Sitting of 19 June 1991

Preamble
The House met at hall-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRIGHTON MARINE PALACE AND PIER BILL
  Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Elderly People (Hospital Care)
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of the elderly in long-term hospital care.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The health care needs of the elderly will continue to be the Government's highest priority.
    Mr. Dunnachie: What steps have been taken properly to assess the elderly before they are committed to long-term hospitalisation or nursing home care? Will the Minister take a leaf out of the book of the Northern Ireland people, who have decided that only consultants involved in geriatric medicine should assess people's needs?
    Mr. Forsyth: The responsibility for care in the community will lie with local authorities and guidance will be provided on that. Health care needs are a matter for the consultants. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we plan to ensure by April next year that care plans are agreed between health authorities and local authorities so that elderly people's needs from the various agencies can be properly met.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister tell the House how it would help care in the community if the Greater Glasgow health board went ahead with the proposal to close the Stoneyetts and Birdston hospitals in my constituency? If the chairman of the health board continues to decline the invitation to come to a public meeting so that everyone involved can have a say in the decision, and if the Minister also declines the invitation, will the Minister think again, and encourage the board to think again? Does the Minister accept that if those tragic closures take place, they will be a major blow for community care in my constituency?
    Mr. Forsyth: It is for the Greater Glasgow health board to decide how best to provide for care within its area. Where closure decisions have been taken, they require the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. On the provision of care for the elderly in Greater
    276
    Glasgow, I pay tribute to the splendid efforts of Laurence Peterken and the chairman of the board to ensure that better facilities are made available for the elderly and I commend them for being prepared to see the removal of facilities that are not up to standard and their replacement with facilities that are more appropriate to the needs of the next century.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of people being cared for now under this Government is dramatically higher than it was in 1979 and that the amount of assistance being given to the elderly is much higher in real terms than the Labour party ever managed?
    Mr. Forsyth: The assistance provided in the health service is greater not only than the Labour party ever imagined, but than it promised in its last manifesto. The growth in expenditure in the health service is more than the Labour party promised the electorate, although Labour still accuses the Government of not investing enough. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that there is more provision for the elderly. There are about an extra 1,700 beds. Substantially more patients are being treated. This year 900,000 more patients are being treated than in 1979.
    Mr. Dewar: Is the Minister satisfied that Greater Glasgow health board can defend its decision to bring in commercial companies to build and operate long-term hospital provision for the elderly on the basis that those profit-driven companies can provide better and more stimulating care than the board's own staff in its hospitals? Are such arrangements really a question of patient care or are they cost-cutting exercises? Can the Minister perhaps comment on the difficulties that he sees ahead in 1992–93 when the Scottish health authorities revenue equalisation —SHARE–formula will take another ³10 million from the Greater Glasgow health board budget, which is already under severe pressure?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman should know that with the health service reforms the money will follow the patient. As he has been busily opposing them, I am surprised that he is pleading the case for Glasgow in those terms. With regard to private developments and partnerships between the private sector on care for the elderly, there is no choice of the kind that the hon. Gentleman suggests. They are making savings and providing better care for patients. Elderly patients are being provided with up-to-date and state of the art facilities which represent an improvement on the acute facilities with which they have hitherto been treated. At the same time, health boards have made savings on the revenue side.
    It is a pity that Opposition Members' dogma leads them to oppose something that is clearly in the interests of patient care and also ensures that resources go further.

    Coronary Surgery, Lothian
    Mr. Eadie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra financial resources he has now decided to allocate Lothian health board for elective coronary surgery.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Negotiations are continuing with Lothian health board, but I will be making an extra ³£3.8

    277
    million available for cardiac surgery in Scotland. I will be looking to health boards to achieve a considerable increase in operations as a consequence.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the Minister aware that Lothian health board has informed me that the wait for cardiac surgery is one year? It also informed me that that cannot be amended unless new financial resources are allocated. Is the Minister further aware that we are discussing the question of a better quality of life—and tragically even death—for people in the Lothian health board area?
    Mr. Forsyth: The first point is that patients who require emergency treatment are admitted immediately. It is true that the waiting list is too long, but the waiting list in Lothian has been reduced by 5 per cent. during the past year. We are making additional resources available and we are currently negotiating with Lothian about how much they should amount to in order to make further progress. Since 1983 we have doubled funding for cardiac surgery from ³10 million to just under ³20 million and the number of operations has increased from 1,700 to just over 3,000.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the problems, but, equally, we are trying to tackle them by making more resources available.
    Mr. Darling: The Minister must be aware that it is no comfort to know that patients will be admitted in the event of an emergency. We need to stop patients being admitted as an emergency and deal with them at the proper time. Is he aware that recently there has been a spate of cancellations, not of operations, but of preliminary examinations and interviews? Does he realise that it is intolerable that people have to wait months to be seen by a consultant and then wait a considerable time to have the operation that they desperately need?
    Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had not supported those who took strike action against competitive tendering, waiting lists would not be as long. Waiting lists are considerably shorter than when the Labour party was in government.
    On the overall position, the hon. Gentleman is right to point to the need to reduce waiting times. We are agreeing with every health board target for waiting times, which we mean to see achieved during the course of the next Parliament and the next Conservative Government.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had about the governance of Scotland and about local government reorganisation; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): A range of representations has been received about the governance of Scotland and local government reorganisation.
    Mr. Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the representations that he has received from the constitutional convention are flawed and fraudulent? They fail to deal with the Goschen-Barnett formula, the number of Scottish Members of Parliament and the West Lothian question. Is not that a guarantee for disharmony, disunity and conflict throughout the United Kingdom as stated by the Leader of the Opposition? Is not it about time that we received
    278
    some information from the Leader of the Opposition about the governance of Scotland and the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend, as always, speaks with great common sense and wisdom on the subject. However, I believe that the Scottish Constitutional Convention has folded its tents and slipped quietly away into the night. On my hon. Friend's specific question on representations, I can tell the House, and I will be confirming it in a written answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) today, that in the past six months we have received one petition and a large number of letters and postcards. The petition was in favour of devolution as were 14 of the letters and postcards, 10 were in favour of separation and 222 were against devolution.
    Mr. Galloway: Can the deputy governor explain why the Government are prepared to turn the world upside down in order to put talks together in Northern Ireland about devolution of power to the people there? Why is devolution good enough for the people of Ulster, but not good enough, or too good, for the people of Scotland? The House deserves an explanation.
    Mr. Stewart: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should advertise too much his views on the Irish question, but Northern Ireland involves a very different set of circumstances from Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps the second most major and influential figure in the Labour party in the west of Scotland. It is a close-run thing between him and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I was therefore interested to see the comments of the hon. Member for Hillhead in The Sun on 7 June on the sacking of Mr. Jimmy Allison when he said—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Minister, but is it relevant to the question?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, it is relevant because it shows the kind of Scotland that the hon. Member for Hillhead's party is aiming towards. He said:
    "It was Clydeside versus Kelvinside. Pints of beer against glasses of dry white wine."
    That is the new Labour party, is it—glasses of dry white wine in Kelvinside?
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my hon. Friend had any representations about the size of Scottish constituencies? I know that all right hon. and hon. Members want to ensure that we get value for money and, as hon. Members from Scotland represent a far lower number of constituents than those from elsewhere in the United Kingdom, is not it time that we had some boundary reviews and reduced the number of Scottish Members of Parliament in the House?
    Mr. Stewart: I have had no such representations and such matters are for the boundary commission. But my hon. Friend is right to raise that question in relation to devolution. I refer him to an academic study, the Strathclyde papers on government and politics, No. 78, which pointed out that the Scottish Constitutional Convention had completely failed to face up to the West Lothian question to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) referred, and had completely failed to face up to the implications of devolution for the House of Commons.
    Mr. Sillars: Do not the Scottish people deserve a better discussion about their future than the comic-cuts exchange here this afternoon? Will the Minister consider whether it is sensible for the Scottish people to opt for the best form of government within the EC—that is, to be represented by themselves as are the people of Ireland, Denmark, Portugal, Spain and Luxembourg, which is presently the President of the EC with a population smaller than that of Edinburgh?
    Mr. Stewart: I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. However, I congratulate him on the excellent speech that he made in the House on a Friday recently when he completely tore apart the proposals by the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The Government believe in the Union and in the United Kingdom and believe that that is the best constitutional arrangement for the people of Scotland as it is for the people of the other countries that make up the United Kingdom.

    Mar Lodge
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his discussions with Mr. Kit Martin about the future of Mar Lodge; and what proposals he now has to restrict deer on the Mar Lodge estate in keeping with the age structure of the ancient Caledonian forest.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions. Mr. Martin has, however, had some discussions with officials of Historic Scotland about the future of the lodge house itself.
    The Cairngorms working party is currently considering deer management and the future of the native woodlands in the area and we shall give careful consideration to its recommendations.
    Mr. Dalyell: Either in answer to my Adjournment debate tonight or now, will the Ministers say whether they broadly accept the analogy that, in human terms, these trees are 80 to 90 years old and that this is the last chance to save a major part of what remains of the ancient European forest? How can we tell people in Brazil, Sarawak or Zaire that they should look after their rain forests when we do not seem able to look after our own living treasure?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, the old Caledonian forest, which I have seen myself, is significant in the area. It is sad that the proposals of the Crown Estate Commissioners fell through, as the hon. Member knows. We remain prepared to consider any proposals put to us and we shall take a keen interest in them. Resources are available to fund management agreements, and I intend to go into that more thoroughly in answer to the hon. Gentleman's debate tonight.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Since Mr. Kit Martin has been mentioned, and as he is a member of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland, and as he has restored houses in Scotland and England without introducing golf courses and all the other rubbish usually associated with such activities, will my hon. Friend note that the heritage of Scotland is greatly safeguarded by the investment of such people and greatly threatened by the lack of funds for the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have increased resources for the Historic Buildings Council for Scot land —now Historic Scotland. Mr. Kit Martin's abilities are well known and he is eligible to apply for grant if he chooses to. He has never done so thus far in any of his successful ventures. The rebuilding of the lodge is a matter for his judgment.

    Mental Illness
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made on the provision of facilities in the community for those suffering from mental illness and the development of community mental health teams.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Day places in psychiatric specialties have more than doubled to around 5,500, grants of ³3·25 million have been introduced for mental illness and a ³15 million bridging finance scheme will help a number of projects in the mental health field.
    Dr. Godman: Is the Minister satisfied with progress in implementing the grants under the mental health scheme? I urge on him the need to give sympathetic consideration to the needs of the poor people who suffer from brain injuries. They must surely be brought into the ambit of the grants scheme—at the moment they fall outwith it. I readily acknowledge the Minister's efforts on the medical side, but I urge him to look more sympathetically at the community needs of this group.
    A similar plea can be made for dementia sufferers and their families; they too suffer from a lack of day care facilities and of respite care for their carers.
    Mr. Forsyth: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a considerable interest in this matter and his suggestion seems sensible. I am happy to give him an undertaking to look into the possibilities of doing as he asks. He will know that we have recently established and made an announcement about a national centre for head injury victims, but I shall look positively at his suggestion of using the grants scheme to help people who have suffered from brain injuries.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is the Minister aware that Grampian health board has recently announced that in the next seven to 10 years it intends to close two mental hospitals in my constituency—Kingseat and the House of Daviot? Does he accept that there is concern that those closures are part of a plan that meets the needs of the health board, but not always those of the patients and their relatives and friends? They are anxious because people are being forced into the community without adequate facilities and support. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will not sanction any hospital closures until he is satisfied that adequate community care facilities have been provided?
    Mr. Forsyth: Yes, I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. However, I respectfully suggest to him that asking such questions will not allay the fears that he says exist. He should be in no doubt that one reason why the care in the community programme has moved more slowly in Scotland is our determination that patients should not be discharged from long-stay care unless proper provision is available in the community. The White Paper proposals, which are now being implemented,

    281
    are designed to ensure that local authorities and health boards operate in partnership to avoid any possibility of patients being put in that position.
    Mr. Worthington: Is the Minister aware that one reason why the programme has moved more slowly in Scotland is that the resources have not been devoted to community care of the mentally ill. The Minister must be careful not to mislead the House. He referred to ³15 million of bridging finance for the mentally ill. As he well knows, much of that is for the mentally handicapped.
    Has the Minister spoken to his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State about the cuts in training places for the recovering mentally ill? We have lost 120 training places, three centres have been closed and expenditure for the Scottish Association for Mental Health has been cut from ³1·5 million to ³1 million. That is a backward step for community care.
    Why is it that in Scotland two and a half times as many people are in mental hospitals as in England and Wales? Why is the number of training places per 1,000 of the population 15 times greater in England and Wales than it is in Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman asks why there are more people in mental-illness and mental-handicap institutions in Scotland than there are in England. It is because the implementation of the care in the community programme has moved more slowly. The hon. Gentleman suggested that less money was being spent in Scotland on those areas. Nothing could be further from the truth. The health service in Scotland receives about a quarter more expenditure per head than it does in England. The pace at which we have implemented the care in the community programme has been determined by the facilities that are available in the community. That will remain so.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards hospitals opting out of health board control; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to strengthen the present arrangements for consulting the local community and the staff of any hospital contemplating trust status.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): NHS trust status bestows a number of benefits, foremost of which is that it provides the opportunity for improved patient care through the delegation of responsibility to a local trust board.
    The Government have made it clear that we value an input by the public into the application process, and arrangements for consultations are laid down in the National Health Service Trusts (Consultation Before Establishment) (Scotland) Regulations 1991. Those provide for wide-ranging consultation.
    Mr. Strang: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that opposition to this policy in Scotland is intense and widespread? We saw what happened in England when hospitals opted out. At Guy's and Bradford hospitals entire specialties have been closed, and hundreds of jobs are to be lost. If jobs are to be lost on that scale in an opted-out hospital, there is bound to be a reduction in the range and quality of services provided. Why does not the
    282
    Secretary of State have the courage to call a halt to the proposals before they damage the health service in Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: I am sure that the House will agree that it is far too soon to judge the success of trust status developments south of the border. I venture to suggest, however, that if Guy's hospital had enjoyed trust status for some time, it might not have had to face the problems that it has experienced recently.
    The purpose of trust status is to improve the quality of health care and the delivery of health services. Trust status hospitals will remain in the national health service, and will continue to treat NHS patients free of charge. I believe that they will be to the advantage of health care in Scotland.
    Mr. Robertson: Will the Secretary of State guarantee to abide by the outcome of the consultations on local opinion that will form part of this exercise? Or will we see the same process that we saw in England and Wales, with a decision being made in advance and rammed through despite the recording of virtually unanimous public opinion in the process?
    Mr. Lang: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will make the final decision as a consequence of the consultation process, which is a key part of the exercise. It is laid down in statute and provides for criteria that will be applied. Detailed guidance has been issued, and the process will take place over a substantial period.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Secretary of State reflect on the nonsense that has been talked about the benefits of opting out? He says that the hospitals involved are simply being returned to local control, but in effect he is saying that Grampian health board, for instance, is completely unrepresentative, and incapable of running the health service in Grampian. He describes competition as benefiting the health service, but how can that be so when there is a guaranteed monopoly of supply in the Grampian region? Why not leave things alone? They are working pretty well as they are.
    Mr. Lang: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's expression of approval for the quality of the health service in Scotland, which was not reflected in some of the earlier comments made by his hon. Friends.
    Grampian health board supports the trust concept, so I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can pray the board in aid. One of the merits of trust status is the fact that key decisions would be made locally without bureaucratic procedures and delays. The hon. Gentleman should look for the positive advantages, instead of approaching trust status with a closed mind.
    Mr. Graham: Does the Secretary of State realise that "opt-out" has become a dirty word in Scotland, just as "Tory" has become a dirty word? Will he give us an assurance that TV detector vans will stop hounding and harassing long-term elderly patients in hospitals? Will he call a halt to that despicable practice?
    Mr. Lang: I am not sure what that has to do with trust status, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that for every pound spent by the last Labour Government on health provision in Scotland, ³4 is being spent now, and

    283
    there are 1,300 more doctors and dentists and 7,500 more nurses and midwives in the Scottish health service now than there were when we came into office.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that general practitioners in Forfar, and those who work in hospitals there, are disappointed not to be able to proceed immediately to self-governing status? Nevertheless, they welcome the announcement by my hon. Friend the Minister of State that Forfar is to have a new all-purpose community hospital. We have waited 25 years for that hospital, but the health board has failed to deliver.
    Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Positive and constructive thought has certainly been given to the possibility of trust status in the Forfar area. An imaginative concept was presented by GPs in the area, but, as my hon. Friend knows, certain financial and service implications caused us to decide that it should not be implemented. That is not to say that other more interesting and practicable propositions will not be advanced.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Secretary of State recognise that all his talk of consultation has a hollow ring, given that his colleague the Minister is driving ahead with these schemes irrespective of medical and public opinion?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman give his personal attention to the case of South Ayrshire general hospital? He is supposed to believe in consultation. Is he aware that not only have the consultants voted against trust status by 50 votes to nine, but general practitioners in the area have now opposed it by 194 votes to seven? Can he doubt that there is also strong opposition among members of the public? Why is he allowing a determined but small group of perhaps politically motivated men to hijack the hospital? Is it not time that he ended the uncertainty, listened to what is said in the consultation process and stopped the application?
    Mr. Lang: On the one hand, the hon. Gentleman calls for more consultation, and on the other he tells me to stop it short and end the whole process now. The whole point about consultation is that it will enable us to hear a range of views and arguments on what are complex and diverse issues and not such as can be reduced to simple ballot. We shall look at the merits of the arguments advanced over a measured period of time in the light of the criteria that we have set down and published, and then we shall reach a decision.

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are on health service waiting lists in Scotland.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The latest figures show that there were 59,520 people on the in-patient waiting lists. That is more than 17,000 fewer than the number that we inherited from the last Labour Government.
    Mr. Home Robertson: After the drastic reduction in the number of hospital wards in my constituency of East Lothian, we now find that the disgraceful waiting lists for hospitals in Edinburgh are being further aggravated by waiting lists for ambulances to take patients from my constituency to and from those hospitals. As to the waiting list arrangements for the proposed private hospital in
    284
    Haddington for the continuing care of elderly patients, can the Minister give any guarantee that beds will be available for elderly NHS patients who need care in that unit, whenever it is introduced?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman should raise this matter directly with Lothian health board, which is responsible for the provision of care. In common with other health boards, Lothian is being set targets for its waiting lists. I pay tribute to the way in which it is being innovative and enterprising in trying to ensure that the considerably increased resources available to it produce the best possible quality of patient care. The hon. Gentleman should take account of the fact that Lothian health board is treating far more patients than at any time in its history.
    Sir Hector Monro: Many people are extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for the initiative that he has taken to reduce waiting lists through special resources for health boards. The increase in overall resources available to health boards by an average of 10 per cent. this year, which means many millions of pounds for each board, must go a long way towards improving patient care. Is not that good news for Scotland, in contrast with the moaning and groaning that we hear from the Opposition?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Our waiting list initiative has resulted in an extra 100,000 patients being treated. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) repudiated special initiatives of this kind as wasteful and short term. I was even more surprised when I read the Labour party's policy document on health to find exactly such an initiative promised as one that the Labour party would have put forward, had it found itself in government.
    Mr. Galbraith: The Minister will be aware that the only reason why the waiting list figures are apparently less than they were in 1979 is because the method of calculating them has changed—an old Tory trick. Is it not the case that in the past year in-patient waiting lists have increased by 2·3 per cent. in Scotland? Why is it that the biggest increase in in-patient waiting lists is in Forth Valley health board, which covers the Minister's constituency and is run by a Tory party member? In the other two health hoards run by Tory party members—Ayrshire and Arran, and Grampian—the increases in the waiting lists are also above the national average. Is not that an example of Tory party efficiency in action, and does not it show that Tory party chairmen of health boards are bad for health?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman would do himself a service if he were not so selective in his use of statistics. He is right to say that in-patient waiting lists have increased by just over 2 per cent., but he did not mention the fall in day-patient waiting lists over the same period. Since 1987, when the waiting list initiative began, they have fallen by 13 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that waiting lists are down because we have changed the basis on which the figures are calculated, when 900,000 extra patients are being treated this year, an extra 100,000 as a result of the waiting list initiatives, he is living in a dreamland and he does a great disservice to the consultants and doctors in the health boards concerned, some of whom have given up their weekends to get waiting times down.

    Share Fishermen
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further assistance he proposes to make available to those share fishermen currently prevented from fishing by the eight-day tie-up rule.
    Mr. Lang: Share fishermen have a direct interest in the conservation of fish stocks for the future. The aim of the eight-day tie-up rule is to reduce fishing pressure on cod and haddock stocks, to bring long-term benefits to all our fishermen.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Has the Secretary of State seen industry estimates that the combination of the tie-up provision with the unilateral imposition of the 90 mm square panel will reduce the landings of marketable haddock by as much as 55 per cent., and of whiting by as much as 75 per cent? If that does not justify assistance, I do not know what does. Will the Secretary of State personally take charge of the important negotiations at the next EC Fisheries Council on 8 July and guarantee that if the rest of the EC fishing fleet does not accept the 90 mm square panel regime he will withdraw it from this country as well?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that we must conserve stocks, particularly of cod and haddock, or there will be no fish for future generations of share fishermen or other fishermen to catch. The best way to do that is by a range of measures which limit effort and capacity and ensure that stocks survive and develop, so that the limits currently imposed can be lifted in due course. That is the best way forward for the long-term future of the industry.
    Mr. Macdonald: When will the Governmnt complement the tie-up on the east coast with a weekend ban on the important prawn fisheries on the west coast? Such a ban would have the support of all the fishermen's associations, would not cost the Government a penny, and would represent a radical and effective conservation measure. That proposal has been before the Government for several months. Will the Secretary of State take a personal interest in it?
    Mr. Lang: I compliment the hon. Gentleman on a far more realistic approach to the problem than we notice from the Scottish National party and hon. Members on other Benches. We are considering the west coast question very carefully and will take action when we judge it appropriate to do so.
    Mr. Summerson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there should be many more salmon in Scottish waters as a result of the lifting of nets in the estuaries of many Scottish rivers. My right hon. Friend will be aware also that a deal should be done with the Faroese and Greenlanders—[Interruption)—to reduce the amount of salmon that they are taking. My right hon. Friend will be further aware—(Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about fishing, not about salmon specifically.
    Mr. Summerson: I am talking about the salmon of Scotland.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should be talking about the tie-up rule. I think that we have heard enough.

    Rail Transport
    Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on present European Commission proposals for rail transport in Scotland.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any European Commission proposals for rail transport in Scotland which have a direct bearing on his Department's responsibilities.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that about 85 per cent. of sea passengers from Great Britain to Northern Ireland go through the ports of Stranraer and Carnryan, and that 30 per cent. of all British sea passengers to Ireland use those two ports? Does the Minister therefore accept that a modern rail system in the west of Scotland is important to service that main route between Great Britain and the island of Ireland? Why are the Government supporting a European Community proposal which would take that business away from the west of Scotland and upgrade the railway line to Holyhead, making that the main route from Great Britain?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Government have given support to Lame harbour, and some ³4 million has been made available from the EC's Northern Ireland transportation programme. However, in the case of any proposals from which funds may be made available from the European regional fund, for either Northern Ireland or Scotland, in which we have a common interest, there will be co-operation between officials of the Scottish Office and of the Northern Ireland Office. Stranraer and Carnryan are located within the Galloway EC regional fund operational programme, which received more than ³8 million in the same period as Lame harbour obtained assistance. As for the right hon. Gentleman's final question, I will consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who has lead responsibility for such matters, and then give the hon. Gentleman a full reply, but I agree with the general tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.
    Mr. Wilson: I strongly support what was said by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor). Indeed, I would like the Minister at some point to give the same strong support as was given by the Northern Ireland Office last week to my proposal that the Ardrossan-Belfast route be revived.
    Will the Minister consider, too, other parts of the European Commission's territory? Does he not feel some shame or embarrassment when he looks at the railway map of Europe showing the high-speed links developing all over western Europe and then at what is happening in Britain, and especially in Scotland, in connection with the channel tunnel? Will he confirm that the tunnel will come into operation without direct links with Scotland, and that no interchange has yet been identified, never mind constructed, in London so that Scottish passengers can transfer easily? Will the hon. Gentleman also confirm that there will be no dedicated freight route between Scotland and the channel tunnel?
    Looking at the whole picture, does the Minister agree that the level of preparedness in Scotland for the channel tunnel is a disgrace, and represents a potential disaster for the Scottish economy? Before the tunnel comes into

    287
    operation, will the Government take the subject seriously and ensure that Scotland will not be further disadvantaged by its advent?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions and I shall deal with them one by one. First, British Rail can and will consider changes to its proposed services in connection with the channel tunnel, if it is satisfied that there is a demand for additional services.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked about what would happen before the channel tunnel services start operating in 1994. Manufacturers have not yet been able to quote a firm price and delivery date to British Rail for the specially modified rolling stock required. But British Rail still plans to run night passenger services and freight services from the day that the tunnel opens. With regard to access before 1994, overnight through services are still planned to start when the tunnel opens. Before then the east and west coast main line routes will have services into Waterloo., so that passengers have a convenient interchange for the inter-capital train service.
    Finally—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a lot of questions and he is entitled to an answer. Talks are taking place both with United Kingdom and with Northern Ireland officials about upgrading into a European high-speed rail network throughout Europe, and those talks are going ahead.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be helpful to other hon. Members if single questions were asked.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Harry Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospitals in Forth Valley health board's area have applied for trust status.
    Mr. Lang: An application for trust status has been received from the Royal Scottish National hospital, Larbert.
    Mr. Ewing: Has the Secretary of State seen the proposed management structure for the Royal Scottish National hospital at Larbert, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)? The hospital will have a chief executive, a director of planning, a director of finance, a director of clinical services, and a director of nursing and quality assurance. How many beds will have to be closed to pay the enormous salaries that those people will command? If the English example is anything to go by, they will be given free cars into the bargain.
    If the Government are at all interested in patient care, why does not the Secretary of State do the sensible thing and, as they would say in Falkirk, throw the whole mad idea into the bucket?
    Mr. Lang: I have not seen the submission to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but it is for the Forth Valley health board to carry out the detailed and comprehensive consultation process according to the published criteria. However, I understand that although the number of patients at the hospital has been reduced, the number of staff has substantially increased.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Secretary of State agree that the successful running of any hospital depends largely on the existence of a harmonious relationship between management, staff, patients and the community? The management proposal for the Royal Scottish National hospital to become self-governing has been clearly rejected by 95 per cent. of the staff, by the patients' relatives association, by Central regional council as social work authority, and by countless organisations and individuals in the community. Will the Secretary of State please get it into his head that if he gives the go-ahead to the management to proceed in the face of such widespread opposition, it will be a recipe for conflict and chaos which will be completely against the interests of the mentally handicapped patients at the Royal Scottish National hospital?
    Mr. Lang: The consultation process will be based on published criteria which include benefits to patients, managerial capacity, the involvement of senior professional staff in the management of the trust and financial viability. It is the hon. Gentleman who should get it into his head that the reason why we are advancing the trust status proposals is that we believe that they will improve the quality of care and the delivery of health services in Scotland. Against the background of the vast improvements that the Government have generated over the past 12 years, we have every right to expect the hon. Gentleman to believe that and to support the proposals.

    Angiograms (Glasgow)
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on how many people are awaiting angiogram examinations within the Greater Glasgow health board area.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: At 31 December 1990 the number of patients on the Greater Glasgow health board cardiology waiting list, which includes angiography, was 656. The mean waiting time for those patients admitted in the three-month period up to December 1990 was 44·7 days.
    Mr. Martin: Heart specialists to whom I have spoken are very worried about the length of the waiting time for angiogram examinations. As the Minister knows, the examinations can determine whether a patient should go on to have heart surgery. In some cases, however, angiography can be used in relation to remedial treatment for patients who will not need surgery. Many of the surgeons are worried that patients are kept waiting for so long that often by the time they are examined and it is discovered that they need heart surgery, they are too weak to undergo such surgery. Does not that mean that the long waiting list is placing some patients under sentence of death?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of the size of the waiting list, but I should point out to him that while in September last year the figure was 753, by December it had been reduced to 656 —a reduction of 12·;88 per cent. I will ensure, however, that the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed is drawn to the attention of the Greater Glasgow health board in the hope that further progress can be made.

    Scottish Bus Group
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the sale of Scottish Bus Group subsidiaries to be completed; and if he will make a statement.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Within the next few months. Although the target date of April 1991 set out in the disposal programme for the Scottish Bus Group subsidiaries has not been met, satisfactory progress is being made.
    Mr. McAllion: Scottish Office Ministers justified the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group on the grounds that it would create new and vigorous Scottish-based companies and encourage employee participation. Why, then, has the Minister thrown out employee bids in at least two Scottish Bus Group subsidiaries and sold the companies instead to a private predator from south of the border in one case, and to a predator company boasting among its directors the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) in the other? Does the Minister not understand that the Scottish bus industry is not a plaything for him to palm off to his party's friends but a vital national service for which he has shown himself unworthy to hold responsibility?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. We have followed the terms of the disposal programme exactly and have made it quite clear that the principles under which we operate are sustained and fair competition. We support employee participation and the maximisation of sales proceeds. We have given preference to management-employee buy-out teams—
    Mr. McAllion: Where?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer is Lowland Scottish, Scottish City Link, Eastern Scottish and Kelvin Central Buses, and that has been done regardless of price, although a 5 per cent. preference was stated in the disposal programme, which is working extremely successfully so far.

    Magnetic Resonance Imagers
    Mrs. Irene Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the present state of the implementation of the proposals for the provision of magnetic resonance imager scanning equipment for hospitals in Scotland.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: An order for five new magnetic resonance imagers, at a cost of ³4·3 million, has been placed with Siemens UK. Those machines are now being manufactured and site surveys have been carried out at the hospitals chosen.
    Mrs. Adams: Is it not the case that, to save money, the Minister approved the purchase of 0·5 Tezler MRI scanners? As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, those scanners are totally inadequate for head scanning. Greater Glasgow health board had to top up money to buy the more adequate 1·5 Tezler scanners. Is the Minister satisfied that in Aberdeen and Dundee, where 0·5 Tezler scanners were also purchased, those scanners are adequate? Would it not have been better to look into the matter more thoroughly and, instead of saving money, to go for the best rather than the cheapest?
    Mr. Forsyth: The answer to the hon. Lady's question is no. Clearly, I am relying on medical advice in this matter. I have been given the advice that the machines purchased were adequate for health service needs, but some health boards have sought to get models with more powerful magnetic fields—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because of particular needs that they have.
    This matter has been drawn to my attention as a result of the hon. Lady's question and I shall inquire to ensure that the advice that I have been given was correct. In addition to the ³4·3 million for those machines, which I hope that the hon. Lady welcomes, we shall also meet the additional costs of installation that the boards will face. If what the hon. Lady suggests were the case—if the 0·5 Tezler machines were not adequate—I assure her that I would seek to have the position changed, but that is not my information.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the 1990–91 community charge in Scotland has been collected.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Based on the latest collection figures for 1990–91 issued by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and using local authorities' own payment assumption rates, overall around 76 per cent. of budgeted community charge income for 1990–91 has been collected so far. In some areas, the figure is more than 90 per cent.
    Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend will know that many local authorities have decided to charge the cost of non-payment to charge payers this year. Can he take any action against local councillors, especially from the Scottish National and Labour parties, who urged people not to pay and are now charging their own charge payers extra money to pay for that scandalous advice?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is widespread outrage among community charge payers at the fact that they are having to pay for those who have not paid the community charge. My hon. Friend is also right to refer to the actions of a number of councillors from Opposition parties, although it has to be said that the leaders of those parties have now called off the so-called non-payment campaign.
    Mr. Maxton: When will the Minister stop hiding behind the smokescreen of the ludicrous non-payment campaign run by the Scottish National party and admit that the genuine non-collection of poll tax in Scotland is almost entirely due to the total unworkability of the tax? If he recognises that, why does he not institute an emergency programme to deal with the crisis that is developing in local government and will cause enormous problems for all local authorities throughout Scotland unless he takes immediate action to deal with it?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member has not explained to the House why the figures are so variable. The reason is that where local authorities have taken determined action early on to keep on top of the problem, such as in Borders and Grampian, they have continued to obtain reasonable collection levels. It is true that there has been a slow-down in payments due to the delay in re-billing because of the reduced headline charge, the Government having reduced the charge by ³140. To meet that problem the Government

    291
    will ensure that by the end of June Scottish local authorities will have received ³281 million more in central Government grant than they otherwise would have done. Frankly, it is up to local authorities to pursue non-payers.

    Rural Transport
    Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of Strathclyde regional council to discuss rural transport.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has received no request from Strathclyde regional council to discuss rural transport.
    Mrs. Michie: The Minister may be aware that Strathclyde regional council has delayed yet again the upgrading of three vital roads in my constituency. That is making them very dangerous, particularly during the tourist season. Year after year Strathclyde regional council has done that because it says that it does not have enough money in its roads budget. Might that be partly because the regional council has to finance roadworks on the M8 motorway? Is that not a Scottish Office responsibility?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are spending some ³145 million on trunk roads in Scotland. However, the hon. Lady's complaint is about the allocation by Strathclyde regional council. I shall certainly draw her remarks to the attention of the chairman of the highways committee concerned. In recent years we have enormously increased the resources for trunk roads. Priority is being given to the upgrading of the M74, which is going ahead very speedily.

    NHS Trusts
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the total funds allocated by the Scottish Home and Health Department to health units seeking to investigate trust status.
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has given to health boards regarding the use of board staff premises and other resources in the promotion of applications for hospitals to opt out of health board control.
    Mr. Lang: Units applying to become NHS trusts will remain part of the national health service. It is appropriate, therefore, that health boards should provide
    292
    adequate support. To that end, and to assist in the implementation of the NHS reforms generally, all boards have been given additional resources.
    Mrs. Ewing: In giving additional resources to health boards and units seeking further information on opt-out status, is the Scottish Home and Health Department prepared to keep very close supervision over how that money is spent? For example, will it be spent on private dinner parties, or will it be spent on public meetings to enable all the people in the relevant areas to be well advised of the various implications of the proposals being placed before them so that they can take a clear and objective decision?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady may be assured that the way in which the money is spent will be carefully supervised. The object of the exercise is to obtain the best possible input of information, opinion and well-argued cases so that a proper decision can be taken, based on the criteria that I outlined earlier.
    Mr. Foulkes: As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said earlier, GPs in Ayrshire have now voted overwhelmingly against NHS trust status, consultants have voted against it and all local ballots show that the public are against it. Is it not therefore a disgrace that public money is being spent on staff time and on Mr. Donald MacNeill's time in promoting NHS trusts, that board property is being used to promote it, and that no similar amount of public money is being used to put the other side of the case? Is not that political propaganda and a matter which ought to be investigated by the Comptroller and Auditor General?
    Mr. Lang: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it is desirable that the proposals should be put together openly and freely, using available resources, rather than cobbled together in some back room. The hon. Gentleman will surely share my view that we want to get the highest possible quality of proposals coming forward so that we can consider the desirability of such applications advancing. As for the GPs, it is highly illogical that they should vote against the sort of contracts that most of them enjoy. I can reassure them that GPs will continue to have rights to refer patients to trust status hospitals and that such hospitals will remain part of the national health service and will continue to treat NHS patients free of charge. The objective is to improve services and the delivery of health care.

Unemployed People
3.33 pm
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about a further substantial increase in the measures the Government are taking to help unemployed people back to work.
The majority of those who lose their jobs are back in employment after a relatively short time. About 50 per cent. of those who become unemployed leave unemployment within three months. Nearly two thirds do so within six months, and 275,000 unemployed people leave unemployment every month. I am determined to help unemployed people get back to work as quickly as possible.
The Government are already providing a wide range of employment and training programmes helping 650,000 unemployed people this year—much of that focused on those with particular difficulties in finding a job. The measures that I am announcing today will substantially increase that help. In the rest of this year we shall be helping a further 190,000 people; next year an extra quarter of a million. This means that next year we shall be providing help for 900,000 unemployed people.
As unemployment has increased, it has become apparent that for some unemployed people the most effective help that we can give is work experience to keep their skills up to date. The main element of my proposals today, therefore, is a new programme, employment action. This will provide work experience on local projects for 60,000 unemployed people in a full year. It will be targeted on those who have been unemployed for six months or more, including particularly those living in our inner cities. My right hon. Friends and I will be inviting the training and enterprise councils in England and Wales and the local enterprise companies in Scotland to take the lead in setting up this new programme.
We are also increasing the number of places available on employment training so that an extra 15,000 people this year can learn new skills which will help them find a job. In allocating the additional resources we shall be asking the training and enterprise councils and the local enterprise companies to give priority to people with special training needs, particularly those with literacy and numeracy problems.
I shall also be increasing the help available to long-term unemployed people through measures operated by the Employment Service. This is in addition to the extra 100,000 opportunities that I announced earlier in the year. These new measures will include help for a further 40,000 people in job clubs this year and 60,000 next. We shall ensure that in every part of the country where it is needed this help is designed to meet the needs of specific groups, including white-collar workers and executives. Despite the current downturn, about 50 per cent. of those leaving the job clubs do so to go into jobs.
Finally, I propose to provide an additional 80,000 newly unemployed people this year and 110,000 next with extra help in finding a job so that they get back to work as quickly as possible. This will be aimed particularly at those experiencing unemployment for the first time, who may need help in assessing the opportunities available to them.
294
All newly unemployed people are already guaranteed an advisory interview shortly after becoming unemployed, during which they draw up a back-to-work plan.
From next month, those who reach 13 weeks of unemployment will also have the opportunity for a further interview to review progress and, if necessary, to revise their plan. In addition, I am today asking the Employment Service to provide new courses for recently unemployed people to have their career options assessed and to be given expert help and support in looking for work. The Government will make available substantial extra resources for these measures which will cost an extra ³110 million in 1991–92 and an extra ³230 million in 1992–93.
We are already providing the widest range of measures ever made available to help unemployed people back to work. The package that I am announcing today will increase the numbers helped by a quarter of a million next year at an extra cost of ³230 million. It is designed to meet the widely differing needs of individual unemployed people. It includes more training for those who can benefit from training; more expert advice and help in looking for a job for those who can benefit from such help and advice; and an entirely new programme for those who can benefit from work experience.
I said in Swansea on Saturday that I am determined to provide as much help as possible to help every unemployed person back to work as quickly as possible. This package is a measure of that determination and of the seriousness with which the Government undertake their responsibilities to treat unemployed people as individuals with different needs and different expectations. It offers a far better deal for unemployed people than has ever been on offer before. It will be widely and rightly welcomed.
Mr. Tony Blair: At a time of deep recession and rising unemployment, we welcome any measures that assist the unemployed. The Secretary of State is right to draw attention to the problems of those with special training needs. We also welcome the recognition that we need more training places for the unemployed.
However, some of us remember that last June—only a year ago—we told the Secretary of State of the impact of Government training cuts on the unemployed. Last October, the voluntary organisations and the training and enterprise councils began warning of the catastrophic effects of those cuts. In January, February, March, April and May, at Question Time and during debates in the House, we constantly told the Government that training programmes were closing, training places were being lost, trainers were being made redundant and the Secretary of State's guarantees on youth training and employment training were at risk. Throughout that time, the Secretary of State denied that any such problem existed.
Having at last admitted the problem, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, through his delay, we have already lost many valuable training providers for the unemployed? Will he confirm that, in the past few days, information technology centres have closed, training programmes for the unemployed and disabled have been shut and schemes for women returners have been abandoned? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that his 15,000 places do not come anywhere near the 80,000 places already cut from employment training? Will he confirm that, even after today, he is at best merely preventing further damage, not remedying the damage that he has already done?

295
Will the Secretary of State also confirm—this point may have been missed—that £230 million is the money for all the packages that he has mentioned, including the job experience programme and training? If that is right, will he confirm that the cash for training today is barely one third of the money cut last year from the employment training budget when unemployment was 600,000 lower than it is today?
The Secretary of State will know that we have been advocating a temporary work programme. He is right to say that not all unemployed people simply require intensive training. Let us look at what he is proposing. Let us look at his response.
Unemployment is 650,000 higher today than a year ago and is rising by 70,000 a month, with 20,000 more unemployed every week. We know from a leak from the Department of Employment that it is estimating another 500,000 unemployed in addition to the 650,000. Does the Secretary of State really believe that an extra 60,000 places—less than one month's rise in unemployment and less than 100 places for the unemployed in each of the constituencies—is a serious response to the unemployment crisis that we face today?
Is the new programme to be on a benefit-plus basis? Will the Secretary of State expect people to work for £50 a week or sometimes less? If so, such a programme has no hope of gaining the consent that it needs to succeed. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that, contrary to the advice of his training directorate, there will be no training element in the new job experience programme? Does he believe that that is right? Under the previous Prime Minister, who did not boast of creating a classless society or tell us about opportunity for all, and when unemployment was last at 2 million and falling, the old community programme had a budget of £1·5 billion. Is it not a bitter irony that, under the present Prime Minister, the budget for helping the unemployed, even after today's announcement, is £500 million less than it was then and unemployment is now rising from 2 million?
We know that we have the fastest rising unemployment in the western world and, according to the most recent independent forecasts, by the end of this year Britain will have the highest unemployment rate of any country in Europe except Greece, Ireland and what was East Germany. This package does not even take us back to last year's budget. Is it not a derisory response to unemployment? Is it not indeed, as we predicted in the House a few weeks ago, a Government response that is like so much else—too little, too half-hearted and, of course, too long delayed?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) constantly criticises the level of resources that we devote to these matters, but the House will have noticed that he was totally silent on the subject of how much money his party would spend. He was totally silent because he knew that these matters were not included in those subjects that the shadow Chief Secretary identified as immediate spending priorities if the Labour party were ever to gain office. The hon. Gentleman's protestations therefore lack all conviction and meaning.
The hon. Gentleman asked specific questions about employment action. I can confirm that the remuneration for those on employment action will be on exactly the same
296
basis as for those on employment training, and I think that will be understood and accepted by those who volunteer to take part in the scheme.
The hon. Gentleman alleged that employment action would not contain any training element. He was wrong. Where it is necessary to have an element of training to keep skills up to date, that training will be provided.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Labour party's proposals, but he knows that, even if he got the money for them, they would never get off the ground. His proposals depend—as was explicitly expressed in the Labour party's policy statement—on negotiation area by area, project by project, with the trade unions. In Liverpool, the city with the highest unemployment in this country, the hon. Gentleman's proposals would depend on the consent of the trade union that this very day is threatening the people of that city, telling them that they will not be able to bury their dead. The only promise that the hon. Gentleman makes to the unemployed is that he will bring them reinforcements.
In 1983, when the Government introduced ballots for trade union members, the hon. Gentleman described our proposals as "shabby, scandalous and a disgrace". The Government, in partnership with trade union members and the electorate, have made him eat every word that he uttered then. The Government, in partnership with the unemployed and the electorate, will make him eat every word that he has uttered today.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It may help hon. Members if I say that, because there are 32 groups of amendments to the Planning and Compensation Bill to be discussed, as well as the Third Reading and the 10-minute Bill, I shall allow questions on the statement to continue until 4.20 pm, when we shall move on to the 10-minute Bill. If hon. Members ask single questions, perhaps all hon. Members who wish to ask a question can be called.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about jobs for ex-Prime Ministers?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Ron Leighton: As unemployment has exploded for 14 consecutive months, is the Secretary of State aware that we have waited a long time for his statement? Has he not laboured long to produce a very small amount? Is not employment action the new feature of his statement? He said that 60,000 people would be involved, but as it is likely to be a six-month programme, will there not be about 30,000 people on it at any given time? Is not that equivalent to one twentieth of the extra unemployment inflicted on this country since the new Prime Minister took office? Is that really the new programme, or is it perhaps a small pilot project?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly, please.
Mr. Leighton: As employment action will primarily be a work programme, what wages will be paid? Was the right hon. and learned Gentleman so ashamed of the amount that he did not include wages in his statement?
Mr. Howard: I answered that question when it was put to me by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). This is very far from a pilot project. It is a considerable response

297
to rising unemployment. It will offer practical constructive help to the unemployed and, as a result of the package, we will be helping an additional 250,000 unemployed people next year. If the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) believes that that is not enough, he should have a word with the shadow Chief Secretary.
Sir Norman Fowler: Entirely contrary to what the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) has just said, I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his statement, which will do a great deal to combat the effects of unemployment. Will he give an assurance that, wherever possible and wherever appropriate, training should be part of the schemes that are introduced? If unemployment continues to rise, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the finance for those provisions will be kept under review by him and by the Government?
Mr. Howard: I am very grateful for my right hon. Friend's support for the package, and I am happy to give him the assurances for which he asks. Where training is necessary to help people on employment action to keep their skills up to date, it will be possible for the training and enterprise councils to make provision for that training. Of course we shall continue to keep those matters under review as my right hon. Friend suggested.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Did my right hon. and learned Friend share my distaste at the manifest glee of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) when he tried to predict that the unemployed would not welcome the scheme? Does not the scheme bear out quite clearly our experience, that most people who are unemployed would rather have an opportunity to do something worthwhile, to keep their skills in practice and enhance their opportunities to gain a job? They will welcome the scheme even if the Labour party does not.
Mr. Howard: Of course my hon. Friend is entirely correct. We could have had no more signal example of the antediluvian attitudes of the Labour party than the response of the hon. Member for Sedgefield to the announcement of the package.
Mr. James Wallace: With unemployment at 2·25 million and rising, any package, however minimal, is better than nothing. Will the Secretary of State confirm a simple point? With unemployment today at 2·25 million and rising, even after the package is taken into account, will not less be spent on training than was spent two years ago when unemployment was 2 million and falling? In other words, the Treasury has won.
Mr. Howard: As we have now heard, even from the hon. Member for Sedgefield, it is undoubtedly the case—as I have been saying for many months—that we need a range of measures to help the unemployed. Training is not the only way to help them, and it is not always the best way to help them. That is why we have sought to provide a range of measures so that different unemployed people with different needs can be helped in different ways.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred to the 2·25 million people who are unemployed at the moment. He will recall that more than
298
50 per cent. of those who become unemployed leave unemployment within three months. He will also recall, I hope, that in a full year we will now be able to help 900,000 unemployed people. That represents a considerable response to the needs of unemployed people.
Ms. Clare Short: The Secretary of State's answers are too long.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his commitment to the particular difficulties of those with literacy and numeracy problems will be much appreciated? When he talks to the training and enterprise councils, will he draw into his discussions the particular and difficult needs of those afflicted with blindness, and ensure that the TECs can purchase the proper training for the blind people in their areas in colleges and institutions that may not necessarily be in the particular TEC's area? I refer in particular to the centre of excellence in Hereford, which has a great deal to offer in that respect.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend has made an important point. It is important that the range of help that we are making available which the training and enterprise councils are delivering should be available for blind people as for others. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's remarks are drawn to the attention of the TECs. It is possible through the range of our measures to provide help of that kind. Indeed, I met the 500,000th entrant to a job club in Barnsley just a few months ago. He was visually impaired and he obtained a job through the job club. He is a good example of the way in which we can help all unemployed people.
Mr. James Lamond: Is it not pitiful to see a lame duck Secretary of State twisting and turning to try to avoid the consequences of his own Government's policies? It is only a matter of days since we were told, "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working" and that "unemployment is a price worth paying." Has the Secretary of State lost all confidence in the market economy? Does he not believe the Prime Minister when he says that the recession will end in a few weeks? Will not the market absorb all those unemployed people? What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman see ahead that the Prime Minister does not that makes it necessary for him to introduce such measures?
Mr. Howard: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has got it completely wrong. Employment action and the other measures that I have announced today will help unemployed people to respond to the opportunities that the market will make available. There are 350,000 vacancies in our economy today. I want to see them filled as quickly as possible—and the vacancies that will arise next week, the week after and the week after that. We will help to achieve that through these measures, not through the hon. Gentleman's cheap, snide remarks.
Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with the words of Mr. Eric Hammond this weekend, that Labour does not deserve to win if it sticks to its minimum wage policy?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely correct to remind the House about the damaging consequences for unemployment of the Labour party's minimum wage policy. That policy is now receiving widespread attention

299
and there is almost universal agreement that its consequences for jobs, prices and skills would be disastrous. Only the hon. Member for Sedgefield remains a prisoner of dogma and unable to see the devastating consequences of that policy.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Can the Secretary of State give the House some information about the numbers that are likely to be involved in Scotland? Will he give me the assurance that, when we meet Scottish Enterprise on Friday, it will have detailed figures about the sums that it will be able to deploy? Turning specifically to training, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really expect that training will be afforded in industry against the opposition of the trade unions and without any clear understanding of what people will be paid during the process? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman come clean on those aspects?
Mr. Howard: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the first assurance he seeks, which is that the full figures will be available for the debate to which he has referred. Of course I welcome the co-operation of the trade unions in these matters but, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, that is an entirely different matter from saying that, before any scheme can be introduced, it must be negotiated with the trade unions area by area and project by project. The hon. Gentleman is not saying that, but the Labour party is.
Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. and learned Friend will understand that his statement this afternoon will be of particular interest to the many members of Thanet job club whom he is likely to meet when he visits my constituency this weekend. Is it not a fact that one of the most debilitating effects of long-term unemployment is loss of confidence? Will he confirm that employment action will help to restore that confidence? Does he understand that my constituents do not want half-baked measures that are negotiated by grace and favour with the trade unions? They want work, and this package will help them.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I am greatly looking forward to my visit to his constituency on Friday, when I shall see in action the kind of practical help that we can give unemployed people to get them back to work, delivering the constructive assistance that Conservative Members are so keen to see in action. I very much welcome my hon. Friend's support.
Ms. Short: Having studied the long succession of different and ever cheaper schemes that have been introduced by the Government, I do not accept that what the unemployed need is work experience. Is the Secretary of State aware that I thought that the payment of £10 on top of benefit when peopole were on employment training was miserable, and that forcing people to work for £10 on top of benefit is to use the unemployed to pull down wages even further? The Government's great success is the massive growth of low pay in our economy. A national minimum wage is the answer—[Interruption.] It is better in terms of justice for people and it leads to greater economic efficiency than constant wage cutting, which goes with high labour turnover, poor investment and poor training, which is what this scheme will lead to.
Mr. Howard: I had hoped that, during her encomium to the minimum wage, the hon. Lady would give us her estimate of the number of jobs that it would destroy. It is agreed on all sides that a minimum wage would destroy jobs on a massive scale. The only disagreement between the commentators is about how many jobs it would destroy.
Mr. Alistair Burt: This package will be welcomed in the north-west. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that unemployment in the north-west fell substantially in the 1980s due to a combination of national economic conditions, diversification of local industry and an attractive atmosphere for investment in all but Labour-run Liverpool, where the city council cast a blight on Merseyside and its people for too long? Does he see anything in these measures that will help the north-west, especially Merseyside, to escape from under this cloud?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. When I was in Liverpool on Friday, I was able to see yet again the price that its people are paying for so many years of socialism and Labour government in action in that city. Of course the measures will help the north-west; they will also help Liverpool. The package proposed by the hon. Member for Sedgefield would not. It would be entirely dependent on the consent of the General, Municipal and Boilermakers Union in Liverpool.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in parts of my coal-mining constituency, unemployment is double the national average? It is not retraining but jobs that people need. When the Common Market offers funds to restore the productivity of coal-mining areas, why do the Government refuse to accept the principle of additionality? Why do they say that, for every pound that the Common Market puts into areas such as mine, the Government will take a pound out, making the area no better off at all?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that what is needed is jobs. Jobs are what we have provided over the past 12 years. There are 3 million more jobs now than there were in 1983. Almost 1·5 million more people are in work than in 1979. As inflation comes down and interest rates fall, the hon. Gentleman will see a resumption of job creation on the scale that we brought about in the 1980s.
Mr. Ashton: Answer the question about additionality.
Mr. Howard: As for additionally—I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's question—if the hon. Gentleman looks even more closely into the matter he will find that the practice that the Government are pursuing is exactly the same as that pursued by their predecessors.
Mr. Jim Lester: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the package. Does he agree that the most significant policy change that he has announced today is that help is now available to people who have been unemployed for three months and not only to those who have been unemployed for six months? Will he monitor the effect of that new initiative? If it works in the way that my right hon. and learned Friend suggested and most people hopefully find work within six months, will he consider extending that short-term action?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that feature of the proposals which is new and will be of particular help to the newly unemployed. They will be provided with help by an assessment of their skills and potential. Advice and guidance will be given to them about how they can best get back to work. That is an important part of the measures, and I shall certainly monitor the way in which it works and bear in mind my hon. Friend's point in the course of that exercise.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: Bearing in mind the Secretary of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) about additionality and RECHAR, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not realise that the statement that he has made today will be treated with great displeasure in mining areas, because he has told the House that he will not disregard the money that the EEC wants to put into the mining areas to create more jobs?
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, in my 26 years in Parliament, I have never heard of a Minister coming to the Dispatch Box to introduce measures for the approval of the House and seeking to argue in defence of them that the Government are spending more money than ever in history on unemployment, when unemployment is running at record levels in the history of any Government? Does he not realise that the news that he has given us today is very bad indeed, and nothing more than a public relations exercise?
Mr. Howard: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman speaks for his constituents. They, together with unemployed people throughout the country, will welcome the help that will be available to them. They will see that it is designed to be constructive assistance from which they can benefit; and they will want to benefit from it.
Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that sufficient flexibility will be left with the training and enterprise councils to allow them to support vital skill courses, such as those for the construction industry which is facing a downturn, that will help such industries over their current problems?
Mr. Howard: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a close and keen interest in that matter, and that he is actively pursuing it with the Isle of Wight TEC. TECs have greater flexibility than has ever been made available to similar bodies before. I know that the TECs are keen to use that flexibility, where circumstances permit, in the way that my hon. Friend has suggested.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: The Secretary of State has come to the House to convince us that these measures will help the unemployed. Not one Labour Member, not many in the country and certainly none of the unemployed will believe a word that he has said. If I can borrow a phrase from a former Prime Minister, the Secretary of State's contribution for the unemployed is very minute. How much per week will the people who participate in the scheme be paid? Will they be paid benefit-plus or a decent wage?
Mr. Howard: I take some comfort from the fact that most of the measures announced by the Government over the past 12 years have failed to persuade Labour Members. Happily, they have met with much greater success in persuading the people of this country. We regard the
302
reaction of the people as the final arbiter, and I am sure that their reaction to the package will be very different from that of the Labour party.
Sir Robert McCrindle: Although I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's reference to white-collar and executive unemployment—something to which comparatively little attention has been given—and although I welcome the benefits of the measures for people in those categories, may I urge upon him a further initiative that will cost him nothing? Many unemployed executives are what we still refer to as middle-aged. As there seems to be a continuing bias by many employers against the re-employment of middle-aged people, will my right hon. and learned Friend put his weight behind an approach to the CBI to suggest that, if a vacancy exists, just because one is over 45 or 50 is no reason why one should not be considered?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support, but I hope he will not take it amiss if I point out that he is not entirely right to say that we have hitherto ignored the problems of unemployment among white-collar workers and executives. There are already a number of executive job clubs, which have been remarkably successful in helping people in that category back to work.
I note my hon. Friend's point about the importance of not discriminating against older workers. We do whatever we can to encourage employers to adopt good practice in that respect. My hon. Friend will doubtless know that the jobcentres are in the forefront of good practice and take their responsibilities on this matter very seriously.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the policies he has put forward for the unemployed are useless, like him? What am I going to tell the unemployed back in my constituency, bearing in mind that the Government keep coming up with a new scheme every other week? The unemployed in my constituency do not believe the Secretary of State because of what is happening; unemployment is climbing and climbing and climbing. They will not believe the Secretary of State, so what am I going to tell them?
Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell his unemployed constituents to go along to their local jobcentre to find out what practical help is available to them. Then they will not have to take it from me or take it from him; they will be able to take it from the people who have the help available.
Mr. Graham Riddick: The extra help and resources that my right hon. and learned Friend has announced today will be widely welcomed by unemployed people in my constituency and in west Yorkshire. Will he assure me that he will take no lessons from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), whose policy of introducing a minimum wage and unquestionably accepting the socialist charter from the European Community would massively increase unemployment in Britain?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right: there can be no doubt that, as increasing numbers of independent estimates confirm, the Opposition's job destruction package would spell doom for many hundreds of

