only an SSSI but a Ramsar site and a special protection area under EC Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds.
Perhaps the Minister would like to answer this question at some stage. Does the Wales council or the England council or the joint committee pursue a dialogue with the Department of Transport marine division over navigational and harbour matters in the estuary?
The role of the joint committee is crucial to the success of reorganisation proposals and cannot be left to chance or, with due respect, to ministerial assurances. The amendment has been drawn up in discussions with the voluntary conservation bodies. It clarifies the functions of the joint committee and charts a course for the effective delivery of conservation in Great Britain. I urge the Committee to support the new clause. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment would extend the range of duties exercised by the joint committee. I have already dealt with several of the issues covered, such as the JNCC's role in providing guidelines for SSSIs and NNRs. I hope that what I have said at earlier stages of the Bill is reassuring to my noble friend.
Other aspects, such as the suggestion that the JNCC should be able to determine any disputes or give directions to the country councils, are, we believe, inadvisable for reasons that I have already given in the debate in Committee today. However, my noble friend asked about the relationship between those bodies and the Department of Transport. Of course we are very keen that all departments that are relevant to those cases should be consulted.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 373ZC not moved.]
1 a.m.
Clause 124 [Grants and loans by the Councils]:
The Duke of Somerset The Duke of Somerset moved Amendment No 373A:
Page 126, line 3, after ("loan") insert ("or periodic payments").
The noble Duke said: I rise to move Amendment No. 373A, and with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 373B, 374AZA, 374ZB, 374ZC and 381A.
The purpose of the amendment and the consequential amendments is to broaden the scope of Clause 124 to embrace a concept of ongoing or periodic payments for the enhancement of an environmentally attractive countryside. If the public wishes the countryside to be managed in a particular way it must be prepared to pay for it. Landowners and farmers are ready to offer environmental land management services under commercial contracts. Those contracts could cover a very extensive range of activities; for instance, management of nature reserves and recreational, sporting and leisure facilities, as well as enhanced access.
Wherever there is a demand for land to be managed in a particular way the amendment would enable the landowner to meet it through a long-term contract with a customer. The customers could range from sporting clubs needing pitches and nature societies wanting habitat management, to the Government themselves. The Government should be a major customer through such agencies as the Countryside Commission and the NCC.
We need to broaden the scope of the arrangements away from having regard only to areas defined on maps. The contracts should be on sale throughout the countryside. It may well be that in the ordinary unattractive areas the service would bring the most benefit to the inhabitants. The purpose of the first five amendments in the group is to allow the NCC to enter into management agreements on all land and not simply that designated as an SSSI as is now the case.
In order to do that more effectively it is necessary to extend the concept of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 further than this Bill does. It must go beyond grants and loans to cover environmental objectives requiring continuing work, attention and expense. A longer-lasting benefit would be obtained by a flow of payments over a period of time in return for an ongoing contract. The payment should reflect the price put on the value of the environmental service provided and/or by reference to the profit forgone. The Government expenditure would not be open-ended. It would be limited to the amount that the Government are prepared to spend each year. It would be optional and avoid the case of paying park-keepers to do nothing, which has often been a criticism.
Amendment No. 381A seeks to clarify the position of the Countryside Commission and to put it on the same footing as the NCC. The Countryside Commission for Scotland has powers under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1981 to enter into management agreements with land owners and farmers. However, the power does not appear to exist in England except for experimental schemes which do not cover management agreements. Therefore, explicit provision is needed to allow the Countryside Commission to do that in line with the powers being made available to the new conservancy councils. The amendment provides for agreement between the Countryside Commission and persons having an interest in the countryside for the purpose of protecting, conserving or enhancing the beauty or amenity of the land, or the enjoyment of it by the public. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the Committee whether the power already exists and, if so, in what legislation.
The amendments would give a much-needed impetus to the voluntary collaboration in environmental issues between owners and farmers on the one hand, and nature and countryside agencies on the other. They have the support of the CLA and the NCC, and even Mr. MacSharry has made favourable noises about the principles. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: The amendments would provide additional powers to enable the NCC to enter into management agreements anywhere. They would extend the list of bodies or purposes to which the Secretary of State would be empowered to give financial assistance so as to include payments to the Countryside Commission for management agreements that it might enter into. The NCC is already empowered to enter into management agreements necessary to defend SSSIs. We have accepted an amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook which would enable the council to enter into agreements on land that adjoins an SSSI. Subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State, the council can give grants or loans for nature conservation.
Furthermore, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State already has wide powers under Section 47 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to give money to the Countryside Commission for any of its functions. That can and does include
2250
funding relating to management agreements by the commission giving grants to the local authorities or national park authorities towards the costs which those bodies incur in making such agreements in their area.
Also, the commission can use its powers in relation to experimental schemes such as countryside premium payments covering the positive management of set-aside land and entering into agreements itself. Therefore, the amendment is not necessary for financial purposes.
The commission does not have specific power to enter into management agreements as envisaged in Section 39 of the 1981 Act nor has it sought such power. However, local authorities and national park authorities have the power to make agreements for the purposes set out in the noble Duke's amendment. We see no need to extend the power to the commission at present.
Earl Peel: One of the problems is that the national parks authorities, although they have the power, for some reason which I do not understand do not seem to exercise it. That is one of the real problems. That is why there is the habitat loss occurring to such an extent within the national parks, a point which I made earlier. Habitat loss is as great within parks as it is outside them because that power is not being exercised at all.