303
thousands of people in Britain. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to it, and we will not allow the British people to forget it.
Dr. John Reid: Why could not the Minister have found even 30 seconds in the last 40 minutes to express regret to the unemployed? Why could he not have had the strength of character to say, "I am sorry that we have created the conditions which have rendered you unemployed, I am sorry that we cut the schemes last year and I am sorry that we did not listen to those who have been saying for 12 months that there should be more money for retraining and job opportunities for the unemployed"? Does he find that impossible?
The 3,500 steel workers in my constituency who have been made redundant in the last four months will not be interested in him or anyone else scoring points here on a minimum wage. They want a wage—any wage at present. They will be convinced that, after 12 months of refusing to bring forward employment and training schemes, the reason why the Minister has suddenly done so has nothing at all to do with the protection of their jobs, but everything to do with the protection of his job and those of his cronies in the Cabinet.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong on almost every count. I have expressed my real sympathy with the unemployed on numerous occasions. Nor is this the first measure that we have brought forward. I recently announced £120 million additional money for employment training and £55 million additional money for the Employment Service. We have responded to rising unemployment at every stage and in an appropriate way. The hon. Gentleman should reflect upon the fact that it is clearly on the record that the policies advocated by the Labour party, if put into effect, would have made unemployment worse today, and the policies which his party is putting forward now would make unemployment worse in the future.
Mr. David Madel: My right hon. and learned Friend has announced welcome help for the shorter-term unemployed, who are often people from the construction industry, and I assume from that that the training and enterprise councils may have to take on more people to help. Will he also have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to see whether, in the public expenditure round now approaching, we can have an accelerated programme of modernisation of council houses and greater improvement grants, so that the work that the training and enterprise councils do will bear fruit in more jobs in the construction industry?
Mr. Howard: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is already well aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes, and that he will bear it fully in mind.
Mr. John D. Taylor: It would be churlish not to welcome the Secretary of State's statement, particularly at a time when the nation is suffering from a rapid increase in unemployment, but does he agree that the opportunities for the unemployed would be better enhanced if the Government created an economic and industrial policy which encouraged industrialists and business men to create new jobs? As the Secretary of State has announced that the programme will be implemented by the training and enterprise councils in England and
304
Wales and the local enterprise companies in Scotland, has he been in contact with the Northern Ireland Office? Does he accept that the highest level of unemployment in the United Kingdom is in Northern Ireland, and will Northern Ireland benefit from some similar scheme to help the unemployed there?
Mr. Howard: This Government have in place the policies designed to lead to job creation, and they will succeed in the future as they have in the past. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the key necessity if we are to create more jobs is to bring inflation under control. That is what is happening, and it is precisely what the policies pursued by the Government are achieving.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that I do not have responsibility for these matters in Northern Ireland. He will also know—and give credit for the fact, I am sure—that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office take their responsibilities for unemployment and training in the Province very seriously.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on introducing a package of proposals which acknowledges that training is not the only answer when it comes to helping the unemployed? What does he make of the call heard today from the Labour Front Bench spokesman for increased funds for employment training, given that, in 1988, the Labour party conference called on all Labour authorities and councils to oppose the provision of employment training in every way? What will be the verdict of the unemployed on this brazen disregard of the Labour party's recent past?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. Not only was employment training opposed by the Labour party; it has opposed tooth and nail every training initiative that the Government have come up with—even the technical and vocational education initiative, which was described by the Leader of the Opposition as fit only for hewers of wood and drawers of water. The Labour party's record on training, in government and in opposition, has been negative from beginning to end.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does not the Secretary of State recognise that the Government have been in power for almost 12 years and have created the climate in which unemployment has again risen to record heights? Will he take into account the fact that the unemployed themselves view with great cynicism the schemes introduced by the Government over the years, which have done nothing to contribute to a permanent decline in unemployment? When will he begin to think about getting Britain back to work?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in almost every respect. Unemployment is not at record heights. Millions of people have benefited from the programmes that the Government have introduced, which have helped many of them back to work. If the hon. Gentleman wants to learn the lessons of the past, I suggest that he examine the long period when he and his friends have been in office in the city of Liverpool. He will see surrounding him in his own city the results of socialism.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that older workers in their 60s, 50s and even 40s can find it particularly difficult to regain

305
employment? Does he agree that the measures announced today for further appraisal and training will be especially helpful to this group, who have much to offer in terms of discipline and loyalty?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The help in some of the measures that I have announced today will be of particular value to people in the age groups that he identified, and I am delighted that we shall be able to help them in this way.
Mr. John Battle: Can the Secretary of State explain how my constituents can go along to their job club when recently his Department closed the only jobcentre in my constituency, in Bramley? His colleague told them to go to Horsforth in the constituency next door after promising the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) that that jobcentre would be kept open. It has also now closed, so how will the unemployed even gain access to these fringe initiatives when the Department has in the past year closed 1,000 jobcentres—their numbers have fallen from 2,000 to 1,000? Would it not be better to deal with that problem first?
Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not confusing jobcentres and job clubs.
Mr. Battle: I meant jobcentre.
Mr. Howard: The Employment Service always keeps under review the provision that it makes through jobcentres. When that provision needs to be modified, changed or adjusted, it acts accordingly. The hon. Gentleman will find that his constituents will have no difficulty in taking full advantage of the help that we provide through job clubs and other means. I hope that he will examine the extent to which they are benefiting from these measures and come back and tell the House how much help they are getting from them.
Mr. Tony Fayell: My right hon. and learned Friend's plans to help those who cannot read or write are most welcome. It has been estimated that 30 per cent. of the long-term unemployed are innumerate or illiterate or both. Would he like to come to Stockport to see the adult literacy and numeracy unit run by Mrs. Lois Haslam? The unit conducts one-to-one contact with those who cannot read or write, and is staffed largely by volunteers. A person who cannot read or answer a job advertisement is at an enormous disadvantage. Good work has been done at the unit, and I recommend that my right hon. and learned Friend has a look at it.
Mr. Howard: I was in Stockport only a couple of weeks ago, but I regret that I did not visit the centre to which my hon. Friend referred. I should like to do so the next time that I am in Stockport.
Mr. Ron Brown: Surely the Secretary of State is weeping crocodile tears for the unemployed. In my constituency, a large fertiliser plant, SAI, is being deliberately closed down, although it is one of the most efficient plants in the United Kingdom, because the Government are opposed to its takeover by Kemira, a Finnish state-owned company. Is that not a disgrace and a kick in the teeth? It shows the Government's double standards.
Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Labour party should not adopt a proper competition policy that requires scrutiny of such matters, he should put his question to his Front-Bench colleagues.
The Labour party is expert at shedding crocodile tears. It declaims about the rise in unemployment while constantly pressing for measures that would be certain to increase unemployment substantially.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in my constituency —also a coal-mining area—employment has risen much faster than the national average in recent years? We do not moan about the problems; we talk about the strengths and invite private industry to come to our area.
There are excellent job clubs in Derby and in south Derbyshire. Will my right hon. and learned Friend build on the strengths of such job clubs, especially by making their services available to unemployed people on a much shorter time scale than the current six months that they have to be unemployed to qualify?
Mr. Howard: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. She will appreciate that the package that I announced today includes help for the newly unemployed, which will be useful to the people to whom she referred. I shall bear her suggestion in mind for the future.
Mr. Tony Worthington: Sadly, this will not be the last time that the Secretary of State will come to the House to complete a U-turn on training. It is a pity that there could not have been a more substantial return at least to the levels of payment of a few years ago. The sickest thing about today's announcement is that the 60,000 makework opportunities will be counted in the Government's figure for the jobs that they have created. They will be counted as employment when no one on the scheme will regard them as proper jobs. People will not get the rate for the job, and they will have no employment rights.
To put the matter in context, the proposal involves 6,000 places—that is the number by which the level of unemployment in Scotland increased in one month. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if the community programme had been continued and had paid the rate for the job, people on the programme would have received over £90 a week, while people on this new scheme will receive £50 a week?
Mr. Howard: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the facts. I did not refer to 6,000 places. Next year, 60,000 people will be helped by employment action, and 250,000 people, in addition to the 650,000 we help now, will be helped by these measures.
The precise level at which people on the scheme will be paid will depend on the level of benefit to which they are entitled, as I made clear in my statement. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sedgefield, as they mutter about this aspect, will reflect on how much help they would be able to give the unemployed if they introduced a scheme that insisted on payment of not only the rate for the job, but the rate of the minimum wage. The amount of help would be truly derisory, even if they were able to get any money from the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and they know it.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am genuinely sorry not to have been able to call every hon. Member, but I shall bear in mind those whom I have been unable to call when we next deal with this matter.

Point of Order
Mr. Elliot Morley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a procedural matter relating to amendments to the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill? I served on the Standing Committee considering the Environmental Protection Bill 1990, which led to the formation of the three countryside agencies and Scotttish Natural Heritage. During the Bill's passage, Committee members were assured that no changes would be made to sites of special scientific interest on a national basis, and that such changes would not be included in a Scottish Bill either, as they were a national issue.
On 6 June, contrary to those assurances, the Government accepted an amendment in the other place allowing a right of appeal in relation to SSIs, in Scotland only. Should not the Secretary of State make a statement about that? Is the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill the right legislation in which to frame such amendments, bearing in mind that the Government have pandered to vested landowning interests contrary to the assurances given in Committee?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is a matter for me. It is very much a matter for the Government, but if the Bill is now in the other place, it will return to the Commons and the Government will have to explain the amendment. The hon. Gentleman will then have the opportunity to put his point.

BILLS PRESENTED
  LICENSING OF TICKET SALES
  Mr. Menzies Campbell presented a Bill to provide for the licensing of ticket sales for sporting events and entertainments; and to make further provision with respect to the powers exercisable by local authorities in relation to such sales: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July and to be printed. [Bill 189.]
  SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) ETC.
  Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Ms. Mildred Gordon, presented a Bill to amend the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976; to make further provision in respect of the offences of rape and sexual assault; to provide protection for women at risk of rape, sexual assault or domestic violence; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 June and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

Pet Animals (Amendment)
4.26 pm
Mr. David Amess: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Pet Animals Act 1951.
The inspiration for the Bill comes from a song that my children are often heard singing:
"How much is that doggie in the window,
The one with the waggly tail,
How much is that doggie in the window,
I do hope that doggie's for sale."
My Bill is about animal welfare. It is not an attack on pet shop owners, and it is certainly not an attempt to spoil children's enjoyment. For a number of years, my long-suffering parents lived in fear of whatever animal their wayward child would next bring home. There was no limit to the range of animals that I might capture or purchase from a pet shop: goats, peacocks, pheasants, ducks, geese, salamanders, newts, snakes, frogs, toads, dogs and many others.
As a small child, I should never have been allowed to buy those animals. I had, and still have, responsible parents, who made sure that the animals were well looked after; sadly, however, there are too many instances throughout the country of cruelty to animals, which are reported by the RSPCA and other well-meaning, caring groups.
"Which?" recommends that anyone who purchases an animal should first consider
"who'll be responsible for your pet? Remember, children can lose interest".
"Which?" also asks:
"how much time do you want to spend looking after your pet? Who'll look after it when you're on holiday?
Is someone at home for most of the day, or should you choose a pet that's happy on its own?
Can you afford to keep the pet of your choice? Consider vets' bills, food, insurance and the cost of boarding when you're away.
Which kind of pet is most suitable for the size and type of home you have?
Do you want a long-term or short-term commitment?"—parrots, for instance, can live for more than 100 years—
"many young animals need peace, quiet and lots of your time when they're new; never buy a pet as a surprise for someone, unless you're prepared to keep it yourself if it's rejected".
"Which?" says that it should be remembered that a pet is a commitment for 365 days a year.
Only last year, the "Which?" organisation visited 100 pet shops and made return visits to 29. The majority had good practices, but in a minority it was clear that the owners had no idea how to keep the animals that they were offering for sale. I have a few examples. One shopowner told a child who wanted to purchase two guinea pigs that it was all right to keep two males together in the same cage, but very soon, one male guinea pig killed the other. Another told a child that he could keep a red-eared terrapin in an unheated tank, but terrapins need to be kept in warm water at a temperature between 23 and 30 deg C, so the terrapin died very soon after it had been bought.
Perhaps the most appalling example concerned a baby alligator. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen baby alligators, but they are rather cute, and look like a lizard. A pet shop owner sold a baby alligator to a child and, within a short time, the parents had to keep the alligator in a bath.
My Bill amends the Pet Animals Act 1951. This legislation is now 40 years old, and the range of animals

309
that are for sale in pet shops has altered tremendously in that time. There was an amendment to the Act in 1983, but my Bill will bring it much more up to date. My proposals are as follows.
First, it should be mandatory for a qualified veterinary surgeon to carry out an inspection before the local authority decides whether to issue a licence. At the moment, the inspection can be carried out by a vet or "such similar person". Local authorities should have right of entry to unlicensed premises where they suspect that animals are being sold. Most important of all, it is crazy that, at the moment, a 12-year-old can go into a pet shop and buy a piranha or a python. My Bill would ensure that no animal will be sold to a person under the age of 16 unless a parent is present and has given permission.
Furthermore, no animal should be kept for sale unless the vendor is familiar with how to care for the health and welfare of that animal. Without appropriate written instructions on this, no animal should be entrusted into the prospective purchaser's hands.
So as to improve control over the trading of dogs, the Bill requires every person who keeps a breeding establishment or who carries on a business that includes the selling of dogs as a pet to keep a record showing details of the dogs and where they have been bought and sold. I know that another Bill deals with puppy farming. This should make it difficult for a dog breeder to claim that he is operating only on a small scale or with only one or two bitches. Local authorities that license pet shops under the Pet Animals Act 1951 and the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 will have the power to demand to see the records. Schedule 3 to the Deer Bill contains a form of record that could serve as a model for the proposals in my Bill.
I make no apology for attempting to introduce yet more animal welfare legislation this year. I trust that I take the House with me when I assert that at the very heart of a civilised society is the judgment of how animals should be treated. My Bill will help to improve the general welfare of animals. I hope that the House will be seen to have a big heart today.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Harry Cohen, Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Alan Meale, and Mr. Phillip Oppenheim.

Pet Animals (Amendment)
  PET ANIMALS (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Pet Animals Act 1951: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 June, and to be printed. [Bill 191.]

POINT OF ORDER
4.34 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to inform you, as briefly as I can, of the circumstances in which I escorted around
310
Parliament today blind and partially sighted students from Temple Banks school in my constituency. It is appalling that the House has no facilities, such as a rest room, that members of the public use. If they wanted a meal, those students had to be led off by the people who accompanied them as their guides. There should be more facilities in the House for such people, and an opportunity to book a suitable room in advance.
I know that such matters are being considered by a committee, which is awaiting the completion of the building in Westminster Bridge road—but that is a long time away. It should be possible to provide suitable accommodation in the House, bearing in mind the lavish facilities that are available in the House of Lords, and which are mostly under-used by members of another place. There is also a proposal to provide MEPs with facilities within the House, but surely the needs of disabled constituents, for example, should receive priority.
I know that you cannot make a decision alone, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I trust that you will add your weight to bringing pressure on the administration to speed up matters. It is less than adequate for so few facilities to be available to our visitors.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). Having not only met members of his visiting party this morning, but taken around pupils from Donaldson's school for the deaf and others, I know that the problem he mentions is one faced by all right hon. and hon. Members. Most of us find ourselves hosting a party of handicapped persons at some time or another, and better facilities should be provided.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) mentioned the proposal to provide facilities for MEPs. It is a fact that the Leader of the House is considering proposals to extend federalism into the House. MEPs will be allowed to use its facilities, and will be found rooms at a time when, as my hon. Friend says, he is campaigning along with many other hon. Members for proper meal and other facilities for constituents on visits to Parliament. It is high time that the Lord President was told by Mr. Speaker that he should make sure that, instead of allowing people from the Common Market to come here willy-nilly, priority should be given to our constituents.
It says something about our society when the Government are more concerned with setting up avocado soup kitchens for distressed Lloyd's members than they are about people from Bolsover.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. As hon. Members have said, the matter is now being considered by the Services Committee, and I can suggest only that hon. Members may wish to draw to the Committee's attention the incidents that occurred today.

Orders of the Day
  Planning and Compensation Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Planning and Compensation Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 20
      STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS (No. 1)
      `. At the end of Part II of the principal Act there is inserted—
      STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS (No. 1)
        GENERAL

          Status of development plans.
          54A. Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise".'.—[Sir George Young]
          Brought up, and read the First time.
          4.40 pm
          The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government new clause 21—Status of development plans ( No. 2).
          Sir George Young: The purpose of new clause 20 is to fulfil the commitment that I gave to the House on 16 May when we debated new clause 13. New clause 21 makes equivalent provision for Scotland.
          New clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), was designed to enhance the status of the development plan in the decision-making process—specifically when the planning authority deals with an application for planning permission under section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In responding to the substantial debate on 16 May, I said that we were prepared to concede new clause 13, subject to correcting some defects in it. Our decision to make that concession was widely welcomed. Indeed, no less a body than the Council for the Protection of Rural England hailed it as a "historic promise", strengthening
          "the whole basis of the planning system"
          and moving forward to a
          "new era".
          In the event, we did not reach a vote on the new clause. That has given the Government the opportunity to table our own new clauses, which achieve the basic objective of new clause 13 but without the defects.
          Our new clauses make clear what having regard to the development plan means—not just in section 70(2) of the 1990 Act, but in all places where the planning Acts require regard to be had to development plans. In future, it will mean that the determination is to be in accordance with the plan, unless other considerations indicate otherwise.
          That would make clear to local planning authorities and others how to go about making the decision. If the development plan has something to say on a particular application, the starting point would be that the plan should be followed unless the weight of the other
          312
          considerations tell against it. In other words, there would be a presumption in favour of the development plan. But it would still allow appropriate weight to be given to all other material considerations.
          One material consideration would, of course, be the extent to which the development plan was up to date. Clearly, if the development plan is to carry its full weight it needs to be up to date and consistent with national and regional policies as well as relevant to the proposal in question.
          The Government have tried to be helpful, and if the House accepts new clauses 20 and 21 there will be no need to move new clause 13 and no need for us to table amendments to it in another place. I commend the new clauses to the House.
          Mr. Clive Soley: I am delighted to welcome new clause 20. It has been described as by far the most significant concession that the Government have made on the Bill in either of the Houses of Parliament. It gives force to the Minister's statement on Second Reading that he wanted development to be plan-led rather than market-led. I have taunted him about that, but I must withdraw my taunt now, because this concession shows that the plan now has an important status in determining development outcomes.
          When we tabled new clause 13—which, as the Minister said, was the parent of new clause 20—I did not expect that such a concession would be made. The Minister has gone further than we expected, and it would be churlish of me not to put on record our gratitude for the Government's move. It will be welcomed not only by the Labour party but by many Conservative Members arid many outside organisations.
          The new clause will enable local authorities to plan more sensibly and effectively for their areas. It deals with problems that have been caused to planning authorities and developers in both the north and south of England. A major step forward has been taken. That is a good start to today's debate, and I welcome it. I shall not persist with new clause 13.
          Mr. Anthony Steen: Will my hon. Friend be sending out a direction to the planning inspectorate with a definition and explanation of the phrase "material considerations", so that the inspector has an idea what the Government have in mind and does not let his imagination loose on what could constitute other material considerations?
          Sir George Young: I shall reflect on my hon. Friend's question, but the notion of "material considerations" is not new. It already appears in planning legislation, so I suspect that there may be no need to redefine exactly what it covers. I shall think about what my hon. Friend has said and decide whether fresh guidance is required for my planning inspectors in order to clarify the Government's policy.
          Question put and agreed to.
          Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 21

      STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS (No. 2)
      `At the end of Part II of the 1972 Act (development plans) there is inserted—
      "General Status of development plans.
      18A.—Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.".'.— [Sir George Young.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 14

      AGRICULTURAL. BUILDINGS
      `—After section 59(3) of the principal Act (Development orders) there is inserted—
      "(4) No development order may grant permission for the erection of a building for the purposes of agriculture.'."—[Mr. Win Griffiths.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 18—Agricultural buildings ( No. 2 )—
      'Planning Permission shall be required for the erection of a building for the purposes of agriculture in specially designated conservation areas including national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, national nature reserves, sites of special scientific interest, heritage coastline, marine nature reserves, conservation areas and any other areas of special landscape value identified by local authorities.'.
      New clause 19—Planning control over agricultural and forestry roads
      'After section 59(3) of the principal Act (Development orders) there is inserted:
      "(4) No development order shall grant permission for the formation of a private way for the purposes of agriculture or forestry.".'.
      Mr. Griffiths: Quite a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since we last considered the Bill. I am a new Member of the House, having been elected at the previous general election—I had hoped that I would have been re-elected by now, but things have happened to put off the next general election. As a new Member, I was intrigued by the Government's failure on 16 May, the day of the Monmouth by-election, to move the business motion on the Order Paper to continue and complete business on the Bill on that day. I checked to find out how often that had happened in the past decade, and I could find only three other examples. On two of those occasions the business was considered the next day, as the previous evening's motion suggested, and on the other occasion the business was considered immediately after the weekend. This time, however, we have had a five-week wait.
      In some ways we have benefited from having had to wait, because in the meantime the Government have made significant concessions. The most important of those was embodied in new clause 20, but there have also been some concessions in relation to the new clauses on agricultural and forestry buildings and roads—the subject of our new clauses.
      We welcome the further Government concessions on special exemptions from full planning control of agricultural and forestry buildings and roads, which have long been the cause of one of the great anomalies in the planning system. Although I welcome the Government's attempt to take account of the anomaly, I must still say that it does not go far enough. We
      314
      believe that the only satisfactory solution is that embodied in our new clauses—that agricultural and forestry buildings and roads should be the subject of proper planning approvals.
      The present situation is unsatisfactory. I shall cite two examples from my constituency to illustrate the problems. One example relates to my own village of Cefn Cribwr. The village runs for a mile or so along the top of a ridge, so that from almost every house in the village there is a magnificent view of the surrounding countryside. I am talking in this case about the view from the common, by the Wesleyan Methodist church, towards Margam park, the mountains and the Llynfi and Afan valleys. It is an absolutely magnificent view—one of the best that one could wish to find anywhere in the world.
      Recently, a local farmer was able to put up a building for agricultural purposes which, to all intents and purposes, blocked the view enjoyed by a number of people. Right next to the site of that building there is a waterworks holding water for the village of Cefn Cribwr. The fanner could easily have placed the building below the waterworks without affecting the visual amenity enjoyed by anybody. The farmer claims that the planning authority said that the place that he had chosen was perfectly all right and that the building would offend nobody, although the planning authority vigorously denied that it had ever made such a recommendation in its discussions with him. Because the building was not subject to any proper planning procedure, the fanner was able to site it in such a way that it is severely detrimental to the visual amenity enjoyed by those living in Cefn Cribwr.
      My second example concerns the laying of agricultural roads, sometimes to the anger of many in my constituency of Bridgend. I shall cite only one case although, on several occasions in the few years for which I have been the Member of Parliament for Bridgend, the actions of Mr. Boland, the estate manager in question, have caused consternation and anger to those living in and around the community of Penyfai. On just about every occasion, it has been found that he has acted within the law—or, rather, right up against the edge of the law—so that it has been very difficult for the planning authority to act. A matter of weeks ago, he built a new road. So large were the mounds of earth and so extensive were the works being undertaken that it looked as though a motorway was under construction. It is generally agreed that the agricultural purpose of the road is very difficult to define, although no doubt when pressed by the local planning authority, Ogwr borough council, Mr. Boland will produce an explanation of the road's agricultural purpose; indeed, he has probably already done so. Nobody in the community can see what that purpose is. If that road had been subject to proper planning procedures, there would have been an opportunity for its true use to be estimated and for the planning authority to make a real decision about whether it should be approved or not. As it is, the planning authority has no power to do that, and it would not have such power even under the Government's concessions.
      I appeal to the Government to reconsider the concessions that they have made and consider some means —without the need to introduce primary legislation—by which the notification to local authorities of new buildings

      315
      or roads can be made the subject of a proper planning application if concern is expressed either by the planning officer or in observations made by local people.
      I accept that the Government have made considerable concessions and that they have improved matters. Nevertheless, I look forward to hearing that they are prepared to go even further and accept the new clause.
      Mr. Steen: The Minister will know that, in Committee, I expressed my concern about the way in which agricultural buildings under 5,000 sq ft could be put up without any planning consent being given. I emphasised the problems that I face in south Devon where a few farmers—I stress that it is only a few—have cocked a snook at the planning system and have put up agricultural buildings of 5,000 sq ft and under in very sensitive areas. One is on the heritage coastline, right on the edge of the cliff, and can be seen for miles around. Another was sited in the most sensitive of all areas, on the banks of the river Dart. It is a white concrete structure that can be seen for miles around and a long way up the river. The farmer in question said that he used it to store apples. Only two weekends ago a third building of just under 5,000 sq ft was put up at the 850 ft contour—the top of the hill is at 860 ft—just above Totnes Cross, a landmark that can be seen for miles around. We are not quite sure of the purpose for which the building is intended but, to many people for miles around, it is a tremendous eyesore. It does not do the countryside any good, it certainly does not do tourism any good and it ruins the quality and value of the landscape.
      I should stress that the majority of farmers throughout the country and in south Devon are highly responsible, admirable people who have the highest regard for the environment and the countryside and would not dream of acting in that way. A few rogue farmers, however, have put the whole profession in a bad light.
      The Government rightly decided that something would have to be done about the problem, even though a minority rather than a majority of farmers were involved. I am delighted that, since the Bill left the Standing Committee, the Government have answered at length a question tabled by my hon and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in connection with the problem. That answer appeared at column 487 of Hansard on 7 June.
      The Government have advanced an ingenious idea. As I understand it—perhaps the Minister will confirm that my understanding is correct—the Government are saying that, whenever an agricultural building of whatever size is to be built, the farmer must go to the planning authority and explain that he intends to put up that building on a particular site. I am sure that the planning authorities would never have agreed to the siting of the buildings on the heritage coastline, on the banks of the Dart and at 850 ft above Totnes Cross. The planning authority must then suggest to the farmer an acceptable alternative site on his land. If the farmer is not prepared to accept the decision, he must go to appeal and have the planning inspector hear his case. I want to be clear whether that applies to all buildings, including buildings of 5,000 sq ft and under, and whether it is also relevant to areas of outstanding natural beauty. Am I right in thinking that the whole countryside will be covered by regulations stating that farmers can no longer put up barns without the planning authorities' agreement to the site?
      316
      New clause 18 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) who is unfortunately attending a Select Committee at present. He informs me that there are four farms in Harrow, East and he is concerned about the problem to which I have drawn the attention of the House. He has told me that, if I have it right, and no more farm buildings will spring up on sensitive sites, as they have in south Devon, he would not wish to press the new clause to a Division. I would not wish to press it either because I think that the Government have done a very good job. I merely want to make sure that I have understood the Government's position correctly and, more important, that my farmers understand it correctly. I look forward to hearing the Minister's confirmation that agricultural buildings under 5,000 sq ft will no longer be built in sensitive places if the planning authorities say that they may not.
      5 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): These amendments seek to end the limited permitted development rights for constructing agricultural buildings and farm and forestry roads, so that specific planning permission would be required in every case. New clauses 14 and 18 would end such rights throughout England and Wales and resemble an amendment tabled by the Opposition in Committee —both then and now, they reflect the Opposition's traditional hostility to agriculture and a lack of sympathy for the difficult circumstances in which many farmers find themselves today.
      I am not sure whether new clause 18 has been moved, but it has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and it aims to end permitted development rights for erecting agricultural buildings in national parks, areas of outstanding national beauty, sites of special scientific interest and in other specially designated conservation areas. That would mean that every small change in the line of a farm road and every farm building, however small, would require a full planning application to the local authority. That would be out of proportion, and has not been justified.
      However, we take such issues seriously and recognise that there is concern in rural areas, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams said, is caused by insensitivity on the part of a small number of farmers, who unfortunately tar the agricultural community with their reputation because of the occasional erection of a farm building in an objectionable position.
      I am glad to assure the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) that the two examples that he quoted in his constituency would be completely and satisfactorily dealt with by the changes that the Government propose to make. When we announced a significant extension of planning controls over agricultural buildings and farm and forestry roads last week, we dealt with precisely the sort of problems that he referred to.
      For some time, there have been discretionary controls in national parks over permitted development. The White Paper last year proposed to extend the system to other parts of England and Wales as well as to introduce controls over small farm buildings. Following public consultation, we announced that we would not only implement those two proposals but we would go further. In national parks, farmers and foresters already have to

      317
      notify the planning authority of all new buildings that they propose to erect under permitted development rights. The authority may then choose to exercise control over the siting, design and external appearance of new buildings on visual amenity grounds. That system works well and we have decided to extend the arrangements to all parts of England and Wales, and to extend the scope of the control.
      The new arrangements will cover not only new buildings, as we proposed in the consultation paper, but also significant extensions and alterations, and farm and forestry roads. The considerations to be taken into account by local planning authorities will not be limited to visual aspects, but will extend to the desirability of preserving ancient monuments and their settings, known archaeological sites, the settings of listed buildings, and sites of recognised nature conservation value, including SSSIs.
      The new arrangements will be accompanied by guidance to local planning authorities, stressing the importance of reconciling environmental considerations with the operational requirements of farm and forestry business.
      The second main strand of our announcement, which has not attracted much controversy in this short debate, is the extension of full development control to all farm holdings of less than five hectares.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I was anxious not to disturb the Minister in the early part of his speech, but I wish to ask him about one aspect of the notification procedure. If there were no agreement between the developer—the farmer—and the planning authority about the siting of a building or road, would the developer have to accept the local authority's point of view? Also, is there any scope for the public to be involved in the procedure, as is the case in a normal planning application?
      Mr. Yeo: It is not quite a normal planning application, but the farmer will have to accept the view of the local planning authority. If he cannot reach agreement about where a building should be sited through negotiation and discussion with the authority, he will have to take the matter to the Department of the Environment, to appeal. In that case, he may be able to secure his building.
      These proposals will give the local authority adequate controls to prevent farm buildings from being constructed in places which are considered to be objectionable or offensive for any of the reasons that I have given.
      Experience in the national parks shows that it is usually possible to reach agreement. Common sense will prevail in the vast majority of cases, and I have every reason to believe that that will turn out to be the case. In the majority of the examples that hon. Members come across, a small alteration in the position or the design of a building will remove most of the objections to it.
      I hope that that also deals with the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams. Any farm building and some extensions will now be covered by these new proposals. Therefore, a farmer who intends to undertake such development will effectively be brought under control as regards the position and design of the buildings.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: I apologise for missing the earlier part of the debate.
      The Minister is referring to the effect of the new legislation in England and Wales. Can he confirm that similar changes will apply in Scotland, since his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is sitting beside him?
      Mr. Yeo: In Scotland, the Scottish Office issued a consultation paper on 15 February.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Not another.
      Mr. Yeo: As the hon. Gentleman recognises, we are the listening Government. The paper invited views on the position throughout Scotland. Responses are still being considered and the Scottish Office is unable to announce its conclusions yet. However, I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will have noted the matters that have been raised from both sides of the House in this debate and I hope that they will be reflected in the decision that his Department reaches in due course.
      These measures will provide more effective control over development of all kinds associated with agricultural holdings. They will produce substantial environmental benefits and will ensure that the rural economy can continue to prosper and to make its own contribution to the quality of the environment, while controlling those effects of agricultural and forestry development that are potentially damaging to that environment. They represent a significant extension of local authority controls over agriculture and forestry, and we look to local authorities to operate them sensibly and efficiently. We will monitor the operation of the new system carefully. We intend to review the position in three years, with a view to making any further modifications shown to be necessary, either by increasing or by reducing control.
      Mr. Steen: Will the Minister explain how he will let local authorities know? What will be the process—a circular or a general practice note—and how soon will they know?
      Mr. Yeo: We shall advise local authorities about the new arrangements with a planning policy guidance note, which will not only set out exactly what is required, but will offer some help as to how the rules are to be interpreted.
      In the light of my remarks and due to the fact that the proposals will be subject to review in three years' time, I hope that the hon. Member for Bridgend will decide to withdraw the new clause.
      Mr. Mark Wolfson: I thoroughly welcome the statement that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made. The Government have struck an entirely sensible balance between giving proper importance to environmental considerations—in line with their policy on the environment—and commitment to preserving a balanced way in the countryside. They have been fully aware of the pressures on farmers and the need not to make constraints upon them too onerous. The ball is now in the farmers' court; it is up to them to come up with a sensible proposed siting and to discuss it with the local authorities. If it is not found to be suitable at that stage farmers will have to be flexible when finding a proper balanced solution, thus avoiding the need to go to appeal. That view will be

      319
      welcomed on both sides of the House, especially by hon. Members who represent shire counties. It is a major step forward and is most welcome.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Again I apologise for the fact that I was not present for the earlier part of the debate. This is an important issue. I represent a largely rural constituency. I have always thought it absurd that householders require planning permission for even the most minor alterations to their houses—a dormer window or a porch—whereas farmers are able to erect very large and sometimes unsightly buildings without needing anyone's consent.
      I refer briefly in passing to a problem that afflicts my constituency. Developers are acquiring whole farms and, in effect, asset stripping them by turning rows of cottages, or old farm buildings, into houses because they have a fast track to getting planning permission for that purpose. It is a very profitable exercise. There is a market for such properties within commuting distance of Edinburgh. However, it is undermining the rural economy and destroying long-established farming units. There is a need for more effective control over that change of use of farming units. That point ought to be taken into account in any Scottish Office review into the planning procedures that affect such buildings.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: As I said in my opening speech, I welcome the Government's concessions. They represent an improvement. Nevertheless, there are two matters that still worry me and, I know, very many other people.
      First, the Minister made glowing references to the experience of the national parks. When national park officers were consulted, seven out of nine of the national park authorities said that they wanted proper planning controls. However well the Government may think the system is working, there is an element of disquiet. The vast majority of national park authorities would like proper planning permission to prevail.
      Mr. Yeo: I acknowledge that the majority of national park officers have stated their preference for full planning controls, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also acknowledge that they have said that they feel that the notification system now in operation provides a rapid, relatively cheap and non-controversial method of control over the visual impact of developments.
      Mr. Griffiths: I readily acknowledge that that has been said, but it has to be placed in the context of their preference for full planning permission to prevail.
      As for the negotiation procedures, it is generally reckoned that the planning permission process need be no longer than the average time taken in private negotiations. As we believe that proper planning control is needed, and also an opportunity for public participation when particularly controversial proposals are notified to the local planning authority, we should like the will of the House to be tested in a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 299.

      Division No. 180]

      [5.12 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Anderson, Donald

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Allen, Graham

      Ashton, Joe

      Alton, David

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      320

      Barron, Kevin

      Livingstone, Ken

      Battle, John

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Beckett, Margaret

      Loyden, Eddie

      Bell, Stuart

      McAllion, John

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Blair, Tony

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Blunkett, David

      McFall, John

      Boyes, Roland

      McKelvey, William

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Madden, Max

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Buckley, George J.

      Marek, Dr John

      Caborn, Richard

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Martlew, Eric

      Cartwright, John

      Maxton, John

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Meacrter, Michael

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Meale, Alan

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Michael, Alun

      Cohen, Harry

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Corbett, Robin

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Morley, Elliot

      Cousins, Jim

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Cox, Tom

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Crowther, Stan

      Mullin, Chris

      Cryer, Bob

      Murphy, Paul

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Nellist, Dave

      Darling, Alistair

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Dewar, Donald

      Patchett, Terry

      Dixon, Don

      Pendry, Tom

      Dobson, Frank

      Pike, Peter L.

      Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Prescott, John

      Eadie, Alexander

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Edwards, Huw

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Radice, Giles

      Faulds, Andrew

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Reid, Dr John

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      Richardson, Jo

      Fisher, Mark

      Robertson, George

      Flynn, Paul

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Rogers, Allan

      Foster, Derek

      Rooker, Jeff

      Foulkes, George

      Rooney, Terence

      Fyfe, Maria

      Rowlands, Ted

      Galbraith, Sam

      Salmond, Alex

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Sheerman, Barry

      George, Bruce

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Short, Clare

      Gordon, Mildred

      Skinner, Dennis

      Gould, Bryan

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Graham, Thomas

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Snape, Peter

      Haynes, Frank

      Soley, Clive

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hinchliffe, David

      Strang, Gavin

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Straw, Jack

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Home Robertson, John

      Turner, Dennis

      Hood, Jimmy

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Hoyle, Doug

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Wilson, Brian

      Illsley, Eric

      Winnick, David

      Janner, Greville

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeslde)

      Worth ington, Tony

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Lamond, James

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Leighton, Ron

      Mr. Ken Eastham and

      Lewis, Terry

      Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

      321

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Dover, Den

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Dunn, Bob

      Allason, Rupert

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Amess, David

      Dykes, Hugh

      Arbuthnot, James

      Eggar, Tim

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Ashby, David

      Evennett, David

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Favell, Tony

      Atkins, Robert

      Fearn, Ronald

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Baldry, Tony

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Beith, A. J.

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Bellingham, Henry

      Forman, Nigel

      Bellotti, David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Franks, Cecil

      Benyon, W.

      Freeman, Roger

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      French, Douglas

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fry, Peter

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Gale, Roger

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Boswell, Tim

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Bottomley, Peter

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Gorst, John

      Bowis, John

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Gregory, Conal

      Brazier, Julian

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bright, Graham

      Grist, Ian

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

      Ground, Patrick

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Grylls, Michael

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hague, William

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      (Epsom)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Burns, Simon

      Hannam, John

      Burt, Alistair

      Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

      Butler, Chris

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Butterfill, John

      Harris, David

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Carr, Michael

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hayward, Robert

      Cash, William

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Chope, Christopher

      Hill, James

      Churchill, Mr

      Holt, Richard

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Colvin, Michael

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Conway, Derek

      Howells, Geraint

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David

      Couchman, James

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Cran, James

      Irvine, Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Curry, David

      Jack, Michael

      Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

      Jackson, Robert

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Janman, Tim

      Day, Stephen

      Jessel, Toby

      Devlin, Tim

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dicks, Terry

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      322

      Kennedy, Charles

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Key, Robert

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Kilfedder, James

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Rost, Peter

      Knapman, Roger

      Rowe, Andrew

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Knowles, Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Latham, Michael

      Shelton, Sir William

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lightbown, David

      Sims, Roger

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Livsey, Richard

      Speed, Keith

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Speller, Tony

      Lord, Michael

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Squire, Robin

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Maclean, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Steen, Anthony

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Stern, Michael

      Madel, David

      Stevens, Lewis

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Mans, Keith

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Maples, John

      Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Marlow, Tony

      Stokes, Sir John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Thorne, Neil

      Mills, Iain

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Tredinnick, David

      Moate, Roger

      Trotter, Neville

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Viggers, Peter

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Walden, George

      Moss, Malcolm

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Wallace, James

      Mudd, David

      Waller, Gary

      Needham, Richard

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Ward, John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Watts, John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Wells, Bowen

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Norris, Steve

      Whitney, Ray

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Paice, James

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wilkinson, John

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Wilshire, David

      Pawsey, James

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wolfson, Mark

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Wood, Timothy

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Portillo, Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Price, Sir David

      Rathbone, Tim

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Rhodes James, Sir Robert

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Riddick, Graham

      Mr. Tom Sackville.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 16

      COMPENSATION FOR WORKS IN CONNECTION WITH RAILWAYS
      `.—After section 27 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (Execution of works etc. in connection with public works) there is inserted—

      "27A.—(1) The Secretary of State may compensate any person with a qualifying interest in land the enjoyment of which will in his opinion be seriously or injuriously affected by the carrying out of works or the use of public works or the intensification of operations by or in connection with the activities of the British Railways Board.

      (2) In the section 'qualifying interest' has the meaning given in section 149(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

      (3) In this section the power to compensate includes the power to acquire by agreement property at a value established by reference to the value of the property which would have obtained if the relevant operations had not been subject to intensification.

      (4) Save as provided in subsection (3) the provisions of Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (Compensation for depreciation caused by use of public works) shall apply to compensation paid under this section.".'.—[Sir J. Stanley.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Sir John Stanley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Although the new clause has been tabled by right hon. and hon. Members of different parties who represent constituencies in London, Kent and Surrey, it raises an aspect of compensation policy which is of considerable importance to any constituency, wherever it is located, if, like ours, it faces a quantum leap in noise levels from the railways as a result of a different type of train which will travel with much greater frequency on the existing railway system. The issue that we are about to debate will be seen to be a part of general compensation policy, not one that flows from the channel tunnel project.
      The problem faced by our constituents can be stated relatively simply. The Government have so far been unable —or unwilling—to agree to the construction of a new high-speed line from London to the channel tunnel portal. Therefore, it is inescapable that for at least five years after the channel tunnel opens in 1993, all through international passenger and freight trains to and from the continent will travel on the existing designated railway system between London and the continent. They will travel especially on two lines—the main line that has been used by the previous boat train service through Tonbridge down to Ashford, and the secondary line through Maidstone east.
      The implications for people who have properties close to the railway lines are little short of disastrous, because the increase in usage, especially at night, will have drastic effects. At present, virtually no use is made of the Tonbridge to Ashford line at night. Equally, there is really no use of the Maidstone east line at night.
      According to British Rail's own forecast of the international freight traffic alone, international freight trains about half a mile long and travelling at about 75 mph will take at least half a minute to pass a given point which, as far as our constituents are concerned, will be their bedroom windows, which may be a few metres from the railway line. The trains will pass by about every 20 minutes throughout the night from 10 pm to 6 am. They will pass every night of the week, every week of the year.
      324
      I am happy to say that it will affect relatively few people who are unfortunate enough to have property alongside the designated channel tunnel routes.
      5.30 pm
      New clause 16 seeks to deal with that problem by conferring on my right and hon. learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport two discretionary powers. The first power would enable him voluntarily to acquire, with the agreement of the owner, homes that are seriously affected by the build-up of rail traffic. In practice, I would expect that power to be used in the case of houses that have, to all intents and purposes, been rendered valueless and uninhabitable by the rail traffic build-up. My hon. Friend the Minister of State kindly visited a house in my constituency, which I believe that he will agree will be rendered effectively valueless.
      The second power is a discretionary power to apply the injurious affection provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 to those houses that are not made totally uninhabitable but whose value is seriously affected. Those two powers will provide a sensible and fair answer to the problem.
      The House may ask, what are the objections to new clause 16? I shall anticipate two arguments that may be used by my hon. Friend the Minister. The first argument —he would be ill-advised to use it—is that compensation is paid only in relation to new works and not in the case of intensification of existing use. He may claim that this is an example of intensification of existing use and that, therefore, compensation cannot be paid. That argument cannot run. To try to pretend that the build-up of rail traffic as a result of the channel tunnel is simply an intensification of existing use without any new works does not accord with reality. There are massive new works which are making it possible for the intensification to occur.
      At one end of the line we have the biggest single new work that has ever been undertaken by the British civil engineering industry—the channel tunnel. It will link the entire continental rail system with the British rail system. That is a pretty good new work. At the other end we have the £150 million new work taking place at Waterloo station. Some of us went to see it the other day. There is a new international terminal with five new platforms, each a quarter of a mile long, to take the new international passenger trains. There is a massive new work between Tonbridge and Redhill where the line is being electrified to take the international freight trains. Mile upon mile of continuous rail is being installed, bridges are being reconstructed, there is tremendous investment in new signalling and track is being reconstructed. My right hon. Friend the Minister recently confirmed in a parliamentary answer that, even ignoring the cost of the channel tunnel, the associated rail works to enable the channel tunnel trains to travel on the existing designated routes will total £700 million. By every possible argument, major new works are involved and the issue cannot be dismissed as simply an intensification of existing use.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: My hon. Friend suggested that if the Government had been able or had wished to approve a new line, some of the problems might have been avoided. Is it not the case that British Rail has

      325
      stubbornly persisted in its view that there is no need for a new freight line and that, therefore, our constituents will be subjected to this burden for the foreseeable future?
      Sir John Stanley: I agree with my hon. Friend. British Rail's proposals, which as far as we know have not yet been accepted by the Government, envisage a new line for passenger traffic only. Therefore, the problem will arise for freight.
      My hon. Friend the Minister may concede my first point about intensification of existing use. The real issue is what type of new works should trigger an entitlement to compensation. My hon. Friend the Minister may fall back on a second line of resistance. He may say, "Yes, I acknowledge that there are major new works but, I am afraid, the works are of the wrong type. In a road scheme no compensation is payable unless there is a new road or a new carriageway to an existing road. In this case, by and large, there is no new track and compensation cannot be paid." If my hon. Friend is tempted to use that argument, I hope that he will think again. An analogy between the compensation problem for railways and the compensation problem for a road scheme is wholly bogus because the railway noise profile is totally different from that of a highway. The noise profile is critical. It is that which depreciates the value of homes and possibly creates the entitlement to compensation.
      I invite the House to consider the noise profile of an international freight or passenger train. First there is a total silence. Then, from a very faint noise, there is a gradual crescendo, which builds to an intense noise for those whose homes are right by the railway line. That noise is sustained for at least half a minute as the train passes. The noise then diminishes back into total silence until the next train in about 15 minutes or so. That is not the noise profile of a passing car or lorry or of continuous traffic from a highway scheme. That noise profile approximates to that of an aircraft. The passage of an aircraft overhead is the correct analogy for the problem facing our constituents.
      When we consider this as an issue of compensation policy in relation not to a highway scheme, where the analogy is false, but to aircraft, a different perspective emerges. As I hope to demonstrate, existing practice for civil and military aircraft is wholly in line with what we propose in new clause 16. We are not asking the Department of Transport to take a radical step forward or to create a dangerous new precedent. We are asking the Department to bring itself into line with the practice of those operating civil and military airfields and accept the same responsibility to householders in the vicinity of railway lines as is already accepted by those operators.
      Mr. Bob Dunn: Before my right hon. Friend extends the theme a little further, will he confirm that the problem with the noise profile will be worse during the day and evening? The noise from passing trains will not be confined to office hours from 8 o'clock in the morning until 6 o'clock at night but will continue through the night. On returning from work to home, where people want to enjoy their leisure and rest, owners will find that the noise profile is distinctly disturbing and wrecks their tranquil hours.
      Sir John Stanley: My hon. Friend is correct. There will be noise disturbances on a 24-hour basis. My hon. Friend's
      326
      point is extremely telling, not least because there is a ban on night-time flying by civil aircraft. Our constituents will be in a worse position than those affected by civil flights.
      I remind the House of the two key powers that are available under new clause 16—the power to set up a voluntary acquisition scheme for owners of houses that are, in effect, made valueless and the power to pay injurious affection compensation.
      I have considered the existing practice of civil aviation operators and the Ministry of Defence. On the civil side, I start with the issue of a voluntary acquisition scheme. Sir Norman Payne, the chairman of the British Airports Authority plc, has confirmed to me that BAA already operates a voluntary acquisition programme for houses seriously affected by noise from BAA airports, whereby those home owners who wish to sell are bought out for an amount equivalent to the unblighted value of their homes. Ironically, that power was made possible only by the Government's action in privatising the British Airports Authority. It would be sad and paradoxical if, having introduced those powers in relation to civil aircraft, the Government resisted introducing similar powers to cover those who are equally seriously affected by railway noise.
      Sir Norman Payne confirmed in his letter that injurious affection compensation was payable. In respect of what new works is it payable by BAA? My hon. Friend the Minister may be under the impression that injurious affection compensation is payable only where there is the equivalent of new track—a new runway or an extension of an existing runway.
      Sir Norman Payne confirmed that BAA is willing to pay injurious affection compensation where new works stop short of a new runway or an extension of an existing runway. As that point is fundamental, I hope that the House will forgive me if I read the key sentence in Sir Norman Payne's letter, and I ask hon. Members to consider in particular the end of that sentence. Sir Norman Payne said:
      "With regard to injurious affection compensation BAA's airports, in common with all other airports in the United Kingdom, are liable to pay compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1973 where the value of property has diminished as a result of physical factors, including noise, vibration, smell, fumes and artificial lighting, resulting from any works at the airports which involve the construction, realignment, extension or strengthening of an existing runway"—
      and this is the crucial passage—
      "or substantial additions to or alterations of taxiways or aprons where those additions or alterations are designed to provide facilities for a greater number of aircraft."
      5.45 pm
      In other words, injurious affection compensation is triggered by new works which may necessarily fall short of a new runway or an extension to an existing runway but which provide facilities for a greater number of aircraft. Those of us who tabled new clause 16 argue strongly that that is precisely the position with which we are dealing —major new works which provide facilities for much greater use of railway lines by international trains.
      I turn to the defence sector and military aircraft. I can speak with a little first-hand experience because I was Minister of State for the Armed Forces when the Ministry of Defence had to deal with this problem in relation to military aircraft. A massive increase in noise was predicted at an airfield, resulting in those with homes nearby finding the value of their homes, if not destroyed, at least seriously

      327
      reduced. The airfield was RAF Leeming in north Yorkshire, which at that time was a training airfield, deploying Bulldog basic trainers and Jet Provost trainers, which are the first trainers used in converting to flying jet aircraft. They are relatively small and not particularly noisy aircraft.
      It was decided to use RAF Leeming as one of the main operational bases for Tornados in this country. That occasion mirrored the present situation with channel tunnel trains. A new type of aircraft was deployed, with much longer hours of operation and causing much greater noise disturbance.
      The House will not be surprised to hear, perhaps, that our policy response was precisely the same as the provisions in new clause 16. We introduced a voluntary acquisition scheme for owners of those houses most seriously affected by noise and injurious affection compensation. I am glad to be able to tell the House, because of written answers given to me by my successor, the present Minister of State for the Armed Forces, that the principles that we applied to RAF Leeming have been applied to a considerable number of other RAF airfields where the same problem has arisen. On 3 June, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the voluntary acquisition scheme applied at Stornoway, Leeming, Upper Heyford, Fairford and Yeovilton and that injurious affection compensation applied at Upper Heyford, Leuchars, Cottesmore, Coningsby, Marham, Wattisham, Honington, Leeming and Yeovilton.
      What new works triggered an entitlement to injurious affection compensation at RAF Leeming? There was no new runway or extension to the existing runway. There was no new taxiway or new apron. The new works were of a different variety, but they still triggered an entitlement to injurious affection compensation.
      I hope that I have been able to show that the principle in new clause 16 is well precedented in relation to aircraft and we should draw the parallel with a passing aircraft. There is a precedent for a voluntary acquisition scheme at the unblighted value of a property. There is a precedent for the operation of an injurious affection compensation scheme where there is intensification of existing use accompanied by new works, but where those works do not necessitate the construction of a new runway or railway track.
      Although the Department of Transport may claim that the principle is difficult and dangerous, we are asking the Department and British Rail to accept the same degree of responsibility for folk, the value of whose houses may have been devastated, as is already accepted by the operators of civil airfields and by the MOD.
      Ultimately we must consider the individuals concerned. We must ask whether it is fair and reasonable with regard to a channel tunnel project that is required in the national interest that relatively small numbers of people should have the value of their main asset destroyed or substantially reduced as a result of the construction of that project and the proper utilisation of the tunnel by rail traffic. We believe that that is unreasonable. The Government must act to ensure that that injustice is rectified. Justice would be done under new clause 16 and therefore I hope that the House will support it.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful, as other hon. Members must be, for the initiative taken by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and
      328
      Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) in tabling his new clause and seeking to discover whether there is widespread support for it. He does not need to look far for such support. Since 1986, hon. Members have been aware of the concern expressed by their constituents about the effect of the current policy on the construction of railways and the issue of compensation. New clause 16, which has cross-party support, is an attempt to rectify the unfair balance in favour of the national interest, to the great detriment of private interests.
      The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing made a carefully argued and persuasive point about the precedent for his proposition, which is already adopted by the Government. I will not elaborate on that, as the right hon. Gentleman quoted chapter and verse in respect of two clear and obvious examples. He also stated clearly that the best parallel lies not with road traffic, but with other forms of transport which have comparable effects on the residential population and on householders.
      My first point is obvious, but it underlines the importance of what the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing has just said. The cost of a channel tunnel link —or a similar railway route—is shared among many taxpayers. It is spread abroad among those who contribute to the public purse. If someone is not adequately compensated, probably his largest asset is lost, and that may have a catastrophic effect on that family and its wealth. There is an inordinate and disproportionate unfairness in the way in which one could attribute the cost of what new clause 16 seeks to achieve.
      Under new clause 16, the public purse would compensate or permit compensation at the objectively assessed value for loss suffered by anyone who, in the public interest, must pay the personal price of forfeiting his home in total, or the benefit of the value of that home as it was before the scheme was proposed.
      We should address the issue now, not later. As the Minister for Public Transport is aware, there have been a couple of false starts in relation to the channel tunnel route. I do not want to make a prejudicial point about that; I heard the Minister on the radio this morning refer to the timetable. British Rail has had a rethink and has produced a proposal about the options for the channel tunnel rail link from its agreed end point in Kent to London. It has produced a preferred option which is on the Secretary of State's desk, and the Secretary of State and the Minister for Public Transport are considering the options.
      Some weeks ago, the Secretary of State confirmed to me that, when the Government select an option, they will consult about the environmental implications. We all come to this debate unaware of the proposal. We come to argue from a point of principle. I hope that it is accepted that this is not a NIMBY argument. It should not be. None of us would like to see such problems occur whether or not they affected our constituents, constituents in our local authority areas—as applies in my case—or constituents more widely. It is a matter of public policy. We are not praying for exceptional treatment for people who may be affected by the proposal for the channel tunnel link, but in the immediate future the problems are likely to apply to those affected by the channel tunnel link.
      The issue has political significance because this kind of issue—a proposal made or endorsed by the Government —will affect the Government supporters who may be criticised if the proposal does not compensate their

      329
      constituents adequately. The channel tunnel link will affect the south east and the majority of the constituencies affected have Conservative Members. Only a handful of seats in inner London held by Labour Members will be affected, as will my constituency. Quite rightly, Conservative Members will hope to persuade the Government of the political and the personal significance of the case.
      In a way, the new clause is a minimalist proposal. I tabled the same proposition in relation to underground works in new clause 23. My new clause raises the same issue, but relates to different legislation. The Minister for Public Transport is aware that proposals currently before the House to construct new underground lines raise similar issues. It is not simply a matter of which property is to be demolished: the issue relates also to which properties are affected by existing activity or by intensification of activity.
      I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that, if the general argument is acceptable, it is logical that the provisions should apply to those who are affected in any way by railway works, whether they are above or below ground. The similarity between the railways and the channel tunnel proposal will be the closer because the latter will also be underground in London, although it will be above ground in outer London and Kent.
      6 pm
      As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing said, the present law is anomalous. That has happened not as a matter of public policy but because of the failure of legislation to catch up with what should be the natural justice principle. As a result, some people have suffered disproportionately and in a particular way, while others have not suffered at all. As the right hon. Gentleman said, and as the new clause proposes, we are most concerned to ensure that we include in the "powers to compensate" provisions those who are suffering from an intensification of works as opposed to the commencement of new works only. Their previous omission from the compensation provisions is the most obvious anomaly, but there are others.
      I have in mind the case of two constituents, living in neighbouring properties. One has been told that he will be compensated because he works at home, while the neighbour will not be compensated because his home is not his place of work. They live in similar and adjacent properties, but the law does not treat them the same. That is unfair.
      This may be Parliament's last opportunity on this Bill to amend the existing law. Given that Ministers normally have a greater ability than other hon. Members to find technical defects in proposed provisions, the Minister may well do so. However, even if there are technical defects in the new clause, and even if it does not go as widely as some of us would wish, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the Government now accept the principle of compensating people for any loss—objectively assessed—in the value of their property as a result of railway proposals that would be a public benefit and increase the use of the railways.
      I hope that principle will be accepted now, before the consequences become particular to certain constituencies
      330
      and their Members of Parliament. I hope that it will be accepted as a matter of general principle to apply across the United Kingdom and in all such cases from now on.
      I think that I am right in saying that this question will not go away if the Minister finds, for whatever reason, that it is not possible to accept even that proposition. That is not an unreal threat, because the problem affects many people's largest investment. Effectively, everything that people have built up as their community, home and base could be at risk if we do not amend the law.
      For many people today, the most worrying thing, in any political agenda, is whether, as a result of legislation and Government policy decisions in the coming months, they will lose their home or a significant part of its value. That could finish those people, and it should not be acceptable as a matter of public policy. I hope that the Government will accept that the new clause gives us all a way off this hook and out of this dilemma. It is a straightforward principle of justice, and I hope that it will be accepted.
      Mr. Wolfson: I start by congratulating my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), on so clearly outlining the case for the new clause. That it was masterly is no surprise.
      I should like to comment specifically and briefly on two or three of my right hon. Friend's points. The new clause deals with compensation policy as a whole and could provide a way of dealing fairly with relatively few people. It provides the Secretary of State with a discretionary power. It was important that my right hon. Friend drew an analogy with airports rather than roads because that is the proper comparison. As we know, there are currently tight controls on night flying at airports. We know, equally, that the channel tunnel will not operate effectively if similar night controls are applied. As my right hon. Friend said, night trains will be running and that fact pushes up the agenda the crucial importance of properly looking after those relatively few people whose lives will be seriously damaged by them.
      If ever the small man needed the protection of Parliament, it is upon the issue that new clause 16 addresses. The Englishman's home is his castle, but for the great majority of the population it is also his, or her, main —and often sole—investment. We should not forget those who rent, for whom the security of their own home, in known surroundings, in a settled community and among familiar sights and sounds is a large part of what makes life worthwhile. I ask hon Members to think of their own home—their families and their own feelings for it—in relation to what I have just said. Are those things not true for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as they are for all of us?
      It is for those reasons that the prospect of a sudden and dramatic change in the level of rail traffic—immediately the channel tunnel opens, on the lines that run through my constituency and those of other hon. Members representing Kent, but possibly in other parts of the country in the future—is causing such understandable alarm and dismay. Householders who live close to the existing rail lines—Maidstone to Swanley, Tonbridge to Redhill, and the line from Tonbridge to Sevenoaks and then direct to London—have up to now been little troubled by rail traffic, especially at night. Daytime activity is not great at the moment on two of those lines, which will be used for British Rail freight for the foreseeable future. The trains

      331
      are relatively slow and short. Until recent years, disturbance between the night hours of 11 pm and 6 am has been minimal. They are quiet lines.
      The sale of houses had not, therefore, been much affected by proximity to the railway. Indeed, within the past five years new houses have been built at Swanky right under the embankment and, in the past, have sold well and readily. That was because the line was relatively little used. Now, all that is horribly changed. Those houses and others similarly situated are blighted. Individuals have had their lives disrupted. Their retirement or job change plans have been aborted, causing real worry and sometimes serious distress. And why? Not because they have made any mistakes or even errors of financial judgment themselves; not because the national housing market has been flat and not because their neighbourhood is old or run down—for none of those reasons. The blight has been caused by a factor quite outside their own control, let alone their ability to foresee.
      On the day the channel tunnel opens, British Rail will inevitably make a quantum leap in the volume of trains using those lines night and day. Trains will be more frequent, longer and heavier. They will also be noisier and cause more vibration. Whatever the improvements that can be achieved by welded rails and modern rolling stock, international freight trains running through the night on previously empty tracks will be the cause of major and unacceptable disturbance.
      Controls exist to minimise disturbance from night flights at airports. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing has said, rail disturbance could be similar for some houses. Radical measures are therefore essential to mitigate the injurious effects that may be suffered, and that is what new clause 16 seeks to achieve.
      As the law stands, when new railways are built, however short, or when an additional track is laid alongside a railway to widen the line, this counts as new development and compensation may be paid to those who are affected. In my constituency a new loop line is being constructed to allow a stationary train to be overtaken —in other words, a train parking line. Compensation may be payable to people who are affected. Yet to those who suffer from the vastly increased use of an existing line no compensation is available. In an age when environmental issues, quality of life and noise control measures are high on the social and political agenda, that position is unacceptable to me, to my constituents and, increasingly, it will be unacceptable to the nation as a whole.
      It has already been said that this issue will not go away. The law must be changed to give householders who are injuriously affected, or whose enjoyment is seriously affected by an intensification of the use of existing lines, the opportunity to be treated in a way similar to those who live beside new works. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing argued clearly and eloquently that the development of rail traffic from the channel tunnel to London can be described as new development. That was one of the points that he made. The other and most important one—I finish where I began—was that the nuisance should be equated with that of airport noise, not with that of roads.
      Mr. Gerald Bowden: My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) analysed with great clarity the problem, outlined the planning principles and procedures which are relevant to
      332
      it, and suggested a practical solution to alleviate the difficulties of disturbance and nuisance, loss of amenity and environmental damage which will arise for those who live near lines, the use of which is intensified, particularly by the passage of freight trains during unsocial hours.
      I cannot add to or better what my right hon. Friend said but I am prompted to speak on behalf of my constituents in the Dulwich area who will be affected by the increase in the use of the West Dulwich line from Sydenham Hill through West Dulwich station to Herne Hill and also of the East Dulwich line which runs through Peckham and Denmark Hill to Loughborough junction and takes in the Warwick gardens area. My constituents face not only the threat of intensification of use but the blight that lies on all properties in the area as a result of British Rail's ill-conceived high-speed passenger link. In those circumstances, the time is right to consider the high-speed link, whether it covers freight and passengers or only passengers, and to determine what compensation should be available to those who are injuriously affected.
      I speak not only for myself today. I have been asked to say that I speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), whose duties do not allow him to participate in the debate but who nevertheless shares the problems that I face. To alleviate the problem that lies with my constituents and, indeed, those of my hon. Friend, we need a proper compensation package which deals with this new threat and the problem that arises as a result of the intensification of use. There is no doubt that if British Rail persists in planning to pass freight traffic over existing commuter passenger lines, the problem will be greatly intensified beyond what is predicted.
      Another issue perhaps runs beyond the scope of this debate but is relevant to it. There is an urgent and immediate need for a dedicated freight route to take freight off the passenger lines of south-east London, perhaps via the route that has been suggested through north-east Kent, crossing the Thames at Dartford, south-east Essex and on to the remainder of the United Kingdom beyond the capital. That issue and the issue of compensation cannot properly be separated. We must consider a dedicated freight route to take the majority of freight which is not destined for the capital. That would reduce the amount of freight that travels on existing lines.
      6.15 pm
      Sir Philip Goodhart: My hon. Friend describes the Thurrock route. Does he agree that an alternative for freight is to take it, as it were, left of London from Tonbridge, via Redhill and Reading and that way? I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is insane to push the main bulk of our freight through the already crowded lines of south London.
      Mr. Bowden: My hon. Friend is right. It is crazy to consider that the only way to transport freight from the channel tunnel through to London or the rest of the United Kingdom is by pushing it through the bottleneck of London on passenger lines which go through built-up areas, over viaducts and bridges and near houses, with all the danger that that involves. There have been several disasters in the past few years in which trains have come off the rails and done great damage, not only to those travelling in them but to those who live near the lines. It is imperative to create a dedicated freight route. If we had

      333
      that, the amount of freight that travelled on the lines that we are discussing today would be reduced. If we used the other line, which my hon. Friend suggested, the amount would be even smaller. A dedicated freight route would also reduce the intensification of traffic which is threatened by the present proposal.
      I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to produce a package that not only meets the need to convey freight but recognises that those who live near freight or passenger routes that will carry freight must be compensated for the loss that they will sustain. They will suffer loss in the value of their property, loss of amenity, damage to the environment and loss of quality in their lives.
      Mr. Roger Sims: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to current speculation about the route to be taken by the channel tunnel fast link. We know that papers are on the Minister's desk. Many of us in south London hope that they will be published sooner rather than later so that at least we know the worst or the best.
      One thing is clear. During the time between the opening of the channel tunnel and the completion of the fast link —along whatever route—there will be very much more traffic on existing routes, because it will not be able to go anywhere else. Whereas the fast link and its construction will be covered by completely fresh legislation which is likely to include compensation, environmental protection and other requirements, there are no requirements, either legal or moral, for British Rail to recognise the effect of the increased traffic along the existing routes, especially between the inner parts of Kent and central London.
      I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on raising this issue and putting the case so effectively. I do not intend to protract the proceedings by speaking at length, but I have to take issue with my right hon. Friend on one point. At two stages in his otherwise admirable speech, he referred to the effect of intensified traffic on, in his words, "relatively few properties". It may be relatively few properties in his constituency, and perhaps in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), but in suburban London in, for example, the London borough of Bromley—all four Members of Parliament who have constituencies in that borough are present in the Chamber—it is not relatively few properties but scores or hundreds of properties that will be affected.
      I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for taking the time to come to Bromley and see for himself how close some properties are to existing lines, the effect of present train traffic and the effect that much more intensified traffic will have. My hon. Friends and I have files of letters that we could show the Minister from people who have houses adjacent to railway lines and who are naturally concerned about the effect of much more intensive use of the lines.
      It can be argued that if one buys a house with a railway line at the bottom of the garden, one would expect trains to use it. That is a perfectly fair argument, but we are considering an increase in the use of lines that was entirely unforeseen. No doubt it will be argued that they are not new lines, but existing ones and literally that must be so. However, let us bear in mind that the existing lines will link up with the channel tunnel and, in turn, with the entire rail
      334
      network of continental Europe. If that is not the construction of a new line, what is? It is a completely new network.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not fall back on the argument that they are not new lines. It is a completely new network and was unforeseen by anybody buying property except, perhaps, by those buying in very recent years. Most of my constituents have lived in their properties for 10, 20 or 30 years and more and could not possibly have foreseen the increase in traffic.
      It is not the first time that this type of issue has been debated in Parliament. There is a British Railways (No. 3) Bill, involving works along the line, which will no doubt come before the House in the fullness of time. The House will be aware that it has already been discussed in another place. A House of Lords Select Committee issued a report on the Bill and the various petitions that were presented, which included petitions from Kent county council and Bromley borough council.
      The special report on the Bill from the Lords Select Committee said:
      "The Committee have very considerable sympathy with the predicament of the Petitioners and others who live alongside the railway that will be used by traffic arising from the Channel Tunnel."
      It is worth noting that the Committee accepts
      "that there will be a substantial increase in noise levels once the Channel Tunnel opens."
      The report then considers how the matter should be dealt with and whether it is appropriate to deal with it through the British Railways (No. 3) Bill. The Committee adds that the provisions
      "would be better dealt with by general legislation"
      and it recommends that
      "the Government give urgent consideration to the question of compensation for those directly affected by major and relatively sudden intensification of the use of existing railway lines. This is a national problem, requiring national solutions".
      We have a solution at hand in this Bill. The insertion of the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing would deal with the problem, and I hope that the House will support it.
      Mr. Roger Moate: I recall taking part in the proceedings on the Land Compensation Act 1973. I was very proud that a Conservative Government was introducing a long-overdue measure to extend compensation to individuals who would suffer in the public interest as a result of major road developments. I am also proud that this Bill goes a long way in handing out justice to individuals, especially those likely to suffer the loss of their homes because of public works. The extra compensation due to them is generous and fair, albeit overdue.
      We are discussing another major step that should be taken to offer justice to individuals whose homes are likely to be damaged in some way or other because the public interest decrees that there should be major public works. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept the point that was made earlier—it is not an issue that will go away. We are discussing an important principle, and if it is not resolved by the Bill it will come back time and again, especially during our proceedings on the high-speed link.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to help the House and the country by at least conceding the principle—and, I hope, accepting the new clause moved eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley). It has been pointed

      335
      out that it is not a NIMBY—not in my backyard—proposal. Many hon. Members from Kent and other areas that could be affected are present, but many others are too. The point is that we do not know where the high-speed link will go. It could be any one of a number of routes. It could be in Essex, Kent or south London. I favour the Ove Arup route, but I recognise that if that is selected many people in Essex will be affected. If some of the more far-fetched Labour schemes come to fruition, we shall have high-speed links all over the country and many householders will be affected by new railway development.
      We are dealing with a major principle which could affect many areas. I therefore hope that the House will treat it as a national issue and that we shall not leave those constituencies which are ultimately affected forlornly to fight their own corner when a private or hybrid. Bill is introduced. I hope that the House will speak for the people and treat the issue as a matter of principle, wherever new railway lines go.
      In the meantime, long before consideration of a high-speed link, there was a major generation of new traffic on existing routes as a result of the channel tunnel. I heard my hon. Friend the Minister on the radio this morning and he was challenged on when we would have a high-speed link and asked whether anything would be in place by the time the channel tunnel opened. I was a bit disappointed again by his reply and I have yet to hear British Rail proclaim that when the channel tunnel opens in 1993 there will be a high-speed link in existence so that people can travel directly from Waterloo to Paris or Brussels in roughly three hours. I am surprised that we continue to hide our light under a bushel and allow our railways to be denigrated by failing to remind people that nearly £1,500 million has been spent to ensure that when the tunnel opens one can take a fast rail link from London to the major capitals of Europe. The corollary is that those trains will run on existing lines.
      The lines in Kent that have been mentioned will be used by high-speed trains on a scale which has not been experienced before. It is also significant that British Rail has pointed out it can operate a considerable amount of capacity which is not used at the moment to cope with the extra freight traffic that it hopes to attract through the tunnel. That traffic will travel on existing routes, not just during the day, but at night as well. Many of our constituents will be facing noise and traffic on a scale that they have never previously experienced. It might be rightly decreed that that is in the national interest, and so be it, but the national interest will also accept that people suffering from the intensification of noise on that scale should receive some help and compensation. We are not asking for very much. The proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling is modest.
      In some cases a house close to a line where there is major intensification of day and night-time traffic could lose a great deal of its value, but I suspect that in most cases we are talking about the need for noise insulation and the like. I do not believe for one moment that the British people or hon. Members would deny the justice of extending to such individuals the right to receive some assistance by way of noise insulation or compensation for loss of value if that arose. That is the principle that the House should and must endorse today. Just as Kent Members speak in a united way for the county of Kent, I hope that others will also speak much more broadly in the national interest.
      336
      So often great national projects take much longer than necessary, and vastly longer than they do in other countries, fundamentally because we are mean-minded in our approach to compensation. How much more readily would people accept proposals such as this if compensation was reasonably generous. If the country knew that there would be reasonable noise insulation and some compensation for those who suffer from rail projects such as this, it is likely that my hon. Friend the Minister and others would find it much easier to get such projects on the statute book and constructed much more quickly. It is in the interests of the project as well as in the interests of justice that the new clause on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing spoke so eloquently should be accepted.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) has made a powerful and convincing case for new clause 16, which I accept and wish to support. In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has put the argument for a constituency such as mine, which neighbours the constituency of my hon. Friend. Therefore, I do not feel called upon to delay the debate unnecessarily.
      We are dealing with a matter of fundamental importance, so I hope that the Government will not say that the Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for deciding such a matter. Great events often turn upon comparatively small things, especially in relation to the House. This is a way in which the matter can be determined without all the palaver, delays, commissions of inquiry and so on which often go into deciding matters of great moments.
      We are dealing with what may well be a change in the attitude of Government towards public works. No longer, as may have been the case in the 19th century, can public utilities expect statutory permission to execute works which, while in accordance with statutory duties, nevertheless do great harm to private individuals. We have passed that stage in our history. There should now be a balance between the interests of a statutory undertaking, whether it be British Rail or any other, and the interests of private housholders. That is the situation with which new clause 16 deals.
      Whether or not the rail link goes through Bromley, the use of existing tracks through Bromley and my constituency will intensify. Already, not only due to the recession and the recent, I hope temporary, fall in land values, but because of the expectations of such developments, there has been a fall in property values in areas adjacent to existing railway lines. It is fully expected that those railway lines will be used to an ever greater extent, especially by freight traffic. Freight traffic will travel during the night on occasions and to an extent which has never been experienced before.
      Many of my constituents are suffering now from their inability to obtain any sort of compensation for the dramatic fall in values of their properties. There must be a remedy for that, and that remedy is contained in new clause 16. That is why I am happy to support it, and I am anxious that others will do so too.
      Mr. Edward Heath: I support most strongly new clause 16, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), to which I put my name—the first time that my

      337
      name has appeared on the Order Paper since March 1975. I have done that because I regard the new clause as vital, first to my constituents and, secondly, to all those who may also be affected either in the Greater London area or in Kent.
      But the matter goes much further than that. It is a national question. Those who are looking ahead realise that the channel tunnel will lead to dramatic changes in transport throughout Britain which will affect British Rail going up to Inverness and further. Therefore, we are dealing not just with the present proposals but with what will be the eventual result of the channel tunnel and the resultant changes in transport. That is why I ask the Minister to take a national view and to recognise how wide are the implications of the changes and the way in which the new clause seeks to deal with them.
      The effect of the original proposals has been catastrophic in many ways. When rumours first began to circulate about where the line for the fast link would go, people asked, "Are we going to take the chance of it coming here?" When the four alternative plans were produced, the whole area was intensely affected. It was a case of widespread blight. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was quite right—it is not just a question of a few houses; many hundreds of houses are affected by blight.
      Although the plans were withdrawn, the blight continues, and my constituents and many others who wish to move for some reason or other—they may receive promotion and have to go to another part of the country, or be offered a new job in another firm further away —cannot do so because they cannot sell their properties. I am constantly being shown lists of people who have applied to view my constituents' properties who, on seeing their position, at once say that it is not on because they do not know what will happen about the railway line. That situation has continued for many months—indeed, years.
      I hope that the Minister will try to use his influence with the Secretary of State for Transport to rectify that situation at the earliest possible moment. I do not think that the Department of Transport realises the effect that it is having on individuals in the Kent and London area at this moment.
      When it comes to the wider issues of compensation for noise and disturbance and the change in people's lives, the Government would be justified, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing said, to take not roads but airports as the model on which such compensation should be based. I apologise to the House because I was not here for my right hon. Friend's speech, but I have been able to read it in his notes since I arrived, and he is right in what he said.
      If I may cast my mind back, I remember well the problems that arose when the A2 was doubled in order to go into the M2. That went through my constituency. All the problems of noise and disturbance, as well as those created by taking people's land and in some cases their houses, had to be dealt with. It is perfectly true that the two cases are not the same and are not comparable, but if the Government are to offer the valuation plus 10 per cent. for buildings, I welcome that.
      338
      The Government have done a good job, but we must remember that 10 per cent. on top of the valuation is what is on offer. In the years when we were dealing with the road that I mentioned before, district valuers were told to offer the lowest possible amount and that, if people did not like the offer, they could get their lawyers to challenge it in the courts. That went on for years; I remember a case in point to do with a piece of land on a corner of the road, which continued for three years. So it is not enough to give compensation plus 10 per cent., because that all depends on what the 10 per cent. is based on. I want district auditors to be told to make an initial offer based on a fair valuation, not on the lowest possible amount which would force people to negotiate in the courts.
      Fair offers must not be based on the prices of houses in areas through which the line will pass. When the first plans were produced and the resulting blight was obvious, British Rail offered compensation to a certain number of people who, because they had to move for various reasons, accepted it. After that, the plans were withdrawn, but British Rail was left holding the houses—which it sold at knockdown prices. That has clearly affected the price of housing in the area in my constituency through which the line runs. It is not good enough to use the knockdown sale prices offered by British Rail as a basis. The properties must be correctly valued in line with house prices before British Rail's sales, since when house prices have changed considerably.
      This is the only way to remove resentment, although 10 per cent. does not compare well with what happens in France, where 25 per cent. is added to the valuation. Nevertheless, it is a welcome step forward, and I hope that valuations of properties will be based on true values.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am sorry to trouble my right hon. Friend, but is it not true that, the moment a scheme is mooted, blight descends on the properties involved—and that is to the advantage of the district valuer, who can then argue that the prices reflect the uncertainty in the market even though the exact route of the line in question is as yet undecided? That argument then becomes the baseline from which to proceed. I support my right hon. Friend's idea that the very notion of blight depresses house prices. The Government's argument that a 10 per cent. supplement approximates more closely to the true price does not achieve their purpose, which is to secure the purchase of the property and the movement on of people who will not feel aggrieved at having been disadvantaged by prices negotiated as low as possible.
      Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend should not worry about troubling me—I am troubled by all sorts of things. He has put the point that I was trying to make at much greater length and much better than I did. Perhaps the Minister will now take proper notice of it.
      Some of my colleagues have said that, when the tunnel opens in 1993, those in the vicinity will be greatly troubled by a vast increase in noise. British Rail argues that nothing can be done about that: that, if people want a railway, they must be prepared for anything to happen and they must put up with it. That is not acceptable, but it is already happening.
      In my constituency, the night traffic on British Rail has increased enormously in the past year, largely due to the building of the channel tunnel. We are not being

      339
      compensated for that. Buyers coming to the area do not want to pay for houses there, because they can already see the troubles to which they will be subjected. So there should be compensation, wherever the line eventually ends up.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested various routes for the tunnel lines. I do not want to suggest any, except to say that they should not go through Bexley. That is the only answer one can give British Rail when it seeks one's opinions on the matter. We should remember, however, that these are nationwide problems.
      The Conservative party and the Government are committed to protecting the environment, and rightly so. It has become a major issue. We should not tell a publicly owned body to cover the costs of protecting the environment. British Rail may say that it can run the railway straight through Bexley and London at a certain cost but that, if it is instructed to protect the environment by tunnelling for the last 20 miles or cutting deep ravines, the project will be much more expensive, rendering it impossible to make a profit. This is a national responsibility; the Government must be prepared to contribute, in the national interest, to safeguarding the environment. They already do that in other ways; the same should be done for the channel tunnel railway.
      It is argued that the Act which established the channel tunnel does not allow Government subsidy. I do not believe that, and nor do the lawyers whom I have consulted. The Act concerns the railway in the tunnel and the stations outside it. It does not cover the area from the tunnel up to the north of Scotland, and when the legislation was before the House, no one believed it did it cannot be interpreted in that way. So the Government have a free hand. They can agree that protection of the environment is at stake, as we demand they do, and they should be prepared to contribute to the costs so that the line can be run as a commercial concern once the channel tunnel is established.
      This is a vital new clause—vital in the interests of fairness and of the individual, to which our party is committed. I do not accept the argument that, because this will cost more money, we should reject the idea. The money will go to people deliberately and directly affected by the line, and I urge the House to support the new clause. I also urge the Minister to accept it, and if he cannot do so tonight, at least to announce that he will at a later stage. All I ask the Minister for is a straightforward, "Yes, I accept the new clause."
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Soley: It is one of the curiosities of this debate that we are discussing a Bill which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment, yet this new clause is being dealt with by a Minister from the Department of Transport. I welcome the improved compensation under the Bill, but we in this country have still not grasped the principle of a proper compensation scheme devised for a number of projects which affect people's lives in the way in which the people of Kent and south London will be affected by the channel tunnel. In comparable countries in Europe, compensation would be much better—there would be more of it and the rationale behind its apportionment would be more clearly thought out. It would be handled largely through the planning process.
      340
      The new clause implies that the Secretary of State for the Environment would have to administer the scheme, but the presence of the Minister for Public Transport makes me suspect, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) hinted, that British Rail may be asked—wrongly—to pay for the scheme.
      Sir John Stanley: The new clause is drafted in the usual way. It refers to "the Secretary of State" without specifying which, but the intention is that the discretionary power would lie with the Secretary of State for Transport to administer.
      Mr. Soley: That is rather unusual, and it would not necessarily be done in that way in other countries. It is one option, however.
      I want to put an important point to the Minister—it has already been put by a number of his Back Benchers— about the principle of better compensation. As I said, we welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction, but we have not got it right. The Europeans have managed to devise a system for the railways. It is sad that France—a classic example—has obtained planning permission for the high-speed rail link more rapidly than we have, with very generous compensation. As I have said on other occasions although transport is not my brief—until we obtain planning permission, we will whistle across Europe in a 180 mph train, travel under the channel at 120 mph and then transfer in Dover to the equivalent of Thomas the Tank Engine and finish the journey at about 60 mph. The reason that it is proving so difficult to obtain planning permission is partly that we do not have the planning powers in place, and partly that our compensation schemes are less generous. To put it bluntly, the French often buy out opposition.
      The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said that the time had passed when we could accept that a proposal could be pushed through regardless of the consequences for people living in the area. One way is to ensure that people receive full and fair compensation.
      Mr. Keith Speed: The hon. Gentleman is right on that point. Does he also recognise that in Europe, apart from the physical compensation of money, sound barriers and other noise remedial measures have been provided for existing as well as new lines, whereas we are still in the kindergarten stage?
      Mr. Soley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I had not planned to raise it, but I believe that he is correct.
      The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) made a powerful and persuasive speech. However, I still have some reservations. I am not convinced that this is the best way to proceed. He made great play of the fact that the comparison should be with airports and aircraft noise. I understand that. He also made great play of the fact that the high-speed rail link would mean a massive increase in use. Residents will hear a sudden, high-pitched sound that will then disappear, and it will be quiet for 10 minutes, an hour or however long it is before the next one. I would not like to live in that situation.
      It is perhaps a mistake to dismiss too lightly the comparison with road noise. People living on the edge of the A4 before it becomes the elevated section of the M4 in west London have to put up with a continuous thundering

      341
      noise for the best part of 20 hours a day, seven days a week. They also have to put up with their houses cracking and their windows shattering. The impact in that area is very dramatic.
      I do not wish to do the Minister's job for him, but I am sure that he will not be slow to point out that, if compensation is provided on this link, it will not be hard to think of other examples that might need similar compensation in the near future. Compensation may be required not only for the extension of the high-speed line throughout the United Kingdom in the next century, but for the proposed dedicated rail link from Paddington to Heathrow. That link is an eminently good idea. Such works and such intensification of use would lead to the real possibility of such a scheme being introduced. There are many other examples.
      I am not convinced that the way to deal with this matter is to give this power to the Secretary of State—in this case, the Secretary of State for Transport, as the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing implied. Perhaps the right way would be to give the Secretary of State the discretion to decide whether a scheme should be introduced and what its parameters should be. There is a big difference between living 20 yd from the high-speed line and living 200 or 400 yd away. Where to draw the boundary for the type and extent of compensation is critical.
      I make the point in passing—but it has some depth—that, under the present alternative to the poll tax, the rating system could not be used to give people a sliding scale of values. One of the advantages of a fair rates system is to be able to give assistance without going all the way to full possession, which is what the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing understandably and rightly wants for people living right next to the line—and, I would argue, for people living next to major roads or airports.
      We need to consider the principle. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say. I am not entirely persuaded that the new clause is the right way in which to proceed, but, if the Minister does not consider the principle and find a way of compensating people, it will be hard to resist the temptation to vote for the new clause as the best available way that we have of putting pressure on the Government to reconsider the matter. We want genuine assurances about the alternatives, and we want to know the Government's thinking. It is on that basis that I shall advise my hon. Friends.
      It is important that the burden is not put only on British Rail. If it were, British Rail could rightly point out that the intensification of use as a result of the channel tunnel link or the Paddington-Heathrow dedicated service would have serious consequences. It would have to consider the implications for its future programmes if it had to take into account the additional compensation that would be required. It might also argue with some force that the consequences of the intensification of road use do not fall directly on road users. A bypass may be expanded or developed, and the number of trucks and vehicles using it may increase rapidly, but the burden does not fall on the road users. Why should British Rail alone carry the burden?
      Mr. Wolfson: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the issue. The clause deals with a narrow point—allowing the
      342
      same ability, on a discretionary basis, to compensate people who are affected by intensification of use. In some of the examples to which he referred, compensation would be available anyway, because it would be a new line.
      Mr. Soley: I am not sure that that is right. I do not speak as a shadow Transport Minister, but I understand that some of the existing line would be used for the dedicated Heathrow-Paddington link. If I am wrong, I withdraw that example, but there are others. I am not thinking of a new line or a new road, where, I agree, that would not apply. My understanding is that the existing line would be used, and the scheme would be triggered.
      Although the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing made a powerful and persuasive case—I would not want to rule out the new clause altogether—it seems to me that there are better ways of doing this. We want the Minister to clarify his proposals and to give us a time scale. It is no good saying to people, either in the channel tunnel area or anywhere else, that resources will be put into rail that will result in an intensification of use on a number of lines, but we may wait for ever for a compensation scheme that is at least comparable to the equivalent European scheme.
      We should copy the European model. I am not universally in favour of following what other countries do, but in Britain we lack a good regional government structure and a compensation scheme that—despite the improvements provided in the Bill, which I welcome—is still rather haphazard and contradictory. We should accept that, for major new developments, especially those related to transport, we need a more coherent scheme. The measure proposed by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing recognises the impact of the channel tunnel on Kent—no one should under-estimate that. I am not convinced that we need a nationwide scheme, which he and some of his hon. Friends want. I await with interest what the Government have to say. We want a significant commitment from them. We are travelling hopefully—although we may not do so in very fast trains. If the Minister gives such a commitment, my advice to my hon. Friends will reflect that.
      7 pm
      The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): The debate has been serious and well argued. I cannot help feeling that it may be a precursor of inevitable debates on a new high-speed rail-link line, as many of the issues that have been raised are germane to the planning problems that consideration of the case for such a link, and its route, is bound to involve.
      Powerful speeches were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) —who spoke in his normal firm but courteous fashion—and my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). Another powerful speech was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I note that it is 21 years to the day since my right hon. Friend was appointed Prime Minister; and, as he has said, this is the first time that his name has appeared on an amendment paper for nearly 16 years. We must therefore take his remarks seriously.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham raised the question of the Ove Arup route. That is one of the options

      343
      being considered by the Government and British Rail for the high-speed rail link. However the BBC may have reported my remarks this morning, once the Government have reached a conclusion on the preferred route—which I hope they will do as quickly as possible—and once that conclusion is published with the supporting papers, the environmental impact of the route on Kent and London will have to he considered for perhaps a year. That will happen regardless of whether a prima facie case has been made out. Both Houses may then need as long as two years to consider the resulting Bill. Who knows? I have not as much experience of parliamentary procedures as some hon. Members. It will take a long time—too long, some may argue—for all the issues to be considered.
      It is true that the procedures are speedier in France; that is because the French have a different approach to planning. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling will know, once the conseil d'état has decided that a scheme is in the national interest, the normal planning procedures usually follow. I note, however, that it has taken the Germans 10 years to plan, and then construct, what they describe as a high-speed link between Hanover and Würzburg.
      I am well aware that my arguments may not convince my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing, and some of my other hon. Friends. I shall advise the House to resist the new clause, although I hope that I shall do so in a reasoned fashion. I have some positive and constructive things to say, but I realise that the arguments will not go away. My right hon. Friend and others will present them again when we debate the British Railways (No 3) Bill—a private Bill that seeks permission for certain channel tunnel works—and in our debates on any high-speed rail link proposal and on a Bill to enshrine planning powers for such a line. I know that, if I do not convince my right hon. Friend tonight, he will continue to present the concerns of his constituents and his own strong feelings—as, indeed, he is right to do.
      I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not make a debating speech, but instead read my prepared notes. We have given considerable thought to what has been said, and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said that he would be listening carefully.
      As a society, we are rightly becoming increasingly concerned about the quality of life; noise, from whatever source, tends to depress that quality, and noise from railway trains is no exception. It was 12 months ago that the issue was raised during a statement by the then Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), about the channel tunnel rail link.
      I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing and to other colleagues for the time that it has taken for me to make a substantive response to the issues that were raised then. The delay does not point to inactivity or to a lack of interest on the part of the Department. Far from it: I have taken a close interest in the subject. On no fewer than six occasions in the past year, I have travelled along the routes that the channel tunnel trains will take through Kent and south London.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst made a fair point. We tend to be preoccupied with Kentish issues, but we must not forget that many London boroughs will
      344
      be equally affected by the channel tunnel. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling accepts that.
      I have also visited the homes of people living close to the railway lines. On those visits, I have been accompanied not only by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling but by other colleagues, and I have now been to nine of the 14 constituencies that will be most directly affected. Earlier this year, I went with the chairman of British Rail to BR's research establishment at Derby to hear and to see at first hand what BR is doing about developing a quieter railway. In the Easter recess, I went to France and Germany to see how their Governments and railway administrations deal with noise. No one can accuse the Department, or me, of a lack of interest in the matter.
      Before I deal with the new clause, let me make a number of brief but general points about railway noise. In connection with channel tunnel services, we are concerned with two entirely separate matters: noise from any new rail link that is built—which cannot occur for several years yet —and the increase in noise resulting from the running of more trains on existing lines.
      To deal with the problem of the new railway lines, we plan to make regulations that will make mandatory the insulation of houses along the line where the noise is at more than a specified level. Compensation provisions for injurious affection will also apply. Such regulations have existed since 1973 in respect of new roads. Let me point out to the hon. Member for Hammersmith that our new provisions will apply to the relevant portion of the Heathrow-Paddington express railway.
      Hitherto, there has been no real need for any railway equivalent to the 1973 regulations, as very few new lines of any length have been built since the war. Now, however, we may be entering a new era, and the proposed channel tunnel rail link will certainly be a major new line by any standards. We intend that British Rail, in designing and building a new line, will have to comply with the regulations that we plan to make.
      The measurement of noise is a very technical and difficult matter. Last year, to help us to frame the regulations, we appointed a group of experts to recommend to us a noise standard, or standards, for new railways, equivalent to that which exists for new roads. We published the report of the group—commonly known as the Mitchell committee—in February. Subject to the views that we received on the committee's regulations, we shall proceed with the regulations and present them to Parliament for scrutiny in due course, in the usual way.
      My next point concerns the intensified use of the lines that will take channel tunnel traffic initially. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich that any decision on a new rail link might or might not have consequences for the use of existing lines. That important point has not escaped the Government's attention, nor will it escape that of the House.
      There is no doubt that there will be a sharp and significant increase in traffic, although the extent of that increase will vary from stretch to stretch along the existing routes. I well understand the special concern about the increase in freight traffic, much of which—although not all—will run at night, for operational reasons.
      Mr. Speed: From day one, in June 1993, every British Rail train going through the channel tunnel will travel

      345
      from Ashford to Folkestone on tracks in my constituency and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). When the high-speed rail link is built, two new lines will be placed alongside the existing Network SouthEast lines. At that stage—but, under the present law, at that stage only—my constituents, and those of my right hon. and learned Friend will be entitled to compensation and amelioration.
      Will not that part of the line have a special problem? Wherever the other trains may go, it will carry all the existing traffic as well as that of the high-speed link.
      Mr. Freeman: My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling would be the first to point out that, in terms of intensification of use, there is no difference in principle between the section of the existing railway line that runs through my hon. Friend's constituency and that which runs through his own constituency. There may be a different degree, but the principal point would apply to all stretches. However, I understand the specific problems of the stretch mentioned by my hon. Friend.
      On the section between Cheriton and Ashford on which the trains will run, BR expects the number of freight trains, international and domestic together, to build up to about 66 a day—24 hours—in 1995. That compares with 48 freight trains on an average day in 1990. Many of those were carrying materials for the construction of the channel tunnel, and that traffic has now largely disappeared. The 48 trains in 1990 were all relatively noisy diesel, hauled over jointed track, many of them with heavy axle load wagons. Elsewhere, the increases vary greatly, but the Government understand the intensification of the use and the problems that that brings, especially at night and with freight.
      Although the extra traffic will not begin to run for another two years, it is important that we address the problem of mitigation of noise carefully and correctly now. I appreciate the point, expressed to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing on a number of occasions, that some of his constituents are having difficulty in selling their homes now, especially in the current housing market. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup made the same point, although in a wider context. I have a great deal of sympathy with the people who have been affected in this way and with my right hon. Friend's intentions. However, I have to say, although with some regret, that the Government are unable to accept his new clause. Before I take a more positive note at the end of my speech, I shall explain, in a reasoned fashion, why we cannot commend the new clause to the House.
      The new clause would introduce an important new principle into the law. It would extend financial compensation for depreciation in the value of a property to situations involving the greater use of railways and, as the House must admit, in all frankness, other public works including roads. It is not possible to draw a hard and fast line between intensification on railways and that on roads. As I said, the new clause would extend the financial compensation provided under statutory powers without any works necessarily having taken place. Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which deals with compensation for depreciation in value due to various physical factors, quite expressly excludes, in section 97,
      346
      situations in which there is an intensification of an existing use. Therefore, it cannot apply if the amount of traffic on a road or a railway line increases.
      As hon. Members will know, it has been a long-standing policy of successive Governments to make a clear distinction in this respect between the construction or alteration of public works and the intensification of use of existing works. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing made the fair point that the substantial and increased use of the existing railway line constitutes a new service and that that, combined with the work on the channel tunnel, constitutes a qualification under existing legislation. I understand the argument, which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst on behalf of his local borough. However, that is not the legal advice given to the Department of Transport. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling went on to say that, irrespective of the legal advice, we should address the principal issue, and I shall now do that.
      Sir John Stanley: It has nothing to do with legal advice. There is no question of anybody claiming that there is an entitlement to compensation under the law as it stands, so legal advice is a red herring. We have to address the issue of classification of the new works that should properly trigger entitlement to compensation. This is not intensification of existing use; it is a multi-billion pound project, constructing the channel tunnel on one end, and linking the continental rail system with the British rail system. The parliamentary answer from my hon. Friend tells us that £700 million worth of new works have been entered into to enable the channel tunnel rail passenger and freight trains to exit the tunnel.
      Mr. Freeman: If my right hon. Friend is not making that point, perhaps he will accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst is, on behalf of Bromley. It is a serious point that requires an answer. I have given the answer that, as legislation stands, the intensification of use —no one denies that—would fall outwith the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973.
      7.15 pm
      Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, there is no major international precedent for extending compensation to intensification of use in that way. Both the policy and the cost implications of any such change are considerable. They would need to be thought through fully and carefully before any provision of that kind could be considered. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing has argued that this is a permissive, not a mandatory, clause, but he will no doubt accept that there is no point in legislating unless Parliament wishes the powers to be used.
      My right hon. Friend argued that the sudden and significant increase in traffic that will run on the lines in Kent between the channel tunnel and London creates a new and unforeseen situation, that it will be tantamount to the construction of a new line. But we must continue to draw a clear distinction between injurious affection or loss of enjoyment resulting from the carrying out of works, and loss of enjoyment resulting from a change in the use of a railway, a road, or some other public works. There are and will continue to be many other instances—even if less dramatic perhaps—where the use of existing public works changes and people claim that they are adversely affected.

      347
      The new clause would also make the Secretary of State responsible for paying any compensation, rather than the owner or manager of the public works in question. That would breach the important principle embodied in the Land Compensation Act and in this Bill, that if compensation is to be paid for depreciation, it should be paid by the responsible authority. It should be paid, in the case of a highway, by the highway authority, and in the case of a railway, by the owner and operator of the railway. There is in my view no justification for putting the burden of the net additional cost directly upon the taxpayer.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling spoke about aircraft noise. He will recall that I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he served with distinction as Minister of State for the Armed Services. He is right about the provisions to mitigate noise at airfields. The provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 are being followed by the Ministry of Defence and my right hon. Friend was responsible for initiating that policy. I am advised that injurious compensation is triggered by major new works. He will recall that at Leeming new runways had to be laid and major new installations had to be built, and that that was the trigger for the payment. I can confirm that British Rail has the power to make ex gratia purchases of houses. Some of my hon. Friends will recall substantial purchases in Kent and in London connected with earlier plans for the channel tunnel link.
      My right hon. Friend made an interesting point on insulation. He asked the Government to compare the consequences of rail noise and aircraft noise. The Government will study carefully the argument that he has deployed at greater length tonight than on any other occasion. It is an interesting and relevant argument, but not one that I will accept tonight.
      Sir John Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, but I have to correct him on this essential point. I referred to the fact that, where civil aviation works are concerned, no new runway or extension of an existing runway is necessary to trigger injurious compensation. As he appeared to differ with what I said about RAF Leeming, I will read the answer that I received to my recent parliamentary question. I asked:
      "what were the main works undertaken at RAF Leeming to enable the deployment of Tornado aircraft to take place there; and whether they included any extension to the main runway."
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Armed Forces replied:
      "The main works undertaken at RAF Leeming were associated with the upgrading of the Station's utilities, the enhancement of technical accommodation, married quarter developments and the construction of airfield survival measures, which included hardened aircraft shelters and command and control centres. The runway was resurfaced and re-profiled, but no extension work was undertaken."— [Official Report, 15 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 218.]
      In other words, there was no new runway. There was no extension of a runway. That is our central point. New works do not have to include a new runway to trigger injurious compensation in relation to aircraft noise.
      Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his helpful contribution, which refreshed my memory and will help in our consideration of the comparison between aircraft and railway noise.
      348
      I will conclude on a more positive note, by describing the eight steps that British Rail and the Government are taking and will take. They are not all of gigantic significance, but I hope that they will be taken in the constructive spirit in which I offer them. In drawing up this list, I tried to accommodate in particular the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich, who came to see me on a number of occasions.
      First, the chairman of British Rail told me, after speaking with the chairman of Kent county council, that he is ready to discuss with that authority how British Rail can help, in the further measures that it has proposed, to alleviate the prospective increased noise for the homes that will be most affected.
      As British Rail has no statutory obligation—and I stress that, because it is in exactly the same position as a highway authority in respect of a road that is used by more traffic and thus creates more noise—there is no statutory basis on which any such measures would be carried out. It will be up to British Rail and the local authority to agree on the most sensitive areas, type of measure to be taken, and financial arrangements. I hope that those discussions will begin soon, and I look forward to hearing how they progress. I am sure that, with good will and ingenuity, it should be possible to achieve some worthwhile alleviation for those most affected. I shall continue to take the closest personal interest in that aspect.
      Secondly, at the end of next year British Rail hopes to demonstrate its new freight rolling stock, to show how quiet it will be in -comparison with today's equipment. That may not persuade my right hon. Friend, but I intend to be present at that demonstration, and I hope that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me. There will be new electric locomotives, the railway lines will be continuously welded, and there will be new electrified lines running through my right hon. Friend's constituency. They will be considerably quieter than at present.
      Thirdly, later this year the Government will announce their views on the recommendations of the Mitchell committee on specific noise insulation standards for new railway lines, and will then prepare regulations to put those standards into effect. Fourthly, the Government are not ready to make a response to the various recommendations of the noise review working party, the Batho committee, on railway noise or on other types of transport noise, but we will respond in due course. We intend to commission research within our own departmental vote to assess whether the existing noise standards for new roads are still appropriate. If we decide as a result of that work that those standards ought to be changed, we will at the same time make a corresponding change in the standards applying to new railways.
      Fifthly, I mentioned by implication the research that British Rail is undertaking at Derby into damping the noise arising from wheel on rail. If British Rail can usefully undertake any further research in that connection, the Department is prepared to consider whether it might qualify for some financial support under section 57 of the Transport Act 1968.
      Sixthly, in some places, the throb of idling diesel locomotives can cause vibration and nuisance to householders. That was pointed out by three of my hon. Friends, who have witnessed the consequences of the noise emitted from a standing locomotive at night. I confirm that British Rail has a standing rule that diesel engine

      349
      drivers should switch off their engines if they are brought to a halt and expect to be held up for more than 10 minutes. The House will have noted that British Rail has already ordered new, quieter electric locomotives.
      As to fears of damage to houses by vibration, Kent county council agreed with British Rail that it is not practicable to deal with that aspect in advance of any development in the use made of a railway line. Each case must be considered on its merits. If someone complains to British Rail about vibration, BR will undertake a specific test at the location in question, and it has agreed with Kent county council to monitor the situation when the traffic on the lines increases. It is rare for vibration damage to occur, but the party causing the damage would be liable.
      Finally, to counteract the fears that have been expressed—understandably, though not always rationally —about the impact of channel tunnel trains on local housing markets, I plan to take steps to ensure that professional people, such as those working in estate agents and building societies, engaged in the selling and buying of properties near the railway lines are fully and accurately informed as to what is proposed, as opposed to what is rumoured. I do not belittle householders' fears and anxieties, but the facts should be as fully and widely known as possible, so that legitimate concern is not fed by exaggeration.
      Mr. Soley: I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks about research and back-up facilities, which are wholly desirable. However, from the list that the Minister read out, it seems that British Rail will consider paying compensation only in respect of some householders. That does not sound very convincing in terms of moving on the principle to which so many right hon. and hon. Members have referred.
      Mr. Freeman: I understand the concern that has been expressed. I hope that I have made a reasoned argument as to why we cannot accept that principle in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman must address that important point. He cannot separate the problem of intensification of the use of railways and roads—which I am sure is one with which he would want to deal—from that of the significant financial consequences for public expenditure that would flow from accepting the new clause as drafted.
      Mr. Soley: That is precisely the point that I am making. I am unhappy about the new clause because I do not think that its consequences have been thought through. It does not seem that the Minister or his Department, along with the Department of the Environment, have come up with anything remotely resembling a transport scheme compensation policy that gives hope for the future. Although I would not give the clause as drafted carte blanche support, unless the Government give a stronger indication of their willingness to move on the principle, I have to acknowledge that the new clause is necessary, if only to put pressure on the Government to think again.
      Mr. Freeman: We will debate compensation later tonight—and as to compulsory purchase, the Bill makes significant strides in the direction of a fairer scheme. I hope that my remarks will be taken in the constructive and positive spirit in which I make them, and that my right
      350
      hon. Friend accepts at least that the Government acknowledge the problem of intensification of use and will continue to address it.
      Sir John Stanley: With the leave of the House, I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to our useful and important debate on the significant question of compensation policy. Whatever may be the result of any subsequent Division, it is worth recording that every right hon. and hon. Member who spoke from the Back Benches was in favour of new clause 16.
      I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend the Minister because, as he was kind enough to acknowledge, he was responsible, with me, for implementing in the Ministry of Defence the very policy that he has resisted as a transport Minister this evening. I appreciate his quandary.
      No Minister could have been more conscientious and concerned to understand the problems faced in Kent and in London, and we are grateful to my hon. Friend for his personal attention to them. Having said that, his reply was very disappointing. The Government have missed a major opportunity. The issue will not go away—the injustice to individuals is too glaring, too patent to be simply dismissed. It will have to be the subject of general legislation, and the Bill is the perfect medium for dealing with the problem. The Government have been on notice for nearly two years, and I much regret that they have not taken the opportunity that presented itself. It is certainly my wish and, I believe, that of many right hon. and hon. Members who support new clause 16 to press the question to a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 255.