Lord Reay: My noble friend makes an interesting point which I am sure we shall want to consider. However, the Government do not accept the case for extending further the NCC's powers to making payment to landowners, as I explained in answer to his earlier amendment. In the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Duke will withdraw his amendment.
The Duke of Somerset: I am grateful for the Minister's comments. As regards the commitment to spend money, the choice for the Government or their agency to enter into a management agreement is entirely optional. Expenditure on environmental projects could be controlled or cash limited on the same way as any other public expenditure.
I should like to study what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 373B to 374ZC not moved.
Clause 124 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 374A not moved.]
Clause 125 (Schemes for the transfer of property etc. of the Nature Conservancy Council):
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 374B and 374C:
Page 126, line 24, after ("staff") insert ("and in respect of the provision of pensions, allowances or gratuities").
Page 126, line 30, at end insert:
("( ) The rights and liabilities of the Nature Conservancy Council in respect of the provision of pensions, allowances and gratuities for or in respect of their members and employees or

2251
their former members or employees shall, on the date appointed under section 121(3) above, by virtue of this subsection, become rights and liabilities of the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: These amendments are technical. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 125, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 126 agreed to.
Clause 127 [Offers of employment to employees of Nature Conservancy Council and certain employees of Countryside Commission]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 374D:
Page 127, line 6, at end insert:
("( ) Subsection (1) above does not apply to a person whose contract of employment with the Nature Conservancy Council terminates on the day immediately preceding the date appointed under section 121(3).").
The noble Lord said: It has been pointed out that the present formulation of Clause 127(1) of the Bill could be interpreted as requiring the new councils to offer employment to contract staff whose contract terminates on the date prior to the appointed day. It is not the intention that such employees should automatically and by right be offered a job on one of the new councils, although they will have the opportunity to apply for any unfilled permanent post on the new bodies. The purpose of this amendment is to make that clear.
Amendment No. 374E is a straightforward amendment to clarify the effect of Part III of Schedule 9. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 374E:
Page 127, line 13, leave out from second ("to") to end of line 14 and insert ("offers and proposals under this section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 127, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Transfer Schemes and Staff of Existing Councils]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 374F to 374J:
Page 185, line 45, leave out ("is") and insert ("will be").
Page 186, line 20, leave out ("new Councils") and insert ("Countryside Council for Wales").
Page 186, line 35, leave out ("each person") and insert ("those persons").
Page 186, line 40, leave out ("each person who is") and insert ("those persons who are").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 374F relates to paragraph 10 of Schedule 9 to the Bill concerning the submission of proposals by the NCC to the Secretary of State which are designed to ensure that all the relevant staff receive an offer of employment by one or other of the new councils. The amendment improves the drafting by referring to each person who "will be" entitled to receive an offer of employment instead of who "is" entitled.
Amendment No. 374G relates to Schedule 9 to the Bill, which concerns the offer of employment by the Countryside Council for Wales to certain employees. In error, the first two lines of paragraph
2252
13 require the Secretary of State to consult the new councils, which would mean all three councils, but the matter is obviously of no concern to the new Nature Conservancy Councils for England and Scotland. The amendment rectifies the matter by requiring the Secretary of State to consult only the Countryside Council for Wales.
The final two Amendments, Nos. 374H and 374J, as drafted, could be interpreted as meaning that each person involved in the reorganisation will be entitled to a number of offers of employment by the relevant council. This is not the intention and the amendments substitute "those persons" for "each person" to remove any doubt.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9 as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 128 and 129 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 374K not moved.]
Schedule 10 (Transitional Provisions and Savings for Part VII):
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 375:
Page 189, line 16, leave out ("Act") and insert ("Schedule").
The noble Earl said: As we are in the Schedule, I wonder whether the word should be "Schedule" rather than "Act". If it is "Act" then it should at least mention that it is Part VII of the Act. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Once again the Government are deeply in the debt of my noble friend Lord Balfour for the two further amendments to the Bill. We accept both graciously.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 375A:
Page 190, line 7, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 375B and 375C:
Page 190, line 8, leave out from ("Committee") to end of line 9 and insert ("or, where directions under subsection (4) of that section have been given, the new Council, by whom the").
Page 190, line 10, leave out ("exercisable") and insert ("dischargeable (on behalf of the new Councils)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 375D not moved.]
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 376:
Page 191, line 31, leave out ("Act") and insert ("Schedule").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Reay: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past one o'clock.

  CHARITIES: ENLARGEMENT OF AREA OF BENEFIT
  CHARITIES: ENLARGEMENT OF AREA OF BENEFIT
  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS SCHEMES VALIDITY
  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS SCHEMES VALIDITY
  CIVIL SERVICE: FLEXIBLE WORKING
  CIVIL SERVICE: FLEXIBLE WORKING
  NCC REORGANISATION: COST SAVINGS
  NCC REORGANISATION: COST SAVINGS
  DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION: EC PROPOSALS
  DENIED BOARDING COMPENSATION: EC PROPOSALS
  MULTIPLE BIRTHS FOUNDATION: AWARD APPLICATION
  MULTIPLE BIRTHS FOUNDATION: AWARD APPLICATION