      Division No. 181]

      [7.29 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Corbett, Robin

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Allen, Graham

      Couchman, James

      Alton, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Anderson, Donald

      Crowther, Stan

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Cryer, Bob

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Darling, Alistair

      Ashton, Joe

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Dewar, Donald

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Dixon, Don

      Barron, Kevin

      Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

      Battle, John

      Dunn, Bob

      Beith, A. J.

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Bell, Stuart

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Bellotti, David

      Eadie, Alexander

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Eastham, Ken

      Boateng, Paul

      Edwards, Huw

      Boyes, Roland

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Buckley, George J.

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Caborn, Richard

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Flynn, Paul

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Foster, Derek

      Carr, Michael

      Fraser, John

      Cartwright, John

      Fyfe, Maria

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Galloway, George

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      351

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      George, Bruce

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Morley, Elliot

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Mullin, Chris

      Graham, Thomas

      Murphy, Paul

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Nellist, Dave

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Haynes, Frank

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Patchett, Terry

      Henderson, Doug

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hinchliffe, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Radice, Giles

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Home Robertson, John

      Reid, Dr John

      Hood, Jimmy

      Richardson, Jo

      Howells, Geraint

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Hoyle, Doug

      Rogers, Allan

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Rooney, Terence

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Salmond, Alex

      Illsley, Eric

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Sheerman, Barry

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Short, Clare

      Kennedy, Charles

      Sims, Roger

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Leighton, Ron

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lewis, Terry

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

      Livsey, Richard

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Soley, Clive

      Loyden, Eddie

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      McAllion, John

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Strang, Gavin

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McFall, John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      McKelvey, William

      Wallace, James

      Maclennan, Robert

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Madden, Max

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Marek, Dr John

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Wilson, Brian

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Winnick, David

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Martlew, Eric

      Wolfson, Mark

      Maxton, John

      Wray, Jimmy

      Meacher, Michael

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Meale, Alan

      Michael, Alun

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Sir John Stanley and

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Mr. Roger Moate

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Boswell, Tim

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Allason, Rupert

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Amess, David

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bowis, John

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Ashby, David

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Brazier, Julian

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Bright, Graham

      Baldry, Tony

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Bendall, Vivian

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Burns, Simon

      Benyon, W.

      Burt, Alistair

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Butler, Chris

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Butterfill, John

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Carrington, Matthew

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Carttiss, Michael

      352

      Cash, William

      Janman, Tim

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Jessel, Toby

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Chope, Christopher

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Churchill, Mr

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Key, Robert

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Kilfedder, James

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Colvin, Michael

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Conway, Derek

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Knapman, Roger

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Cran, James

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Knowles, Michael

      Curry, David

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

      Latham, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Day, Stephen

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Devlin, Tim

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Dicks, Terry

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lightbown, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lord, Michael

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Evennett, David

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Favell, Tony

      Maclean, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Madel, David

      Forman, Nigel

      Malins, Humfrey

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Mans, Keith

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Maples, John

      Franks, Cecil

      Marlow, Tony

      Freeman, Roger

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      French, Douglas

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Fry, Peter

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mills, Iain

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gorst, John

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Gregory, Conal

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Grist, Ian

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Ground, Patrick

      Mudd, David

      Grylls, Michael

      Needham, Richard

      Hague, William

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hannam, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Harris, David

      Norris, Steve

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Paice, James

      Hayes, Jerry

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hayward, Robert

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Pawsey, James

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hill, James

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Holt, Richard

      Portillo, Michael

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Price, Sir David

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Rhodes James, Sir Robert

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Hunt, Rt Hon David

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Irvine, Michael

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Jack, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      353

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Thurnham, Peter

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Trotter, Neville

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Twinn, Dr lan

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Shelton, Sir William

      Viggers, Peter

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Walden, George

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Waller, Gary

      Speller, Tony

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Watts, John

      Squire, Robin

      Wells, Bowen

      Stern, Michael

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Stevens, Lewis

      Whitney, Ray

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Wilshire, David

      Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stokes, Sir John

      Wood, Timothy

      Summerson, Hugo

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Yeo, Tim

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mr. Tom Sackville.

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Schedule
      REGISTRATION OF OLD MINING PERMISSIONS

        Application for registration
        1.—(1) Any person who is an owner of any land to which an old mining permission relates, or is entitled to an interest in a mineral to which such a permission relates, may apply to the mineral planning authority for the permission to be registered.

        (2) The application must specify the development which the applicant claims is authorised by the permission, including the land to which the permission relates, and the conditions (if any) to which the permission is subject.

        (3) The application must be served on the mineral planning authority before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Schedule comes into force.

        (4) On an application under this paragraph, the mineral planning authority must—

        (a) if they are satisfied that (apart from section (Old mining permissions)(3) of this Act) the permission authorises development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste, ascertain—

        (i) the area of land to which the permission relates, and

        (ii) the conditions (if any) to which the permission is subject,

        and grant the application, and

        (b) in any other case, refuse the application.

        (5) Where—

        (a) application has been made under this paragraph, but

        (b) the mineral planning authority have not given the applicant notice of their determination within the period of three months beginning with the service of notice of the application (or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority),

        the application is to be treated for the purposes of section (Old mining permissions) of this Act and this Schedule as having been refused by the authority.

        Determination of conditions
        2.—(1) The conditions to which an old mining permission is to be subject—

        354

        (a) may include any conditions which may be imposed on a grant of planning permission for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste,

        (b) may be imposed in addition to, or in substitution for, any conditions ascertained under paragraph 1(4)(a) above, and

        (c) must include a condition that the winning and working of minerals or depositing of mineral waste must cease not later than 21st February 2042.

        (2) Where an application for the registration of an old mining permission has been granted, any person who is an owner of any land to which the permission relates, or is entitled to an interest in a mineral to which the permission relates, may apply to the mineral planning authority to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject.

        (3) The application must set out proposed conditions.

        (4) The application must be served on the mineral planning authority—

        (a) after the date mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) below, and

        (b) except where section (Old mining permissions)(3) of this Act applies, before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with that date or such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority.

        (5) The date referred to in sub-paragraph (4) above is—

        (a) the date on which the application for registration is granted by the mineral planning authority, if no appeal is made to the Secretary of State under paragraph 5 below, and

        (b) in any other case, the date on which the application for registration is finally determined.

        (6) On an application under this paragraph—

        (a) the mineral planning authority must determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject, and

        (b) if, within the period of three months beginning with the service of notice of the application (or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority) the authority have not given the applicant notice of their determination, the authority shall be treated for the purposes of section (Old mining permissions) of this Act and this Schedule as having determined that the permission is to be subject to the conditions set out in the application.

        (7) The condition to which an old mining permission is to be subject by reason of sub-paragraph (1)(c) above is not to be regarded for the purposes of the planning Acts as a condition such as is mentioned in section 72(1)(b) of the principal Act (planning permission granted for a limited period).

        (8) This paragraph does not apply to an old mining permission which has ceased to have effect since the application under paragraph 1 above was granted.

        Registration
        3.—(1) Where an application for the registration of an old mining permission is granted, the permission must be entered in the appropriate part of the register kept under section 69 of the principal Act and the entry must specify the area of land ascertained under paragraph 1(4)(a) above.

        (2) Where an application to determine the conditions to which an old mining permission is to be subject is finally determined, the conditions must be entered in the appropriate part of that register.

        (3) The matters required to be entered in the register under this paragraph must be entered as soon as reasonably practicable.

        General provisions about applications
        4.—(1) An application under paragraph 1 or 2 above is an application which is—

        (a) made on an official form, and

        (b) accompanied by an appropriate certificate.

        (2) The applicant must, so far as reasonably practicable, give the information required by the form.

        (3) Where the mineral planning authority receive an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above, they must as soon as reasonably practicable give to the applicant a written acknowledgement of the application.

        (4) Where the mineral planning authority determine an application under either of those paragraphs, they must as soon as reasonably practicable give written notice of their determination to the applicant.

        (5) An appropriate certificate is such a certificate—

        (a) as would be required under the provisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) or, as the case may be, (7) below to accompany the application if it were an application for planning permission for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or, as the case may be, involving the depositing of mineral waste, but

        (b) with such modifications as are required for the purposes of this Schedule.

        (6) For the purposes of paragraph 1 above, the provisions referred to in sub-paragraph (5) above are—

        (a) sections 66 to 68 of the principal Act (notification of owners and agricultural tenants) and any provisions of a development order made by virtue of those sections, or

        (b) where section 13(1) of this Act is in force, any provision, corresponding to the provisions referred to in paragraph (a) above, of section 65 of that Act (notice etc. of applications) and of a development order made by virtue of that section.

        (7) For the purposes of paragraph 2 above, the provisions referred to in sub-paragraph (5) above are—

        (a) sections 65 to 68 of the principal Act (publicity for applications) and any provision of a development order made by virtue of those sections, or

        (b) where section 13(1) of this Act is in force, section 65 of that Act and any provision of a development order made by virtue of that section.

        (8) Section 68(1) or, as the case may be, 65(5) of that Act (offences) shall also have effect in relation to any certificate purporting to be an appropriate certificate.

        Right of appeal
        5.—(1) Where the mineral planning authority—

        (a) refuse an application under paragraph 1 above, or

        (b) in granting such an application, ascertain an area of land, or conditions, which differ from those specified in the application,

        the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State.

        (2) Where on an application under paragraph 2 above, the mineral planning authority determine conditions that differ in any respect from the conditions set out in the application, the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State.

        (3) An appeal under this paragraph must be made by giving notice of appeal to the Secretary of State.

        (4) In the case of an appeal under sub-paragraph (1) above, the notice must be given to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of three months beginning with the determination or, in the case of an application treated as refused by virtue of paragraph 1(5) above, beginning at the end of the period or extended period referred to in paragraph 1(5)(b).

        (5) In the case of an appeal under sub-paragraph (2) above, the notice must be given to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of six months beginning with the determination.

        356

        (6) A notice of appeal under this paragraph is a notice which—

        (a) is made on an official form, and

        (b) is accompanied by an appropriate certificate.

        (7) The appellant must, so far as reasonably practicable, give the information required by the form.

        (8) Paragraph 4(5) to (8) above shall apply for the purposes of sub-paragraph (7) above as it applies for the purposes of paragraph 4(1) above.

        Determination of appeal
        6.—(1) On an appeal under paragraph 5 above the Secretary of State may—

        (a) allow or dismiss the appeal, or

        (b) reverse or vary any part of the decision of the mineral planning authority (whether the appeal relates to that part of it or not),

        and may deal with the application as if it had been made to him in the first instance.

        (2) Before determining such an appeal the Secretary of State must, if either the appellant or the mineral planning authority so wish, give each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.

        (3) If at any time before or during the determination of such an appeal it appears to the Secretary of State that the appellant is responsible for undue delay in the progress of the appeal, he may—

        (a) give the appellant notice that the appeal will be dismissed unless the appellant takes, within the period specified in the notice, such steps as are specified in the notice for the expedition of the appeal, and

        (b) if the appellant fails to take those steps within that period, dismiss the appeal accordingly.

        (4) The decision of the Secretary of State on such an appeal shall be final.

        Reference of applications to Secretary of State
        7.—(1) The Secretary of State may give directions requiring applications under this Schedule to any mineral planning authority to be referred to him for determination instead of being dealt with by the authority.

        (2) The direction may relate either to a particular application or to applications of a class specified in the direction.

        (3) Where an application is referred to him under this paragraph—

        (a) subject to paragraph (b) and sub-paragraph (4) below, the following provisions of this Schedule—

        (i) paragraph 1 (1) to (4),

        (ii) paragraph 2(1) to (6)(a), (7) and (8),

        (iii) paragraphs 3 and 4, and

        (iv) paragraphs 8 to 10,

        shall apply, with any necessary modifications, as they apply to applications which fall to be determined by the mineral planning authority,

        (b) before determining the application the Secretary of State must, if either the applicant or the mineral planning authority so wish, give each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose, and

        (c) the decision of the Secretary of State on the application shall be final.

        (4) Where an application under paragraph 1 above is so referred to him, paragraph 2(5) above shall apply as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted "the date on which the application for registration is finally determined".

        Two or more applicants
        8.—(1) Where a person has served an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above in respect of an old mining permission—

        (a) he may not serve any further application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission, and

        357

        (b) if the application has been determined, whether or not it has been finally determined, no other person may serve an application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission.

        (2) Where—

        (a) a person has served an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above in respect of an old mining permission, and

        (b) another person duly serves an application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission,

        then for the purpose of the determination of the applications and any appeal against such a determination, this Schedule shall have effect as if the applications were a single application served on the date on which the later application was served and references to the applicant shall be read as references to either or any of the applicants.

        Application of provisions of principal Act
        9.—(1) Subject to paragraph 3 above, section 69 of the principal Act (registers of applications, etc.), and any provision of a development order made by virtue of that section, shall have effect with any necessary modifications as if references to applications for planning permission included applications under paragraph 1 or 2 above.

        (2) Where the mineral planning authority is not the authority required to keep the register under that section, the mineral planning authority must provide the authority required to keep the register with such information and documents as that authority requires to comply with paragraph 3 above and with that section as applied by this paragraph.

        (3) Sections 284 and 288 of the principal Act (validity of certain decisions and proceedings for questioning their validity) shall have effect as if the action mentioned in section 284(3) included any decision of the Secretary of State on an appeal under paragraph 5 above or on an application referred to him under paragraph 7 above.

        Interpretation
        10.—(1) In this Schedule—
        "official form" means, in relation to an application or appeal, a document supplied by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for use for the purpose in question, and
        "owner" in relation to any land means any person who—

        (a) is the estate owner in respect of the fee simple, or

        (b) is entitled to a tenancy granted or extended for a term of years certain of which not less than seven years remain unexpired.

        (2) For the purposes of section (Old mining permissions) of this Act and this Schedule, an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above is finally determined when the following conditions are met—

        (a) the proceedings on the application, including any proceedings on or in consequence of an application under section 288 of the principal Act, have been determined, and

        (b) any time for appealing under paragraph 5 above, or applying or further applying under that section, (where there is a right to do so) has expired.'—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
        Amendment made: No. 104—

        Interpretation
          SCHEDULE
            REGISTRATION OF OLD MINING PERMISSIONS
            The following Schedule shall be inserted as Schedule 10A to the 1972 Act—

          Application for registration
          1.—(1) Any person who is an owner of any land to which an old mining permission relates, or is entitled to an interest in a mineral to which such a permission relates, may apply to the planning authority for the permission to be registered.

          (2) The application must specify the development which the applicant claims is authorised by the permission, including the land to which the permission relates, and the conditions (if any) to which the permission is subject.

          (3) The application must be served on the planning authority before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Schedule comes into force.

          (4) On an application under this paragraph, the planning authority must—

          (a) if they are satisfied that (apart from section 49H(3) of this Act) the permission authorises development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste, ascertain—

          (i) the area of land to which the permission relates, and

          (ii) the conditions (if any) to which the permission is subject,

          and grant the application; and

          (b) in any other case, refuse the application.

          (5) Where—

          (a) application has been made under this paragraph, but

          (b) the planning authority have not given the applicant notice of their determination within the period of three months beginning with the service of notice of the application (or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority),

          the application is to be treated for the purposes of section 49H of this Act and this Schedule as having been refused by the authority.

          Determination of conditions
          2.—(1) The conditions to which an old mining permission is to be subject—

          (a) may include any conditions which may be imposed on a grant of planning permission for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste,

          (b) may be imposed in addition to, or in substitution for, any conditions ascertained under paragraph 1(4)(a) above, and

          (c) must include a condition that the winning and working of minerals or depositing of mineral waste must cease not later than 21st February 2042.

          (2) Where an application for the registration of an old mining permission has been granted, any person who is an owner of any land to which the permission relates, or is entitled to an interest in a mineral to which the permission relates, may apply to the planning authority to determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject.

          (3) The application must set out proposed conditions.

          (4) The application must be served on the planning authority—

          (a) after the date mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) below, and

          (b) except where section 49H(3) of this Act applies, before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with that date or such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority.

          (5) The date referred to in sub-paragraph (4) above is—

          (a) the date on which the application for registration is granted by the planning authority, if no appeal is made to the Secretary of State under paragraph 5 below, and

          (b) in any other case, the date on which the application for registration is finally determined.

          (6) On an application under this paragraph—

          359

          (a) the planning authority must determine the conditions to which the permission is to be subject, and

          (b) if, within the period of three months beginning with the service of notice of the application (or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the authority) the authority have not given the applicant notice of their determination, the authority shall be treated for the purposes of section 49H of this Act and this Schedule as having determined that the permission is to be subject to the conditions set out in the application.

          (7) The condition to which an old mining permission is to be subject by reason of sub-paragraph (1)(c) above is not to be regarded for the purposes of the planning Acts as a condition such as is mentioned in section 27(1)(b) of this Act (planning permission granted for a limited period).

          (8) This paragraph does not apply to an old mining permission which has ceased to have effect since the application under paragraph I above was granted.

          Registration
          3.—(1) Where an application for the registration of an old mining permission is granted, the permission must be entered in the appropriate part of the register kept under section 31 of this Act and the entry must specify the area of land ascertained under paragraph 1(4)(a) above.

          (2) Where an application to determine the conditions to which an old mining permission is to be subject is finally determined, the conditions must be entered in the appropriate part of that register.

          (3) The matters required to be entered in the register under this paragraph must be entered as soon as reasonably practicable.

          General provisions about applications
          4.—(1) An application under paragraph 1 or 2 above is an application which is—

          (a) made on an official form, and

          (b) accompanied by an appropriate certificate.

          (2) The applicant must, so far as reasonably practicable, give the information required by the form.

          (3) Where the planning authority receive an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above, they must as soon as reasonably practicable give to the applicant a written acknowledgement of the application.

          (4) Where the planning authority determine an application under either of those paragraphs, they must as soon as reasonably practicable give written notice of their determination to the applicant.

          (5) An appropriate certificate is such a certificate—

          (a) as would be required under sections 23 or 24 of this Act to accompany the application if it were an application for planning permission for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste; but

          (b) with such modifications as are required for the purposes of this Schedule.

          (6) Sections 23(3) and 24(6) of this Act (offences) shall also have effect in relation to any certificate purporting to be an appropriate certificate.

          Right of appeal
          5.—(1) Where the planning authority—

          (a) refuse an application under paragraph 1 above, or

          (b) in granting such an application, ascertain an area of land, or conditions, which differ from those specified in the application,

          the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State.

          (2) Where on an application under paragraph 2 above, the planning authority determine conditions that differ in any respect from the conditions set out in the application, the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State.

          360

          (3) An appeal under this paragraph must be made by giving notice of appeal to the Secretary of State.

          (4) In the case of an appeal under sub-paragraph (1) above, the notice must be given to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of three months beginning with the determination or, in the case of an application treated as refused by virtue of paragraph 1(5) above, beginning at the end of the period or extended period referred to in paragraph 1(5)(b).

          (5) In the case of an appeal under sub-paragraph (2) above, the notice must be given to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of six months beginning with the determination.

          (6) A notice of appeal under this paragraph is a notice which—

          (a) is made on an official form, and

          (b) is accompanied by an appropriate certificate.

          (7) The appellant must, so far as reasonably practicable, give the information required by the form.

          (8) Paragraph 4(5) and (6) above shall apply for the purposes of sub-paragraph (7) above as it applies for the purposes of paragraph 4(1) above.

          Determination of appeal
          6.—(1) On an appeal under paragraph 5 above the Secretary of State may—

          (a) allow or dismiss the appeal, or

          (b) reverse or vary any part of the decision of the planning authority (whether the appeal relates to that part of it or not),

          and may deal with the application as if it had been made to him in the first instance.

          (2) Before determining such an appeal the Secretary of State must, if either the appellant or the planning authority so wish, give each of them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.

          (3) If at any time before or during the determination of such an appeal it appears to the Secretary of State that the appellant is responsible for undue delay in the progress of the appeal, he may—

          (a) give the appellant notice that the appeal will be dismissed unless the appellant takes, within the period specified in the notice, such steps as are specified in the notice for the expedition of the appeal, and

          (b) if the appellant fails to take those steps within that period, dismiss the appeal accordingly.

          (4) The decision of the Secretary of State on such an appeal shall be final.

          Reference of applications to Secretary of State
          7.—(1) The Secretary of State may give directions requiring applications under this Schedule to any planning authority to be referred to him for determination instead of being dealt with by the authority.

          (2) The direction may relate either to a particular application or to applications of a class specified in the direction.

          (3) Where an application is referred to him under this paragraph—

          (a) subject to paragraph (b) and sub-paragraph (4) below, the following provisions of this Schedule—

          (i) paragraph 1(1) to (4),

          (ii) paragraph 2(1) to (6)(a), (7) and (8),

          (iii) paragraphs 3 and 4, and

          (iv) paragraphs 8 to 10,

          shall apply, with any necessary modifications, as they apply to applications which fall to be determined by the planning authority,

          (b) before determining the application the Secretary of State must, if either the applicant or the planning authority so wish, give each of them an opportunity o

          361
          appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose, and

          (c) the decision of the Secretary of State on the application shall be final.

          (4) Where an application under paragraph 1 above is so referred to him, paragraph 2(5) above shall apply as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted "the date on which the application for registration is finally determined".

          Two or more applicants
          8.—(1) Where a person has served an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above in respect of an old mining permission—

          (a) he may not serve any further application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission, and

          (b) if the application has been determined, whether or not it has been finally determined, no other person may serve an application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission.

          (2) Where—

          (a) a person has served an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above in respect of an old mining permission, and

          (b) another person duly serves an application under the paragraph in question in respect of the same permission,

          then for the purpose of the determination of the applications and any appeal against such a determination, this Schedule shall have effect as if the applications were a single application served on the date on which the later application was served and references to the applicant shall be read as references to either or any of the applicants.

          Application of provisions relating to planning permission
          9.—(1) Subject to paragraph 3 above, section 31 of this Act (registers of applications, etc.), and any provision of regulations under this Act or a development order made by virtue of that section, shall have effect with any necessary modifications as if references to applications for planning permission included applications under paragraph 1 or 2 above.

          (2) Where the planning authority is not the authority required to keep the register under that section, the planning authority must provide the authority required to keep the register with such information and documents as that authority requires to comply with paragraph 3 above and with that section as applied by this paragraph.

          (3) Sections 231 and 233 of this Act (validity of certain decisions and proceedings for questioning their validity) shall have effect as if the action mentioned in section 231(3) included any decision of the Secretary of State on an appeal under paragraph 5 above or on an application referred to him under paragraph 7 above.

          Interpretation
          10.—(1) In this Schedule—
          "official form" means, in relation to an application or appeal, a document supplied by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for use for the purpose in question, and
          "owner" in relation to any land means any person who under the Lands Clauses Acts would be enabled to sell and convey the land to the promoters of an undertaking and includes any person entitled to possession of the land as lessee under a lease the unexpired portion of which is not less than seven years.

          (2) For the purposes of section 49H of this Act and this Schedule, an application under paragraph 1 or 2 above is finally determined when the following conditions are met—

          362

          (a) the proceedings on the application, including any proceedings on or in consequence of an application under section 233 of this Act, have been determined, and

          (b) any time for appealing under paragraph 5 above, or applying or further applying under that section, (where there is a right to do so) has expired.".'.— [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 5

      ENFORCEMENT NOTICES
      Amendments made: No. 42, in page 8, line 3, leave out 'demolition or alteration' and insert 'alteration or removal'.
      No. 43, in page 8, line 11, at end insert—
      '(5A) Where an enforcement notice is issued in respect of a breach of planning control consisting of demolition of a building, the notice may require the construction of a building (in this section referred to as a "replacement building") which, subject to subsection (5B), is as similar as possible to the demolished building.

      (5B) A replacement building—

      (a) must comply with any requirement imposed by any enactment applicable to the construction of buildings;

      (b) may differ from the demolished building in any respect which, if the demolished building had been altered in that respect, would not have constituted a breach of planning control;

      (c) must comply with any regulations made for the purposes of this subsection (including regulations modifying paragraphs (a) and (b)).'.

      No. 44, in page 8, line 34, leave out 'demolished' and insert 'removed'.
      No. 45, in page 8, line 39, leave out from `granted'to end of line 42 and insert 'by virtue of section 73A in respect of development consisting of the construction of the buildings or works or, as the case may be, the carrying out of the activities.

      (10) Where—

      (a) an enforcement notice requires the construction of a replacement building; and

      (b) all the requirements of the notice with respect to that construction have been complied with,

      planning permission shall be treated as having been granted by virtue of section 73A in respect of development consisting of that construction.'—[Sir G. Young.]

    Clause 34

      ENFORCEMENT NOTICES
      Amendments made: No. 64, in page 41, line 3, leave out `demolition or alteration' and insert 'alteration or removal'.
      No. 65, in page 41, line 11, at end insert—

      '(5A) An enforcement notice issued in respect of a breach of planning control consisting of demolition of a building may require the construction of a building (in this section referred to as a "replacement building" which, subject to subsection (5B) of this section, is as similar as possible to the demolished building.

      (5B) A replacement building—

      (a) must comply with any requirement imposed by or under any enactment applicable to the construction of buildings;

      (b) may differ from the demolished building in any respect which, if the demolished building had been altered in that respect, would not have constituted a breach of planning control;

      (c) must comply with any regulations made for the purposes of this subsection (including regulations modifying paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection).'.

      363
      No. 66, in page 41, line 34, leave out 'demolished' and insert 'removed'.
      No. 67, in page 41, line 39, leave out from 'granted' to end of line 42 and insert—
      `under section 29 of this Act in respect of development consisting of the construction of the buildings or works or, as the case may be, the carrying out of the activities.

      (10) Where—

      (a) an enforcement notice requires the construction of a replacement building; and

      (b) all the requirements of the notice with respect to that construction have been complied with,

      planning permission shall be treated as having been granted under section 29 of this Act in respect of development consisting of that construction.'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 6

      APPEAL AGAINST ENFORCEMENT NOTICE
      Amendment made: No. 19, in page 10, line 37, at end insert—
      `(6) In section 303(3) of that Act (fees payable to Secretary of State in respect of deemed applications for planning permission) for "to him of a fee of the prescribed amount in respect of an" there is substituted—

      "(a) of fees of prescribed amounts to him and to the local planning authority in respect of any application for planning permission deemed to be made under section 177(5); and

      (b) of a fee of the prescribed amount to him in respect of any other".'— [Sir G. Young.]

    Clause 35

      APPEAL AGAINST ENFORCEMENT NOTICE
      Amendment made: No. 68, in page 42, line 22, leave out from 'specified' to 'as' in line 24 and insert
      `in the notice'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 38
      STOP NOTICES
      Amendment made: No. 124, in page 44, line 42, leave out 'subsection (1) of.' —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    Clause 10

      CERTIFICATE OF LAWFUL USE OR DEVELOPMENT.
      Amenthrfents made: No. 142, in page 13, line 35, leave out 'building, engineering, mining or other'
      No. 143, in page 14, line 10 leave out from 'force' to end of line 11.
      No. 144, in page 14, line 20, leave out from 'force' to end of line 21.
      No. 145, in page 15, line 7 leave out 'building, engineering, mining or other'.
      No. 146, in page 15, line 15, leave out 'were'.
      No. 147, in page 15, line 16, leave out from 'application' to second 'they' in line 17 and insert
      'would be lawful if instituted or begun at the time of the application'.
      No. 148, in page 15, leave out lines 30 to 33 and insert—
      '(4) The lawfulness of any use or operations for which a certificate is in force under this section shall be conclusively presumed unless there is a material change, before the use is instituted or the operations are begun, in any of the matters relevant to determining such lawfulness.'.
      No. 149, in page 16, line 16, at end insert—
      364
      `(4A) A certificate under section 191 or 192 shall not affect any muter constituting a failure to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted unless that matter is described in the certificate.'. —[Sir G. Young.]
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Soley: I beg to move amendment No. 126, in page 16, line 28, at end insert—
      '(8) There shall be no fee for submitting applications under section 192.'.
      The amendment seeks to ensure that no fee is charged for submitting an application under section 192 of the parent Act, which refers to applications for planning permission under section 69 of that Act and to certificates of lawfulness of existing use or development.
      As we are talking about circumstances in which a person wishes to find out whether he already has permission, the provision involves the right to know—the right to information—and it seems wrong that a fee should be charged. I should like to hear the Minister's response to our view that it is wrong to charge someone a fee for providing him with information affecting his current position and that that information ought to be available free of charge.
      Mr. Yeo: I shall try to be equally brief. I appreciate the reason behind the amendment, but I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that we intend to resist it.
      We consulted widely about the implementation of the provisions of clause 10, including the possibility of a fee for new section 192 applications. Our view is that, because a "lawful development certificate" granted under the new provisions would be a more valuable and significant document to the applicant than a favourable determination under the present section 64, a fee for the service is justified. More work will be involved for the local authorities in operating the new procedure. For instance, they will have to investigate the lawfulness of existing uses or works on the land and the terms of any planning permission that may exist.
      We therefore think it reasonable for planning authorities to be able to charge a fee for that administrative work. We also believe that most developers will accept that it is reasonable to pay a fee as the price for obtaining an authority's considered opinion as to whether their proposal needs planning permission. If a certificate is granted, they will be able to rely on it as an assurance that planning permission is not required. In some cases, that will save them from having to submit a planning application to the local authority.
      We are considering the responses to the consultation paper that we issued in January. No final decision has been taken on the proposal to charge a fee. We recognise the need to announce our intentions for implementing the provisions of clause 10, including our intention as regards enabling planning authorities to charge a fee for certificate applications. We hope to make an announcement about that before the summer recess, which would also state when the provisions could be brought into force. Charging a fee for the new section 192 applications would require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to lay fees regulations before Parliament and those who oppose the idea would have an opportunity to object.
      I hope that hon. Members will accept that it is not unreasonble to enable planning authorities to charge a fee to help cover the costs of the new service, which will be of

      365
      considerable benefit to the people who use it. For that reason, I invite the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 39

      CERTIFICATE OF LAWFUL USE OR DEVELOPMENT
      Amendments made: No. 151, in page 46, line 17 leave out
      'building, engineering, mining or other'.
      No. 152, in page 47, line 35 leave out
      'building, engineering, mining or other'.
      No. 153, in page 47, line 43 leave out 'were'.
      No. 154, in page 47, line 44 leave out from 'application' to second 'they' in line 45 and insert
      'would be lawful if instituted or begun at the time of the application'.
      No. 155, in page 48, leave out lines 9 to 12 and insert—
      '(4) There shall be an irrefutable presumption as to the lawfulness of any use or operations for which a certificate is in force under this section unless there is a material change, before the use is instituted or the operations are begun, in any of the matters relevant to determining such lawfulness.'.
      No. 156, in page 48, line 15, after 'regulations', insert `under this Act'.
      No. 157, in page 48, line 17, after 'by', insert 'such'.
      No. 158, in page 48, line 18, after 'under', insert 'such'.
      No. 159, in page 48, line 20, after 'by', insert 'such'.
      No. 160, in page 48, line 24, after 'particular', insert 'such'.
      No. 161, in page 48, line 27, after 'by', insert 'the'.
      No. 162, in page 48, line 31, after 'under', insert 'the'.
      No. 163, in page 48, line 44, after 'by', insert 'such'.
      No. 164, in page 48, line 45, at end insert—
      '(4A) A certificate under section 90 or 90A shall not affect any matter constituting a failure to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted unless that matter is described in the certificate.'.
      No. 165, in page 49, line 7, after 'by', insert `such'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 40

      RIGHTS OF ENTRY
      Amendment made: No. 166, in page 51, line 12, at end insert—
      '(3A) The provisions of section 168 of this Act shall apply in relation to compensation under subsection (3) of this section as they apply in relation to compensation under Part VIII of this Act.'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 12

      PLANNING OBLIGATIONS
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 19, line 24, leave out 'or otherwise' and insert 'with the authority or as specified in subsection (1B)'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 111, in page 19, line 36, at end insert—
      '(1B) Any person interested in land in the area of a local planning authority may unilaterally enter into an obligation (referred to in this section as a "unilateral undertaking")
      366
      where a local planning authority has been unwilling to enter into an obligation by agreement and an appeal has been made to the Secretary of State under section 78.'.
      Mr. Griffiths: This amendment has the support of many organisations which are deeply disturbed by the growing influence of planning gain on decisions made by local planning authorities. The Council for the Protection of Rural England has been in the vanguard of this campaign, but other organisations and individuals have also expressed that concern.
      Agreements drawn up by local authorities and developers—renamed "planning obligations" in the Bill—have a role in the planning system, but not as a means of assisting the granting of planning permissions which would not otherwise have been granted.
      In Committee we opposed the principle contained in clause 12 to allow developers to enter into "unilateral undertakings". The priority should be opening up the processes of planning gain to public debate, rather than encouraging even more agreements to be drawn up behind closed doors without even local authority involvement.
      Earlier amendments to delete this aspect from the Bill were unsuccessful. In view of the Government's commitment to the process, we have sought an amendment which would achieve the Government's aims but would reduce some of the problems that have been widely feared.
      Both the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Law Society believe that a greater distinction between planning obligations by agreement and unilateral undertakings should be made in the Bill and that unilateral undertakings should be used only when negotiations with the local authority have broken down.
      The Government have said at all stages of the Bill in both Houses that they view unilateral undertakings as a specific mechanism for enabling a log jam to be broken. I believe that those were the words used in Committee, where the Minister said:
      "We see the provision in clause 12 very much as the exception and are in favour of agreements being negotiated with the local authority … The provision is a safety valve that can be used when recalcitrant local authorities obstruct otherwise sensible developments."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 16 April 1991; c. 114.]
      However, the Government have done nothing to reflect that on the face of the Bill, nor have they promised to clarify planning policy guidance.
      If unilateral undertakings are only appropriate when the mechanism for achieving planning obligations by agreement has broken down, that should be clearly shown in the Bill. Our amendment would achieve that by ensuring that all obligations were entered into by agreement, unless a local authority refused to negotiate and an appeal was lodged. Unilateral undertakings would be allowed only in respect of a planning appeal, which is exactly what the Government have argued. I therefore ask the Government for a clear commitment that new planning guidance will be issued which will carefully define the circumstances within which unilateral undertakings would be appropriate and the basis on which they would be considered by the Secretary of State and his inspectors. I hope that the Government will take a positive attitude towards these amendments.
      Sir George Young: I do not think that there is a wide gulf between the two sides on this subject. I can confirm that I do not foresee that these facilities will be used other than on appeal, and I hope to explain why the amendments, especially No. 111 might be unhelpful.

      367
      In Committee and in another place, there were extensive debates about provisions in clause 12 for entering into a planning obligation by means of a unilateral undertaking—there have been four debates on unilateral undertakings here and in another place.
      I confirm that we expect such undertakings to be used mainly at appeal, in situations where there is a planning objection to the development proposal, which can only be resolved by a planning obligation under section 106, and where the parties are not able to reach agreement about how to resolve the objection. Clearly, when they could reach agreement before going to appeal, unilateral undertakings would not be needed.
      In Committee, I gave some examples of where the provisions might be helpful, and I do not propose to repeat them. However, I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is no longer pressing his objection, in principle, to unilateral undertakings. The principle is conceded in the amendments, but he seeks to ring-fence them by allowing them only on an appeal.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: If I may clarify that matter, we have accepted that the Government are not going to move from unilateral undertakings, so we have sought to deal with it in that way.
      Sir George Young: I recognise that realism has broken out.
      The amendments would allow unilateral undertakings to be made only in the circumstances described in the last two lines of amendment 111.
      The amendment is unnecessary, because the main use of the undertakings, as an alternative means of entering into a planning obligation, will be at the appeal stage anyway. We expect that recourse to undertakings will be relatively infrequent and that obligations will generally be entered into by agreement. I confirm that, in my view, that is the preferred course. We propose to reinforce that in policy guidance.
      The amendment is undesirable because it would create some inflexibility. Amendment No. 111 would prevent a developer from making a unilateral undertaking until after he had lodged an appeal. As the Bill stands, a developer could make an undertaking at any stage. Such an undertaking might, by clarifying what the developer was prepared to offer, facilitate agreement between the two parties.
      Alternatively, the local planning authority might be prepared to grant permission on the basis that the undertaking had removed the outstanding objections to the development proposal. The undertaking would become, in effect and possibly in fact, an agreement. There can be nothing objectionable about that process, and amendment No. 111 would preclude it. Against that background, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a Division.
      Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Minister for his response and for the way in which he seems to believe clause 12 should be interpreted.
      The Minister said that he expected to issue planning guidance on this matter, although he gave no sign of how quickly it might be achieved. Before making a final response, could he give me some idea of the time scale involved?
      Sir George Young: I cannot give a specific date, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He is anxious that there should be guidance. Guidance on this part of the Bill will be issued as soon as practicable after Royal Assent. It would help if we
      368
      confirmed in guidance our view that unilateral undertakings should be used principally on appeal. I hope the hon. Gentleman feels that he can accept that assurance.
      Mr. Griffiths: I am anxious to help the Minister, but he will appreciate that our problem is that we object in principle to the use of unilateral undertakings. We had hoped that the Government would accept the amendment; then we should have been satisfied. Having accepted that the Government would not move on the principle, we hoped that the amendment would be passed without a vote. The Government, however, have said nothing about the time scale for the planning guidance, so there is an important issue of principle at stake, and we must press the amendment to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 251.

      Division No. 182]

      [8.00 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      George, Bruce

      Allen, Graham

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Alton, David

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Anderson, Donald

      Gordon, Mildred

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Graham, Thomas

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Ashton, Joe

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Battle, John

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Home Robertson, John

      Beith, A. J.

      Hood, Jimmy

      Bell, Stuart

      Howells, Geraint

      Bellotti, David

      Hoyle, Doug

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Boyes, Roland

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Buckley, George J.

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Caborn, Richard

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Kennedy, Charles

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Lamond, James

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Leighton, Ron

      Carr, Michael

      Lewis, Terry

      Cartwright, John

      Livsey, Richard

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cohen, Harry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Corbett, Robin

      Maclennan, Robert

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      McMaster, Gordon

      Cousins, Jim

      Madden, Max

      Crowther, Stan

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Cryer, Bob

      Marek, Dr John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Darling, Alistair

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Martlew, Eric

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'1)

      Maxton, John

      Dixon, Don

      Meacher, Michael

      Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

      Meale, Alan

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Eadie, Alexander

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Fearn, Ronald

      Morley, Elliot

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Fisher, Mark

      Mullin, Chris

      Flynn, Paul

      Nellist, Dave

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Foster, Derek

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Fraser, John

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Fyfe, Maria

      Patchett, Terry

      Galloway, George

      Pike, Peter L.

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Primarolo, Da

      369

      Radice, Giles

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Reid, Dr John

      Wallace, James

      Richardson, Jo

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Rogers, Allan

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Winnick, David

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Short, Clare

      Wray, Jimmy

      Skinner, Dennis

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Soley, Clive

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Mr. Ken Eastham and

      Strang, Gavin

      Mr. Eric Illsley.

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dykes, Hugh

      Alexander, Richard

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Allason, Rupert

      Evennett, David

      Amess, David

      Favell, Tony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Ashby, David

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Forman, Nigel

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Baldry, Tony

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Franks, Cecil

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Freeman, Roger

      Beggs, Roy

      French, Douglas

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fry, Peter

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gale, Roger

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Benyon, W.

      Gill, Christopher

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Boswell, Tim

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bottomley, Peter

      Gorst, John

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bowis, John

      Gregory, Conal

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Grist, Ian

      Brazier, Julian

      Ground, Patrick

      Bright, Graham

      Grylls, Michael

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

      Hague, William

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hannam, John

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Burns, Simon

      Harris, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Butler, Chris

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Butterfill, John

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hayward, Robert

      Carttiss, Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cash, William

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hill, James

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Chope, Christopher

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Churchill, Mr

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Conway, Derek

      Hunt, Rt Hon David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Couchman, James

      Irvine, Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Curry, David

      Jack, Michael

      Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

      Janman, Tim

      Day, Stephen

      Jessel, Toby

      Devlin, Tim

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dicks, Terry

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dunn, Bob

      Key, Robert

      370

      Kilfedder, James

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rost, Peter

      Knapman, Roger

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knowles, Michael

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shelton, Sir William

      Latham, Michael

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Sims, Roger

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lightbown, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Speed, Keith

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Speller, Tony

      Lord, Michael

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Squire, Robin

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Maclean, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Steen, Anthony

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Stern, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Stevens, Lewis

      Madel, David

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Mans, Keith

      Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Maples, John

      Stokes, Sir John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mills, Iain

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Moate, Roger

      Thurnham, Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Trotter, Neville

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Moss, Malcolm

      Walden, George

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Mudd, David

      Waller, Gary

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Needham, Richard

      Watts, John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wells, Bowen

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Whitney, Ray

      Norris, Steve

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Paice, James

      Wilshire, David

      Patnick, Irvine

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Pawsey, James

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wolfson, Mark

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Wood, Timothy

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Portillo, Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Price, Sir David

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Rathbone, Tim

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Rhodes James, Sir Robert

      Mr. Tom Sackville.

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 25, in page 20, line 1 at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (3A)'
      No. 26, in page 20, line 7 leave out `to the extent of his derivative interest' and insert—
      '(3A) The instrument by which a planning obligation is entered into may provide that a person shall not be bound by the obligation in respect of any period during which he no longer has an interest in the land.'
      No. 27, in page 20, line 9 leave out from `injunction' to end of line 11
      No. 28, in page 20, line 46 at end insert—

      371

      `(10A) Regulations may provide for the charging on the land of—

      (a) any sum or sums required to be paid under a planning obligation; and

      (b) any expenses recoverable by a local planning authority under subsection (5)(b),

      and this section and sections 106A and 106B shall have effect subject to any such regulations.'

      No. 29, in page 23, line 8 leave out from 'into' to end of line 15 and insert
      'an obligation falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 106(1) (in this section referred to as a "planning obligation") enforceable to the extent mentioned in subsection (2A).

      (2) A planning obligation may not be entered into except by an instrument executed as a deed which—

      (a) states that the obligation is a planning obligation for the purposes of this section;

      (b) identifies the land in relation to which the obligation is entered into;

      (c) identifies the appropriate authority who are entering into the obligation and states what the Crown or Duchy interest in the land is; and

      (d) identifies the local planning authority by whom the obligation is enforceable.

      (2A) A planning obligation entered into under this section is enforceable—

      (a) against any person with a private interest deriving from the Crown or Duchy interest stated in accordance with subsection (2)(c);

      (b) by the authority identified in accordance with subsection (2)(d).

      (2B) Subject to subsection (3), subsections (2), (3A) to (7) and (9) to (11) of section 106 and sections 106A and 106B apply to a planning obligation entered into under this section as they apply to a planning obligation entered into under that section.'

      No. 30, in page 23, line 23 leave out from 'subsection' to end of line 34 and insert `(2B))'—[Sir George Young.).

    Clause 15

      NOTICE ETC. OF APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
      Amendment proposed: No. 20, in page 24, line 35, at end insert—
      '(1A) Provision shall be made by a development order for the purpose of securing that, in the case of any application for planning permission, any person (other than the applicant) who on such date as may be prescribed by the order is an owner of the land to which the application relates, or a tenant of any agricultural holding any part of which is comprised in that land, is given notice of the application in such manner as may be required by the order.'—[Mr. Yeo.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 140, in page 24, line 39, at end insert—
      '(2B) A development order shall require a local planning authority to notify a parish council of all planning applications involving their parish, and to send a parish council a fully detailed and complete set of plans and drawings relating to each planning application.'.
      No. 141, in page 24, line 39, at end insert—
      '(2A) A development order shall require each applicant for planning permission to provide five copies of the application, including copies of all plans and drawings.'.
      No. 113, in page 24, line 42, at end insert—
      '(3A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3) a development order shall require a local planning authority to publicise all applications for planning permission made in its area in a manner prescribed by the development order or otherwise as the authority thinks fit.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 167 and 168.
      Mr. Steen: I beg to move amendments Nos. 140 and 141.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can speak to the amendments, but he does not have to move them.
      Mr. Steen: I am glad that you refreshed my memory, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We might have an opportunity to divide the House later but, subject to the help that I hope the Minister will be able to give us, it might not be necessary.
      I am sure that the whole House will be interested in the amendment because it deals with parish councils. I do riot know whether hon. Members have a similar problem to mine. In my area, highly intelligent people are involved in parish council business. They are concerned and want to participate in the planning process. The problem is that they have absolutely no power and, although they are often somewhat reluctant to admit it, most of them believe that the planning process could be improved if they did have some power.
      The amendment deals not with power, but solely with information. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of the fact—I was not until I examined it more closely—that parish councils do not receive any details of planning applications made to the town, borough or district councils; they receive only outline information. Therefore, when a parish council is asked by the district or town council to consider a planning application, it receives only a notification of the outline of that application.
      I took the liberty of inviting my town council in Salcombe in Devon to let me know what its problem was. The clerk of the council—Mrs. Woodhatch—wrote:
      "As you are probably aware"—
      I was not, at that stage—
      "the Planning Act and the general development order require the planning authority as soon as possible to inform a parish council in writing of a planning application, indicating the nature of the development and identifying the land. It does not require the planning authority to send any plans of the proposals or to explain the reason for the application even if they know that themselves, which in many cases is doubtful. We are also required to advise the planning authority within 14 days of the town council's representation."
      The council has no information—or very little—but is required to give its views within 14 days. Mrs. Woodhatch's letter continued:
      "You will see from this that the procedure is most unsatisfactory and has been so since 1974. Even if we do make recommendations they are often ignored."
      The letter continues, but the point is that the council receives outline information only but no details on which to base its view. That is why so many parish councils make the most extraordinary recommendations to district and town councils.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Win Griffiths: One of the quirks of the 1974 local government reform was to describe parish councils in Wales as "community councils". We support the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) because in my constituency, for example, the town council of Porthcawl, which is a substantial community, has for many years been lobbying Ogwr borough council for full planning permission. This year, for the first time, Porthcawl became a Labour-controlled authority, which is proof of the Tory's present difficulties.
      Mr. Barry Porter: A Tory stronghold.
      Mr. Griffiths: I could not resist that comment, especially in view of the sotto voce comment by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter). However, we support the hon. Member for South Hams.
      Mr. Steen: It may be reassuring for the Opposition to support me, but it makes me think that I must be on the wrong track.
      I mentioned Salcombe town council, but I also wish to mention the illustrious district council of South Hams. It has a first-rate planning department and a fine planning officer. I asked him in confidence to give me an idea of some of his problems. He declined to tell me exactly what they were, but he kindly wrote to me about my proposals.
      I am not asking for parish councils to be given powers to intervene in planning matters. That would be another debate, although many people believe that parish councils should be more involved. I am concerned only to ensure that they have detailed plans so that when an applicant makes an application, instead of lodging four sets of plans, he lodges five sets. It is not too outrageous to suggest that when an applicant makes an application he should bear the cost of giving exact information about what he is doing or wishes to do to the local parish council. What is the purpose of a parish council if it is not to consider detailed planning applications?
      The director of planning and housing for South Hams district council, Mr. Carpenter, said:
      "I can confirm that I am still supplying the parish and town councils with plans where I have spare copies available. It has been council practice for many years to supply a full copy of the plan where a copy is available. However, although I ask applicants to supply six copies I am only able by statute to request four copies. Where six are received the parish and town councils receive a copy with their notification. It is not surprising by the time a copy is retained in the office for public inspection and the various statutory consultees like the water authority and the National Rivers Authority have requested copies of an application that four is an inadequate number of copies for the proper consideration of an application."
      Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend will know of my knowledge of and love for South Hams. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that what my hon. Friend advocates as being good for South Hams is probably good for Taunton and Dean and the rest of England. The Labour party is showing interest in this matter, although many Labour Members would not know what a parish was if they saw one. However, no one from the Liberal Democrats is present and I thought that that party was a campaigner for parish councils.
      Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) has good eyesight. My attention has been drawn to the fact that no Liberal Member—if that is what they are called now—is present.
      Mr. Robert B. Jones: The eyesight of my hon. Friends the Members for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) is obviously good. However, they could not have noticed that during the Committee stage of the Bill—12 sessions—the Liberal Democrat representative attended only once. That is an appalling attendance record. He was even absent for a vital debate on coastal protection, which one would have thought would have been of interest to Eastbourne.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should like to hear something about the amendment.
      Mr. Steen: It is a simple amendment and I hope that the House will support it. I am simply asking applicants to submit five copies of their application instead of four. That should be a statutory requirement.
      Mr. Barry Porter: Why cannot the good Mrs. Woodhatch merely step round to the planning office and examine the plans? That is not much to ask her to do.
      Mr. Steen: It is always useful to have a Merseyside intervention. The problem with Merseyside Members is that they do not understand that the constituency of South Hams is 88 miles from one end to the other. Mrs. Woodhatch would have to travel 65 miles to and from the office every week to look at the planning applications. Mrs. Woodhatch could ask the planning authority for a copy of the plans. However, I understand from the director of housing and planning that it would take his staff six to eight hours to photostat all the planning applications that arrive each week. That is why it is not a serious consideration.
      Mr. Rupert Allason: I support entirely what my hon. Friend has said. Does he agree that there is tremendous development pressure in South Hams and Torbay? Part of the Torbay borough is in the South Hams constituency. It has the fifth highest number of planning applications in the United Kingdom. The pressure on the planning authority is enormous. The more that the plans can be circulated by statute, the better.
      Mr. Steen: This is such a simple request that I cannot believe that the Government will not accept it. We all have good parish councils within our constituencies and they consist of informed, involved and concerned constituents. We may need to review the powers of parish councils in due course, but that is not the purpose of the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when local people with an interest in the local environment consider planning applications, they should have a copy of the plan.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: We are devolving powers to schools and local hospitals. The people who sit on parish councils know the locality and are not taking decisions from a distance. They should have full information.
      Mr. Steen: If we do not give parish councils the necessary information, how can they make informed judgments? Parish councils often make unusual observations and district councils therefore cannot always believe what they receive. That is not surprising. Parish councils have only an outline plan of the application to which they have to respond within 14 days. If the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) were to be accepted, the good Mrs. Woodhatch and her town councillors would have to travel to the district council offices, perhaps in a charabanc, thereby causing congestion on the roads and more problems for the infrastructure. All that is required is one extra set of plans to be deposited statutorily by the applicant. Instead of putting just an outline application into the envelope, the district council could put in the detailed plan. That is not a difficult thing to do.
      Mr. Robert Banks: I am following my hon. Friend's argument carefully and I agree with much of what he has said. Is it not the case that the authority of a parish council if often undermined because gossip and rumours spread through a village like wildfire when a development is about to take place? The parish council does not have sufficient information and is often wrong-footed and put at a great disadvantage.
      Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) has experience north of Watford and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has experienced north-west of Watford. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate's point is important. Parish councils are undermined by not being given the information. They do not have any authority or power but they have a great deal of local experience. I am simply asking the Government to ensure that an extra set of plans is made available statutorily.
      I have made my point and I do not think that I need to repeat it. We should simply change the number of plans from four to five. I do not believe that there is any problem in that.
      Mr. Michael Jopling: I have great sympathy for the views held by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). During my 27 years as a Member of Parliament I have spent a great deal of time pursuing the same course of action as he has sought to pursue tonight.
      I hesitate to talk about private Members' Bills because, over the years, I have been a party to killing as many such Bills as anyone in the House. I remember the first time that I was lucky enough to win a place in the ballot for private Members' Bills. At that time, in cahoots with the parish councils, I decided to promote a Bill to strengthen their powers. The clerk of the parish council in South Hams may recall that, as a result of my Bill, the powers of parish councils were extended.
      I have always kept a careful silence about the title of my Bill. It was called the Parish Councils and Burial Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It had a low place in the ballot and was due to come up late one Friday afternoon when nearly every Bill in sight was being killed by the Government Whip of the day. The Leader of the House at that time was an old friend of many of us, the late, much loved and lamented Lord Peart. I said to him, "I hope that you are not going to kill my Bill." He slid along to the Government Whip and then returned to me with a long face and said, "Yes, Michael, I am afraid that we are going to kill it." At that moment the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett)—we are old friends—came along and I said, "Ted, you cannot allow them to kill this Bill." The hon. Member for Wallsend told Fred Pearl that he should tell the Government Whip to let my Bill go through, and it did. That is when I learned that Whips have hearts. We extended the powers of burial authorities.
      I remember also that at that time, although a parish council was allowed to put up a bus shelter, for some reason it was not allowed to put up a notice outside saying, "Bus stop". We dealt with that little problem, among many others—but I digress.
      There is much merit in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams. I have always felt that it is right to involve local people in planning details. The amendments do not extend the planning process. I hope
      376
      that they will not cause delay, because there is too much delay already. I would not support the amendments if I thought that they would delay the planning process. The amendments give a say to people at grass-roots level—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: An important say.
      Mr. Jopling: They give an important say, as my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) says, and I have always supported that.
      I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams and others who intervened in this short debate. I hope that the Government will do what they can to help, and I shall listen carefully to the comments of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
      8.30 pm
      Sir Peter Emery: This is a matter of principle —either parish councils give their views on planning or they do not. If they give their views, surely they have the right to have the full plans and not just outlines. Some people say that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) are absurd, but I do not believe that they are. They make much sense. Some limitations may be needed—it may mean that not every bus shelter plan must be duplicated and sent to the parish council in full. Parish councils consider major planning decisions, and we should ensure that they have all the available plans.
      Either we want parish councils to consider planning matters, and they should be fully informed, or we do not. The law is that they should consider planning applications, which is the way I should like it to stay. Unless the Government have reasons which we have not yet heard for opposing the amendments, I hope that they will take some major steps—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: This is a minor step.
      Sir Peter Emery: I hope that the Government will take some major steps to meet the minor request made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams in his sensible amendments.
      Mr. Soley: It is always a pleasure to support the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), not least because he frequently nailed his colours to the mast in Committee and supported us—at such great length that his Front-Bench colleagues nearly nailed him to the mast a couple of times. I see that the hon. Gentleman is wearing his colours of green and red. There has always been some uncertainty about whether he is a supporter of the Ecology party or the Labour party. We are working on him, and hope to have him on our side before long.
      The hon. Gentleman is basically right. The group of amendments is about giving better information to the public. We wish to open up the planning system to more public scrutiny. That should be one of our aims. The Government took some steps towards that during the Bill's passage, which we very much welcome. Our amendment to line 42 on page 24 states:
      "a development order shall require a local planning authority to publicise all applications for planning permission".
      It is a small but important measure, and we have left open how things should be done. Members of Parliament and many more councillors know that people come along after

      377
      the event and say, "We didn't know." Often, the system for letting people know is nowhere near as good as it could or should be.
      It is appropriate that we are debating the amendment today, the day on which the Community Development Foundation launched its report entitled "Action for Better Communities!" in the House of Commons with cross-party support. Present at the launch this morning were two Conservative Members, both of whom spoke in favour of the report—one chaired the group—a Member of the Liberal Democrats and two Labour Members, including me.
      There is growing support for the public to be more aware of what affects the quality of their lives. Planning permission generally is one of the most important aspects. Whether we are talking about the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Hams, which deal with parish councils, or about our amendment, which opens up the issue of publicity, I strongly recommend that the Government give more thought to this matter. Even if they are not prepared to act now, I hope that they will do so when the Bill is considered in the other place.
      Mr. Yeo: This has been an unexpectedly productive debate, with more speeches than some of us had expected. I shall begin with amendment No. 113 before turning to amendments Nos. 140 and 141, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) spoke. Amendment No. 113 helps me to put into context the circumstances in which parish councils will have greater access to information about planning applications, as will everyone else.
      During the passage of the Bill, the Government have accepted the principle that all planning applications in England and Wales and any alterations to those applications that are accepted by a planning authority should be given publicity. That was an important change of policy and a significant change from the previous position, when we did not feel that it was necessary to require every planning application to be given publicity. We made that clear in Committee, and announced to the House on 10 May that we would give effect to that commitment by amending the Town and Country Planning and General Development Order 1988. We will take this forward when we have considered the outcome of a public consultation exercise about how that objective can best be achieved.
      As part of our consideration of the options open to us for achieving that aim, I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), to invite their views on the experience that they have gained of how the public can be notified about planning applications in Scotland, where it is applicants' responsibility to publicise planning applications, and in Northern Ireland.
      At this stage, before we have completed our consultations on this point, we would not wish to rule out the introduction of an arrangement in England and Wales similar to that which already exists in Scotland. When we publish the consultation paper in the next few weeks, with the aim of amending the general development order later
      378
      in the year, I envisage that the paper will invite views on a range of options, including the Scottish one. The danger of accepting amendment No. 113 is that it would limit our consideration of the issue—we would be shackled—and it would appear to rule out the possibility of making it the responsibility of the planning applicant to undertake the necessary publicity exercise.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams spoke forcefully in support of the amendments Nos. 140 and 141, citing his experience in his constituency, as he did several times during the Bill's passage. He was eloquently supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). They made a powerful case for giving parish councils, as of right, full information about the details of every planning application received by the planning authority.
      I shall try briefly to explain why I do not believe that it is right to accept the amendments. I stress that I am an admirer of the work of many parish councils. In my constituency, their views on a wide range of issues are often extremely helpful.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend said that the observations of parish councils were helpful. Surely they would be much more helpful if parish councils were properly informed, as the amendment seeks to achieve.
      Mr. Yeo: If my hon. Friend will give me a moment or two, I will try to explain why I believe that parish councils are adequately informed.
      The view of the parish council can often be a barometer of local opinion, and it can help to inform the reaction of a planning authority to a particular application. It is because we recognise that that we have included in paragraph 48 of schedule 6 provisions designed to ensure that parish and community councils are better informed about development proposals in their areas. That must be seen against the background of our acceptance of the principle of some publicity for all planning applications.
      The provisions in paragraph 48 of schedule 6 consolidate and extend requirements in paragraph 8 of schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. They include a new requirement for local planning authorities to notify parish and community councils of alterations to planning applications. That is very important. That requirement supplements the existing duty on planning authorities to notify parish councils of applications.
      Those requirements are triggered by the parish council requesting the planning authority to notify it. There is a point of contact at that stage between the parish council —if it is interested—and the planning authority. That request can indicate that the parish council wishes to be informed about all planning applications in the area, or it can specify the types of planning applications about which it wishes to be informed.
      Sir Peter Emery: If the parish council requests that trivia, is the planning authority obliged to supply the information within the necessary time, or can it ignore the request? That is of considerable importance.
      Mr. Yeo: It is obliged to provide information about planning applications to the parish council, and we have

      379
      extended that principle not just to deal with applications but to apply if there are subsequent alterations to the application received by the planning authority.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I understand the point about schedule 6 to which the Minister drew my attention. However, the planning authority is not obliged to give the parish council the relevant information. It can simply give a formal notification. It does not have to provide the detailed information upon which the parish council can make an informed and intelligent decision.
      Mr. Yeo: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will try to develop my point and explain why we believe that it would be onerous to place the requirement on planning authorities as suggested in amendments Nos. 140 arid 141.
      There is absolutely nothing to stop the local planning authority making an arrangemnent with the parish council having ascertained the nature of the parish council's interest and agreeing to supply all the details as a matter of course if that appears to be the best way to deal with the matter. There is every opportunity for that to happen. There is nothing in our policy or in legislation to prevent the planning authority from dealing with parish councils in that way if it wishes.
      Mr. Robert B. Jones: Dacorum borough council in my constituency does exactly that, and that benefits the borough council and the parish council.
      Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. No doubt many planning authorities adopt that policy, which works satisfactorily.
      Mr. Steen: A moment ago, my hon. Friend the Minister said that there would be a burden on the planning authority. We are not asking the planning authority to do anything extra: we are simply asking it to shove an extra set of detailed plans provided by the applicant into the envelope which it already sends to the parish council to inform the parish council that the planning application exists. There is not much extra effort.
      Mr. Yeo: Although, until November last year, I did not see many planning applications and was not familiar with the bulk of the accompanying documents—as part of my daily working life now, I see planning decisions routinely several times a day—I am now aware that even what appears to be quite a simple planning application, which, I appreciate, by the time it reaches me has become a planning appeal—and I can see how it started—can comprise a significant bulk of documents. Therefore, the obligation is not quite as trivial as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams seems to imply.
      Dacorum council has the great advantage of an excellent Member of Parliament and it is clearly an extremely well run authority. It has decided to make arrangements with the parish councils within the borough and those arrangements suit both sides. However, there are more than 500,000 planning applications every year. Forty per cent. of those relate to applications by householders for very simple matters.
      8.45 pm
      Against that background of more than 500,000 planning applications, there is merit in allowing parish councils and local planning authorities a measure of discretion about the arrangements that they make between themselves instead of imposing the blanket requirement
      380
      that with every application, whatever its nature and however trivial or important, all the details must be sent routinely to the parish council. The element of discretion that we are allowing is the best way forward and is entirely in line with our approach on a wide range of matters.
      If we were to accept amendment No. 140, we would run the risk of creating planning junk mail. The clerk to the parish council would dread the arrival, almost every week, of another huge bulky envelope. He would wonder if there was any way of cutting off that supply of paper work.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: This is really most unfair. The Minister does not appear to have read page 133 of the Bill, which uses the words "if requested." There would not be junk mail. The parish council will have requested the details. The Minister referred to good local authorities, but there are some bad ones. The parish councils would like the right to those details.
      Mr. Yeo: I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend's earlier interventions. I thought that she was urging on me an arrangement whereby all the details of all applications would be sent routinely to parish councils. If I misunderstood that, I apologise to my hon. Friend.
      It is perfectly possible for common sense to prevail in the relationship between the planning authority and the parish council. Already, a number of authorities will arrange for the documents to be lent to the parish council at a time that coincides with its meetings.
      I am concerned that amendment No. 141 would place an additional demand on applicants for planning permission. Frequently, those applicants are not organisations of great substance. They may be individuals with small household applications or they may be small businesses. The requirement in amendment No. 141 for additional copies of all the documents, including plans and drawings submitted with the planning application, to be sent as a matter of course to the planning authority would be a not insignificant burden for some applicants. If we were to follow that route, why should the line be drawn at parish councils? Many other bodies might like information about applications in which they may believe they have an interest.
      I do not believe that it makes sense to impose those requirements universally.
      Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend the Minister has been very illuminating as he has explained the Government's view about the amendments. He has explained a number of progressions contained in the Bill that will clearly give parish councils more understanding of planning applications under the new system once the Bill becomes law. That is a move forward. My instinct is that we should see how the system works. Will my hon. Friend bear the whole issue with regard to parish councils in mind? If we find that the new arrangements are still unsatisfactory, will the Government be prepared in future to consider the possibility of dealing with the matter more in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen)?
      Mr. Yeo: I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that undertaking. As he acknowledges, we have made some significant changes to our procedures during the Bill's passage through the House. I emphasise that the principle of ensuring that in future all planning applications will

      381
      receive some publicity is an important change in our policy and goes in the direction in which he and other hon. Members would like us to move.
      Despite several interventions to the contrary in this short debate, I also believe that the system under which parish councils can receive detailed information is satisfactory. To some extent, my hon. Friends will judge the level of concern about a particular issue by the volume of correspondence that they receive about it. From my experience as both a constituency Member of Parliament and a Minister with responsibility for planning matters, I have not found that the inability of parish councils to obtain sufficient information about the nature and details of planning applications that they receive has featured prominently in my postbag, either in Suffolk or in the Department. However, I gladly give my right hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks—that if we find that the system is not working as well as I have indicated that I believe it is, we will, of course, look at it again and make the changes that he and my other hon. Friends have requested.
      Mr. Robert Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend both for giving way and for what he has just said. However, will he undertake to consult the Association of Parish Councils and to take advice from it about whatever action he may be considering in the future?
      Mr. Yeo: Yes, I will undertake to do that, but I shall also undertake to consult the Association of District Councils, which, from a different viewpoint, will have a different angle on the issue.
      In those circumstances, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) not to move his amendment.
      Mr. Steen rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman has spoken once and will need the leave of the House to speak a second time.
      Mr. Steen: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his handsome undertaking, which is most gratefully received. I should like to pay tribute to all the Ministers who, throughout the Bill's passage, have been prepared to acknowledge that some good ideas emanate from the Back Benches. I pay tribute to them for their willingness to take good ideas on board and to make progress.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Amendment made accordingly: No. 20, in page 24, line 35, at end insert—
      `(1A) Provision shall be made by a development order for the purpose of securing that, in the case of any application for planning permission, any person (other than the applicant) who on such date as may be prescribed by the order is an owner of the land to which the application relates, or a tenant of any agricultural holding any part of which is comprised in that land, is given notice of the application in such manner as may be required by the order.'—[Mr. Yeo.]
      Mr. Soley: I beg to move, amendment No. 114, in page 24, line 51, at end insert—

      NOTICE ETC. OF APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

        'Referral of applications to the Secretary of State
        `(3) After section 74(1) of the principal Act (provisions that may be made by a development order for dealing with planning applications) there is inserted—
        —1"(1A) Any development order made under this section shall specify that a local planning authority shall not grant planning permission for an application which relates to development—

        (a) which the local planning authority consider would materially conflict with or prejudice the implementation of any of the policies or general proposals of the development plan or that of an adjoining local planning authority; or

        (b) which the structure plan authority consider would materially conflict with or prejudice the implementation of any of the policies or general proposals of the structure plan;

        unless they have notified the Secretary of State of the application for planning permission, along with a statement of the issues involved, and either—

        (a) a period of twenty-eight days has expired, beginning with the date of the notification, without the Secretary of State having directed the reference of the application to him or given notice that he requires extra time to consider whether to require reference of the application to him; or

        (b) the Secretary of State has notified the authority that he does not intend to require the reference of the application to him.".'.

        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 115, in page 25, line 51 at end insert—

        'Referral of applications to the Secretary of State

          `DEVELOPMENT NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
          '(3) For section 74(1)(b) of the principal Act there is substituted—
          "(b) for authorising the local planning authority to grant planning permission for development which does not accord with the provisions of the development plan subject to a requirement that:

          (i) notice of the local planning authority's intention to grant planning permission is published in a daily newspaper circulating in the area;

          (ii)) copies of the notice shall be given to the applicant and to any person who made representations to the authority; and

          (iii) any representation as regards the making of a decision to grant planning permission received by the local planning authority within twenty-one days after the first publication of the notice shall be duly considered by the authority;

          or otherwise as prescribed by the Order or by the Secretary of State under it.".'.
          Mr. Soley: The purpose of amendment No. 114 is to require a planning application, which the local planning authority considers would materially conflict with the development plan, or which the county council considers would conflict with a structure plan, to be notified to the Secretary of State so that he can consider calling it in.
          The purpose of amendment No. 115 is to require local planning authorities intending to grant planning permission for a development which is in conflict with the structure or local plan to advertise that fact in a local newspaper, to inform those who have commented on the planning applications, and to consider any further representations within a period of 21 days.
          That purpose links in with the major concession that we received from the Government at the beginning of the debate about Government new clause 20, which was tabled to replace my new clause 13. If a development is conceded which is in breach of the plan, we are arguing that the logic is that either the Secretary of State should have the power

          383
          to call it in, which is more clearly defined in amendment No. 114, or there should be a power to inform the people who have commented on the planning application. Without those provisions, we might be faced with the situation that has developed on other occasions, when someone who has objected to an application sees the new local plan, which may be publicised, and feels that the objection must be carried because it is in line with the plan. However, that person may then discover that the local authority has itself decided to breach the plan.
          The amendments simply go further down the road on which the Miniser embarked in new clause 20. I therefore commend them to the House.
          Mr. David Bellotti: I wish to speak only to amendment No. 115. Development plans are arrived at only after considerable public consultation, advertisements and further consideration by the local authority and the Minister. The development plans from which we start are, therefore, very important. Departing from them should not be undertaken lightly in any circumstances, and certainly not without further consideration.
          Amendment No. 115 provides that opportunity for further advertisement and for communication with those people who have made written representations. People often write in about departures from development plans without any further information being given to them which would enable them to comment further to the local authority. The 21-day period is sensible and is the minimum that would allow that process to be undertaken.
          The amendment is worthy of support and I hope that the Minister will concede that. Although never enshrined in tablets of stone, development plans are nevertheless important and the local authority should not depart from them without a great deal of thought and further consideration.
          Mr. Yeo: I recognise that amendment No. 114 does not include some of the features that I criticised when an amendment with similar objectives was tabled in Committee, but I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Solely) that I still do not think that the amendments are either necessary or desirable.
          Two sets of circumstances are set out in which a planning application must be reported to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so that he can consider calling it in. The first of these is where the local planning authority considers there to be a material departure from the development plan, or where implementation of its proposals would be prejudiced. This simply imports material selectively from the existing 1981 departures direction. I see no real advantage in setting these matters in the concrete of primary legislation.
          The second set of circumstances is where, in the view of the structure plan authority, a planning application constitutes a departure from or conflict with the structure plan. In this case, too, the local planning authority would have to report the application to my right hon. Friend.
          In the departures direction, it is the local planning authority which decides whether an application should be reported to my right hon. Friend. I believe that to be more logical for, in deciding so to report, the authority is exercising a development control function, not a plan-making function. I have neither heard nor seen any
          384
          evidence that the present reporting arrangements do not work satisfactorily. In my view, the decision should continue to lie with the development control authority
          Sub-paragraphs (i) and (iii) of amendment No. 115 echo, although not exactly, paragraph 3 of the 1981 departures direction, but sub-paragraph (ii) is new. I believe the amendment to be inappropriate and unnecessary. It is inappropriate because the level of procedural detail given here should continue to be set out in the development plans direction, not in main legislation. It is unnecessary because the new material in subparagraph (ii) would add to bureaucracy. Subordinate legislation under section 74 of the 1990 Act already provides for applicants to be notified of how their application has been dealt with. I do not believe that applicants need copies of the departure advertisement in addition. Nor do I see the point of sending copies to those who have made representations.
          Mr. Bellotti: Are there procedures for notifying those who have made representations?
          Mr. Yeo: Procedures for notifying those who have made representations about what?
          Mr. Bellotti: For those who have made representations as opposed to those who are applicants.
          Mr. Yeo: I do not believe that there are any procedures enshrined in primary legislation. Nor do I believe that any procedures necessarily should be enshrined in primary legislation. Sending copies of departure advertisements to those who have made representations would add to local authorities' costs. For the reasons that I have stated, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.
          Amendment negatived.

    Clause 42

      NOTICE ETC. OF APPLICATIONS TO OWNERS AND AGRICULTURAL TENANTS
      Amendments made: No. 167, in page 52, line 6, leave out from 'Act' to 'any' in line 9 and insert
      'shall make provision—

      (a) as to the notice of any application for planning permission to be given to any person (other than the applicant) who at the begining of the period of twenty-one days ending with the date of the application was—

      (i) the owner of, or

      (ii) the tenant of any agricultural holding any part of which was comprised in,

      any of the land to which the application relates; and

      (b) requiring'.

      No. 168, in page 52, leave out lines 15 to 22.
      No. 169, in page 52, line 23, after 'or' insert 'such'.
      No. 170, in page 52, line 28, after 'or' insert 'such'.
      No. 171, in page 53, line 30, after 'regulations' insert `under this Act'—[Mr. Yeo.]

    Clause 19

      LAND OF INTERESTED PLANNING AUTHORITIES AND DEVELOPMENT BY THEM
      9 pm
      Mr. Soley: I beg to move amendment No. 127, in page 28, line 29, at end insert—
      '(9) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the local planning authority shall exercise its powers in its full council in cases where the committee (or sub-committee) that would normally exercise delegated planning powers is also the committee (or sub-committee) promoting the development.'.
      Again, I shall be brief. The amendment deals with cases where the local authority is promoting a development. The amendment requires that in such cases the local authority should exercise its powers in full council. The amendment would ensure closer scrutiny of proposals by local authorities to grant themselves and others planning permission on local authority land and would demonstrate that justice was done. The issue is whether a local authority can allow a development on local authority land. If it grants permission simply in a committee, it does so in a closed system. The committee is open to the public in many cases but its proceedings are not openly commented on by other councillors who are not on the committee.
      This issue has exercised the Government before. On 25 July 1990 the Department of the Environment issued a press release. It said:
      "The Government now intends to let local authorities continue to deem themselves planning permission for their own development. This will enable (for example) county councils to continue to provide temporary classrooms without applying for permission to the district council. But there are to be three safeguards. Proposals will have to be fully advertised, decided in public by a committee not responsible for land management, and reported to the Secretary of State if they conflict with the development plan."
      The amendment is exploratory. It seems to us that there is at least a case for considering that applications should come to the full council when a local authority gives itself planning permission for development on its own land. That is the force of the amendment. I recognise that it is not always easy to structure such a measure, but it seems to us that there is at least an argument for it and we would welcome the Government's view.
      Sir George Young: There is an issue here and the hon. Gentleman opened it up in his speech. His amendment would require a self-application by a local planning authority, promoted by the committee which would otherwise determine such an application—normally the planning committee—to be decided instead by the full council.
      We consulted on this matter a year ago. We asked local authorities about deemed planning permission. We canvassed two options on this point. We proposed either that a service committee should not be able to determine self-applications relating to land and buildings under its control or that all such self-applications should be determined by the full council, which is the effect of amendment No. 127. After considering consultees' comments on this point, the Government concluded that the first option was the better one.
      There were two reasons for this. We were persuaded by the argument that the planning committee was usually the better forum for taking planning decisions. This argument was put to us by the Association of Metropolitan
      386
      Authorities, the Association of County Councils, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Royal Town Planning Institute and English Heritage. They convinced us that the planning committee was less likely than the full council to be influenced by non-planning matters such as political or financial considerations.
      Secondly, there was the question of delay. Planning committees usually meet more often than full council. Indeed, in the shire counties it is common practice for the full council to meet only quarterly. So we decided simply to make provision that the committee or sub-committee promoting the development proposal could not also determine the planning application. We intend to achieve this in regulations which we shall be making under new section 316, and we propose to consult on those regulations before making them.
      The amendment would require that the development proposals promoted by the planning committee be determined by full council. That is undesirable for the reasons that I have just mentioned. The regulations that I have mentioned will prevent a planning committee from determining its own self-applications but will otherwise leave it to the local planning authority to decide how the application should be determined. It may want to put such an application to the full council or to a policy committee or other special committee. I think that that is a better and more flexible solution. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 20

      MINES AND WASTE
      Amendment made: No. 2, in page 28, line 31, after 'materials' insert
      'and provides for altering the provisions relating to compensation for restrictions on mineral working and depositing mineral waste'—[Mr. Yeo.]

      MINES AND WASTE
        SCHEDULE 1

          MINES AND WASTE
          Amendments made: No. 3, in page 81, line 37, leave out from beginning to 'mining' in line 39 and insert
          'For section 105 (duty of mineral planning authorities to review mineral workings) there is substituted—

          MINES AND WASTE

            Reviews by mineral planning authorities.
            105.—(1) Every mineral planning authority shall undertake periodic reviews about the winning and working of minerals and the depositing of mineral waste in their area.
            (1A) Subject to regulations made by virtue of subsection (2A), the duty under this section is, at such intervals as they think fit—
            (a) to review every'.
            No. 4, in page 81, leave out line 43.
            No. 5, in page 82, line 1, leave out '(1)' and insert '(1A)'.
            No. 6, in page 82, line 10, at end insert—
            '(2A) If regulations so require, the reviews shall be undertaken at prescribed intervals and shall cover such matters as may be prescribed".'
            No. 7, in page 82, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'with' in line 17 and insert
            'For section 116 (special basis for compensation in respect of certain orders affecting mineral working) there is substituted—

            Modification of compensation provisions in respect of mineral working etc.
            116.—(1) Regulations made by virtue of this section'
            No. 8, in page 82, line 20, at beginning insert—
            'consisting of the winning and working of minerals or'.
            No. 9, in page 82, line 22, at beginning insert 'winning and working or'
            No. 10, in page 82, line 41, leave out from 'Part IV)' to end of line 42 and insert—
            'for "under paragraph 1 of Schedule 11" there is substituted "by virtue of section 116".'
            No. 54, in page 83, line 2, leave out paragraph (a)
            No. 11, in page 83, line 8, leave out 'definition' and insert 'definitions'.
            No. 12, in page 83, line 9, leave out 'is omitted' and insert—
            'and "mineral compensation modifications" are omitted'.
            No. 13, in page 83, line 11, after -substances'" insert—
            `(da)) the definitions of "relevant order", "restriction on the winning and working of minerals" and "special consultations" are omitted".
            No. 14, in page 86, line 21, leave out paragraph 16 and insert—
            '16.—(1) Schedule 11 (compensation in respect of certain orders affecting mineral working) is omitted.
            (2) Without prejudice to section 17(2)(b) of the Interpretation Act 1978, any regulations made or having effect as if made by virtue of Schedule 11 to the principal Act shall, to the extent that they are in force on the coming into force of this paragraph, have effect as if made under section 116 of the principal Act as substituted by paragraph 9 of this Schedule.'— [Mr. Yeo]

    Clause 47

      MINES AND WASTE
      Amendment made: No. 69, in page 55, line 44, after 'materials' insert—
      `and provides for altering the provisions relating to compensation for restrictions on mineral working and depositing mineral waste'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

      MINES AND WASTE
        SCHEDULE 7

          MINES AND WASTE—SCOTLAND
          Amendments made: No. 71, in page 139, line 8, leave out paragraph 10 and insert—
          '10. Sections 153A, 159A and 159B are omitted.
          10A. For section 167A there is substituted—
          "Regulations as to compensation in respect of orders relating to mineral working.

          167A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made with the consent of the Treasury provide, in relation to orders made under—

          (a) section 42 of this Act modifying planning permission for development consisting of the winning or working of minerals or involving the depositing of mineral waste; or

          (b) section 49, 49A or 49B of this Act with respect to such winning and working or depositing,

          that sections 153, 159, 167, 226 and 227 of this Act shall have effect subject, in such cases as may be prescribed, to such modifications as may be prescribed.

          (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, regulations made by virtue of this section may make provision—

          (a) as to circumstances in which compensation is not to be payable;

          (b) for the modification of the basis on which any amount to be paid by way of compensation is to be assessed;

          (c) for the assessment of any such amount on a basis different from that on which it would otherwise have been assessed,
          388
          and may also make different provision for different cases, and incidental or supplementary provision.

          (3) No regulations under this section shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

          (4) Before making any such regulations, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as appear to him to be representative—

          (a) of persons carrying out mining operations;

          (b) of owners of interests in land containing minerals;

          (c) of planning authorities.".

          10B. Sections 167B and 167C are omitted.'.
          No. 173, in page 139, line 32, at end insert—
          '10A. In section 251(1A) (power to modify Act in relation to minerals) the definition of "development consisting of the winning and working of minerals" is omitted.'.
          No. 72, in page 139, line 33, leave out from beginning to 'mining' in line 35 and insert—
          '11. For section 251A (duty of planning authorities to review mineral workings) there is substituted—

          Reviews of mineral workings by planning authorities
          251A. —(1) Every planning authority shall undertake periodic reviews about the winning and working of minerals, and the depositing of mineral waste, in their area.
          (1A) Subject to regulations made by virtue of section (2A) of this section, the duty under this section is, at such intervals as they think fit—
          (a) to review every'.
          No. 73, in page 139, leave out line 39.
          No. 74, in page 139, line 40, for '(1)' substitute '(1A)".
          No. 75, in page 140, line 3, at end insert—
          "(2A) If regulations so require, the reviews shall be undertaken at prescribed intervals and shall cover such matters as may be prescribed.".'.
          No. 78, in page 140, line 5, leave out paragraph (a).
          No. 76, in page 140, line 12, at end insert—
          `(ca) the definition of "mineral compensation modifications" is omitted;'.
          No. 77, in page 140, line 14, after `"substances";' insert—
          '(da) the definitions of "relevant order", "restrictions on the winning and working of minerals" and "special consultations" are omitted ;'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 21
      TREES
      Amendment made: No. 150, in page 30, line 35 leave out 'subsections (2) and (5)' and insert 'subsection (2)'. —[Mr. Yeo.]
    Clause 48

      TREES
      Amendments made: No. 70, in page 57, line 15, leave out `and 164'.
      No. 172, in page 57, line 22, leave out 'subsections (2) and (5)' and insert 'subsection (2)'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

      TREES
        SCHEDULE 11

          PLANNING IN SCOTLAND: MINORS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
          Amendment made: No. 91, in page 159, line 27, after '(1)(c)' insert—

          `—(i) after "Part IV" there is inserted "other than sections 58 to 60"; and

          (ii)'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

    Clause 22

      POWER TO MAKE HEDGEROW MANAGEMENT ORDERS
      Amendment proposed: No. 116, in page 32, line 11, leave out Clause 22.—[Mr. Baldry.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 128, in page 32, leave out lines 28 and 29.
      No. 129, in page 32, line 38, at end insert
      `and liable to a penalty determined under section (Penalties for non-compliance with hedgerow management order) below'.
      No. 130, in page 32, line 38, at end insert—

      POWER TO MAKE HEDGEROW MANAGEMENT ORDERS

        'Form of and procedure applicable to orders
        214F (1) A hedgerow management order shall not take effect until it is confirmed by the local planning authority and the local planning authority may confirm any such order either without modification or subject to such modifications as they consider expedient.

        (2) Provision may be made by regulations under this Act with respect—

        (a) to the form of hedgerow management orders; and

        (b) to the procedure to be followed in connection with the making and confirmation of such orders.

        (3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2), the regulations may make provision—

        (a) that, before a hedgerow management order is confirmed by the local planning authority, notice of the making of the order shall be given to the owners and occupiers of land affected by the order and to such other persons, if any, as may be specified by the regulations;

        (b) that objections and representations with respect to the order, if duly made in accordance with the regulations, shall be considered before the order is confirmed by the local planning authority; and

        (c) that copies of the order, when confirmed by the authority, shall be served on such persons as may be specified in the regulations.

        Provisional hedgerow management orders
        214G (1) If it appears to a local planning authority that a hedgerow management order proposed to be made by that authority should take effect immediately without previous confirmation, they may include in the order as made by them a direction that this section shall apply to the order.

        (2) Notwithstanding section 214F(1), an order which contains such a direction—

        (a) shall take effect provisionally on such date as may be specified in it; and

        (b) shall continue in force by virtue of this section until—

        (i) the expiration of a period of six months beginning with the date on which the order was made; or

        (ii) the date on which the order is confirmed, whichever first occurs.

        Power for Secretary of State to make hedgerow management orders
        214H (1) If it appears to the Secretary of State, after consultation with the local planning authority, to be expedient that a hedgerow management order or an order amending or revoking such an order should be made, he may himself make such an order.

        (2) Any order so made by the Secretary of State shall have the same effect as if it had been made by the local planning authority and confirmed by them under this Chapter.

        (3) the provisions of this Chapter and of any regulations made under it with respect to the procedure to be followed in connection with the making and confirmation of any order to
        390
        which subsection (1) applies and the service of copies of it as confirmed shall have effect, subject to any necessary modifications.

        (a) in relation to any proposal by the Secretary of State to make such an order

        (b) in relation to the making of it by the Secretary of State; and

        (c) in relation to the service of copies of it as so made.

        Penalties for non-compliance with hedgerow management order
        2141(1) A person guilty of an offence under section 214E(5) above shall be liable—

        (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding —20,000; and

        (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

        (2) In determining the amount of any fine to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence under this section, the court shall in particular have regard to any financial benefit which has accrued or appears likely to accrue to him in consequence of the offence.'.

        Mr. Robert B. Jones: I am surprised that the amendment has been moved formally. Will the Minister describe the Government's thinking on this so that the House can consider it?
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I am happy to do that and I welcome the opportunity.
        It may be helpful if I outline the background to the amendments. The Government White Paper "This Common Inheritance" contains a clear commitment. It says:
        "Following a review, to be published shortly, the Government proposes:
        to enable local authorities to protect hedgerows of key importance by making preservation orders, with appropriate payments to farmers to look after them properly; … Full details will be included in a consultation paper later in 1990."
        There are a number of elements which I should like to draw to the attention of the House. As promised in the White Paper, that consultation paper was published last December. It was issued as part of our wider view of preservation policies and legislation. It was, as promised, a consultation paper because there are clearly a number of value judgments that have to be made and there is the greatest chance of making the right judgments after consultation and after giving all those who have a particular knowledge, interest and concern the opportunity to study the initial proposals to suggest improvements where appropriate, and to see how differences of approach may be reconciled to devise a system that will endure and command broad respect.
        The consultation paper included a number of initial judgments—that powers would be given to local authorities; that payments should be made to owners towards the costs of managing protected hedgerows; that such payment would be calculated on an average cycle of 20 years; that such payments should take the form of a lump sum payable in two instalments and should have regard to typical costs of laying and cutting; and that there would be the possibility of appealing to the Secretary of State against the making of an order or its renewal. There was a wide range of issues on which we invited comment, fully in accordance with the original timetable laid down in the White Paper commitment.
        I am glad to say that the response to the consultation paper was positive, vigorous and stimulating and raised many issues of interest, from detailed points to broad

        391
        matters of principle. We received responses from a broad range of bodies—conservation groups, land-owning bodies, farmers, professional and technical associations concerned with trees and hedgerows, and submissions from the local authorities associations which, according to the White Paper, would be in the position of making hedgerow management orders. In addition, we had a not insignificant number of letters from private individuals raising a number of points of interest in relation to tree preservation orders and hedgerow management orders.
        Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point, perhaps, of curiosity, like many colleagues I spent 100 hours or more in Committee considering the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I think that every member of that Committee thought that that Act and the work that was done in Committee and subsequently on the Floor of the House had solved the hedgerow problem. In these representations, has it been made at all clear what the shortcomings of that Act were?
        Mr. Baldry: In fairness, I do not think that those who made representations or came to discuss the possibilities of hedgerow management orders sought to discuss in detail what they perceived as shortcomings in the present statutory framework. The House knows that there has been substantial loss of hedgerows since the last war, and I take it as accepted, because I recognise that the House wishes to make progress this evening, that the House acknowledges the considerable contribution that hedgerows make to our natural heritage and to providing natural nature reserves. I think that all those whom I consulted wished to see a regime which will endure to protect key hedgerows.
        It was because of the detailed and extensive responses to the consultation paper, and because in part there were clearly areas of principle and detail on which there were a number of differences, that I felt it important that I should have the opportunity to discuss those issues at first hand with a number of those who had written to me. I therefore invited a wide range of organisations to come to the Department of the Environment to discuss the proposals with me in greater detail.
        Those organisations ranged from the Ramblers Association, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the local authorities associations to those representing professional interests and a host of other interests. The meetings took place during March and April. They were set up as soon as the formal consultation period had come to an end and it was possible to see the issues involved.
        I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that I was making every effort to press on with the timetable as speedily as was humanly possible. I hope, too, that anyone who attended any of those meetings will have reported that they were positive and constructive and were conducted by a Minister who wanted to find the optimum way forward to fulfil our White Paper commitment on hedgerow management orders.
        It should be put on record—I make no criticism of anyone—that hedgerow management orders have never been intended to be part of the Bill. None of the organisation that came to see me suggested that this Bill, which was then going through the House, would provide a statutory opportunity to tackle tree protection orders or
        392
        hedgerow management orders. The timetable towards which I had been working did not contemplate hedgerow management orders being incorporated in this Bill—
        9.15 pm
        Mr. Simon Hughes: Perhaps the Minister was going on to tell us what timetable he envisaged. The environment White Paper was published last September; it declared the protection of hedgerows to be Government policy. The consultation period ended slightly more than three months ago. Given that the Minister's consultations with interested groups finished about two months ago, and given that this is the first available vehicle for such legislation—it may require secondary legislation to work out the details later—will the Minister say yes in principle now and leave the details till later, or will he put off the matter to an indefinite future date?
        Mr. Baldry: I suppose that every Minister wishes that every statute would provide for Ministers to do whatever they liked later and when it was convenient. Throughout the negotiations we have moved forward as fast as we could—since the White Paper of last October, through the consultation paper in December and through the three months of consultations. It takes a little time for people to analyse the submissions that are sent in. Meetings were set up in March and April for discussions with a wide variety of groups. In courtesy to them, we wanted to hear what they had to say and to consider their views. One of the points put forcefully to me by the local authority associations was that they wanted a system that would endure. It is therefore important that we devise a system that commands universal respect and support.
        A number of key issues emerged from the consultations. I am not tempted to urge the House to grab this opportunity to set up a statutory framework because I am not convinced that those issues have been satisfactorily resolved. If we move now, various groups would fall out and that would be detrimental to what we are trying to do.
        Compensation is another key element. The White Paper commitment is that local authorities should make appropriate payments to owners. It is clear from the amendments that have been tabled and from the debate in another place that there are a number of different views on this. There are those who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), will tell the House that they take the view that hedgerows should simply be part of the planning system. If someone wants to remove a hedgerow of a certain length he should apply for planning permission, and there would be no question of compensation—planning permission would either be granted or not. There are those, on the other hand, who believe that farmers receive far too much money for doing things that they should be doing anyway. And there are those who fall somewhere between the two positions. There are those like members of the CLA and the NFU who not surprisingly feel that there should be compensation—
        Mr. Soley: The commitment that the Government made in their White Paper was to a scheme based on compensation—that is why the amendment moved in Committee prescribed that. Consultations are all well and good, but Parliament is sovereign. A Committee of this House decided in favour of the amendment, which was in

        393
        line with the Government's thinking as stated in their White Paper. What weight does the Minister attach to the Committee's views during the consultation procedure?
        Mr. Baldry: I am genuinely grateful to the Committee, because it has enabled all hon. Members to focus their minds on hedgerow management orders sooner than they would otherwise have done. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) for having raised the matter. Ultimately, however, the House must take a view. A probing amendment was tabled in Committee, but the House must decide on the best public policy.
        The Country Landowners Association, which wants compensation to be paid, said in its note to hon. Members today that it makes sense for the Government to announce on Report—which I shall do later—our intention to introduce a hedgerow management order scheme with compensation, rather than rushing through a scheme which may not have the correct statutory framework.
        I hope that we shall be able to produce clear proposals on how the scheme will work. The House realises that, even if we were to accept the provision included in the Bill in Committee, it would still require a host of secondary details. It would require regulations, and we would be no closer to a working scheme than we are now.
        A number of issues have been raised, such as whether compensation should be paid and how that should be done. I hope that the House will decide that it would be best to proceed with hedgerow management orders and tree preservation orders on the timetable that every group that came to see me accepted as reasonable. I envisage making a clear statement of intent about the detail of the scheme by later this summer, so far as is humanly possible, and thereafter to introduce legislation at the first possible moment. As the House knows, the decision on when legislation is introduced is not within my gift.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Minister tell us how many hedgerows that would be governed by such an order are lost per month or per year? If there is a delay, there will be a loss to our environmental heritage. Many people are concerned about that.
        Mr. Baldry: It is because we are concerned about loss that this provision was included in the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman should put that point in context. Even if the House were to accept a provision this evening, further work would be required, and we could not necessarily guarantee that the statutory framework would be correct.
        Are local authorities the right organisations to protect woodlands in rural areas under tree preservation orders? A number of similar issues have been raised. I want to ensure that we get the answers right, with the support of the various groups involved. Until the amendment was inserted by the Committee, I do not think that any of the organisations which made representations had expressed concern about the timetable. They recognised and supported the general approach of the local authority associations that, in all fairness, it was necessary to devise a scheme that would endure. Therefore, it needed to command broad support from the Ramblers Association at one end of the spectrum to the Country Landowners Association at the other.
        Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: We have heard what my hon. Friend has to say about consultation; we have also heard that he expects to make an announcment this summer. Can he tell us whether the announcement will be made before the House rises for the summer recess? That would certainly influence my decision.
        Mr. Baldry: I certainly hope that it will be possible for me to give the details to all the organisations which come to see me—and, indeed, to the House—before the recess. I appreciate that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to make progress.
        Mr. Soley: That is not a very convincing reply. We have about a month—perhaps five weeks—before the House rises. Will the Minister be able to present his detailed statement within five or six weeks? Let us suppose that the House rises on 1 August. Will he be able to present it by then?
        Mr. Baldry: I hope that I made my commitment clear. I would include only one caveat. I have consulted many organisations already. Obviously, I want to make certain that we receive the answer yes, and I shall want to engage in more consultation as I begin to firm up our proposals. I shall be happy to keep in touch with hon. Members who, as a result of the amendments, have signalled their interest in hedgerow management orders. I am grateful for their interest, and I shall continue to acquaint them with developments in the negotiations.
        There are, however, a number of bodies with which I must keep in touch. I cannot guarantee that, for example, local authority associations, the Council for the Protection of Rural England or the National Farmers Union will not say, "We shall have considerable difficulties with such a scheme—can you think about it a bit more?" Although, as I have said, I want an affirmative answer, I shall also do all that is humanly possible—as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) —to ensure that the House, and the organisations involved, receive a clear statement of intent before the summer recess.
        Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
        Mr. Baldry: I give way to my hon. Friend.
        Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Actually, I was proposing to make a speech. I was going to say, among other things, that I would rather have a bird in the hand than a handful of caveats, but I will say it some other time.
        Mr. Baldry: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. I repeat what I said earlier. If I thought that we could grab a general, all-prevailing power for Ministers to do whatever they wanted, I should be only too glad to take the opportunity. I do not, however, want the House to enshrine such a measure in a statutory framework only to find that the framework is wrong. Even if an enabling power were taken, and even if we could guarantee at this stage that we had got the statutory framework right, detailed regulation would still be required in due course to give the scheme substance.
        It is for those reasons that we have tabled amendment No. 116, the aim of which is to delete a clause introduced in Committee. For the same reasons, we cannot commend the alternative amendments. I hope that I have

        395
        demonstrated the Government's commitment and determination to protect hedgerows of key importance by enabling local authorities to make protection orders.
        There is no question of the Government's scrapping measures that would ultimately have given hedgerows statutory protection, as some newspapers have inaccurately reported. In the White Paper we undertook to consult, and we have done so. As a result of our consultations, we have discussed the best way forward in detail. Following those discussions, we shall present proposals in support of the commitment that we made in "This Common Inheritance" as soon as possible. Our aim is to help to protect an important part of that inheritance—our hedgerows.
        9.30 pm
        Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall give credit where it is due. From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said that the Government were "hedging", and they are; but I understand the complexity of the issue.
        I have known the Minister for much longer than either of us has been in the House. We used often to oppose one another in another place. However, the Government have been backing off from making the decision for a long time. They were going to make a decision about looking after hedgerows in national parks after a commitment in the 1987 general election manifesto, but they backed off. At last, and belatedly, they made the decision in the White Paper published last October. They went through the process of consultation and many of us believe that we cannot afford to wait any longer. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) made a pertinent point.
        The clause tabled by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) in Committee is now in the Bill. It allows the detail to be added to it. Hon. Members and all the interested parties will feel far more secure if there is a peg on which to hang the detail. If we throw this out, there will be no certainty about what will happen next. With the best intentions, we all know that civil servants, Ministers and the other advisers combined can often spin things out for a long time. It is five weeks until we rise for the summer recess, followed by a two and half month recess, with an announcement possibly being made outside sitting time and then a promise of a Bill, which will have to compete for parliamentary time in a Session that will be shortened because of a general election and that may mean that we will not get anything at all.
        The interventions by the hon. Members for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) and for Lancaster were evidence of the fact that Parliament is becoming frustrated. We know that about 4,000 miles of hedgerow are lost every year. We know that we have the ridiculous anomaly that while the Government can protect buildings, sites of special scientific interest, trees and landscapes, they cannot protect hedgerows. It is the only part of the environmental landscape that we cannot protect.
        Here in England, of all countries, where part of our history is about enclosure, and where hedgerows are a most important part of the landscape for the protection of wildlife, it is important that we protect them. This may be a little matter within the panoply of Government environmental legislation, but it is a test of whether the Government are green in general, green in principle, or green in practice. The Minister could and should accept
        396
        the clause. The Government's amendment to get rid of it is a sign that, sadly, the Government are not willing to manifest their commitment, although they could so do.
        Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Member referred to hedgerows in England. As a Welshman, may I invite him to extend what he is saying to Welsh hedgerows?
        Mr. Hughes: I made a historical point about the battle being more important in England, but the legislation applies to the whole of the United Kingdom and protects hedgerows in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England.
        Mr. William McKelvey: I advise the hon. Gentleman that the Bill does not apply to Scotland as the problem does not exist in Scotland.
        Mr. Hughes: The issue applies to all parts of the United Kingdom although the legislation is limited to England and Wales. The hedgerows that we want to protect are those in England and Wales. The historical battle about closure was primarily in England. The issue now is whether we take this legislative opportunity. If the Minister persuades the House to vote out the new clause, it may be a long time before we have a substitute. That is not good enough, and I hope that the Minister will think again.
        Mr. Robert B. Jones: This is more than the 11th hour —the clock has gone round several times and I find myself, for the second time in two days, following the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and saying that we have quite a lot in common. I tried to do something about this problem once before, when I promoted a private Member's Bill to introduce hedgerow protection orders.
        Unfortunately, that Bill was blocked by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I am not making that as a political point because the same thing happened to the attempt by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who introduced a similar private Member's Bill before I became a Member of Parliament. Here we are, a good few years later, still losing hedgerows. In the early 1980s, they were being lost at the rate of 4,000 miles a year. Nobody knows what happened in the late 1980s, because the aerial surveys on which the earlier figures are based are no longer made.
        Even if I were to concede that there has been an improvement, as I do, and that some farmers are planting new hedgerows, the fact is that hedgerows are a vital part of our heritage and the loss of any is a problem that deserves to be met with the appropriate legislative framework to ensure that it cannot continue.
        Should the House take the opportunity to address that problem tonight? When I knew of my appointment as a member of the Standing Committee, I wondered whether I should use that opportunity to take yet another crack at protecting hedgerows. When I spoke to the Council for the Protection of Rural England, it pointed out that the consultation period had only just ended, and queried whether it was the right time to press the matter. I responded that I thought that it was, because I wanted a clear undertaking from the Government that they would legislate so that no more hedgerows would be lost.
        On that basis, I tabled an off-the-peg amendment. Such amendments have their disadvantages. My amendment lays down a local authority framework without providing

        397
        the resources or requiring it to take action—and that is not necessarily the best way of tackling the problem. Nevertheless, it had the advantage, once the Committee voted to incorporate it in the Bill, of ensuring tonight's debate and the attendance of my hon. Friend the Minister after a flurry of activity.
        We all understand the difficulties of sorting things out between the Department of the Environment, the Treasury, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. None of us would like to have been in the shoes of my hon. Friend the Minister in trying to persuade them to bring forward something in time to satisfy the House tonight. Therefore, I am not all surprised that we do not have a perfect solution before us.
        We have, however, received a clear undertaking from the Minister that the Government have made a commitment not only in principle—that was in the White Paper—but to presenting details. I expect my hon. Friend not only to give his best efforts in respect of the undertaking that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) but to perform and deliver, and to announce in the House before it rises for the summer recess the precise details of his proposals. I want to see that legislation at the top of the list in the Queen's Speech this autumn.
        Mr. Moate: The CPRE said that a vague promise of future legislation would be of little comfort to anyone. Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Minister has given as specific a commitment to legislation as we have ever heard? He not only made a firm commitment but promised that the details will be forthcoming. It is surely more important to get the scheme right than to rush something through tonight, perhaps wrongly. Are we not right to accept the assurances of my hon. Friend the Minister?
        Mr. Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis. The importance of the issue explains the presence of so many of my hon. Friends tonight, many of whom made representations to Ministers and to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. No one seeing that degree of feeling could possibly have the cheek to return to the House and say, "I am sorry but we could not make the deadline, and there is no room in this autumn's programme."
        I am serving what I consider to be a very powerful notice on the Government that their commitment must be honoured. On that basis, I support the Government in deleting the unsatisfactory scheme, which I used only as a device in bringing pressure to bear on them.
        Mr. Dalyell: I am something of a surrogate for my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who is chairing an important Council of Europe committee and regrets that he cannot be present. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) went arm in arm endlessly during the Committee stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 on the question of hedgerows. They were greatly influenced by the work of Marian Shoard, author of "The Theft of the Countryside", and by the statistics that she and others produced. We made a case which the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who was in charge
        398
        of that Bill, completely took on board. The Government did their best to be as effective as they could in that legislation.
        I understand, however, from my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), and certainly know from my own knowledge, that no statistics on the loss of hedgerows have been published since the mid-1980s. I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but the Minister has the best advice from the Box. Are we really to believe, given the importance of the subject, that there is no information on the rough total lost in 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989? One would not be unreasonable and say that the Government should have figures for 1990—although that might be desirable—let alone for the first few months of this year, but surely we could be given some facts about the extent of the grubbing up that took place at the end of the 1980s.
        Mr. Baldry: A survey is now being undertaken, and I hope to be able to give the House the figures in the not-too-distant future, but the process takes a little time.
        I do not believe that there is any dispute, either in the House or among most of the groups involved, that, both just after the war and more recently, more hedgerows have been lost than we should like. I shall certainly read the Official Report of the Standing Committee debates on the 1981 Act to find out whether what was said at that time is relevant to the schemes that we seek to introduce.
        I shall, of course, let the hon. Gentleman have the fullest possible statistics and other information available, and I hope that the current survey will show more clearly the extent of more recent losses.
        Mr. Dalyell: I have an Adjournment debate about Mar Lodge later, so, for reasons of self-interest and because my hon. Friends want to make progress, I shall leave it at that.
        Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It would be a pity to delete clause 22 in return for a vague promise that a statement may be made before the summer recess. If no statement is made, tough; we shall not have a statement, and there will be nothing that we can do about it.
        My definition of the word "precise" does not accord with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). My hon. Friend the Minister told us vaguely that he would make a statement if possible, but it may not be possible, whereas the clause is before us now.
        In my part of the world, we are intensely proud of our hedgerows, but they are expensive to maintain. When people come from the towns to relax in the countryside, they talk about its natural beauty. There is nothing natural about it; it is maintained, and has been maintained for centuries, by farmers' hard work. But farmers are cutting their staff now, and their incomes are under pressure.
        The clause represents one way in which farmers could be paid for doing something that is in everyone's interest. They would not be producing something that had to be put into storage; they would be producing and maintaining something that is a joy to behold.
        It would be a great pity to lose this opportunity. We may have to wait years for legislation. If the Bill, including this provision, were in situ, it would be the Minister's job to produce appropriate regulations to make it work. Our farmers are entitled to such remuneration for maintaining the hedges for the benefit of the rest of the country.
        Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I shall speak in strong support of my hon. Friend the Minister, but my reasons for doing so may be different from those we have heard so far. The idea of 4,000 miles of hedges—that is the figure being bandied about the Chamber—is a fiction. In the 1960s and 1970s, under the influence of the farm improvement grant, which provided about one third of the capital cost of buildings and other alterations to farmland, a great many hedges were removed. The geography of farms was changed to adjust to modern farming conditions, and in large areas, especially in the eastern counties, many hedges were removed.
        Today, the situation has altered. The farm improvement grant finished at the end of the Labour Government's period in office, or perhaps soon after this Government came to power. When I was a junior Minister responsible for agriculture, I asked my officials what evidence they had of the wholesale destruction of hedges. Even though we had a network of officers throughout the country, we were talking in terms of only a few hundred yards here and there—not the massive figure of 4,000 miles. That figure is mythical.
        I do not claim to be an expert on many things, but I do know about hedges. The hedges on my farm were a matter of considerable pride to me, and to my father before me. After the war, in 1947, every inch was cut by hand, using shears.
        Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: By shears, surely.
        9.45 pm
        Mr. Wiggin: I said by shears: my hon. Friend obviously did not hear me correctly. We took a lot of trouble with our hedges. About one seventh of them were laid each year to maintain what is, after all, a growing plant. I am extremely nervous about the proposition that the Government should now take it upon themselves to start dictating—albeit for perfectly genuine reasons, which I understand—in connection with the preservation of growing plants.
        We have tree preservation orders, and the same criticism applies to them. Members of the Select Committee who went to examine the aftermath of the gale in 1987 will recall the devastation we saw, and will recognise that a large number of the trees had not been harvested when they should have been. They had been allowed to grow too old, to the point at which, although they looked nice, their benefit had been lost. Nature, as always, evened things up in the great gale. I am concerned at the suggestion that bureaucrats and officials should start interfering in the day-to-day management of our farm land.
        I wonder what would have happened if the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) had been a Member of Parliament in 1700 and a preservation of the countryside Bill had come before the House. No doubt the hon. Gentleman would have sought to prohibit the planting of hedges. He would have said, "I do not want the countryside changed. It looks nice as it is."
        I have today visited Exeter with members of the Select Committee. We travelled there by road and back by rail, and I can only say that I did not see one inch of hedge being dug up anywhere. I saw a beautiful countryside. Our countryside has probably never looked more beautiful than it is looking this damp summer.
        400
        I hope that, rather than being pressed by the weight of opinion, which in my view does not come from the countryside, the Government will be very cautious about proceeding with any scheme to interfere in such detailed matters.
        Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: It is interesting that, when my hon. Friend the Minister gave his undertaking, there were cries—jeers almost—from Opposition Members who have never held office. Unlike them, my hon. Friend knows full well the problems of consultation.
        I put it to my hon. Friend that he has one problem. If he is to keep his undertakings, which I accept totally, he will have to make certain that his civil servants perform and deliver. When I held his post, I had a certain task to do, which gave me great pleasure—winding up the GLC housing estates. I said that it had to be done by 31 March of a particular year. I was told, "Minister, this is not possible." I said, "I am not interested in whether it is possible; it is going to be done." If my hon. Friend will pursue that line, I shall be satisfied with what he has said.
        There is no doubt that there is a cry in the countryside, as well as in the towns, for hedgerows that have been grubbed up without mercy to be saved now. I agree that, at this stage, this clause, which my hon. Friend has said is defective, should be removed, and I am happy to accept my hon. Friend's undertaking.
        Mr. Soley: We have received a tragically inadequate response from the Government. The Minister has given a commitment tonight—or, rather, has gone half way to giving a commitment, if that is what the words "possibly" and "hopes to" mean—that he cannot meet. If the hon. Gentleman's speech meant anything at all, that must be so, for reasons that I shall explain.
        Let me quote from page 84 of the Government's document, "This Common Inheritance", in which they outline their environmental strategy:
        "The Government proposes"—
        the House will note the word "proposes", which implies that the Government knew what they wanted to do—
        "to enable local authorities to protect hedgerows of key importance by making preservation orders with appropriate payments to farmers to look after them properly."
        The House will have heard the Minister say that he wanted much more consultation because there were many different views about what should happen—some people believe that there should be compensation and others believe that there should be none. In other words, even now, the Government have not made up their mind in principle about the compensation issue—unless the Minister meant to say that he has decided in favour of compensation, in which case all we need are the details of that compensation. If he is saying that, he could just about deliver before the House rises for the recess.
        However, if he is saying that he wants to take into account all the different views on whether we should use compensation or some other method, as it appeared—we can all read Hansard in the morning to see—he cannot deliver that commitment of providing a statement to the House before it rises, unless we sit right through August. As everyone knows, the House is likely to rise between 19 and 26 July—in about five weeks' time—so the Minister has just five weeks to get that commitment from his officials and to deliver the statement to the House.
        Does the Under-Secretary think that he can hold anything over the Government? I think that he used the

        401
        phrase, "I can hold them to this very firmly." He cannot. He has no power after the vote tonight. If a Minister goes up to him in a few weeks' time and says, "I'm sorry, I wanted to do it, I thought I could, but frankly I can't", the Under-Secretary is lumbered and there is nothing that he can do about it. There is nothing that any other Member of Parliament can do about it.
        The reality is that the consultation procedure has been going on for some time. As Opposition Members have said, this issue is not new; my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) introduced a Hedgerows Bill, which had cross-party support, but was blocked by the Government.
        Remember when the Government launched "This Common Inheritance" under the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, who is now chairman of the Conservative party. They said that they were talking about not paper commitments but real commitments. In that paper they said that they proposed to protect hedgerows by local authorities giving compensation. There were no ifs or buts about it, no dithering or fudging. However, tonight we have heard nothing but dithering and fudging.
        The Minister's speech does not stand up to analysis even as to what the Government are thinking of doing. They are thinking of listening to the views of the Country Landowners Association, the Council for the Protection of Rural Engalnd and all those other organisations on whether we have compensation, unless, perhaps, the Minister wants to stand up and say that I am wrong and that there will be compensation. Is that what he is saying, or has he not decided?
        Mr. Baldry: If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will realise that he has inadvertently misinterpreted what I said. I told the House that among the groups that have made representations and among hon. Members, as evidenced in the debate this evening, there are varying views on a suitable scheme and on how appropriate payments should be made. I want to ensure that, as far as possible, we find a way forward that commands support and agreement—as the local authorities associations have said we need to find a system that endures. That is what I want to achieve and what I am determined that we shall achieve.
        Mr. Soley: We have come a little further—the Minister is now saying that there will definitely be a compensation scheme, so we do not need to listen to people who express the view that there should be no compensation. Is that correct?
        Mr. Baldry: I am seeking to fulfil the commitment that is clearly set out in the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman has repeated what was said in the White Paper, which states that there should be appropriate payments for key hedgerows.
        I know that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has had many discussions with organisations such as the CPRE. In its consultation paper its advice to me was that it questioned whether local authorities were the right bodies to make the appropriate payments. It suggested, as part of its consultation paper, that payments could be made as part of the agricultural support scheme. Those are the sorts of issues that one has to consider.
        402
        As I have made clear to the House, it is our intention to deliver that White Paper commitment. We also have to ensure that the legislative framework is appropriate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) made clear, and that we do not simply clutch at any passing legislative peg to hook it on hoping that we get it right.
        Mr. Soley: The Minister says that there will be payments that will or will not be administered through the local authority, but he has not yet decided, and that another way of administering it may be through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If the Minister is so uncertain about the detail and is unable to provide it to the House within the next five weeks, he cannot make that commitment. Then he moves the ground a little and says that he is committed to delivering his commitment in the White Paper. When will that be? The Queen's Speech will be formulated in September. The Minister will need to have not just the detail but something that looks like an Act that can be passed before the next general election takes place which, at the latest, will be next July. A Bill will therefore have to be introduced by November or December of this year.
        Is the Minister saying to the House—I look forward to another intervention—that he is confident that he can present a Bill to the House in November or December and that he will give a guarantee that if an election does not take place before July—we accept that it may take place before then, but the Minister cannot control that—there will be legislation on the statute book by July? Is the Minister giving the House that commitment?
        Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman will have heard, as did every other hon. Member, the commitment that I gave to the House. Each hon. Member must decide whether he or she finds that commitment one which he or she can support.
        Mr. Soley: That is what I call a fudge with a vengeance. I have never heard anthing so waffly in all my life. The Minister said earlier, "Trust me, I'm a good man; I shall deliver." I am sure that he wants us to believe that. I am sure that all Conservative Members desperately want to believe him. However, the timetable is that which I have just laid out. It is not in our hands, or those of the Minister. It is there. The Minister had got to meet it, or else he will have to say—as I suspect the truth is right now —that he cannot guarantee it but that he will try, although there is a very good chance that he will not be able to deliver.
        Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman asked my hon. Friend the Minister to undertake to introduce a Bill and have it passed. Will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that the Opposition will not oppose a single dot or comma in that legislation, or will he do his usual fudge and mudge?
        Mr. Soley: I shall give the hon. Gentleman an even better commitment. The Opposition will accept the amendment that the Committee accepted. That can go through right now. We got it through the Committee with the help of several Tory Back Benchers. They voted for it; we voted for it. We shall vote for it tonight. I challenge Conservative Members to vote for it as well, if they are serious about their commitment to the countryside and to the environment.

        403
        We need to remember that hedgerows are being destroyed. I accept that there is an argument about the numbers. We also know that many of them are very old and that they are vital to wildlife. If the message goes out from the House that we intend to legislate to protect hedgerows but that there will be a gap of some months during which hedgerows can be destroyed, those who want to will understand that now is the time to do so. That is the wrong message to send out from the House.
        Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of the hedgerows that he criticises people for having ripped out were ripped out by urban man who moved into the countryside, bought a cottage or house there, and, as his first act, ripped out the hedge around his cottage or house and erected a brick wall instead?
        Mr. Soley: It is amazing to think that, using the same argument, the hon. Gentleman would vote against a tree preservation order. [Interruption.] Now we have the truth. Several Tory Members would like to get rid of tree preservation orders. I wonder whether the Government agree with that. Do they want to get rid of tree preservation orders? I know that the Tory party is divided and that it is in desperate trouble these days. If, however, the Government are committed to green issues, it is vital that they give a commitment that they will not get rid of tree preservation orders and that they will protect hedgerows.
        Mr. Gill: The point is that many people who speak about these issues do not understand that trees, like human beings, have a finite life and that people who live in the countryside have a better understanding of such issues than the people who live in towns and believe that trees live for ever. The countryman well knows that trees must he felled sooner or later and replaced. If the hon. Gentleman considered the countryside in detail, he would see how many new trees are being planted everywhere today.
        It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
        Ordered,
        That, at this day's sitting, the Planning and Compensation Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Boswell.]
        Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
        Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
        Mr. Soley: The Government also have a finite life and they will soon be felled.
        The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) knows—as do most of his colleagues—that the tree preservation orders were a good thing. The fact that there are some arguments about some of the issues is irrelevant, and the same is true for hedgerows. As I have said, we can argue about the number of miles of hedgerows that have been demolished, but hedgerows are important for maintaining the wild life pattern in many areas. We want to keep them.
        When the Government opposed us in Committee, I wondered who the assassin would be. I thought it would be the Treasury, so I tabled a holding amendment that would have protected hedgerows but allowed compensation and payments to be dealt with later. That would have got the Minister out of his hole now—he could have protected hedgerows now and considered the details later if he so wished.
        Mr. Robert B. Jones: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has decided to turn the debate into a political shooting match. He implied that there was a sense of urgency, and I thought that that was the view of the whole House. Can he explain why, when he and his party tabled amendments at the start of the proceedings, there was no amendment about hedgerows? Why did the Opposition wait until I tabled such an amendment?
        Mr. Soley: The reason is simple—I wanted such an amendment to be tabled by a Tory because I knew that it would have a better chance of being accepted, and I was right. If I had tabled such an amendment, I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman would have voted for it. Other members of the Committee who are present today will correct me if I am wrong but my memory is that the hon. Gentleman moved the amendment, but did not press it to a vote. I had to step in to do that.
        I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why I am turning the debate into a shooting match. If ducks keep standing in front of me and ask to be shot, I shall shoot them. It is as simple as that. I suppose that that will not do much for my green image.
        In all seriousness, the House now has an opportunity to ensure that the idea reaches the statute book. We won the argument in Committee—we won it with the help of Conservative votes and we won it after reasoned argument. The majority of interested organisations outside the House support the amendment. We also know that, for the reasons I have given, the Minister is unlikely to be able to deliver anything like the commitment in the White Paper before the next general election. In other words, if hon. Members want to protect hedgerows and to ensure that we win the argument before the general election, I urge them to accept the amendment.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 153.

        Division No. 183]

        [10.03 pm

        AYES

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

        Alexander, Richard

        Browne, John (Winchester)

        Allason, Rupert

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

        Amess, David

        Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

        Amos, Alan

        Buck, Sir Antony

        Arbuthnot, James

        Burns, Simon

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Burt, Alistair

        Arnold, Sir Thomas

        Butler, Chris

        Ashby, David

        Butterfill, John

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Baldry, Tony

        Carrington, Matthew

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Carttiss, Michael

        Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

        Cash, William

        Bellingham, Henry

        Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

        Bendall, Vivian

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Chapman, Sydney

        Benyon, W.

        Chope, Christopher

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Churchill, Mr

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

        Body, Sir Richard

        Colvin, Michael

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Conway, Derek

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F 'rest)

        Boswell, Tim

        Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

        Bottomley, Peter

        Couchman, James

        Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Curry, David

        Bowis, John

        Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

        Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Day, Stephen

        Brazier, Julian

        Devlin, Tim

        Bright, Graham

        Dicks, Terry

        405

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Dunn, Bob

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Dykes, Hugh

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Eggar, Tim

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

        Lord, Michael

        Evennett, David

        Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

        Favell, Tony

        McCrindle, Sir Robert

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Maclean, David

        Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Fishburn, John Dudley

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

        Fookes, Dame Janet

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Forman, Nigel

        Madel, David

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Malins, Humfrey

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Mans, Keith

        Franks, Cecil

        Maples, John

        Freeman, Roger

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        French, Douglas

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Fry, Peter

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Gale, Roger

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Gardiner, Sir George

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Gill, Christopher

        Mills, Iain

        Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Mitchell, Sir David

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Moate, Roger

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Gorst, John

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Morrison, Sir Charles

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Moss, Malcolm

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Moynihan, Hon Colin

        Gregory, Conal

        Neale, Sir Gerrard

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Needham, Richard

        Grist, Ian

        Nelson, Anthony

        Ground, Patrick

        Neubert, Sir Michael

        Grylls, Michael

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Hague, William

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

        Norris, Steve

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Paice, James

        Hannam, John

        Patnick, Irvine

        Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

        Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Pawsey, James

        Harris, David

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Hayes, Jerry

        Portillo, Michael

        Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Hayward, Robert

        Price, Sir David

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

        Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

        Rathbone, Tim

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Rhodes James, Sir Robert

        Hill, James

        Riddick, Graham

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

        Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

        Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Hunt, Rt Hon David

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

        Rost, Peter

        Irvine, Michael

        Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

        Irving, Sir Charles

        Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

        Jack, Michael

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Janman, Tim

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Jessel, Toby

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Shelton, Sir William

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Key, Robert

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Kilfedder, James

        Shersby, Michael

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Sims, Roger

        King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Speed, Keith

        Knapman, Roger

        Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Squire, Robin

        Knowles, Michael

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Lang, Rt Hon Ian

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Latham, Michael

        Steen, Anthony

        406

        Stern, Michael

        Waller, Gary

        Stevens, Lewis

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Watts, John

        Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Wells, Bowen

        Stokes, Sir John

        Wheeler, Sir John

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Whitney, Ray

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Wilkinson, John

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Wilshire, David

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Wood, Timothy

        Thurnham, Peter

        Woodcock, Dr. Mike

        Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

        Yeo, Tim

        Trotter, Neville

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Mr. David Lightbown and

        Walden, George

        Mr. John M. Taylor.

        Walker, Bill (T'side North)

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Galloway, George

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

        Garrett, John (Norwich South)

        Allen, Graham

        Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

        Alton, David

        George, Bruce

        Anderson, Donald

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Ashton, Joe

        Gordon, Mildred

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Graham, Thomas

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Barron, Kevin

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Battle, John

        Hinchliffe, David

        Beckett, Margaret

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Beggs, Roy

        Home Robertson, John

        Beith, A. J.

        Hood, Jimmy

        Bell, Stuart

        Howells, Geraint

        Bellotti, David

        Hoyle, Doug

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Boyes, Roland

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

        Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Buckley, George J.

        Kennedy, Charles

        Caborn, Richard

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

        Callaghan, Jim

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Lamond, James

        Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

        Leighton, Ron

        Campbell-Savours, D. N.

        Lewis, Terry

        Carr, Michael

        Livsey, Richard

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Cohen, Harry

        Loyden, Eddie

        Corbett, Robin

        McAllion, John

        Cousins, Jim

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Cox, Tom

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        Crowther, Stan

        McFall, John

        Cryer, Bob

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Dalyell, Tarn

        McKelvey, William

        Darling, Alistair

        Maclennan, Robert

        Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

        McMaster, Gordon

        Dixon, Don

        Madden, Max

        Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Marek, Dr John

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Eadie, Alexander

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Eastham, Ken

        Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

        Edwards, Huw

        Martlew, Eric

        Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

        Maxton, John

        Fearn, Ronald

        Meacher, Michael

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Meale, Alan

        Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

        Michael, Alun

        Fisher, Mark

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Flynn, Paul

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Foster, Derek

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Fraser, John

        Morley, Elliot

        Fyfe, Maria

        Mullin, Chris

        407

        Murphy, Paul

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Nellist, Dave

        Soley, Clive

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Speller, Tony

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

        Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

        Strang, Gavin

        Patchett, Terry

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Pike, Peter L.

        Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

        Prescott, John

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Wallace, James

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

        Radice, Giles

        Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

        Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan

        Richardson, Jo

        Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

        Robertson, George

        Wilson, Brian

        Robinson, Geoffrey

        Winnick, David

        Rogers, Allan

        Wise, Mrs Audrey

        Ross, William (Londonderry E)

        Wray, Jimmy

        Rowlands, Ted

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Sheerman, Barry

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Mr. Frank Haynes and

        Short, Clare

        Mr. Eric Illsley.

        Skinner, Dennis

        Question accordingly agreed to.

        Penalties for non-compliance with hedgerow management order
          Schedule 2

            LISTED BUILDINGS CONSERVATION AREAS AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
            Mr. W. Benyon: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 89, line 13 at end insert
            'In section 76(1) of that Act after "direct", there is Inserted "(whether the building is occupied or not)" and after "section 54" there is inserted "with the omission of subsection (4).".'.
            The amendment is entirely concerned with the operation of conservation areas. It corrects an anomaly in present legislation. If one owns a property in a conservation area, one must have planning permission to alter the appearance of the building. One cannot proceed without that planning permission. Similarly, a local authority can take action against a landlord if he transgresses the terms of a conservation area. However, there is nothing in law to cover an owner-occupier if his property is allowed to go to rack and ruin.
            It may be argued that that should be left to the individual. In that case, we should not have conservation areas. If we have conservation areas, their terms must be applied universally. At the moment that is not the case.
            I could show my hon. Friend the Minister examples of that not far from the House. It is a scandal and gives great offence to people who try to comply with the terms of the conservation area and keep their properties in good order and in accordance with the terms laid down for the area. Either the local authorities or English Heritage must have powers to proceed in those cases. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
            Mr. Yeo: Section 76 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation areas) Act 1990 provides that the Secretary of State may direct that section 54 of the Act, which deals with urgent works to preserve unoccupied listed buildings, shall apply to a building in a conservation area as it applies to listed buildings if it appears to him that the preservation of that building is important for maintaining the character or appearance of the conservation area.
            Amendment No. 61 would allow the Secretary of State to make a direction on an occupied building. It would ensure that, if a direction is made under section 76 on an
            408
            occupied building in a conservation area, the local authority could then carry out urgent works on any part of that building, after giving the owner the requisite seven days' notice of its intention. The existing section 54 provides that, if a building is occupied, works may be carried out only to those parts which are not in use.
            Section 76 empowers the Secretary of State to make a direction that the powers in section 54, to carry out urgent works to a listed building, shall apply to a specified unlisted building in a conservation area. Such a direction does not require the local authority to carry out the works, but it means that it can do so if it wishes. The effect of the amendment would be that, following a direction by the Secretary of State, the powers available to the local authority for dealing with a particular unlisted building in poor repair would be wider than the powers available to the same local authority for dealing with a listed building. I am not sure that that is what my hon. Friend intends in his amendment.
            More importantly, the powers in section 54 of the Act are deliberately restricted to unoccupied buildings or, in the case of partially occupied buildings, to those parts which are not in use. These powers are principally aimed at the preservation of listed buildings, and they give local authorities powers to carry out works which appear to them to be urgently necessary for the preservation of a building after giving not less than seven days, notice of the intention to carry out the works. This is potentially a draconian power, and the Government have taken the view that it should not be available in the case of occupied buildings, for obvious reasons related to the invasion of privacy. We have looked into this question from time to time, but the furthest we have been prepared to go is to provide for urgent works to be carried out on the unused parts of partially occupied buildings, and that remains our position. In the light of that—
            Mr. Benyon: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if such a building is occupied, there is nothing that any authority can do about its appalling state of repair? In such circumstances, is he really happy about the fact that two houses might be completely derelict in a marvellous street of historic houses in an area of great historical and conservation importance?
            Mr. Yeo: No, I cannot say that I am happy—no one would be happy about that—but we must balance our real anxiety about the possible decay of buildings in those circumstances with the attendant risks of giving local authorities powers to enter and occupy buildings regardless of the wishes of the occupant. That is a significant consideration.
            As I have said, we have gone as far as giving local authorities the power to deal with the unoccupied portions of partially occupied buildings. There are real reasons for hesitating before giving local authorities the power to move into someone's house to carry out works while chat person is living there, regardless of how urgently those works may be needed. That is why the Government cannot accept my hon. Friend's amendment.
            Mr. Benyon: I am not happy about that, but there is obviously no point in pressing my amendment. However, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will think further about this matter, because the position will not get any better; it will only get worse. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
            Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

          Schedule 8

            LISTED BUILDINGS, CONSERVATION AREAS AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES—SCOTLAND
            Amendments made: No. 174, in page 140, line 29, after 'both' insert
            410
            '; and in determining the amount of any fine to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence under this section, the court shall in particular have regard to any financial benefit which has accrued or appears likely to accrue to him in consequence of the offence.'.
            No. 175, in page 143, line 45, at end insert
            '; and section 168 of this Act shall apply in relation to compensation under this subsection as it applies in relation to compensation under Part VIII of this Act.'
            No. 176, in page 145, line 25, at end insert
            '; and section 168 of this Act shall apply in relation to compensation under this subsection as it applies in relation to compensation under Part VIII of this Actf—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

          Schedule 3

            DEVELOPMENT PLANS
            Mr. Steen: I beg to move amendment No. 133, in page 98, line 48, at end insert—
            `(c) population forecasts issued by central government and by independent agencies, as well as district and county population growth forecasts in relation to specific local areas, and the impact of these forecasts on household formation.'.
            Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 136, in page 104, line 12, at end insert
            `(9) (c) to the likely resources available;
            (d) to the capacity of existing facilities to service the increased population resulting from new residential development, and where existing facilities are not deemed to be adequate to meet increased needs, no further residential development shall be permitted unless the capital works required to service any new residential development have been or will he provided'.
            Mr. Steen: The amendment was tabled by several of my hon. Friends. I wish to deal with both amendments Nos. 133 and 136. Amendment No. 133 is about population forecasts. The amendment proposes to add to paragraph 16 of schedule 3, under the heading "Structure and local plans", a provision whereby population forecasts will be included, discussed and considered. The reason for that is simple.
            The Department of the Environment produces estimates of future household formations which are handed down to the county councils. In theory the estimates can be challenged, but in practice they tend to be accepted as tablets of stone. The county councils allocate a certain number of households to each of the district, town or borough local authorities, which are obliged to find room for the new buildings.
            A group of people in Holborn deal with population statistics. There are about 2,000 people there, but about six of them specifically deal with household formations, which are not the same as houses. They pass the information over to a group of civil servants in the Department of the Environment. I do not know how many dozens of civil servants in the Department analyse and forecast household formations.
            The figures are then massaged and sent down like darts to the county councils. Councils are told that they must provide in their structure plan for so many households in their area. For example, my county council may be asked to provide for 10,000, 20,000 or 50,000 households. That request is based on figures which emanate from Holborn and go on to the Department of the Environment. Devon or any other county council receives the figures. Although technically it can challenge them, it has no machinery to do so. How can the council challenge figures which suddenly arrive on its desk? The council then has to cut up the figures and distribute them around the district councils. It is similar to bidding. The county council says to each council, "How many can you manage?" It has to share the household formation figures around the councils. The councils then set about their local plans, which are the strategy for the area for the next five years. They have to include the number of households that the council has been told by the county council, the county council has been told by the Department of the Environment and the Department of the Environment has been told by the Holborn statisticians is required in that area.
            412
            The trouble is that the household formation figures are estimates. They are simply computerised figures and they are not always correct. An analysis of the Department of the Environment's 1985-based household projections shows how the rate of household formation is expected to decline sharply in every county in the country. For example, 32 per cent. fewer households will be formed in Devon in the last five years of the 1990s than were formed in the first five years of the 1980s. Overall there is a 45 per cent. drop in household formations throughout Great Britain.
            Figures are handed down like tablets of stone from the Department of the Environment to the county councils and local councils draw up their local plans on the basis of them. The figures have dropped by 45 per cent. We are still building houses on the basis of those false projections. It is rather like a train running at 125 mph—it takes a few miles to stop. We are continuing to build houses on an inaccurate premise which was produced by computer.
            Amendment No. 133 provides no more than a means whereby the estimates of household formation can be considered during the consultation period of the local plans, so that they can be revised in the light of local need and local land use. The importance of the amendment is not just to allow the national figures to be considered but to introduce local needs and local land use.
            10.30 pm
            We know that more houses will be needed during the coming decade to provide for new households, but new homes do not necessarily mean new housebuilding on green-field sites. For example, we do not need to release more and more land to satisfy the cry for new homes. The County Planning Officers Society recent figures show a national picture of 23 per cent. more land identified for housing development than is required by the structure plan building rates during the next five years. In the hard-pressed south-east an astonishing 58 per cent. more land has been identified for housing development than is required. The Government forecast that 550,000 new households will he required in the south-east alone by the turn of the century, yet the County Planning Officers Society says that 58 per cent. more land is earmarked for housing in the south-east than is required.
            As I have bored hon. Members with this on many occasions, they will know that approximately 180,000 acres of public land is lying vacant, derelict, dormant, underused or underutilised. About 80,000 acres of it is on the Government land register, but that has not been brought up to date for nearly two years. Therefore, we do not really know how many acres of vacant, dormant, derelict and underutilised land there is in public ownership. All that we know is that there are more than 100,000 acres of public vacant land, probably near 180,000, and probably nearer 300,000 if one includes the private sector as well. Since it is perfectly good building land, why do we have to build on green-field sites and allocate 58 per cent. more land in the the south-east for building?
            Not only have we got surplus land, we have also got some 99,200 local authority houses and flats lying empty, of which 31,000 are in the Government sector. Those buildings should be repaired and used before we build more houses on green-field sites which do not need to be built on.

            413
            Amendment No. 133 suggests that, when local plans are being drawn up by district and borough councils, regard should be had for the local need and what the local people have to say.
            I cannot impress too strongly on the House even at this hour just how serious the matter is. If we get our population forecasts wrong we will end up building the wrong number of households in the wrong places and we will take more and more land which we do not need to take to build houses that do not need to be built.
            Amendment No. 136 deals with what should be included in local plans. Under the Bill, such plans will be statutorily required in every part of the country. I welcome that first-rate initiative by the Government. I am glad to say that South Hams was one of the first local authorities to operate local plans, even before they were required by law.
            The amendment is necessary because good planning practice should ensure a link between new housing development and physical and social infrastructure. That link should be set out clearly in the local plan.
            Good planning practice, as operated by a responsible local authority, should make sure that the requisite infrastructure to service new development is in place. That has sometimes been lacking in the past; as a result, development has sometimes outstripped local infrastructural facilities.
            Even South Hams was overwhelmed by housing development during the past decade. It swamped the existing infrastructure. About 48,000 houses were built in Devon between 1981 and 1991, and I am afraid that the infrastructure could not keep pace with the number of new households that resulted.
            A lack of school places was the immediate result. Rapid population growth consequent on large housing development in one area meant that the county council had to ask the Government for a large basic needs allocation in its annual capital guidelines, so that new schools could be built. However, when school construction is slow, or the population increases faster than predicted, the education authority has to do what it can. In Stokeford, near Ivybridge, the education authority had to provide eight temporary classrooms to house the overflow from the eight permanent ones already built.
            In the whole of Devon, there are 1,456 temporary classrooms housing some 30 per cent. of the total school population. Seventy per cent. of primary and secondary schools have one or more temporary classrooms. [Interruption.] I cannot be blamed for the fact that the debate on this amendment came so late at night. Since I speak for a great number of shire county Members who have been kind enough to turn up tonight, it would be wrong of me to read the note that the Whip has just handed me, would it not, Madam Deputy Speaker?
            Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Hon. Members are perfectly in order if they read from briefs handed to them.
            Mr. Steen: That is just what I was doing, Madam Deputy Speaker. But I will not read notes handed to me by colleagues.
            It is wrong to go on building more and more houses and allowing more and more people to move into an area without providing the infrastructure to allow them to enjoy the homes into which they have moved. It is wrong
            414
            to allow them to move into homes if the electricity supply is inadequate and the lights keep going out. It is even worse if the sewerage systems cannot cope. In South Milton, the sewage was backing up into the system, because the sewerage authority could not cope with the volume of houses that it was required to service. That is why infrastructure must keep pace with new development. We should not allow new houses to be built unless we provide adequate police cover, school places, water, electricity and gas.
            Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the deplorable state of affairs that he describes really exists in Tory South Hams?
            Mr. Steen: It certainly exists in a village in South Hams; also in Dartmouth the sewerage system is so appalling that a total embargo has been imposed on new house building. The same has happened in Ivybridge, one of the fastest-growing towns in Devon. Things should never have reached that stage.
            The local plans give no consideration to infrastructure. There is nothing to stop a developer from continuing to build houses, provided that the local plan allows him to do so. According to my planning officer, once the provision is in the local plan the pace of development cannot be slowed down, regardless of good planning practice.
            The amendment merely proposes that, before housing developments proceed, the infrastructure must be either in place or readily available. Nothing is more harmful to constituents than to move into new housing developments in good Conservative shire counties and then to be without the basic facilities that they deserve.
            I think that I have made my point. No one can doubt the importance of the amendments. I ask the Government to consider ways in which they might reassure Conservative Members who are concerned about the speed of housing development—as opposed to housing development itself—and the inadequacy of the population forecasts, which allow more houses to be built than are needed. Once the houses are built, the people who live in them will need an adequate infrastructure if they are to enjoy their new homes.
            Sir George Young: My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has raised two points: one concerns population forecasts, the other infrastructure. I note that many of my hon. Friends have appended their names to the amendments, and I understand the concern that is felt throughout the House about both subjects. I hope to reassure my hon. Friend and others, however, that the present system can cope with their anxieties.
            My hon. Friend said that the Department massaged the figures. I am sure that he did not mean to imply that we were not engaged in the pursuit of truth; we have no interest in getting the forecasts wrong, and producing assessments that are higher or lower than what proves to be the case. We take population figures from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and convert them into household forecasts, using the best techniques available. Having engaged in broad consultation, we then convert those into indications, rather than targets, for the purposes of the structure plan.
            My hon. Friend suggested that the forecasts were handed down like tablets of stone. That is not true; they are an indication, which is passed down to local authorities. The authorities are entitled to look at local

            415
            factors—such as information about household formation—and, having taken those factors into account, to tell the Department that its figure is too high or too low. It simply is not true to say that we impose rigid targets on authorities, defying any evidence that they may have about local circumstances. That would be bad planning, bad politics and bad economics. We have advised the local planning authorities to take account of population projections and other forecasts, apart from our own, when they draw up their structure plans. There is an important degree of flexibility in the system, and there is no question of my Department's imposing unrealistic targets.
            Of course the Government have the responsibility to make sure that, when we plan ahead, the sum total of provision made in the various structure plans bears some resemblance to the population growth and household growth. It would be irresponsible of an Administration not to do that, but we do it in a flexible and responsive way, not in the rather dictatorial way that my hon. Friend erroneously implied.
            10.45 pm
            I think that I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks on infrastructure. It is certainly the case that inadequate infrastructure is a material consideration that can be used for turning down planning permission for a new development. It would be wrong to permit a new development when there was no chance of, for example, a necessary new road being completed when the development became ready for occupation. The whole point of planning is that the infrastructure and the development move within the same timescale. If my hon. Friend looks at the environment White Paper, he will see that the object of the planning system is
            "to secure the most efficient and effective use of land in the public interest, and to ensure that service facilities such as roads, schools and sewers are built where they are needed."
            Planning policy guidance note No. 12 deals with my hon. Friend's anxiety. It says:
            "Phasing of development over the period of one plan may be justified by considerations relating to infrastructure or the adequacy of other services, which may indicate that a particular area cannot be released for development until a particular stage in the plan period."
            My hon. Friend asked me to reflect again on what he has said to see whether we can give fresh guidance. We are looking at planning policy guidance note No. 3, and I have taken careful note of what my hon. Friend has said. I shall see whether guidance needs strengthening.
            Mr. Steen: I am reassured by what my hon. Friend says, except that there are 1,456 temporary classrooms, housing some 30 per cent. of Devon's school population, and that is caused solely by the housing development outstripping resources for the infrastructure.
            Sir George Young: I have explained that if a local authority got a planning application for a housing estate and was not satisfied that there would be a school to cope with the children, that would be a material consideration and it could use that as an argument for turning down the planning application for the houses. The system allows a response to my hon. Friend's point.
            Sir Gerard Vaughan: What happens when a planning application is granted, and the developers
            416
            undertake to put in the infrastructure, but then they fail to do so, and houses are built without any of the infrastructure that was supposed to go with them?
            Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend knows, the local authority has powers to attach conditions to the granting of planning consent. It can insist on a time scale—for example, that a road is provided first. If the conditions are broken, that invalidates planning consent. Local authority planning departments have the powers that they need to grapple with the issues that my hon. Friends have outlined. We do not need the amendments, because the system already gives planning authorities the capacity to cope.
            Mr. Tim Rathbone: I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend's Department on a specific point—the responsibility of water suppliers to provide the necessary water for new developments. There seems to be some misunderstanding between local authorities and water suppliers as to the responsibility of the latter to warn local authorities that they should put a stop to further development because the water sources are not sufficient to meet the requirements. I would appreciate some clarification on that point.
            Sir George Young: I understand my hon. Friend's point. When the local authority produces a development plan looking forward for five years, and its estimates of household formation, the water authority is involved in the debate. It can be consulted and asked whether it is within its capacity to meet the infrastructure requirements. The bodies responsible for infrastructure provision can then plan on the basis of a clear picture of the future shape of the community's future. That is an important part of the preparation of the development plan.
            When it comes to an individual planning application, the adequacy of the infrastructure is a material consideration in deciding whether permission can be granted. If the water authority has not made the infrastructure available, the local authority can use that as a reason for turning down the application. One hopes, however, that if the planning system and the planning consultation has worked, the water authority will have advance notice of the local authority's plans and the provision that will be necessary.
            If at the end of the day the water authority cannot make the structure available, the local authority can claim that as a material consideration in not wanting to overload the system and in deciding not to approve the application. However, under the Water Act 1989 water suppliers have a clear duty to supply water for domestic purposes.
            Sir Charles Morrison: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the present situation is totally different from that which has obtained for the past 15 to 20 years? My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that there is considerable concern throughout a good proportion of the south of England about there being too much water extraction, and about the disadvantage to the environment generally and to rivers in particular. Is my hon. Friend saying that, as a result of the Water Act 1989, the National Rivers Authority or the water companies themselves will be able to stop further development because sufficient water is not available?
            Sir George Young: That decision would be not for the water authority but for the planning authority, which could certainly take that view. If it were not satisfied that

            417
            the infrastructure was available, it could refuse a planning application for a development. The failure of the water authority to provide the necessary infrastructure would be a material consideration and one that the authority could use.
            My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams asked whether we are changing the system. The Bill makes substantial changes. We are moving towards a system that is much more plan-led. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that all the authorities involved in the provision of services march together at the same pace, in accordance with a plan to which they all contributed.
            We want to move away from having lots of appeals, brought about because no one is clear what is the designation in particular parts of the country. We want up-to-date plans that cover the whole country, so that we can move with confidence to a new system that involves fewer appeals and references to my Department—and that has the confidence of local people, given that they will have been involved in the preparation of the plans. I am not sure that I can go further in meeting the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams, but I repeat that his amendments are not necessary because there is flexibility within the system to cope with the concerns that he expressed.
            Mr. Steen: With the permission of the House, it is not as my hon. Friend the Minister says—it just does not work like that. However, I am bound to accept my hon. Friend's reassurance that there will be a new dawn and new vision in planning—and, in view of his remarks, it would be wrong not to give him the beneft of the doubt. There is no point to dividing the House at this time of night, but I am far from satisfied that the process my hon. Friend the Minister described operates in practice. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
            Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
            Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 104, line 38, at end insert—
            '(4A) Before prescribing any guidance or information under subsection (4) concerning aggregate demand forecasts the Secretary of State shall undertake public consultations with representatives of—

            (a) persons carrying out mining operations;

            (b) persons using the product of mining operations;

            (c) owners of interests in land containing aggregates;

            (d) mineral planning authorities;

            (e) environmental and conservation interests; and

            (f) local interests.'.

            This amendment was prompted by the publication on 7 May by the Council for the Protection of Rural England of "Determined to Dig"—a study by John Adams of University college, London, which focused on the quality of aggregate demand forecasts. The study clearly showed that there has been little correlation over the years between forecasted demand and actual demand. Despite the poor quality of forecasting—whether it has resulted in overestimates or in underestimates—there is still plenty of aggregate material.
            The importance of "Determined to Dig" is that it focuses on the fact that, in considering local quarrying plans and in examining applications by quarry companies to extend their sites and for new permissions to quarry, decisions are based largely on estimates of aggregate demand. All too often, mineral planning authorities have
            418
            to grant permissions to quarry simply because a certain demand forecast has to be met. They have to authorise the extension of quarrying, often into sensitive areas of landscape and sites of special scientific interest, because the demand forecast states that a certain quarrying capacity is needed. Applications have had to be approved willy-nilly with the result that, across the country, many important landscapes have been destroyed.
            The purpose of the amendment is twofold. We realise that an attempt has to be made to forecast demand, and we want the forecasters to carry on with their work. We hope, however, that that work can be improved, and that in future there will be a better correlation between forecast demand and actual demand. But before the final estimates—the estimates on the basis of which the mineral planning authorities will work—are produced, we want widespread consultation throughout the industry and among all those who can fairly be considered to have a concern. The relevant bodies are listed in the amendment.
            We hope not only that there will be a discussion of the way in which the estimates are arrived at—with a broader group of people involved, to try to improve them—but that other sources of aggregate will be examined. They could include recycling the aggregate or using secondary aggregates. We should concentrate on other ways of achieving aggregate supplies—or supplies or alternatives to aggregate—so that we can reduce the amount of quarrying because there is no doubt that in many parts of the country scandalous sins are being committed against our beautiful country which we should not be prepared to accept.
            I hope that the Government will look on the amendment with a kindly eye and that they will be prepared to accept it. It would do nothing to stop the forecasters making their forecasts. It would merely subject the process to public consultation and scrutiny before the final figures were etched on tablets of stone—if that is the right phrase, given that we are talking about quarrying. There should certainly be consultation and scrutiny before the estimates are used as the main guidelines by the mineral planning authorities in considering applications to extend quarrying.
            I hope that it will be accepted that this is a way to make a useful contribution to the debate about forecasting, so that we can minimise the damage to our countryside. I can think of an example in my constituency near the village of St. Bride's Major, where the mineral planning authority is undertaking a local plan exercise, part of which will involve accepting the destruction of a part of a site of special scientific interest. That is not acceptable and the sooner we improve our consultation processes the better it will be for our countryside.
            11 pm
            Mr. George Walden: I do not know whether the Government will look upon the amendment with a kindly heart, but it strikes a chord with me, as I raised the subject in an Adjournment debate on 9 May. However, with respect, there is one deficiency in the amendment, because it does not seem to be very specific about obliging anyone to consult those concerned with producing alternatives to aggregates.
            In that connection, after my debate I received a number of letters from people who are willing to consult. One letter was from Boral Lytag—Pozzolanic Lytag Ltd.—which

            419
            points out that, although it is involved with the use of ash aggregate as an alternative, it is not represented at aggregate working party meetings. Another letter was from CRA Services Ltd., which has developed a process in Australia known as "neutralysis" which
            "converts municipal waste into an aggregate by high temperature incineration".
            I am in no position to judge the activities of those firms or whether those processes are better than what is happening at present; I mention them simply because I have a feeling that there are alternative sources out there which are not being sufficiently exploited.
            Mr. Win Griffiths: I realise that this might be stretching the point a little, but it could be said that such companies had a conservation interest in aggregates, which is mentioned in para (e) of the amendment, but I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.
            Mr. Walden: I accept that argument, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts mine.
            Secondly, I understand from the Government's response to my Adjournment debate that their mind is by no means closed on the subject. I also understand that the forecasts for aggregates that they produce are for debate and are not written on tablets of stone—or whatever tonight's cliché is.
            I am glad that the Government have moved on interim development orders, as I have a particularly nasty case of that in my constituency in Ivinghoe Aston, where a chalk quarry is allowed to operate right up to the fence of a property, which would never be allowed to happen nowadays.
            I like to believe—I hope that the Minister will confirm my belief—that the Government are open-minded about this question. However, I should also like the Government to make it clear to county councils, which have to make decisions in the meantime, that they should not be over-impressed by the aggregate forecasts, that they should go slow on any doubtful cases—I have in mind the case of Mursley in my constituency, where the county council has an interest—and that they should not rush into decisions in a fast-evolving situation.
            I hope that the Minister will buoy my faith in the Government's open-mindedness on this question.
            Mr. Yeo: I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) that the Government look with a kindly eye at most subjects. The objective of the amendment is one of those subjects. The Government published new long-term forecasts of national demand for primary aggregates on 7 May, but I cannot stress too strongly that those forecasts are not Government plans, or production targets that have to be met. They are simply forecasts. One of the purposes of publishing them is to promote the debate that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and I wish to see. The new forecasts suggest that there will be continued steady growth in demand over the next 20 years, although the rate of growth may be below that experienced in the last 40 years. It is essential that the environmental consequences of that demand are examined very carefully.
            The Government are undertaking a review of the present guidance on the provision of aggregates—MPG6—to ensure that it is up to date. The demand forecasts are
            420
            the first step in this review and provide a useful starting point in the consideration of the environmental implications of the rising demand for aggregates.
            We fully recognise that there is increasing public concern about the mining of aggregates. We have also made it clear, both during the passage of the Bill and elsewhere, that we are determined to achieve higher operating standards in the minerals industry. The Bill contains a number of provisions that are designed to achieve precisely that.
            We also want to see an increase in the use of waste and recycled materials that contribute, at the moment, less than 10 per cent. to present demands. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham made a very important point about that. I fully share his concern about the importance of finding alternatives. We are determined to improve that figure. Therefore, we have asked the industry to show how that increase can be achieved. I hope that our own research, which we shall publish later this summer, will also provide some pointers as to how that increase can be achieved.
            Sir Alan Glyn: Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to say which he considers more important—aggregates or the environment? He knows that in my constituency there is an example of the environment having been completely spoilt by digging for aggregates.
            Mr. Yeo: It is impossible to quantify precisely which is the more important. We want to achieve the conditions that make possible sustained economic growth. We see no inconsistency between that objective and the objective of substantially raising the environmental standards adopted by the aggregates industry and other industries. We are encouraged by the co-operation that many of those engaged in the industry are providing. They also see the need for higher environmental standards. A major part of our effort is directed at achieving an increase in the use of alternative materials.
            In addition to the research to which I have already referred, other research that we have in hand is looking at the potential offered by marine sand and gravel and coastal super-quarries, one of which I shall be visiting later this week. We are also examining whether at present there is over-specification in the use of aggregates, which causes the wasteful or excessive use of a valuable natural resource.
            The publication of the forecasts that the consultants have prepared has been undertaken now to ensure an open and public debate about the forecasts and the environmental implications of the predicted growth in demand. We want that debate to be as wide as possible. We have not formed any final views about the forecasts. For that reason, we want the views of industry, the mineral planning authorities, the environmental and conservation bodies and the public at large about the forecasts at this stage. That will enable us to give careful consideration to all the comments that we receive when preparing the new draft guidelines to replace MPG6.
            The draft guidelines will include the Secretary of State's views on the long-term forecast of demand for aggregates. They will therefore be the subject of extensive formal public consultation with a wide range of interests. The

            421
            views expressed as a result of that exercise will then be taken into account before any revised guidelines are issued.
            I hope, therefore, that it is clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) that arrangements already exist for an extraordinary wide-ranging public consultation exercise about the aggregate demand forecasts and the draft guidelines. It is precisely in order to promote that debate that we published the forecasts. We therefore do not feel that it is necessary to enshrine in legislation arrangements for ensuring a proper public debate. We are unable to accept the amendment.
            Mr. Win Griffiths: The Government suggest that there will be an opportunity for widespread consultation. I look forward to that, and especially to the development of the recycling process to enable us to reduce the nation's need for quarrying, which often destroys much of our beautiful landscape. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
            Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
            Amendments made: No. 117, in page 107, line 37, leave out '288' and insert '287'.
            No. 118, in page 109, line 14, after 'section', insert'"repeal and" is omitted and'.
            No. 119, in page 109, line 40, at end insert
            `and for "38" there is substituted "39".'.—[Mr. Yeo.]
            Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 120, in page 111, line 38, after 'authority' insert
            `, except that in National Parks, other than those which exercise the functions of county planning authorities under Schedule 17 of the Local Government Act 1972, they shall be exercisable jointly by the National Park Authority and the county planning authority;'.
            We debated this issue in Committee so I shall not detain the House too long, but I wish to emphasise the fact that the amendment is a key recommendation of the report by the national parks review panel, "Fit for the Future", which was published in March this year. We realise that many of the report's recommendations will be implemented as part of a national parks Act. However, the Bill gives us an opportunity to implement one of the review panel's key recommendations immediately, which is that national parks authorities should become structure planning authorities jointly with the relevant county council.
            I give art example of one of the difficulties that can occur in national parks. All national parks are outstanding and it is invidious to classify them in any order, but surely the Pembrokeshire coast must rate as one of the most beautiful. However, Dyfed's structure plan contains no special provision for different treatment to reflect the special status of the Pembrokeshire coast national park. For example, settlement policies do not refer specifically to the existence of the park, and county-wide policies for tourism also ignore the special problems of the national park. There is therefore an urgent need for the amendment to be accepted.
            The national parks review panel said:
            "We are firmly convinced that national park authorities must play a fuller statutory role in the new structure plan process … we therefore propose that there should be a single structure plan for each county, prepared by the county council jointly with the national park authority, thus enabling the national park authority both to influence county-wide policies which may affect the park, and to be responsible for drafting specific policies for the park."
            422
            That proposal has been endorsed by the Countryside Commission.
            I hope that in the five weeks that the Government have had to consider the Bill since we last debated it they have already worked out some improvements and concessions on environmental issues. I hope that they will not find the amendment too difficult to swallow, and it would be most appropriate for them to accept it.
            Sir George Young: I have, of course, used the entire five weeks to think intensively about this amendment, which we discussed in Committee. I have the same difficulties today as I had then with the concept of joint responsibility for structure plans. It would be a novel requirement that two authorities had to agree on a joint structure plan. What would happen if one authority could not agree with the other? There would inevitably be delay and there would have to be some machinery for resolving that. This is not a recipe for success.
            11.15 pm
            The National Parks Authority has a keen interest in the structure plan. We intend to provide in regulations—there will be statutory cover—for the National Parks Authority to be consulted on the county's structure plan proposals before they are placed on deposit. That will ensure the close involvement of the parks authority in the preparation of structure plan proposals for its area and it will be free to raise any outstanding issues of concern once the proposals are placed on deposit for objection. It is likely that they would then need to be discussed at the examination in public under independent chairmanship.
            We would then reach the solution wanted by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and ensure that the two authorities were involved in what emerged, but we would not impose an obligation to agree. I see problems in that since one would have to resolve a dispute if the authorities were unable to agree on the structure plan.
            I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Bridgend will not press the amendment. As I said in Committee, it is premature to come to a decision on some of the recommendations. I hope that the substance of the hon. Gentleman's comments can be achieved by the mechanism that I have outlined.
            Mr. Win Griffiths: Given the regulations that the Minister has said will be introduced to involve the National Parks Authority more fully in the planning process, we are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, it seems that the Minister is rejecting one of the principal recommendations of the review body. I hope that at a later stage we shall look at the effectiveness of the Minister's proposals. In the next few years the Government could, and probably will, be different. We can look at it again then.
            I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
            Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

          Schedule 5
            MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
            Amendment made: No. 35, in page 122, line 29, leave out paragraph 11.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
          Schedule 10

            PLANNING COMPENSATION REPEALS: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS—SCOTLAND
            Amendments made: No. 79, in page 149, line 37, leave out paragraph 8.
            No. 194, in page 150, line 7, leave out 'VII' and insert
            No. 177, in page 150, line 23, leave out 'section', and insert 'Ace. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

          Schedule 6
            PLANNING IN ENGLAND AND WALES: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
            Amendments made: No. 59, in page 126, line 22, at end insert—

            'Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (c. 80)
            3A. In section 33(4) of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 for the words from "section 63(2)(b)" to the end there is substituted "section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990".'
            No. 32, in page 127, line 19, leave out '56(3)' and insert '56, in subsection (3)'.
            No. 33, in page 127, line 19, at end insert—
            '(2) In subsection (4) of that section after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
            "(aa) any work of demolition of a building;".'
            No. 34, in page 127, line 20, leave out
            `In section 63(5) "65, 71(1) or'"
            and insert 'Section 63'.
            No. 21, in page 127, line 21, at end insert—
            '11A. In section 69—
            (a) in subsection (1) "made to that authority", and'.
            No. 38, in page 127, line 26; at end insert—
            `13A. — (1) After section 73 there is inserted—

            Planning permission for development already carried out.
            73A. — (1) On an application made to a local planning authority, the planning permission which may be granted includes planning permission for development carried out before the date of the application.

            (2) Subsection (1) applies to development carried out—

            (a) without planning permission;

            (b) in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period; or

            (c) without complying with some condition subject to which planning permission was granted.

            (3) Planning permission for such development may be granted so as to have effect from—

            (a) the date on which the development was carried out; or

            (b) if it was carried out in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period, the end of that period."'

            No. 39, in page 127, line 28, leave out
            `and (2)" there is substituted "70"'
            and insert
            `and (2), 72(1) and (5) and 73" there is substituted "70, 72(1) and (5), 73 and 73A".
            No. 40, in page 127, line 32, leave out
            `71(2)" there is substituted "70"'
            and insert
            '71(2), 72(1) and (5) and 73" there is substituted "70, 72(1) and (5), 73 and 73A"'.
            No. 41, in page 127, line 35, at end insert—

            '16A. In section 91(4)(b), for the words from "granted" to the end there is substituted "granted for development carried out before the grant of that permission".

            424

            16B. — (1) In section 102, for subsections (4) and (5) there is substituted—

            "(4) The planning permission which may be granted by an order under this section includes planning permission, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order, for development carried out before the date on which the order was submitted to the Secretary of State under section 103.

            (5) Planning permission for such development may be granted so as to have effect from—

            (a) the date on which the development was carried out; or

            (b) if it was carried out in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period, the end of that period."'

            No. 46, in page 128, line 34, at end insert—
            '(2) For section 177(3) there is substituted—
            "(3) The planning permission that may be granted under subsection (1) is any planning permission that might be granted on an application under Part III."
            (3) In section 177(5) for "for the development to which the notice relates" there is substituted "in respect of the matters stated in the enforcement notice as constituting a breach of planning control".'
            No. 47, in page 129, line 2, leave out from '(1)' to end of line 20 and insert
            'Where, after the service of—

            (a) a copy of an enforcement notice; or

            (b) a breach of condition notice,

            planning permission is granted for any development carried out before the grant of that permission, the notice shall cease to have effect so far as inconsistent with that permission."'
            No. 48, in page 129, line 30, leave out '181(5)(b)' and insert
            `181—

            (a) in subsections (1)(a), (4)(b) and (5)(b) for "demolition", in each place where it occurs, there is substituted "removal";

            (b) in subsections (3), (4) and (5) for "demolished", in each place where it occurs, there is substituted "removed"; and

            (c) in subsection (5)(b)'

            No. 49, in page 129, line 41, after 'relevant activity"' insert—
            '(aa) in subsection (1)(c) the words from "or for its retention" to "granted" are omitted;'
            No. 121, in page 129, line 47, at beginning insert 'and'.
            No. 51, in page 132, line 27, at end insert—

            `(aa) at the end of the definition of "buildings or works" there is inserted "and references to the removal of buildings or works include demolition of buildings and tilling in of trenches"; and

            (ab) for the definition of "building operations" there is substituted—

            "building operations" has the meaning given by section 55;" '
            No. 52, in page 132, line 30, leave out 'and'
            No. 53, in page 132, line 33, at end insert
            `and
            (e) in the definition of "planning permission" the words from "and in construing" to the end are omitted.'
            No. 31, in page 134, line 5, leave out from 'into' to 'may' in line 6 and insert
            'a planning obligation under section 106 or 299A'
            No. 56, in page 134, line 31, leave out
            '"64" there is substituted "63"'
            and insert
            "`to 64" there is substituted "and 62"'
            No. 57, in page 134, line 34, at end insert—
            `(bb) after the entry relating to section 72(1) to (4) there is inserted—
            "Section 73A.'"
            No. 58, in page 135, line 35, at end insert—

            425
            '53A. For section 67(8) of that Act there is substituted—
            "(8) In this section references to planning permission do not include references to planning permissions falling within section 73A of the principal Act.
            53B. For section 73(2) of that Act there is substituted—
            "(2) In this section references to planning permission do not include references to planning permissions falling within section 73A of the principal Act."'—[Sir George Young.]

          Schedule 11

            PLANNING IN SCOTLAND: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
            Amendments made: No. 80, in page 155, line 14, at end insert—

            '2A. In subsection (3)(a) of section 5 (preparation of structure plans), after "measures for" there is inserted "the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land,".

            2B. In subsection (3)(a) of section 9 (preparation of local plans), after "fit for" there is inserted "the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land,".'.

            No. 178, in page 155, line 29, after 'regulations', insert 'under this Act'.
            No. 179, in page 155, leave out line 34 and insert—
            '4. In section 23 (publication of notices of applications— (a) in subsection (1)'.
            No. 180, in page 155, line 36, at end insert—
            '(b) at the end there is inserted—
            "(4) A planning authority shall not entertain any application for planning permission unless any requirements imposed by virtue of this section have been satisfied.
            (5) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be brought at any time within the period of two years following the commission of the offence.".'.
            No. 181, in page 155, line 44, leave out 'regulations or an order' and insert
            'such regulations or the order'.
            No. 81, in page 156, line 3, leave out paragraph 6 and insert—
            '6. For section 29 there is substituted—

            Planning permission for development already carried out.
            29. — (1) On an application made to a planning authority, the planning permission which may be granted includes planning permission for development carried out before the date of the application.

            (2) Subsection (1) of this section applies to development carried out—

            (a) without planning permission;

            (b) in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period; or

            (c) without complying with some condition subject to which planning permission was granted.

            (3) Planning permission for such development may be granted so as to have effect from—

            (a) the date on which the development was carried out; or

            (b) if it was carried out in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period, the end of that period.".'.

            No. 182, in page 156, line 11, leave out 'regulations or an order' and insert
            'such regulations or the order'.
            No. 183, in page 156, line 13, leave out `by regulations or an order' and insert
            `by such regulations or the order'.
            No. 82, in page 156, line 17, leave out 'and 28A"' and insert 28A and 29"'.
            No. 83, in page 156, line 27, after '(3A)";' insert—
            426
            '(iia) for "and 27A" there is substituted ", 27A and 29"'
            No. 184, in page 156, line 37, leave out 'any' in both places where it occurs.
            No. 84, in page 156, line 40, at end insert—
            '10A. In subsection (3)(c) of section 38 (limit of duration of planning permission), for the words from "granted" to the end there is substituted "for any development carried out before the grant of planning permission".'.
            No. 85, in page 156, line 42, at end insert—
            '11A. In subsection (2) of section 40 (provision as to date when development begun), after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
            "(aa) any work of demolition of a building;".'
            '11B. In section 49 (orders requiring discontinuance of use etc.), for subsection (3) there is substituted—
            "(3) The planning permission which may be granted by an order under this section includes planning permission, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order, for development carried out before the date on which the order was submitted to the Secretary of State under this section.

            (3A) Planning permission for such development may be granted so as to have effect from—

            (a) the date on which the development was carried out; or

            (b) if it was carried out in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period, the end of that period.".'.

            No. 185, in page 157, line 1, leave out paragraph 14.
            No. 86, in page 157, line 6, after '(a)' insert
            'in subsection (2B)(d) for the words from "being" to "situated" there is substituted "to such persons as may be specified";
            (b)'.
            No. 87, in page 157, line 46, at end insert—
            `(ca) in subsection (6), for the words from "and any planning permission" to the end there is substituted

            "(6A) The planning permission which may be granted under subsection (5) of this section is any planning permission which might be granted on an application under Part III of this Act.

            (6B) Where the Secretary of State discharges a condition or limitation under subsection (5) of this section, he may substitute for it any other condition or limitation.".

            (cb) in subsection (7), for "for the development to which the notice relates" there is substituted "in respect of the matters stated in the enforcement notice as constituting a breach of planning control".'.
            No. 88, in page 158, line 12, leave out paragraph 20 and insert—

            '20. In section 89 (enforcement notice to have effect against subsequent development)—

            (a) in subsection (1), for "demolition" there is substituted "removal"; and

            (b) in subsections (3) and (4) for "demolished" in each place where it occurs there is substituted "removed".

            20A. For section 89A there is substituted—

            Effect of planning permission, etc., on enforcement or breach of condition notice.
            89A.—(1) Where, after the service of—

            (a) a copy of an enforcement notice; or

            (b) a breach of condition notice,

            planning permission is granted for any development carried out before the grant of that permission, the notice shall cease to have effect so far as inconsistent with that permission.

            (2) Where, after a breach of condition notice has been served, any condition to which the notice relates is discharged, the notice shall cease to have effect so far as it requires any person to secure compliance with the condition in question.

            (3) The fact that an enforcement notice or breach of condition notice has wholly or partly ceased to have effect by

            427
            virtue of this section shall not affect the liability of any person for an offence in respect of a previous failure to comply, or secure compliance, with the notice.".'.

            No. 89, in page 159, line 1, after 'section' insert '—(a)'.
            No. 90, in page 159, line 8, at end insert
            `; and
            (b) in paragraph (c) the words from "or for its retention" to "granted" are omitted.'.
            No. 91, in page 159, line 27, after '(1)(c)' insert—
            `—(i) after "Part IV" there is inserted "other than sections 58 to 60"; and (ii)'.
            No. 196, in page 159, line 31, at end insert—
            '(1) in subsection (6) after "other than section" where it first occurs there is inserted "163 or".'.
            No. 92, in page 159, line 42, at end insert—

            `(aa) at the end of the definition of "buildings and 'works" there is inserted "and references to the removal of buildings or works include demolition of buildings and filling in of trenches";

            (ab) for the definition of "building operations" there is substituted—"building operations" has the meaning given by section 19 of this Act;'.

            No. 93, in page 160, line 1, leave out 'and'.
            No. 94, in page 160, line 4, at end insert
            `and
            (d) in the definition of "planning permission" the words from "and in construing" to the end are omitted.'.
            No. 195, in page 161, line 12, leave out from beginning to 'the following' in line 13 and insert

            '40. In subsection (3) of section 87 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (fees for planning applications), for the words "to him of a fee of the prescribed amount in respect of an" there is substituted

            "(a) of fees of prescribed amounts to him and to the planning authority in respect of any application for planning permission deemed to be made under subsection (7) of section 85 (appeals against enforcement notice) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972; and

            (b) of a fee of the prescribed amount to him in respect of any other".

            40A. In Part I of Schedule 30 to that Act.'.

            No. 187, in page 161, line 14, leave out 'and 87AA' and insert ', 87AA and 260A'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

        Clause 61

          HOME LOSS PAYMENTS
          Mr. Soley: I beg to move amendment No. 192, in page 66, line 6, at the beginning insert—

          '—.(1) Section 29(1) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (right to a home loss payment) shall be amended as follows:

          (a) in subsection 29(1)(c) the words "repair of or" shall be inserted immediately before the word "improvement"

          (b) in subsection 29(1)(d) the words "repair of or" shall be inserted immediately before the word "improvement"

          (c) in subsection 29(1)(e) after the words "Housing Act 1986" shall be inserted the words "or in the case of an assured tenant of a housing association the making of a possession order under Ground 6 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988"

          (d) after subsection 29(1)(e) there shall be added.

          "(f) the making by a magistrates' court of an order under section 82(3) Environmental Protection Act 1990 or section 77 of the Building Act 1984 where the effect of such order will be permanently or indefinitely to prevent the occupier from continuing in occupation"

          (e) after sub-paragraph (v) shall be added the words

          "(iv) where paragraph (f) applies, the owner of the property or such other person as the magistrates' court may in its discretion direct.".'.

          The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Amendment No. 196 has been missed.
          Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Amendment No. 196 appears on page 1148 of the amendment paper, which we have not yet reached. We are now dealing with Opposition amendment No. 192. Is the Minister happy?
          Sir George Young: We do not mind when we reach amendment No. 196, as long as it is reached at some point.
          Madam Deputy Speaker: It will be called formally when I reach page 1148. It has already been taken with Government amendment No. 194. We are now dealing with Opposition amendment No. 192.
          Mr. Soley: The first amendment on page 1148 is also an Opposition amendment.
          I remind the Minister that in Committee we had a significant series of debates on home loss payments for tenants. We argued that tenants were not getting the credit that they deserved for the effort and money that they put into their homes. This is not a repetition of that argument but an attempt to deal with some of the groups who should be covered but are not presently covered. I hope that in my short contribution I can persuade the Minister to act.
          The amendment is supported by the Law Society, Shelter, the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and the Institute of Housing, so it has wide housing support. It deals with home loss payments. These are paid to tenants and owners when they are permanently displaced from their homes. The amendment extends eligibility to certain groups of permanently displaced persons not at present covered.
          Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the amendment extend entitlement to council and housing association tenants who lose their homes due to the need for extensive repair work. At present, such tenants receive a home loss payment if the work carried out can be described as "improvement". In practice, this leads to an absurd and unnecessary need to categorise extensive renovation work as either "repair" or "improvement", as only in the latter case is payment made. The amendment removes this problem by extending entitlement. It does not apply to tenants able to return to their homes after repair work. It applies only to those required to move permanently.
          Paragraph (c) extends entitlement to assured tenants of housing associations required to move out permanently because of extensive work to their homes. At present, secure tenants of such associations have the right to a payment. The amendment maintains fairness between the two types of association tenant. The Government have suggested that it is unnecessary as associations can be encouraged to make payments in such cases by the Housing Corporation. Experience suggests that associations are already pressed for funds and will make payments only when legally necessary. There is a strong case for bringing them into line.
          Paragraph (d) deals with the situation of a tenant who has a home declared unfit or dangerous by a magistrates court. Often the tenant will have to move out for only a short period while remedial work is undertaken. However, sometimes the only way to deal with an extensive problem is to demolish the property or to prohibit occupation

          429
          indefinitely. The amendment extends entitlement to tenants permanently displaced by such orders. Paragraph (e) simply identifies the owner of the property as the person liable to make the payment unless the magistrates court that issued the order directs otherwise.
          As I said, the amendment does not repeat the debate in Committee in which we discussed the amount of money paid in home loss. The amendment attempts to tidy up some of the anomalies and I hope that I can carry the Minister and the Government with me in regard to it.
          Sir George Young: This amendment would involve an extension of the circumstances in which there is an entitlement to a home loss payment.
          The first two parts of the amendment would bring in cases where the occupant is displaced in certain circumstances to allow repairs to be made to his home. Home loss payments are rightly available in cases where a person is displaced permanently from his home. The legislation already provides for payments to be made where there is such a displacement because of an authority's need to carry out improvements. However, I would expect that where repairs—as distinct from improvements—are concerned, there is a stronger likelihood that the occupant will return to his home once the work has been carried out. Therefore, I see no reason to accept that any change is required.
          The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) went on to propose an extension of home loss payments to assured tenants of housing associations which require possession of the tenant's home on ground 6 of schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988. The hon. Gentleman will, I suspect, be aware that I have very recently written to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) explaining that, having looked again at the relevant legislation, we have concluded that all housing association tenants—including those with assured tenancies—are in fact already eligible for home loss payments under the existing provisions where they are displaced in qualifying circumstances. No further provision is therefore necessary, but we have asked the Housing Corporation to make sure that the tenants' guarantee will make the position absolutely clear.
          Finally, the amendment seeks to extend entitlement to home loss payments to people displaced as a result of certain proceedings taken under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the Building Act 1984, where that displacement is permanent or indefinite.
          Those statutory procedures are concerned with properties that are unfit for human habitation or structurally unsound and I accept that, where action is taken under one or the other of them, the effect will often—although not invariably—be to displace people who are living in them. Whether that displacement turns out to be permanent will depend very much on the circumstances of the case. In some instances, it may be permanent, in others not.
          However, the key point is that it will not necessarily be clear at the time when the statutory action is initiated whether any displacements which may be required will be permanent or not. So I doubt that the distinction enshrined in this proposal would be workable. Also, it runs counter to the general principles of the home loss payment scheme by requiring a third party—the owner or another
          430
          person as directed by the court—to be responsible for making the home loss payment, whereas under the scheme it is invariably the body responsible for the displacement which pays. On balance, therefore, I do not believe it would be right to bring this type of case within the home loss payment scheme.
          Against that background, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
          Mr. Soley: I invite the Minister to ask his civil servants to read the Official Report tomorrow and, if necessary, to contact the Law Society, the Institute of Housing and Shelter. He will find that there is a good case for bringing those into line, and this is the appropriate time to do that.
          Amendment negatived.
          Mr. Iain Mills: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in page 67, line 7 after 'different', insert `percentage and'.
          This is a small amendment about compensation. The Government have seen fit to introduce enabling powers in clause 61(3)(5) and (6) under which the Secretary of State can change the maximum and minimum amounts for compensation by statutory instrument.
          Why should the Secretary of State have the power to change the maximum and minimum compensation for home loss, but not the percentage? That is why I have described the amendment as very small. That must lead to the view that compensation levels need entail no addition in overall terms to the cost of road developments. That could increase the speed of introducing the developments.
          If there is a preparedness to take the powers to deal with maximum and minimum, why is there not a readiness to take powers to increase the percentage? If the taking of such powers would reduce the many years that ensue before road developments are completed because of the consequences of the public inquiry system, would it not be a good idea to take them? I am not saying that a percentage should be specified, but if it were found that a higher percentage would ease a certain scheme, whether in my constituency or elsewhere, or facilitate the introduction of new motorways, such as the M42 and the M6 in my constituency, that would surely be an important consideration.
          11.30 pm
          Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) for the concise and persuasive way in which he moved the amendment, which would enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to vary by regulations the percentage that is to be used in calculating the level of home loss payment for owner-occupiers. My hon. Friend knows, as a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, that the level of payment is set at 10 per cent. of the market value of the dwelling, subject to a minimum of £1,500 and a maximum of £15,000. There is provision for my right hon. Friend to vary the minimum and maximum amounts by regulation, but not the specified percentage.
          As we have made clear, the object of the home loss payment is to compensate for the distress and upheaval that people will usually suffer when forced to move home at a time not of their own choosing. Setting the level of that compensation can only be a matter of judgment as to what is fair, to those who are displaced and to the central and

          431
          local taxpayers who are called upon to foot the bill. It is not an easy judgment to make, but we are generally satisfied that the approach that we propose to adopt strikes the right balance.
          When we have specified the upper and lower limits for the flat-rate payments for claimants in the Bill, we have made provision for the Secretary of State to prescribe alternative amounts by regulation. That is common practice in primary legislation, and a prudent thing to do. A specified percentage is a different matter.
          We believe that the proposed system represents a sound basis on which to calculate the level of home loss payment for owner-occupiers, and we see no reason to provide for it to be changed. Even if we were to decide that an alternative percentage were needed, I would regard that as a change so fundamental that it should be introduced by way of primary legislation rather than by regulations.
          My hon. Friend touched on an argument that we heard much of in Committee, which is that, if the percentage were higher, claimants would have an incentive to move more quickly from their homes, and public development projects might move faster. There is no hard evidence that that would happen if higher levels of compensation were payable, not least because many objectors are not those who are directly affected and who receive compensation. I am not persuaded that higher rates of compensation would automatically have the effect that my hon. Friend desires.
          I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that one factor is varied by regulation and the other by primary legislation. I hope also that he will decide, on reflection, not to press the amendment to a Division.
          Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Automobile Association strongly supports the amendment and has advocated its acceptance. Percentages are important, especially in areas where values are low enough not to be caught by the arrangements that are set out in the Bill. Someone in a low-value house might not be attracted to vacate it, but he could be if a higher percentage provision could be implemented. I recognise, of course, that any such provision could work both ways. We are anxious to see movement facilitated to prevent schemes from being held up when it is unnecessary. Of course, for an individual or family to move from a house is just as difficult and inconvenient whether the house is worth £5,000, £200,000 or any other amount.
          Mr. Mills: I am tempted, because I am not quite satisfied with what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, to use the terms of Opposition Back-Benchers and say that I wish to call a Division. However, I am mindful of the time, the discussions that we had in Committee, and the Minister's obvious understanding of the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
          Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
          Mr. Soley: I beg to move amendment No. 193. in page 69, line 4, at the beginning insert—
          '(9) In section 37(3) of that Act subsection (c) shall be omitted.'.
          Neither Back-Bench nor Front-Bench Members seem to be having any luck with the Minister tonight, but I intend to try again. I hope to persuade the Minister on compensation for tenants. The purpose of amendment No. 193 is to remove the effect of a decision of the High Court in Crown v. the London borough of Islington ex parte Knight, in which section 37(3)(c) of the Land
          432
          Compensation Act 1973 was applied so that Mrs. Knight was denied a disturbance payment because the land from which she was displaced had been acquired by the council by agreement in 1930, many years before she became a tenant in 1975.
          The first reason for the amendment is that many tenants are affected by the decision in view of the period over which authorities have acquired land. Secondly, paragraph (c) of section 37(3) is not compatible with paragraphs (a) and (b). Those paragraphs deal with denying payment to those who were not in occupation before the compulsory purchase process commenced. That is, they took up occupation when their displacement was imminent and could be deemed to have been aware of that. That was not so in Mrs. Knight's case. Her displacement did not become a possibility until six years after she took up occupation.
          The amendment is compatible with parliamentary intention as stated in paragraphs (a) and (b). Unless the amendment is accepted, tenants could be denied disturbance payments when the land was acquired many years before the question of displacement arose. There seems to be a contradiction in the law. The amendment is an attempt to put that right, and I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to do so.
          Mr. Yeo: The suggestion is that this proviso as to lawful occupation is unfair, in that it precludes a disturbance payment in the case of someone who may have lived in a property for a long time but cannot satisfy the test of having been in occupation when the authority's original acquisition took place.
          The decision in the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred did not have a direct bearing on the concern at which the amendment is directed. I am advised that the decision turned on a technicality unrelated to the question of when the claimant entered into occupation of the dwelling. As I promised when the matter was raised in Committee, we have carefully considered whether there is a case for amending the existing provision, but the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed, although perhaps not surprised, to know that we have concluded that there is not a case.
          The purpose of the restriction as to lawful occupation is to ensure that a disturbance payment is made to an occupant who stays on in a property after acquisition and is subsequently displaced, but not to someone who moves in after acquisition knowing full well that in due course he will have to move. That is perfectly reasonable. Many housing authorities and housing associations make a point of allowing people to occupy, on a short-term basis, accommodation which has been acquired with a view to redevelopment.
          Having said that, where a claimant does not qualify for a disturbance payment as of right, the authority may none the less consider that there is good reason to pay expenses. Authorities are empowered under section 37(5) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 to make a discretionary payment. That ought to be sufficient generally to ensure that hardship is avoided in deserving cases.
          We do not have evidence that a large number of people are being denied payment in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. Against that background, I am afraid that it seems to us that the law is best left as it stands. I cannot recommend the House to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
          Amendment negatived.

          HOME LOSS PAYMENTS
            Schedule 13

              AMENDMENTS RELATING TO LAND COMPENSATION
              Amendments made: No. 23, in page 172, line 33, after `management"' insert—

              `(aa) in subsection (2) after "shall" there is inserted "direct the acquiring authority to",

              (ab) after that subsection there is inserted—

              "(2A) Notice under subsection (2) above shall be given in such form and manner as the Secretary of State may direct".'
              No. 24, in page 172, line 39, after "land"' insert—

              `(aa) in sub-paragraph (3) after "shall" there is inserted "direct the acquiring authority to",

              (ab) after that sub-paragraph there is inserted—

              "(3A) Notice under sub-paragraph (3) above shall be given in such form and manner as the Secretary of State may direct".'—[Mr. Yeo.]

            Schedule 14
              COMPENSATION WHERE PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANTED AFTER ACQUISITION-SCOTLAND
              Amendment made: No. 196, in page 184, line 28, leave out 'then', and insert `and'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
            Schedule 15

              AMENDMENTS RELATING TO LAND COMPENSATION IN SCOTLAND
              Amendment made: No. 96, in page 184, line 29, at end insert—
              `2A. In paragraph 11 of that Schedule (purchase of open space)—

              (a) in sub-paragraph (2), after "shall" there is inserted "direct the acquiring authority to"; and

              (b) after that sub-paragraph there is inserted—

              "(3) Notice under sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph shall be given in such form and manner as the Secretary of State may direct.".'.
              No. 188, in page 188, line 11, at end insert—
              "(3) In subsection (4), for paragraph (b) there is substituted—
              "(b) a right to occupy the dwelling-house—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

        Clause 76

          SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, ETC.
          Amendment made: No. 62, in page 80, line 42, leave out `section' and insert
          `sections (Home loss payments: Northern Ireland) and'. —[Sir George Young]

          SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, ETC.
            Schedule 17

              REPEALS
              Amendments made: No. 122, in page 194, line 28, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections (4) and'.
              No. 36, in page 194, leave out from end of line 52 to end of line 2 on page 195 and insert `Section 63.'
              No. 22, in page 195, line 3, at end insert—
              434
              `In section 69, in subsection (1) "made to that authority" and in subsection (3) "made to the authority".'
              No. 50, in page 195, line 13, at end insert
              `In section 186(1)(c) the words from "or for its retention" to "granted".'
              No. 15, in page 195, line 59, leave out 'and'.
              No. 16, in page 195, line 61, after 'certificate"' insert `and "mineral compensation modifications"'.
              No. 55, in page 196, line 4, after '71)"', insert
              `in the definition of "planning permission" the words from "and in construing" to the end'
              No. 17, in page 196, line 4, after '71)"', insert
              `the definitions of "relevant order", "restriction on the winning and working of minerals" and "special consultations"'.
              No. 18, in page 196, leave out lines 26 to 28 and insert—
              `Schedule 11'.
              No. 60, in page 197, line 15, leave out 'and 35(1)(b)' and insert `35(1)(b) and 38'
              No. 37, in page 197, column 3, leave out line 37.
              No. 123, in page 198, line 39, column 3, at beginning insert 'in'.
              No. 189, in page 200, line 12, column 3, at end insert—
              'In Part II of Schedule 2, the entry for section 33(4) of the Land Compensation Act 1973.'.
              No. 190, in page 200 leave out line 28.
              No. 98, in page 201, line 6, at end insert—
              `Section 153A.'.
              No. 99, in page 201, line 20, at end insert—
              `Section 159A.
              Section 159B.'.
              No. 100, in page 201, line 21, column 3, at end insert—
              `In section 166(2)(c), the words from "or for its retention" to "granted".'.
              No. 101, in page 201 leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert—
              `Section 167B.
              Section 167C.'.
              No. 191, in page 201, line 42, column 3, at end insert—
              'In section 251(1A), the definition of "development consisting of the winning and working of minerals".'.
              No. 102, in page 201, line 58, column 3, after `certificate', insert—
              `and'.
              No. 103, in page 201, line 59, column 3, leave out 'and' and insert—

              435
              ';in the definition of "planning permission" the words from "and in construing" to the end; and the definition of '.—[Sir George Young.]
              Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
              Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time. —[Sir George Young.]
              11.40 pm
              Mr. Win Griffiths: A few words need to be said on Third Reading. The Opposition support the Bill as it ha .s been amended, but we still have grave reservations about clause 12 and the issue of unilateral undertakings, because there is, unfortunately, some scope there for innuendo and rumour when it comes to the undertakings being made.
              However, our main criticism of the Bill really rests on the Government's commitment in "This Common Inheritance" to green themselves. Given the previous Secretary of State's commitment to using the planning system for the enhancement and protection of the environment, many people, both inside and outside the House, were surprised at the lack of virtually all greenery in the Bill.
              It is only because of the doughty fight put up in another place by peers of all parties and by Members from both sides of the House that we have, thankfully and appreciatively, seen some major concessions by the Government on environmental issues.
              Nevertheless, we have still failed to include in the Bill important measures for coastal zone planning or sustainable development or proper planning controls in agriculture and forestry. We recognise that the Government have not accepted those, but we appreciate that they moved in the right direction on all the important environmental considerations.
              We are only sorry that they did not come forward in the first place in a constructive spirit with the proposals which now exist in the Bill. We need to underline the fact that it is only because of the efforts of people other than the Government that they are now there. However, we thank the Government for responding 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. along the path of the green way which is so desperately needed.
              Question put and agreed to.
              Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Mar Lodge
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
11.43 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I believe that I speak with the good will of the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), in whose constituency lies the exquisitely beautiful Mar Lodge estate. His friends on both sides of the House know that he would have wished to be here if he had not had an extremely important appointment.
In the expert company of Dick Balharry, senior warden of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, Dr. Adam Watson, a man who has given his life to the Cairngorms and works at the Institute of Terrestial Ecology, Banchory, and Dave Morris of the Ramblers Association, my wife and I had the good fortune to spend a day last month in the ancient Caledonian forest. Does anyone in Government dispute that the Mar Lodge estate is the key tract of land in the very heart of the Cairngorms?
The problem is encapsulated in a simple, if inexact, analogy. Translated into human terms, it is as if the remaining trees were all 85 to 90-year-old men. The next decade represents the very last chance of natural re-seeding for the ancient Caledonian forest. More deer than the land has ever carried before are now supported by winter feeding from those whose priority it is to ensure enough deer for stalking purposes.
In the old days, those who took stalking estates took them for a season, or perhaps for a couple of months. They were not unduly worried if they had blank days. Now, when people will pay thousands of pounds for periods of less than a week, they expect to have stags available each day. These circumstances combine to create a situation in which the young trees have no chance to grow. The crucial point is that if the Mar Lodge estate is to be subject to commercial considerations, we might as well say goodbye to the ancient Caledonian forest.
That would be a tragedy for Scotland. It would be a tragedy for the United Kingdom, which means that the Department of the Environment ought to be deeply involved. I insert the question whether it is true that there is no mechanism for transferring Department of he Environment funds to the Scottish Office. In particular, I would like to ask whether it is true that a special allocation of funds was made from the Department of the Environment to enable the NCC to buy the Creag Meagaidh estate from Fountain Forestry in 1985. As the Minister knows, I raised the issue of the transfer of funds with the Prime Minister and had a most useful conversation with his parliamentary private secretary about it. It concerns the Treasury, Downing street, the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Office.
The end of the Caledonian forest would also be a tragedy for Europe, since I understand that neither Norway nor Sweden has examples of ancient European forests as good as the southern Cairngorms, outside of nature reserves. The Caledonian forest is the only example in the EC countries of the boreal forest.
On 5 March 1980, when he was launching the world conservation strategy in his previous incarnation as Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said:

437
"My co-ordinating role over the whole field is one to which I attach major significance."
Incidentally, I do not quote the speech in a snide way—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman meant what he said.
He continued:
"For, to my mind, it is the individual decision, when aggregated with hundreds or even thousands of others which, at the end of the day actually matters and only a fraction of those individual decisions are taken in government".
The right hon. Gentleman continued:
"That is the basis of my approach to environmental conservation. As Secretary of State for the Environment, I believe profoundly in the basis of the strategy that is being launched today—the maintenance of the earth's resources."
The right hon. Gentleman also said:
"In almost every decision the politician takes in the so-called 'environmental area' he has to balance a development need, with a clearly defined economic advantage, against a potential conservation loss, with perhaps no conceivable economic gain or even the imposition of a specific loss in terms of increased government expenditure.
What matters is that the politician consciously weighs up the various possible effects of development in taking his decision, and seeks a decision that is sound conservation, using our environmental resources as well as possible … Public bodies have to pay regard to nature conservation. And we give special protection to particularly important sites of interest of nature conservation or special scientific interest. As today's event underlines, we may need to consider decisions too from an international as well as a national standpoint ….As soon as circumstances permit, we should like to ratify the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage … As examples of that commitment, in the last 10 months we have sanctioned additional expenditure to allow the NCC to acquire unique wetlands at Cors Fochno and to buy the Parsonage Down estate of special scientific interest with its outstanding flora … I can promise a philosophical approach totally in line with the objectives of a sensible conservation policy, and I can promise too a personal commitment that starts from a simple premise: in any individual decision, the starting point will be to conserve what matters: those who have a contrary objective must bear the onus of proof."
I ask tonight: do the Government stand by what the right hon. Gentleman said in 1980, particularly his view of our international responsibilities? Page 12 of "The Way Ahead", published in July 1990, highlights the need for Scottish Natural Heritage
"to purchase, own, lease, or manage land either alone or in partnership."
If Ministers are not prepared to apply such principles to Mar Lodge, where do they propose to apply them?
According to "The Way Ahead",
"The proposed powers for SNH will give it strength and flexibility beyond that available to the present agencies".
Mar Lodge is a kind of litmus test of the new body. If the Government will not find moneys to purchase it for the nation, will they at least fund a consortium of voluntary bodies—such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the World Wildlife Fund and the Chris Brasher Trust—on a pound-for-pound basis? I was a Doubting Thomas in regard to the changes; indeed, I wholly opposed them. As an unbeliever in the break-up of the Nature Conservancy Council, however, I am entitled to say that Mar Lodge is a litmus test for those who insisted on destroying the NCC.
Finally, I ask the Minister some questions, of which I have given notice to his officials—as, indeed, I have in regard to every point that I have made in my speech, thinking it sensible to do so. First, what costs would be incurred by the nation if Mar Lodge were managed as a
438
private estate for nature conservation? It would involve the forgoing of profits, and compensation from the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland. Such a management agreement, involving a huge estate, has not been achieved anywhere else, despite all the work that the Standing Committee on the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 put into the concept. I think that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—who has done me the courtesy of being present at this late hour—will accept that.
Would the Government consider a compulsory purchase order for the estate on the basis of the Crown Commissioners' negotiations? If a national European and world living treasure is to be used as a bauble or toy for the mega-rich and hawked around the international market, should not the Government opt for a compulsory purchase order? After all, the Crown Commissioners have already set a value on the estate. In the event of there not being a compulsory purchase order, would Ministers consider buying Mar Lodge, or even using the compulsory purchase order to arrest possible purchase, and then to launch a public appeal for 50 per cent. of the purchase costs?
Those questions have been asked by a number of people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who, for understandable reasons, was here until a moment ago but has left because he has to go to Scotland tonight. These questions also arouse the curiosity of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who has done me the courtesy of coming in at this late hour, and I thank him for that.
There is a great deal more to be said on an issue that deeply concerns many people, not only in Scotland, but in Britain, but it is more important that the Minister has time to expound Government thinking. I hope that the House will forgive me a personal reflection. On three occasions, Mr. Speaker has given me an Adjournment debate on rain forest problems. I have also been lucky to raise the subject of the Amazon on four occasions during the Consolidated Fund Bill debate and have asked innumerable questions.
How on earth can any of us seek to tell developing countries what they should do about the guardianship of their rain forests unless we set an example in relation to our own forests, and in particular to Mar Lodge? I shall never forget sitting in the office of Cesar Fernando Mesquita, then the Minister for the north, in Brasilia, and having to begin my plea for the Amazon with the observation that I came from a country where we had allowed most of our old forest to be destroyed and that I was in no position to lecture him or anyone else in Brazil. Only with that confession, and in a spirit of humility, which contrasted with that of his previous visitor—the American Senator Gore—did I get a kindly hearing. If we fail to do the right thing by Mar Lodge, we had better shut up about trying to protect the world's rain forests. Britain's international credibility is at stake. I wonder whether the Government agree with that.
11.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on his success in raising these important matters. I know the area quite well as I stayed there some years ago, and a constitutent who was a stalker showed me around, from one end to the other, which was a fascinating experience.

439
I agree that the Cairngorms, which contain most of the highest peaks in Scotland, are probably the finest single example of the natural heritage of Scotland and are of considerable importance in international terms.
Remnants of the Caledonian forest which lie in and around the foothills of the Cairngorms are one of the most important features of the Cairngorms. These native pine woods are among the least modified woodland areas in Britain and represent an unbroken link with the natural forest that developed following the recession of the last glaciation some 8,000 years ago. They are an irreplaceable habitat for many rare animal and plant species. The importance of the Caledonian forest to Scotland, Britain and indeed the world is not in question and well deserves discussion tonight on the Floor of the House.
Preserving the health of the Caledonian pine forest is a matter of considerable concern to the Government and is a priority of both the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Forestry Commission. Those present who have seen Scotland's pine woods in their native setting will, I am sure, agree with me that a natural forest is one of the most spectacular features of our countryside. In its natural form, the Caledonian forest contains a wide variety of different species and animals.
Scots pine is, of course, the dominant plant species, but other trees, including birch, alder, willow, aspen, rowan, juniper and holly, also appear. The vegetation below the trees includes important plant features, including heathers, blaeberry and rare species such as twinflower, creeping ladies' tresses, and various wintergreens. The animal variety contained in the Caledonian forest includes pine marten, wild cat, red squirrel, capercaillie, crested tit and the Scottish crossbill, as well as a particularly rich collection of invertebrate fauna. Taken together, the Caledonian forest represents a habitat that is one of the most natural anywhere in this country.
Right hon. and hon. Members will no doubt share my regret that the extent of the forest has diminished considerably in recent centuries. Historical research has shown that it may once have covered more than 1·2 million hectares of the Highlands. A series of factors, including felling by man and grazing pressures from wildlife and domestic livestock, reduced its size considerable over the centuries, and by the middle of this century no more than small remnants remained.
The Scottish Office is fully aware of the importance of the Caledonian forest, and has for many years now taken steps to ensure its survival and, it is hoped, its future growth. Today, there are some 12,000 hectares a native pine wood of natural character in Scotland.
Under the woodland grant scheme introduced in June 1988, the Forestry Commission introduced special provisions for the management of native pine woods, aimed at maintaining and enhancing the pine wood ecosystem, protecting their aesthetic value and genetic integrity, and enlarging their area. The Forestry Commission has already received applications to create more than over 5,000 hectares of new native pinewood of natural character, which will represent a significant extension to the area of existing native pinewood in Scotland.
From next April, the pine woods will, in addition, be eligible for the special rate of management grant in return for managing the woods in a way that conserves their environmental value.
440
It is not, of course, possible to devise a future strategy for the Caledonian forest in isolation from other land uses in the immediate area. Factors such as the relationship with grazing and browsing animals, as well as the impact of recreational use of the land, need to be borne firmly in mind. Regeneration must rely on a number of factors to allow it to succeed. The Government are fully aware that grazing and browsing pressure has a major impact on the ability of the Caledonian forest to regenerate naturally.
Mr. Dalyell: Do the Government accept that there will be no chance of the forest naturally reseeding if the unnaturally high level of deer that exist there, for whatever reason, is allowed to continue?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The amount of culling has increased steadily, year by year, and my understanding is that that will continue. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a review is under way of the powers of the Red Deer Commission, with a view to possible legislation at some time in the future. The matter is not being allowed to rest.
I am aware of the arguments of those who say that the best way to allow natural regeneration is significantly to reduce deer numbers in the area, and I know that deer culling at the right level is an important priority of deer management groups and the Red Deer Commission. I should say that another effective way of bringing about regeneration has been to fence off from the outside deer range the area where regeneration is required. Deer fences play a significant role in promoting regeneration in many parts of the Caledonian forest. Much of that fencing is grant aided, either by the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland or by the Forestry Commission, acting on the advice of the Red Deer Commission.
Many of the important remnants of the Caledonian forest, including those at Mar Lodge and Ballochbuie in the south of the Cairngorms, as well as in Abernethy, Glenmore, and Rothiemurchus in the north, are in or near the area that is currently under consideration by the Cairngorms working party set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland earlier this year to consider current land and land use practices in the Cairngorms area and to recommend an integrated management plan consistent with the importance of the natural heritage of the area and the need to ensure social and economic benefits to local people.
The future of the forest is, I understand, already a major issue on the agenda of the working party and we shall be looking carefully at its recommendations on how to ensure the future of the forest. The working party will no doubt be considering the experience on the estates in the north of the Cairngorms where the forest is in good health due to a combination of the use of fencing and effective deer management, in part under the provisions of nature reserve agreements.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If I do, I may not be able to answer all the hon. Gentleman's questions. If I have missed anything, I shall return to it later.
The hon. Gentleman asked about our international commitments with regard to the Caledonian forest in the Cairngorms. These are safeguarded as national nature reserves or sites of special scientific interest in full recognition of those commitments. We have also proposed that the Cairngorms be nominated to be a World Heritage

441
site of natural importance, on the recommendation of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission for Scotland. We shall begin work to prepare our case on this matter once the working party has completed its work.
I should now like to refer to Mar Lodge estate itself. I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about the future ownership of the estate. First and foremost, I should tell him that I share his assessment of the importance of the estate, which occupies a central position in the Cairngorms. It contains three major peaks as well as other important high ground, and—most important in terms of this debate—important remnants of the Caledonian forest in the Forest of Mar. It provides important habitats for rare birds and other species, as well as providing the main access points to the plateau from Deeside, including access to the Lairig Ghru. I have no doubt that Mar Lodge estate will form an essential component in the integrated management plan for the Cairngorms and that the active participation of the owners of Mar Lodge estate will be an important element in the success of that plan.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, a series of discussions took place between various bodies, including the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, the Countryside Commission for Scotland, the Crown Estate Commissioners and a number of voluntary bodies to consider options for the purchase and management of the estate.
It was disappointing to us that the offer made by the Crown Estate to Mr. Kluge was not accepted. I understand that the Crown Estate offer was based on an independent valuation of the estate and was very substantial. Independent valuation is clearly the correct course of action to safeguard the potential use of public funds, and purchase at above this rate is unlikely to be cost-effective.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government would be prepared to purchase Mar Lodge itself by compulsory purchase. As he will know, that is not the approach that the Government generally take to the management of the natural heritage throughout Scotland. Private ownership forms the basis of landholding in most of Scotland and has proved capable of sustaining environmentally sensitive management in many locations. The Scottish Office firmly believes that private ownership, with a management agreement negotiated with the conservation agencies, is in general the best approach to the management of Scotland's natural heritage. Private landowners have shown in many areas that economic land use, conservation and recreational management are able to co-exist. There is no reason why that should not happen at Mar Lodge in the future.
I do not accept that, if Mar Lodge is to remain in private hands, it will not be possible to give sufficient priority to nature conservation. As much of the estate is already part of the national nature reserve and protected by the arrangement governing sites of special scientific interest and other conservation designations, natural heritage interests will be well protected under the existing powers of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, the Countryside Commission for Scotland, and later Scottish Natural Heritage. The Cairngorms working party
442
will make recommendations on an integrated management plan for the area, including Mar Lodge estate, which will be consistent with World Heritage status and we shall look to the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and, later, Scottish Natural Heritage to negotiate appropriate management agreements with the new owner, whoever that turns out to be, which are consistent with this integrated management plan. I am confident that a satisfactory outcome to the negotiations is possible.
The hon. Gentleman asked what costs there would be to the nation in managing Mar Lodge as a private estate for nature conservation involving profits forgone and compensation by the NCCS. He will, I am sure, understand that it is not possible to give any clear indication of the costs involved, as there is no existing management agreement covering the management of Mar Lodge estate for the purpose of nature conservation alone. It is also impossible to predict with any certainty exactly what type of operations would be proposed by a private landowner that would involve compensation under the profits forgone principle. I can, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government would look to the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, and later Scottish Natural Heritage, to seek to negotiate an agreement or agreements with the new owner that brought about the necessary objectives while ensuring that the interests of the taxpayer were fully respected.
Mr. Donald Dewar rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If I may answer the hon. Member for Linlithgow's other two questions, then I shall give way.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow also asked whether the Government would be prepared to arrest the sale of Mar Lodge estate and to support a public appeal for funds to buy the estate. I am aware that the voluntary conservation bodies are continuing to consider the possibilty of making a bid for Mar Lodge estate themselves. We would be prepared to consider any proposal that those organisations might wish to make to us for Government support. Such a proposal would need to be channelled through the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland. But I should make it clear that that form of ownership, like public ownership, is not always the best means of securing our overall objectives in Scotland's countryside. I should also make it clear that we are not prepared to consider placing restrictions on private ownership such as would be implied by a temporary compulsory purchase order: that would place an unacceptable restriction on the operation of the market.
In response to the hon. Member for Linlithgow's point about Government finances, I should make it clear that the responsibility for nature conservation in Scotland now lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, following the coming into force of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. As he and I have made clear at many points during our debates on the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill, the Government are fully committed to implementing our responsibilities in this field effectively in Scotland. We have already provided NCCS with a substantial budget for this financial year and fully intend to provide SNH with the resources needed to make it a strong, viable and effective natural heritage body.
Creag Meagaidh was purchased by the NCC in 1985, after negotiations with a private owner on a management

443
agreement failed. The circumstances of that case and the scale of the purchase at £450,000 were considerably different from those proposed for Mar Lodge.
As a final point I should make it clear that the health of the pine woods on Mar Lodge is already a priority for the agencies of Government and will continue to be so in the future. Although the estate has increased its deer cull in past years, I recognise that natural regeneration on the estate is generally in poor shape at the present time. There are, however, small deer enclosures maintained by NCCS where regeneration has been relatively successful. I would expect the working party to recommend that the Forest of Mar, as well as other remnants of the forest in the Cairngorms area, be suitably sustained and if possible extended in future years.
We have one more minute, so perhaps the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) could question me briefly.
Mr. Dewar: I wanted to clarify the position. The Minister allowed, or presumably encouraged, the Crown Estates Commissioners to bid after consultation with other public sector bodies. In the course of his remarks he gave the impression—in fact he specifically said, as I understood it—that his view was that private ownership and management agreements were the best way to do it, which seems somewhat incompatible with the
444
Government's position only a short time before. He said that he will listen to any offer that is made. Does that include the possibility of positive Government financial co-operation?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot give a guarantee of funds on the table tonight. We will consider seriously any proposal made to us. The Crown Estates Commissioners are independent of Government and we were in touch with them. We considered sympathetically their aims, which we thought were very worthy. It is unfortunate that those proposals have fallen through. Mr. Kluge has made his position on that absolutely clear.
Mr. Dalyell: It is not a question of natural regeneration being in poor shape, it is that natural regeneration is non-existent. I hope that the Minister will go there and walk over the same areas that he may have walked over before. The situation has become absolutely dire. Before any decisions are taken, are we waiting for the report of the Cairngorms working party? Until we have the assurance that nothing irrevocable—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at thirteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Consultancies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidelines govern the maximum length of time that the same consultancy practice may be continuously employed by a Government Department.

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

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidelines there are governing the awarding of consultancy contracts on a cost-reimbursable basis.

  Mr. Mellor
  None, but advice on contracting with management consultants can be found within the Treasury's booklet, "Seeking Help from Management Consultants", and this includes at annex 7 a description of the salient points of such a contract.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has had on the subject of fiscal measures to increase environmental protection in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have received a number of such representations.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 13 May,Official Report, columns 23–24, if he has yet completed consultations with law enforcement agencies about which activities and professions should now have procedures tightened in order to combat money laundering; and what discussions have started with which relevant representative bodies.

  Mr. Maples
  We hope to complete consultations with law enforcement agencies shortly.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the interest rates in the United Kingdom for each quarter since October 1979.

  Mr. Maples
  The information requested is available in table 13.15 of "Financial Statistics".

  Inflation
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the inflation rate in the United Kingdom in each quarter since October 1979.

  Mr. Maples
  Following is the information:
  178

  Retail prices index—percentage increases on a year earlier.

  Year

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  1979

  —

  —

  —

  17·3

  1980

  19·1

  21·5

  16·4

  15·3

  1981

  12·7

  11·7

  11·3

  11·9

  1982

  11·1

  9·4

  8·0

  6·2

  1983

  5·0

  3·8

  4·6

  5·1

  1984

  5·2

  5·1

  4·7

  4·8

  1985

  5·5

  7·0

  6·3

  5·5

  1986

  4·9

  2·8

  2·6

  3·4

  1987

  3·9

  4·2

  4·3

  4·1

  1988

  3·4

  4·3

  5·5

  6·5

  1989

  7·7

  8·2

  7·7

  7·6

  1990

  7·8

  9·7

  10·4

  10·0

  1991

  8·7

  —

  —

  —

  Heveningham Hall
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much inheritance-related tax has been received in respect of Heveningham hall.

  Mr. Maude
  The information requested about Heveningham hall is covered by the normal rules ensuring taxpayers' confidentiality.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, further to his answer of 2 May,Official Report, column 296, he will estimate the effect on Treasury revenues in 1991–92 and in a full year of introducing a higher rate band of income tax of 50 per cent. on taxable incomes over £36,705.

  Mr. Maude
  Compared with the income tax regime considered in the previous answer, the revenue yield at 1991–92 levels of income of introducing the rates of income tax shown in the table would be about £0·1 billion lower in 1991–92, and about £0·2 billion lower in a full year. In rounded terms the total yield, compared with the income tax regime for 1991–92 proposed in the Budget, would be about £1 billion in 1991–92 and about £2 billion in a full year. The estimates do not take account of the consequential effect on capital gains tax, nor do they allow for any behavioural effects that might result from such an increase.

  Taxable income (£)

  Rate per cent.

  1 to 23,700

  25

  23,701 to 36,705

  40

  Over 36,705

  50

  Taxable income is income subject to tax from all sources after deducting allowances and reliefs.

  VAT (Zero-rating)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on Treasury revenues in 1991–92 and in a full year of abolishing value-added tax zero-rating on all items except food, children's clothing, and domestic fuel and power.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Estimates of the revenue effect of abolishing zero-rating on all items of domestic expenditure other than food, children's clothing, and fuel and power are as follows:
  179

  £ billion

  1991–921

  3·7

  Full year 2

  5·2

  1 Assuming a 1 April change

  2 Assuming all receipts in 1991–92 reflect VAT at 17·5 per cent.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all items currently subject to the zero rate of value added tax.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Schedule 5 to the VAT Act 1983 applies the zero rate of VAT to a wide range of goods and services. The main areas covered are listed in table 4B.1 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" for 1991–92 which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost to the Exchequer of the increase in unemployment from May 1990 to May 1991 in terms of(a) increased social security payments and (b) reduced taxation receipts, both direct and indirect.

  Mr. Maude
  A rise of 100,000 in unemployment is estimated directly to add around £305 million to benefit expenditure in 1991–92—as shown in table 24 of the DSS departmental report, Cm. 1514. Estimates of the effects on tax receipts and public finances as a whole would depend on the assumptions made.

  Birds
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide an estimate of the number of birds which were illegally imported into the United Kingdom for each year since 1987.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Customs detected the following numbers of birds being illegally imported into the United Kingdom in contravention of the laws relating to the convention on the international trade in endangered species—CITES.

  Number

  1986–87

  209

  1987–88

  208

  1988–89

  380

  1989–90

  533

  1990–91

  243

  It is not possible to estimate how many illegal importations may have evaded Customs controls.

TRANSPORT

  London Transport
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will increase Government grant to London Transport in 1991–92.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Yes. I am pleased to announce that I am increasing London Transport's grant by £53 million and its external financing limit by £39·8 million. This will be charged to the reserve and will not, therefore, add to the level of planned public expenditure. The increase is 180
  additional to the £55 million extra grant for 1990–91 announced in February this year. I have approved it because of the current downturn in LT's property receipts and revenue. It will enable LT to repay borrowing it undertook in 1990–91 and to proceed with important investment in the underground and docklands light railway.

  British Rail
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about British Rail's external financing limit for 1991–92.

  Mr. Rifkind
  We have now completed discussions with the railways board about the serious financial situation that British Rail faces this year in the light of the downturn in the property market and its reduced forecasts of revenue. The Government have decided to increase British Rail's external financing limit for 1991–92 by £400 million, to a revised total of £1,522 million. This increase will be charged to the reserve, and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure. Last year BR's EFL was increased in-year by £102 million, and BR subsequently overshot the revised EFL by £316 million. I am not, however, requiring BR to meet that overshoot from this year's provision, as would normally be required. I have also today told the chairman of British Rail that I have approved his proposal to invest £127 million in 188 additional Networker vehicles for commuter services in south-east London and north Kent.

HEALTH

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the titles of the video recordings purchased by his Department during the financial year 1990–91 and 1991–92 to date.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dentists
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of dentists in each family health service authority are offering a less than full NHS service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Dentists are independent contractors who are free to accept or refuse patients as they see fit. However, having accepted a patient into an NHS continuing care or capitation arrangement, a dentist is required to offer all the care and treatment that is necessary to secure and maintain oral health.

  Immunology
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the locations of consultant immunologists in England.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Contracts for consultants are held by regional health authorities or, where appropriate, by teaching health districts. The table shows the locations of consultant immunologists, by regional health authority.
  181

  Number of consultant immunologists by regional and special health authority as at 30 September 1989

  Number

  Northern

  1

  Yorkshire

  2

  Trent

  4

  East Anglia

  2

  North West Thames

  5

  North East Thames

  4

  South East Thames

  5

  South West Thames

  1

  Wessex

  1

  Oxford

  1

  South Western

  2

  West Midlands

  5

  Mersey

  2

  North Western

  2

  Special Health Authorities

  3

  TOTAL

  40

  (Figures include permanent paid and honorary staff).

  Spectacles
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will increase the maximum help available to people who receive vouchers to cover the entire cost of spectacles.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Voucher values were increased overall by 6 per cent. from 1 April this year. The values of the most commonly prescribed vouchers A, B and D were increased by 7·2, 6·1 and 6·5 per cent. respectively.

  Nurses' Grading
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a breakdown of the total number of nursing clinical grading appeals already heard in the Northern region and the numbers(a) upheld or (b) rejected.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The figures for nurse clinical grading regional appeals for staff employed in the Northern regional health authority area are as follows—up to 31 May 1991:

  Number

  Total number heard:

  77

  of which

  (a) upheld

  14

  (b) rejected

  8

  No national appeals have been heard to date. Information on local appeals is not collected centrally.

  Prescribing Incentive Schemes
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received from family health services committees and doctors over the delay in being notified over the introduction of the prescribing incentive schemes; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he intends to take action on the prescribing incentive schemes submitted by family health services committees; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many family health services committees were notified that the prescribing incentive schemes submitted for his consideration had been agreed by his Department before 1 April.
  182
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received several representations from family health services authorities concerning the approval of indicative prescribing incentive scheme applications. I shall be announcing shortly which incentive scheme applications have been approved.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he gives to general practices on the introduction of prescribing incentive schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  "Improving Prescribing", issued in June 1990, set out proposals for the operation of local, voluntary incentive schemes. Further guidance was included in NHS management letter EL(91)12, issued to family health services authorities and regional and district health authorities on 31 January 1991. Copies of "Improving Prescribing" and EL(91) 12 are available in the Library.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 69, if he will list the main items of expenditure included in the £100,000 spent in 1990–91 on improving energy efficiency.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The main items of expenditure included are: dry lining of interior walls; 8-inch cork insulation as part of flat roof replacements; replacement of ill-fitting exterior doors.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the past five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: For the years up to 1989–90 it is not possible to provide separate information for the Department of Health. However, some of the conclusions that emerged from audits carried out on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Security up to that time are as follows:

  1. Convert tungsten lighting to compact fluorescent.

  2. Change fluorescent tubes to high efficiency types.

  3. Adjust boiler controls to eliminate overheating during occupancy and unnecessary heating during silent hours.

  4. Maintain records of the utilities used.

  5. Remedy defects to windows and doors.

  6. Display "Energy Management" posters.

  In 1990–91 there were no energy audits carried out in the Department. It is hoped to carry out energy audits during 1991–92 on two buildings that will remain part of the Department's estate for the foreseeable future.

  Ambulance Paramedic Services
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in converting NHS training directorate ambulance aid and extended ambulance, paramedic training to national vocational qualifications status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Progress on the development of national vocational qualifications for ambulance staff is well advanced. Occupational standards for ambulance staff have been extensively tested throughout the NHS and in collaboration with the armed forces and the voluntary sector.
  183
  The proposed qualifications will be presented to the December meeting of the Care Sector Consortium, which is the lead industry body for health and social care, and on approval will go to the National Council for Vocational Qualifications for formal acceptance.

  It is expected that qualifications will be available from January 1992, and will be phased in over the following two years, replacing the existing NHS training directorate qualifications.

  A process for the conversion of existing NHS training directorate qualifications to NVQs is being determined and will be included in the December submission to Care Sector Consortium.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ambulance services in England operate motor cycle or other dedicated fast response paramedic services; what assessment has been made of the costs and benefit of such services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is not collected centrally, although we are aware that there are a number of fast response services operating around the country. It is for individual ambulance services to assess the costs and benefits of such services in the light of local circumstances.

  Helicopter Ambulances
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the cost and benefit of providing helicopter air ambulance facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A long-term, independent study of costs, performance and benefits of air ambulance services in London and Cornwall, funded by the Department, is under way. Any assessment will need to await the results of the study.

  Food Premises
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to lay the regulations on registration of food premises under the Food Safety Act 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We will make an announcement when we have fully considered the responses made during the consultation on the draft regulations.

  Child Care Inquiry, Staffordshire
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to obtain an independent evaluation of the role of the social services inspectorate in the events leading up to the Staffordshire child care inquiry.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 18 June 1991]: Children's homes are the responsibility of local authorities. It is their job to see that proper management and monitoring systems are in place.

  An independent inquiry has been undertaken by Mr. Allan Levy QC and Mrs. Barbara Kahan into the "pindown" experience and the protection of children in Staffordshire children's homes. They were quite satisfied that the social services inspectors who had visited homes in Staffordshire in 1987 as part of a general review on the development of family centres were not told about "pindown" and its workings.

WALES

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which his Department was responsible for each of the past five years together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information about the appointments for which I am responsible is set out in "Public Bodies" and "Public Appointments: A Handbook for Women's Organisations" copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Hospitality Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the expenditure covered by his Department's hospitality fund for the financial years(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91, (c) 1991–92 to date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The amounts spent on official hospitality are as follows:

  £

  1989–90

  38,397·87

  1990–91

  45,419·35

  1991 to date

  6,866·59

  School of Instrument Making and Repair
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 14 May,Official Report, column 79, to the hon. Member for Don Valley, (a) where the equipment and the present staff at the Welsh school of instrument making and repair will he relocated when it closes at the end of the current academic year and (b) what alternative arrangements have been made to continue these studies.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  These are matters for Mid Glamorgan county council, which administers the school, and for Ystrad Mynach college of further education.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 14 May,Official Report, column 79, to the hon. Member for Don Valley, if he will list the six representations he received, and any others to date, over the closure of the Welsh school of instrument making and repair, showing in his answer whether they were for or against the closure.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The representations received were all by or on behalf of individuals and therefore I cannot give further details. All expressed concern at the closure of the Welsh school of instrument making and repair.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by year for the past five years, and for the current academic year, the number of students taught at the Welsh school of instrument making and repair at Abertridwr; what nationality they were; and what was the student establishment recommended.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not readily available.

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the titles of the video recordings purchased by his Department during the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92 to date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Algae
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to improve the biological control of filamentous algae of the cladophora family in Welsh rivers, lakes and reservoirs.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I understand that cladophora growth occurs from time to time when nutrient concentrations, flow and organic conditions are suitable. The National Rivers Authority will be addressing its possible control as part of its wider research into eutrophication.

  Special Needs Education
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff there are in each of the counties of Wales who teach pupils with special educational needs.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The number of full-time and part-time qualified teachers in special schools as at January 1990 is as follows:

  Number

  Clwyd

  120

  Dyfed

  47

  Gwent

  73

  Gwynedd

  50

  Mid Glamorgan

  104

  Powys

  28

  South Glamorgan

  131

  West Glamorgan

  48

  Information in respect of the number of staff in maintained primary and secondary schools who teach pupils with special educational needs is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many free-standing special educational needs schools there are in each of the counties of Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The number of maintained special schools as at January 1990 is given in the table:

  Number

  Clwyd

  11

  Dyfed

  5

  Gwent

  6

  Gwynedd

  6

  Mid Glamorgan

  10

  Powys

  4

  South Glamorgan

  15

  West Glamorgan

  5

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is his policy concerning special educational needs provision in Wales;

  (2) what policy initiatives he proposes concerning the special educational needs of pupils in Wales.
  186
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Education Act 1981 provides the framework for the provision of education for pupils with special educational needs. Local education authorities have the responsibility for securing that appropriate educational provision is made for such pupils. The Education Reform Act 1988, in particular the requirements of the national curriculum, ensures that pupils with special educational needs have an entitlement to the same curriculum as their peers.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to call an all-Wales conference on special educational needs provision in the schools of Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There are no plans at present to do so.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many pupils with special educational needs there are in each of the local educational authorities in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The number of pupils with statements of special educational needs as at January 1990 is given in the table:

  Number

  Clwyd

  2,512

  Dyfed

  648

  Gwent

  1,978

  Gwynedd

  744

  Mid Glamorgan

  3,282

  Powys

  293

  South Glamorgan

  1,323

  West Glamorgan

  613

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning the integration of special educational needs pupils into mainstream schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Education Act 1981 provides that local education authorities shall place children with statements of special educational needs in ordinary schools, provided that parental views are taken into account, and that such placement is compatible with the child receiving the provision required, the provision of efficient education for his peers and the efficient use of resources.

  River Dee
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases there have been of unauthorised discharges into the River Dee in the last 10 years, giving details of the source of the discharge and the quantities involved.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This is a matter for the National Rivers Authority.

  Waste Disposal, Newport
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the public inquiry to be made into Browning Ferris's application to construct and operate a waste disposal unit in Newport, Gwent, will take place.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  There are two appeals which will be heard jointly on 1 October 1991 in the council chamber, civic centre, Newport.
  187
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from individuals and organisations concerning the application from Browning Ferris to construct a waste disposal unit at Newport, Gwent.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  There are four representations, one of which is a petition of 19 signatures.

  Waste Exports
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much controlled waste is exported from Clwyd to(a) English counties and (b) Welsh counties.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not available.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many formal compliance notices have been issued by waste disposal authorities to landfill waste site operators in Wales during the past five years, with details of why they were issued and the names of the site operators concerned;

  (2) how many unauthorised emissions of leachate have taken place in Wales from landfill sites to the environment in the last five years, with details of where these have taken place and the names of the site owners responsible.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not held centrally and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the waste disposal authorities.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total sum for implementation of the Children Act 1989 which is allowed for within Government grant to local authorities in Wales(a) via specific grants and (b) via the element included in standard spending assessment in the present financial year.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Specific grant to local authorities in 1991–92 for implementation of the Children Act is £240,000. Standard spending assessments, supported through revenue support grant, are not hypothecated to particular items.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has anything to add by way of a correction to the oral answer to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) on 29 April,Official Report, column 3, about NHS expenditure.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 14 June 1991]: The figure I used was £615 million. The mistake was made in the Official Report, and it will be corrected in the Bound Volume in due course.

PRIME MINISTER

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has for the future management of the links between the Department of Education and Science, the Treasury and individual grant-maintained schools; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have at present no plans to change the existing funding arrangements for grant-maintained schools. They will keep those arrangements under review as the number of grant-maintained schools increases.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give energy consumption figures for 1990–91 for the 76 per cent. of Cabinet Office holdings referred to in the answer of 6 June 1990,Official Report, column 613, for electricity in kilowatt hours, for gas in therms and for liquid fuel in litres.

  The Prime Minister
  The 1990–91 energy consumption figures for the 76 per cent. of Cabinet Office holdings referred to in the answer of 6 June 1990, at column 613, are as follows:

  Electricity 3,641,991 kilowatt hours

  Gas 36,164 therms

  Liquid Fuel 504,244 litres

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which his Department was responsible for each of the past five years together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  The Attorney-General
  The public appointments for which the Attorney-General has had responsibility during the last five years are for the appointment of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, the Director and deputy Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland as well as the Crown Solicitor for Northern Ireland. The salary and date of renewal of each appointment are listed in the table.

  Appointment

  Salary

  Date for renewal

  Director of Public Prosecutions

  Grade 1

  Normal date for retirement i.e. 1995

  Director of Serious Fraud Office

  Grade 2 post1

  By agreement 1993

  Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland

  Grade 1A

  Normal date for retirement i.e. 2011

  Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland

  Grade 3 post1

  Normal date for retirement i.e. 2013

  Crown Solicitor for Northern Ireland

  Grade 2 post1

  Normal date for retirement i.e. 1992

  1 With individually negotiated salary.

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the titles of the video recordings purchased by his office and the Lord Chancellor's Department during the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92 to date.

  The Attorney-General
  The legal secretariat to the Law Officers has purchased no video recordings for the Lord Chancellor's Department during the financial year 1990–91 or in the financial year 1991–92 to date.

  Hospitality Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the expenditure covered by his office and the Lord Chancellor's Department's hospitality fund for the financial years(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91 and (c) 1991–92 to date.

  The Attorney-General
  The amounts expended by the legal secretariat to the Law Officers were as follows:

  £

  (a)1989–90

  4,389

  (b)1990–91

  3,625

  (c)1991–92 to date

  557

  West London County Court

  Population in Boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea

  Mortgage possession actions entered

  Mortgage possession orders made

  Number

  Percentage of Population

  Number

  Percentage of Population

  1986

  288,000

  189

  0·07

  116

  0·04

  1987

  284,000

  256

  0·09

  146

  0·05

  1988

  275,000

  290

  0·11

  133

  0·05

  1989

  279,000

  484

  0·17

  189

  0·07

  1990

  n·a·

  789

  n.a.

  571

  n.a.

  Westminster County Court

  Population in City of Westminster Borough

  Mortgage possession actions entered

  Mortgage possession orders made

  Number

  Percentage of Population

  Number

  Percentage of Population

  1986

  176,000

  10

  0·01

  14

  0·01

  1987

  173,000

  4

  —

  11

  0·02

  1988

  170,000

  46

  0·03

  62

  004

  1989

  173,000

  111

  0·06

  54

  0·03

  1990

  n·a·

  266

  n.a.

  102

  n.a.

ENVIRONMENT

  Business Rates (Appeals)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals have been lodged by the South Yorkshire valuation and community charge tribunal in respect of the uniform business rate for 1990–91; and how many have been received to date for the current financial year.

  Mr. Key
  The South Yorkshire valuation and community charge tribunal received about 13,200 appeals against entries in the 1990 non-domestic rating lists by the end of May 1991. Of these, 12,500 were received in 1990–91 and 700 were received in the first two months of this financial year.
  190
  The amounts expended by the Lord Chancellor's Department were as follows:

  £

  (a) 1989–90

  18,886·00

  (b) 1990–91

  19,022·93

  (c) 1991–92 to 21 May 1991

  929·04

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Martin Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General, how many court actions related to mortgage repossessions there were in(a) Hammersmith and Chelsea and (b) Westminster county courts in each year since 1986; and what percentage of the population this represents.

  The Attorney-General
  The number of mortgage actions for possession entered and orders made for possession in(a) West London and (b) Westminster county courts in each year since 1986 and the percentage of the population in the boroughs of (a) Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea (b) City of Westminster for the years 1986 to 1989, the most recent year available, are shown in the table.

  Community Charge Appeals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals have been lodged by the South Yorkshire valuation and community charge tribunal in respect of the community charge for 1990–91; and how many have been received to date for the current financial year.

  Mr. Key
  The South Yorkshire valuation and community charge tribunal has received to date 139 appeals about the community charge. Of these, 117 were received in 1990–91 and 22 have been received so far this financial year.

  Public Conveniences
  Mr. Grist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policy guidance is given by his Department to local authorities regarding the provision of public conveniences.
  191
  Mr. Key
  None.

  Mr. Grist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many and what representations his Department has received in the last 12 months regarding the provision of public conveniences.

  Mr. Key
  Apart from my hon. Friend himself, one other hon. Member has written about a constituent's concern at the closure of public conveniences in his area. Three members of the public and two interested organisations have also written about the level of provision of public conveniences.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what circumstances an individual could receive a revised poll tax bill for 1991–92 higher than one for 1991–92 received before the announcement of the general reduction scheme and the changes to the community charge reduction scheme in March; how many people he estimates to have received higher bills; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The community charge reduction scheme as it was amended in March 1991 requires local authorities to calculate reductions based on residence on 31 March 1991. This enables people who moved or became 18 during 1990–91 to qualify for the scheme. It also means that where the number of adults in a household is less than it was on 31 March 1990, account is taken of the lower household liability. No information is available on the numbers of households for which this was a consideration.

  St. Andrews Gardens, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of the Bullring, St. Andrews gardens, Liverpool; what talks he has had about its future; if he will meet tenants' representatives to discuss the conditions in which they are living; and whether he will agree to visit this tenement block.

  Mr. Yeo
  The future of the council houses at the Bullring, St. Andrews gardens, Liverpool, the condition of the living accommodation there and the need to meet and consult tenants' representatives are all matters for Liverpool city council. It is responsible for the management and maintenance of its stock.

  I have had no discussions about the future of the Bullring although a number of initiatives which are under way, particularly the city challenge invitation to the city, will involve some discussion with the Government later in the autumn. I understand that the city challenge area being considered by the city would include St. Andrews gardens.

  I have no plans to visit Liverpool in the near future.

  Emissions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many civil service personnel have been involved in considering the report into evaluation of nitrogen oxide abatement technologies for large combustion plants; what is the current total of staff hours devoted to consideration of the report; and if he will make a statement.
  192
  Mr. Baldry
  For the purposes of part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the technology for the control of emissions of nitrogen oxides from large combustion plant is currently being reviewed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. The report to which the hon. Member refers is being taken into account in that review. It is not possible to provide a separate estimate of the number of staff hours devoted to the report.

  "This Common Inheritance"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the objectives set out in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance"—Cm. 1200—have so far been achieved.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 26 March this year detailing the major initiatives taken in the six months since the publication of the environment White Paper, "This Common Inheritance".

  Since then we have continued to work hard at implementing commitments, taking the tally of initiatives so far to well over 100. Among the main achievements of the past three months have been the announcement of new planning controls over farm and forestry buildings and over the demolition of houses; the launch of a campaign of conservation awareness for farmers; announcements of future policy on environmentally sensitive areas; first offers of funding for a wide range of environmental projects by voluntary organisations under the new environmental grant fund; the first meetings of new discussion fora with business and the voluntary sector; the publication of an environmental directory for business; the report of the working group on tourism and the environment; consultation of local waste management plans for recycling; the launch of a new grant scheme for the renovation of cathedrals; and the application of substantial sections of the Environmental Protection Act on 1 April 1991.

  Publicity Budget (Ethnic Publications)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what budget his Department has for advertising in ethnic newspapers or magazines, the services and responsibilities of his Department; and what amount of money has been spent on this publicity in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Heseltine
  For the most part my Department informs the public about its services and responsibilities through an extensive range of explanatory leaflets and booklets rather than through advertising. Where a need has been identified, many of these publications are translated into languages other than English.

  My Department has no specific budget for advertising in ethnic newspapers or magazines. Between 1985–86 and 1988–89 no expenditure was incurred on such advertising. In 1989–90, £21,758 was spent on advertising in the ethnic press to promote awareness of the explanatory leaflets on the community charge and the community charge benefits scheme.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many instances there have been of pollution of water courses and drinking water supplies by leachate from landfill waste sites in England, during the past five years, with details of the extent and source of pollution, and the names of the site owners responsible.

  Mr. Baldry
  The National Rivers Authority is responsible for monitoring water pollution. Detailed information of the nature requested is not held centrally, but details obtained from the authority's monitoring programme are entered in the public registers kept at each of its regional offices.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultation he has had since his appointment on the subject of economic measures to increase environmental protection.

  Mr. Heseltine
  There is widespread debate in the United Kingdom and internationally about the use of economic measures to supplement regulation as a means of protecting the environment. My Department continues to be closely involved. The Government's approach to these matters was described in chapter 1 and annex A of the White Paper "This Common Inheritance"—Cm 1200—published last September.

  Protection of Habitats
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for the Environment what action his Department is taking to implement the EC directive on the protection of habitats and species.

  Mr. Baldry
  The habitats directive has not yet been adopted by the Council. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 will provide the framework for United Kingdom compliance with the directive when adopted.

  Pollution Incidents, Canvey Island
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent pollution incidents Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has investigated at the Shell Haven industrial plant at Canvey Island on 6 May.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has been informed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution that it did not make any pollution incident investigations at the Shell Haven industrial plant at Canvey Island on 6 May 1991.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will increase the powers of local authorities to protect hedgerows of high amenity or wildlife value.

  Mr. Baldry
  In our White Paper "This Common Inheritance" we announced our intention to give local planning authorities powers to protect important hedgerows in their areas. A consultation paper issued in December gave further details. Responses to that paper 194
  have raised a number of key issues, and we are giving these careful consideration. It would therefore be premature to take action on this matter in the present Planning and Compensation Bill. My aim is to ensure that any scheme commands the widest possible agreement and will be fair and practicable.

  Rural Development Commission
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the level of Government grant to the Rural Development Commission for(a) each of the last five financial years and (b) the current financial year.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is included in figure 23 of the "Department of the Environment's Annual Report 1991" —Cm 1508—a copy of which was put in the Library of the House on 13 February 1991.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total sum for implementation of the Children Act 1989 which is allowed for within Government grant to local authorities in England(a) via specific grants and (b) via the element included in standard spending assessment in the present financial year.

  Mr. Key
  The specific grant to local authorities in England in 1991–92 for social services training includes an element for training for the implementation of the Children Act 1989. Standard spending assessments are not disaggregated into identifiable amounts for individual functions.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what formula has been used to determine the element within standard spending assessment for local authorities in England for the costs of implementing the Children Act 1989 in the current financial year.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 18 June 1991]: Standard spending assessments are not disaggregated into identifiable amounts for individual functions. The methodology for calculating the "Social Services for Children" sub-block of the personal social services SSA is set out in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) and the Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) Report (England), which are available in the Library.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has given any remit to Nirex to undertake research or exploratory drillings connected with the long-term disposal of high-level radioactive waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  No such remit has been given. United Kingdom Nirex Ltd. does not have responsibility for high-level radioactive waste.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the written answer of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) on 16 December 1981,Official Report, columns 171–2, still represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the long-term option for disposing of high-level radioactive waste.
  195
  Mr. Baldry
  Government policy for high level radioactive waste is set out in the 1982 White Paper, "Radioactive Waste Management"—Cmnd 8607.

  Birds
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action has been taken to determine the origin of birds offered for sale in the United Kingdom for which no exemption has been granted to permit sale under the convention on international trade in endangered species.

  Mr. Baldry
  Under EC regulation 3626/82, which implements the convention on international trade in endangered species, only birds of certain species require sales exemptions. My Department monitors sales of these birds and investigates any apparent infringements.

  Water Services
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received the report of the Director General of Water Services for 1990.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am pleased to announce that the director general has prepared his report for 1990 and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Sheffield Development Corporation
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 4 June,Official Report, column 166, with regard to Sheffield urban development corporation, if he will make a statement on the part played by Sheffield development corporation in the establishment of the Meadowhall shopping complex and the jobs created there.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 18 June 1991]: At the inception of Sheffield development corporation in June 1988, development of the Meadowhall complex was already under way. I expect Meadowhall, in common with other commercial enterprises in the area, to benefit from the commitment to regeneration evidenced by the urban development corporation.

  Energy Management
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answers of 5 June 1990,Official Report, column 483, and 6 June 1991, Official Report, column 287, when his Department ceased to have a dedicated energy manager; and what other duties are carried out by the officials in the energy management unit.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 18 June 1991]: Since September 1990 the work of my Department's energy management unit has been broadened to include other associated environmental issues as part of a policy of developing departmental practice which preserves and enhances the environment. Energy conservation remains a key element of the unit's work and the success of the unit is demonstrated by the reduction in departmental energy consumption reported in my reply to the hon. Member of 12 June 1991.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ask for an investigation by the National Rivers Authority, following the refusal of Dutch harbour authorities to allow a ship to empty ballast water taken aboard from the River Humber because of high levels of pollution identified in the water content.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 18 June 1991]: The National Rivers Authority carries out extensive and regular monitoring of the Humber estuary's water and sediment which shows that in general the estuary meets European environmental quality standards on heavy metals. I have, however, brought the hon. Member's concern to the attention of the authority and have asked it to respond to him direct.

  Dredging
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his practice to refuse any more dredging orders off the Essex coast where there is evidence of potential damage to fish.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 17 June 1991]: The decision to grant a licence for the extraction of marine sand and gravel rests with the Crown Estate after consultation with those whose interests may be affected by the proposed dredging. My Department is responsible for co-ordinating these consultations and formulating the Government view. Each proposal is considered on its merits and I carefully examine all potential environmental impacts including fisheries before deciding whether or not to grant a favourable Government view. On the basis of a favourable Government view the Crown Estate will decide whether to issue a licence to dredge and will lay down appropriate conditions to protect marine and coastal interests.

  Land Use
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to co-ordinate and refine land use and economic activity classifications used by the Central Statistical Office, the Ordnance Survey, the Valuation Office, Her Majesty's Land Registry and his Department, respectively, since the report "Handling Geographic Information", prepared under the chairmanship of Lord Chorley.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 13 June 1991]: No specific steps have been taken to co-ordinate and refine land use and economic activity classifications, but the following closely related initiatives are under way.

  In line with the Government's response to the report "Handling Geographic Information", all the bodies mentioned are represented on the inter-departmental working group on the tradeable information initiative established to facilitate the wider availability of Government-held spatially referenced data.

  The national land use classification—NLUC—published in 1975, is commended by my Department for adoption in any process of compiling land use data. The categories used in my Department's land use change statistics—LUCS—are based on the NLUC, modified to take account of what it is feasible to record from Ordnance

  197
  Survey maps. None of the other bodies uses a land use classification, except the Ordnance Survey in its work for my Department on the LUCS.

  The economic activity classification used by the Central Statistical Office and my Department is the standard industrial classification. Member states of the European Community are required under regulation 3037/90 to adopt a new economic activity classification by 1993. None of the other bodies uses an economic activity classification.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what methods are known to Her Majesty's Government to carry out the destruction of nuclear materials as is set out in clause 6(4) in the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill.

  Mr. Chope
  I have been asked to reply.

  The method of destruction/disposal would be a matter for the courts to decide at the time and would depend on the nature and quantity of the material involved. While in most cases orders would be for the disposal of the radioactive material to a licensed facility, in very unusual circumstances a destruction order could be made. This would not necessarily require the destruction of the radioactive material but of the instrument or machinery which contains it in order to facilitate the safe disposal of the radioactive material. The courts would be able to seek advice from any number of organisations, including the Department of the Environment, the Health and Safety Executive, the National Radiological Protection Board and the Department of Transport, on the appropriate disposal methods.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Haberdashers' Aske's CTC
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice has been given by his Department to the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college on the steps it would be appropriate to take to comply with the requirement in its funding agreement that the intake of pupils should be representative in all respects of the community in the area in which the college is situated.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is for the college to ensure that all requirements of the funding agreement, including those relating to admissions, are met. Advice is available as necessary.

  Publicity Budget (Ethnic Publications)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what budget his Department has for advertising in ethnic newspapers or magazines the services and responsibilities of his Department; and what amount of money has been spent on this publicity in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department does not have a specific budget for advertising in the ethnic press and has not spent any funds on this activity in each of the last five years. However, it will shortly be advertising in the ethnic press two publications "How is your child doing at school?" and 198
  "Your child's report" which are available in eight ethnic languages. The Department has also published, in the last five years, other leaflets and guides in ethnic languages.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent estimate has been made of the number of students in England who give up courses in further and higher education colleges due to financial difficulties.

  Mr. Eggar
  This information is not available for further and higher education generally. A survey of all polytechnics and colleges in England identified only 0.2 per cent. of first degree students who did not continue their studies from the first to second year because of financial reasons.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of schools which have now achieved grant-maintained status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  A total of 200 schools have now voted in favour of seeking grant-maintained status. We have approved 88 and rejected 13. Fifty-four schools have published proposals which will soon come to us for decision. Forty-five schools are currently committed to publish proposals following parental ballots in favour of seeking grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the addresses of all schools which have achieved grant-maintained status, listed in his answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) of 12 June,Official Report, column 532–36.

  Mr. Eggar
  I shall write to my hon. Friend. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Church Schools
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he has made of the additional public funding Church schools would receive if they were all grant maintained, over and above what they are currently receiving.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is not possible to give a specific figure. Church schools which become grant maintained are eligible to receive a one-off transitional grant, various special purpose grants and a formula capital allocation. Some of these replace benefits or services which LEA-maintained schools are eligible to receive in another way. Such schools are also to be eligible to bid for 100 per cent. funding of named capital building projects. The amount received will depend on whether the bid is successful.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many church schools have applied for grant-maintained status; and how many have received it.

  Mr. Eggar
  To date, 14 Church schools have applied for grant-maintained status. Of these, we have approved eight, rejected one and have yet to decide the remaining five.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action is being taken by his Department to ensure that local education authorities are assessing all children in their areas with special educational needs and are issuing formal statements describing their specific requirements.

  Mr. Fallon
  It is for LEAs to decide on the provision to be made for children in their areas with special educational needs. Parents have rights of appeal and complaint under the Education Act 1981 and the Education Act 1944 respectively. These provide safeguards against any avoidance by LEAs of their statutory obligations.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to the answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 17, whether any funds were invested in improving energy efficiency in 1990–91, apart from double glazing at Waterloo.

  Mr. Atkins
  A small amount—under £1,000—was spent in the 1990–91 financial year on roof insulation in one of our Darlington offices.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Performing Rights Society
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on the time and cost involved for music users in appealing to the Copyright Tribunal agency in respect of tariffs imposed on them by the Performing Rights Society.

  Mr. Leigh
  The basic fee for an application to the Copyright Tribunal to settle a dispute with a copyright licensing body such as the Performing Rights Society is £30. The overall cost will depend on several factors including the level of any legal representation the applicant may choose to employ and the degree to which the application is successful. In appropriate cases, the tribunal may direct the licensing body to repay charges already paid under a new tariff and to pay the applicant's costs.

  Road Surfacing Industry
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will institute an inquiry into allegations of price-fixing in the road surfacing industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Any alleged price-fixing in the road surfacing industry is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. Any evidence of possible anti-competitive agreements should be put to the director general.

  Latin America
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his policy in the GATT round of negotiations in helping the countries of Latin America and promoting policies conducive to ameliorating rain forest problems.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The countries of Latin America, like other members of the GATT, would benefit from the 200
  improved market access for their products and the strengthening of the world trading system which would result from a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round of trade negotiations. The negotiations are not directly concerned with ameliorating rain-forest problems, but the GATT does allow the introduction of trade measures for conservation purposes, as long as these are not simply disguised restrictions on trade.

  Radio Equipment
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will consider the need for radio amateurs to have to present equipment for type approval.

  Mr. Redwood
  Type approval is not considered appropriate for the amateur service as, in essence, it is to do with experimentation, self-training in communication and technical investigation. To require amateur equipment to be type approved would be unreasonably expensive and could stifle development.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Radiocommunications Agency will acquire a computerised and up-to-date database for type approval records.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Radiocommunications Agency, formerly the radiocommunications division of the DTI, has operated a computerised database for land mobile type approval records since 1983.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what circumstances account for the issue by the Radiocommunications Agency of a fact sheet on 16 May 1991, Ref. LPD/1/15, "All Parties Interested in Radio Car Alarms", quoting incorrect type approvals for vehicle security; how many letters he received pointing out the errors in the previous fact sheet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Radiocommunications Agency has had a continuing publicity campaign to discourage the sale, installation and use of radio security alarms for vehicles which are not approved to the Department's performance specification.

  The latest in a series of letters to the trade dated 16 May 1991, covering a list of type approved equipment, was issued because the previous letter on the subject dated 1 February 1990 needed to be brought up to date. The Department has no record of letters pointing out errors in the lists attached to the 1 February letter. Regrettably, however, some errors have come to light in the revised lists attached to the 16 May 1991 letter. The agency intends to reissue the lists shortly in a clearer form.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Radiocommunications Agency expects to reply to the faxes from Scope Marketing (Communications UK) Ltd., Totnes, of 25 April, 1, 14, 20 and 28 May.

  Mr. Redwood
  Replies to the faxes from Scope Marketing (Communications UK) Ltd. were sent on 16 May, 21 May and 7 June.

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Telecommunications Council on 3 June.
  201
  Mr. Redwood
  The main item for discussion was the European Commission's plans for applying multiplexed analogue components standards to direct broadcasting by satellite. The discussion, on the basis of an oral report by the Commission, revealed wide differences of view between those member states which wish to impose MAC standards quickly and with few exceptions, and those including most particularly the United Kingdom, who would wish to let the market decide whether existing PAL transmissions should be replaced. The United Kingdom expressed dismay at the Commission's initial proposals which would force broadcasters to act in a way that may not be consistent with their commercial judgment and would risk cutting growth in demand for satellite TV by imposing unnecessary costs on consumers. The Commission is now reflecting on the discussion and is expected to issue its final proposals very soon.

  The otherwise relatively light agenda included an interim report from the Commission on the response to its green paper on satellite communications, and a report on progress towards publication of a green paper on postal services in Europe. The Commission also presented its proposal for harmonising the international telephony access code.

  A final decision was taken to adopt a directive on the frequency bands to be reserved for digital European cordless telecommunications—DECT—and a recommendation on the co-ordinated introduction of DECT in the Community. In view of the outstanding budgetary concerns on the part of some member states, including the United Kingdom, the adoption of the proposed Council decision establishing the second phase of the TEDIS programme—trade electronics data interchange systems —was deferred.

  Mental Nursing Homes
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the names and addresses of all those mental nursing homes registered to take detained patients together with the names of the registering authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  A list of mental nursing homes reported by district health authorities as being registered under section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984 to receive patients liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the names and district health authorities of all mental nursing homes or other establishments which are not hospitals where detained patients have been cared for during the past three years under contractual arrangements with health authorities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not collected centrally.

  Knitwear and Textiles
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations he has received from the industry about imports of category 13 (knickers and briefs) from China, category 12 (socks) from Indonesia and category 68 (knitted babywear) from Thailand;

  (2) if he will give details of the movements in the levels of imports between 1989 and 1990 into the United
  202
  Kingdom of category 13 (knickers and briefs) from China, category 12 (socks) from Indonesia and category 68 (knitted babywear) from Thailand; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 18 June 1991]: Import figures are given in the table. My Department has received, and is considering, representations from the Knitting Industries' Federation Ltd. —KIF—calling for a repeat of the action taken in 1989 to ban imports of category 13 products originating in China and entering the United Kingdom on free circulation from other member states. Consultations with importing and retailing interests show these to be either opposed to or doubtful about the case for such a ban, in the absence of more precise information.

  The KIF has also asked for safeguard action under the multi-fibre arrangements to be invoked against direct imports of category 12 products from Indonesia and category 68 products from Thailand.

  My Department is considering the case for an application to the European Commission for a further ban on free circulation imports of category 13 products originating in China. The key criterion laid down by the Commission in such cases is whether the imports in question give rise to economic difficulties. My officials are studying some further information on this point recently supplied by the KIF.

  In respect of category 12 products, United Kingdom production—of mainly higher-value items—has remained stable and exports have moved back to high levels. On category 68 products, United Kingdom production, exports and consumption are rising. Therefore, the MFA criterion for safeguard action for these products has not been met and my officials have informed the KIF accordingly.

  Country and Product

  Imports (including Imports in free circulation)

  1990

  1989

  China

  Knickers, briefs etc. (MFA Category 13)

  81·7 million pieces

  51·2 million pieces

  Indonesia

  Socks etc. (MFA Category 12)

  12·2 million pairs

  12·5 million pairs

  Thailand

  Babies' Clothing (MFA Category 68)

  1,573 tonnes

  1,229 tonnes

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the titles of the video recordings purchased by his Department during the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92 to date.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The following video recordings have been purchased by the training branches of this Department:

  1990–91 Financial Year

  Quality—The Only Way

  Making Customer Service Happen

  An Inside Job

  The Happy Accident

  Smart Moves

  203

  Body Language

  Through a Hundred Pair of Eyes

  A Class Divided

  Using the Telephone

  Approaching Debt

  Can You Spare a Moment?

  The Importance of Mistakes

  Managing Learning (Parts I and II)

  Change (Parts I and II)

  Prescription For Complaint

  Awkward Customers

  If Looks Could Kill

  The Unorganised Manager (Parts I and II)

  Decisions, Decisions

  Do You Think You Can Manage?

  Telephone Behaviour

  Tell My Wife I Won't Be Home for Dinner

  When Letters Work

  Oh What a Lovely Report

  Who, Me, Make a Presentation

  First in VHS Pal

  Everything is Negotiable

  The Manager and the Law (Parts I and II)

  The Deaf Manager

  Managing Time

  1991–92 (To date) Financial Year

  The Art of Negotiating

  The Trouble with Training

  The Helping Hand

  Other video recordings may well have been purchased locally within the Department, but that information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for the future of the Thames South, Southwark, Kennington, Peckham, Camberwell and Dartford offices of his Department.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of social security offices is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Income Support
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the population of London's adults were receiving income support(a) in 1980, (b) in 1985, (c) in 1990 and (d) at the last date for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief

  Number of heads of benefits units facing marginal deduction rates by range (in thousands)

  Per cent.

  1985–86

  Per cent.

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  100+

  70

  100+

  0

  0

  0

  0

  90+

  130

  90–99+

  45

  45

  45

  50

  80+

  290

  80–89+

  300

  165

  190

  145

  70+

  290

  70–79+

  170

  205

  160

  195

  60+

  450

  60–69+

  *

  5

  5

  5

  50+

  680

  50–59+

  0

  5

  0

  0

  40+

  n/a

  40–49+

  70

  35

  270

  20

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on pooled family expenditure survey data. Those for 1985–86 are cumulative and those for 1991–92 are estimated.

  2. Calculated for benefit units in receipt of income related benefits where at least one partner works 24 hours per week or more.

  3.* represents a figure of less than 2,500.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the marginal withdrawal rate out of 204
  executive of the Benefits Agency. I understand from him that the information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals claimed for income support in 1988 and each succeeding year as a result of being refused unemployment benefit.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not available. However, the numbers of people refused unemployment benefit to whom income support was in payment on particular days are shown in the table1.

  Unemployed claimants not receiving unemployment benefit

  Income support in payment

  12 May 1988

  1,254,415

  10 November 1988

  1,065,932

  11 May 1989

  997,044

  9 November 1989

  918,934

  10 May 1990

  914,273

  8 November 1990

  969,316

  1 Information from "Unemployment Benefit (UB) Statistics, Half Yearly Analysis of Unemployed Claimants".

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of people in 1991–92 who pay national insurance contributions on earnings above the lower earnings limit but who are not liable to income tax.

  Mr. Jack
  Based on information from the family expenditure survey 1989, it is estimated that in 1991–92 some 0.4 million non-tax payers in the United Kingdom will have earnings above the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions.

  Marginal Withdrawal Rates
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) tax units and (b) individuals had a marginal withdrawal rate of (i) 50 to 59 per cent., (ii) 60 to 69 per cent., (iii) 70 to 79 per cent., (iv) 80 to 89 per cent., (v) 90 to 99 per cent. and (vi) over 100 per cent. in each year since 1985–86; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Such information as is available is contained in the table. Figures for 1985–86 are not available in the form requested. Information for 1986–87 and 1987–88 is not available.

  gross income in 1990–91 for those in work, paying tax and

  205
  national insurance contributions and claiming rent and community charge rebates; and how many people there were in such households.

  Mr. Jack
  The marginal deduction rate in 1990–91 for those in work, paying tax and national insurance contributions and in receipt of rent rebate and community charge benefit is 87 per cent. This assumes national insurance contributions are paid at the contracted-in rate. Estimates of the number of people in households subject to marginal deduction rates in 1990–91 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) tax units and (b) persons, including children, in the households affected face a marginal withdrawal rate of tax and benefit of over 70 per cent.; and if he will state the estimated income ranges over which marginal withdrawal rates of (i) 70 to 79 per cent., (ii) 80 to 89 per cent. and (iii) 90 to 99 per cent. apply in 1990–91.

  Mr. Jack
  Information is not available in the form requested. In 1990–91 there were 395,000 heads of benefit units receiving income-related benefits where at least one partner worked more than 24 hours a week with marginal deduction rates of 70 per cent. or over.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the cost to the Exchequer per 100,000 unemployed in terms of social security payments.

  Mr. Jack
  A variation of 100,000 in the number unemployed incurs an estimated additional expenditure of £305 million in social security benefits available to unemployed people in 1991–92.

  Source: Cm 1515. Social Security, The Government's Expenditure Plans 1991–92 to 1993–94.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Horses
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how his Ministry differentiates between horses used for recreation and those kept for the horsemeat trade.

  Mr. Maclean
  No such differentiation is made. In this country any horse can be slaughtered for the horsemeat trade providing it is slaughtered in accordance with the requirements of public health legislation.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what facilities exist in the United Kingdom for the slaughter of equines for human consumption; and if he has any proposals to improve them.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are currently four EC-approved slaughterhouses, and six slaughterhouses operating under domestic legislation, which are approved for the slaughter of equines in the United Kingdom. It is for the operators of the domestic plants to take commercial decisions on whether to upgrade to meet the single market rules which will apply after 1992.

  New Forest
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the annual cost to the Forestry Commission for supervising hunting in the New Forest; and how many letters and petitions in favour of ending hunting in the New Forest the Forestry Commission has received in the last five years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Forestry Commission does not keep a separate record of the cost of supervising hunting in the New Forest as the staff concerned cover a wide range of duties of which supervising hunting forms only a small part. However, the Commission's best estimate is that the costs last year, including staff and vehicle costs, were in the region of £11,000. In the last five years the Commission has received one petition and about 50 letters objecting to hunting in the New Forest.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what responsibilities his Department has for (i) conservation, (ii) transport and (iii) welfare of imported wild birds.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department has no conservation responsibilities in respect of imported wild birds. During transport, the welfare of birds imported into this country is protected by the provisions of the Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973 which also imposes a general duty of care on those involved in the transport of all animals including birds.

  The order is enforced by local authorities. Their inspectors can call on the assistance of the state veterinary service whenever welfare or health problems arise. Every commercial consignment of birds imported into this country is inspected on arrival with particular regard to welfare conditions.

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the titles of the video recordings purchased by his Department during the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92 to date.

  Mr. Maclean
  Various parts of the Department, such as staff training, welfare and the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, purchase specialist video programmes from time to time. However, these purchases are made independently. There is no central purchasing point, and no central records are kept.

  Bananas
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the continuation of Commonwealth preference for bananas; what is the current state of negotiations within the EC on bananas; what is the position of the United Kingdom Government in these discussions; if he will give consideration to the need to protect the interest of Commonwealth banana growers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  We have received representations about the preferential arrangements applying to United Kingdom imports of bananas from a wide variety of interests including our traditional suppliers in the Caribbean.
  207
  The European Commission is currently considering arrangements to apply to bananas in the single European market post-1992, but has not yet come forward with proposals. The United Kingdom Government will seek to ensure that new arrangements fulfil our commitments to Commonwealth Caribbean suppliers, and take account of consumer interests, the need for budgetary restraint, trade policy considerations and the competition and efficiency objectives of the single market initiative.

  Oil Seed Rape
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had from beekeepers about the present scale of oil seed rape production or its present methods of cultivation.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is a good market for oil seed rape honey, and the information available to me indicates clearly that this source is consequently valued by beekeepers.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 42, when he expects the 1990–91 energy consumption figures to be available.

  Mr. Curry
  The energy consumption figures for the 1990–91 financial year should be available within about a month. I will write to the hon. Member with the details as soon as it has been possible to gather the information together from all the various Ministry establishments concerned.

  Blue-Ear Disease
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many pig weaners have been removed out of the farms restricted due to blue-ear disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  No weaners have been moved off restricted farms.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many pig buyers from(a) Holland and (b) Germany visited farms which are currently under restriction in the last three months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  On 25 April 1991, a party from the eastern part of Germany visited two of the premises now under restrictions imposed under precautions for dealing with blue-eared pig disease. The visitors, seven Germans and a Dutchman, had not been in contact with any pigs for at least a week prior to the visit and very strict hygiene standards were applied on their arrival, including a shower and changes of inner and outer clothing. In view of the precautions taken and the absence of the disease in the eastern part of Germany, this visit has been discounted as the origin of infection of blue-ear pig disease.

  Wine
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made towards setting up a quality wine scheme for English and Welsh wine producers under European Community rules.
  208
  Mr. Curry
  During the recent price-fixing round in Brussels, we secured a formal Council statement that reads:"In the context of wine sector reform the Commission will study the possibilities of including interspecific varieties in the list of varieties deemed suitable for production of quality wine per specified region".

  I expect English and Welsh wine producers to welcome this, as interspecific varieties of vines, or "hybrids", emerged as their predominant concern during a recent consultation exercise on quality wine. Clearly we now have a commitment to follow this point up firmly in subsequent Brussels discussion, which may take some time. Meanwhile, however, I have decided to launch a pilot quality wine scheme for operation as from the 1991 vintage this autumn, with a view to full operation as of the 1992 vintage.

ENERGY

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of the total number of households which applied for shares in the privatisation of(a) the regional electricity distribution companies, (b) the generating companies and (c) both.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It will not be possible to give a figure for the number of households from which applications were received, since the applications do not record the composition of the household to which an applicant belongs.

  Trawsfynydd Nuclear Power Station
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the cost of running Trawsfynydd nuclear power station in 1990–91.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This is a commercial matter for Nuclear Electric.

  Electricity Pylons
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his policy in respect of siting electricity pylons in areas of high population density.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Siting of electricity pylons is, in the first instance, a matter for the licence holder concerned. However, the majority of overhead line developments require the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, and he takes all relevant factors, including the extent of any residential development, fully into account before reaching his decision.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his assessment of the effect of the war in the Gulf on oil inputs into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The United Kingdom was able to acquire adequate supplies of oil despite the disruptions caused by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

  Thermonuclear Reactor Project
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of the discussions on the international thermonuclear experimental reactor project, and the steps to be taken to move to the engineering design phase of the collaboration, between Euratom, the United States of America, Japan and the USSR.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Negotiations on behalf of the Community are being conducted by the Commission. So far there have been two plenary rounds of discussions aimed at deciding whether the collaboration should proceed to an engineering design activity—EDA—phase. The last of these took place in Tokyo in April; a third round is scheduled for Washington in July. Consideration is focusing on the technology content of the project and on the choice of site. Three of the partners in the collaboration, Japan, the United States of America, and Euratom, have proposed sites for the location of EDA, and these bids are currently being evaluated.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future funding arrangements for the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Parliament has voted some £27 million for the Energy Efficiency Office in support of energy efficiency in low-income households in the current financial year, of which approximately £26 million is expected to be used to fund the home energy efficiency scheme. Funding in future years will be settled and announced under the usual arrangements for public expenditure.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Latin America
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what study he has made of the United States framework for dealing with Latin America for the development of overall packages to Latin America in relation to science and technology.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are aware of no such framework. Congress is presently considering a Bill which, if enacted, would promote co-operation between the United States and Latin America in science and technology. We are aware of its provisions.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards using the Commonwealth Development Corporation as a pump-primer for investment in Latin America.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Commonwealth Development Corporation has an important role to play in stimulating wider investment in those countries in Latin America and elsewhere in which it operates.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy he has for helping to expand the Inter-American Development Corporation.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The United Kingdom is a shareholder in the Inter-American development bank—IADB—but is 210
  not a member of the Inter-American Investment Corporation. We play a full part in the activities of the IADB and contribute to its fund for special operations.

  Brazil
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Brazil on bio-medical research.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No such discussions have taken place. ODA funds are provided for higher education links between Brazil and the United Kingdom. These include some areas of medical and health-related research.

  Aid Recipients
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria for good government he uses in determining appropriate recipients of aid.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The criteria for good government include sound economic and social policies, competent, open and accountable institutions and respect for human rights and the rule of law.

  Central America
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy for extending Commonwealth Development Corporation work in(a) Costa Rica, (b) Ecuador, (c) Nicaragua and (d) Honduras.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Commonwealth Development Corporation already provides assistance to Costa Rica, Ecuador and Honduras. Approval for the corporation to operate in Nicaragua was given in March this year, and the CDC is currently investigating a number of investment opportunities there. In pursuing all such opportunities the CDC seeks to increase the proportion of new commitments in the private sector.

  Aid Programme
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any comprehensive survey of British attitudes towards overseas aid and development has been carried out since "Attitudes to Overseas Aid" published by HMSO in 1978; and whether he will make it his policy to commission another such survey.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Questions on the public's attitude to aid are included in the annual FCO opinion poll. We also receive information from polls conducted by non-government organisations. We will continue to use both these methods to gauge public opinion of the aid programme.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have entered, or been reinstated, in the aid programme since 1979; and why.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Since 1979 the following countries have entered the aid programme:

  Central African Republic

  Equitorial Guinea
  211
  Guinea
  Recognition of their classification as least-developed countries.

  China
  To support improvements in Sino-British relations, increasing Chinese interests in links with western countries and systems and in recognition of China's place among the world's 50 poorest countries.

  Comoros

  Israel

  Mongolia

  Sao Tome
  Aid limited to minor gifts under the heads of mission schemes to non-governmental or voluntary bodies.

  Congo

  Gabon
  English language teaching programmes designed to strengthen British political and commercial links with west Africa.

  The following countries have been reinstated into the aid programme since 1979:

  Cambodia Humanitarian aid.
  Cuba

  Surinam
  Aid limited to minor gifts under the heads of mission schemes to non-governmental or voluntary bodies.

  Iran

  Iraq
  Emergency aid to Iraqi refugees.

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Agriculturalists

  9

  8

  8

  8

  9

  9

  9

  8

  10

  Social advisers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Other technical staff

  18

  20

  21

  20

  20

  20

  21

  20

  20

  Staff on contract to the ODA funded by the Aid Programme:

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Agriculturalists

  n/a

  n/a

  136

  161

  137

  183

  188

  184

  154

  Environmental specialists

  na/

  n/a

  29

  44

  52

  61

  73

  78

  75

  Social advisers

  n/a

  n/a

  131

  141

  145

  147

  146

  146

  125

  Other technical staff

  n/a

  n/a

  1,138

  1,093

  1,061

  1,191

  1,127

  1,264

  1,115

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Overseas Development Administration's policy regarding the responsibility of Overseas Development Administration staff working overseas to liaise with non-governmental organisations in those countries; and whether any staff are posted with the specific responsibility of liaising with local non-governmental organsiations.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We encourage our staff working overseas to get to know, and co-operate with, other agencies operating in the countries concerned, including both local and United Kingdom-based NGOs. At present there are two ODA posts, one in Bangladesh and one in Pakistan, with a specific remit to liaise directly with local NGOs.
  212
  Nicaragua
  Bilateral aid reinstated in April 1990 to mark return to democracy. Previously only disaster relief and minor gifts under the heads of mission schemes.

  Vietnam
  Assistance through British NGOs for the reintegration of boat people and for general development assistance.

  Turkey
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what grounds Turkey qualifies as a recipient of bilateral aid.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Turkey is classified as a developing country by the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  Development Issues
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, for each year since 1975, the number of Overseas Development Administration professional staff based overseas in development divisions, in embassies and elsewhere, showing how many of these are environmental specialists, agriculturalists, social advisers and other technical staff.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Information in the form requested is not available before 1983. Details of ODA permanent staff based overseas are as follows:

  New Aid Projects
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts are being made to increase the amount of time spent by Overseas Development Administration staff overseas in identifying new aid projects, particularly poverty projects, in Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Poverty alleviation is a major objective for the aid programme and a significant proportion of staff time in headquarters and overseas is already devoted to identifying, appraising and monitoring projects and programmes which contribute to this. New staff appointments also reflect this emphasis. For example, a new social development adviser post has recently been created in headquarters to help deal with Africa. Overseas, an additional economist has been appointed to the British development division in southern Africa specifically to work in the health and education sectors.

  Project Costs
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Overseas Development Administration's policy regarding the financing of recurrent costs of projects.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Recurrent costs are met, where possible, from the budget of the local agency undertaking the project or programme which our aid is helping to finance. However, in certain circumstances, we are ready to consider financing recurrent costs through the aid programme. In making judgments we would consider whether there is a genuine shortage of local funds, whether recurrent costs and revenues have been carefully considered and whether sectoral policies are appropriate; also whether the nature of the proposal, for example if it has a pilot or demonstration purpose, presented special justification for contributions to local costs.

  NGO Grants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many indigenous non-governmental organisations in developing countries receive grants from the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mrs. Chalker
  This information is not centrally available. Many developing country NGOs receive grants for specific projects from United Kingdom heads of missions through the gifts schemes and small project schemes which they administer for ODA. In addition, grants to British NGOs through the ODA's joint funding scheme are often destined for projects designed and implemented in conjunction with indigenous NGOs, and sometimes spread across a number of countries.

  Technical Co-operation
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether technical cooperation has ever been given to assist a developing country to assess the poverty impact of its own policies.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Overseas Development Administration is providing technical co-operation funds to the Government of Mozambique to employ a social policy adviser to help analyse poverty incidence and advise on poverty policies. In Kenya and Bangladesh, technical co-operation funds are paying for consultants to work with the Governments to analyse poverty incidence and to suggest options for aid assistance.

  Social Development Advisers
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many social development advisers there are in the Overseas Development Administration in the United Kingdom; how many are overseas; and in which country.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There are four full-time social development advisers and one assistant adviser in the United Kingdom. There is one full-time adviser in Thailand and one part time adviser in Barbados. In addition Her Majesty's Government fund 125 social advisers—this includes those in medical health, community development and social welfare—under the aid programme in 29 countries.

  Aid Projects
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of Overseas Development Administration projects that have been evaluated have been successfully operating more than two years after completion of the aid contract and withdrawal of Overseas Development Administration financing.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Evaluation of a project normally takes place after sufficient time has elapsed to permit an assessment of operational success. The timing depends upon the nature of the project, and on occasion may be less than two years after completion. An analysis of 79 projects evaluated between 1980 and 1989 showed that 43 of them 56·2 per cent. by value—were rated successful or highly successful. A further 23–31 per cent. by value—were rated partially successful and the remainder—12·8 per cent. by value—were rated unsuccessful. This analysis is contained in the report "Lessons from Evaluation 1980–1989" which is available in the House of Commons Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the titles of the- video recordings purchased by his Department during the financial year 1990–91 and 1991–92 to date.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Department does not keep central records of all video recordings purchased. Some records are kept of video recordings bought for training purposes. I will send the list to the hon. Member and place a copy in the Library.

  Police Training
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimates he has made of the effect on operational police strengths arising from the detachment of police officers for retraining following the passage of(a) the Road Traffic Bill and (b) the Criminal Justice Bill;

  (2) if he will make an estimate of the manpower costs involved in retraining police officers necessitated by the passage of (a) the Road Traffic Bill and (b) the Criminal Justice Bill.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend expects that any retraining of police officers as a consequence of the legislation will be on a limited scale and will not affect operational policing.

  Wolds Remand Prison
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the remand contracts unit of the prison department is undertaking an in-house costing for Wolds remand prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Yes, with other parts of the Home Office.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimate of the annual running costs of the new Wolds remand prison.
  215
  Mrs. Rumbold
  A costing for use in comparison with tenders is being prepared.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the companies which have tendered for the Wolds remand prison contract have put in tenders in excess of the in-house costing of the prison department.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No tenders for the operation of Wolds remand prison have yet been received. Companies are required to submit their tenders by 19 July.

  Extradition
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the persons who have been extradited for terrorist offences since 1980(a) from Great Britain to the Republic of Ireland and (b) from the Republic of Ireland to Great Britain, giving the year in which the extradition occurred and indicating the outcome in each case.

  Mr. John Patten
  There have been no extraditions for terrorist offences from Great Britain to the Republic of Ireland. One person, Desmond Ellis, was returned from the Republic of Ireland in 1990. His case is pending.

  Prison Officers' Accommodation
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present quantity of prison officers' accommodation at each of the London prisons available for letting to serving prison officers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The number of quarters available for serving prison officers at each of the London prisons as at 1 April 1991, the latest date for which information is available, is as follows:

  Number

  Vacant

  Belmarsh

  6

  3

  Brixton

  223

  18

  Holloway

  145

  1

  Pentonville

  104

  5

  Wandsworth

  161

  7

  Wormwood Scrubs

  208

  3

  Under the new conditions of service introduced by "fresh start" in 1987, prison officers are no longer quarters entitled. They occupy quarters on service tenancies and are allowed to purchase under a discount sale scheme, subject to availability and eligibility.

  E1 Salvador
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Scotland Yard visit to EI Salvador.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Scotland Yard team went to El Salvador at the request of President Cristiani to advise on the investigation into the murder of six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her daughter. Their report has now been passed to the Government of El Salvador.

  Cable Television (Scotland)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the cable television industry in Scotland.
  216
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 14 cable franchises have been awarded in Scotland. Work on laying cable in the Aberdeen franchise area is complete, a substantial amount of cable now exists in Glasgow; and work has began in Dundee. All but the two earliest franchises were awarded by the Cable Authority, whose final report and accounts were laid before the House on 12 June.

  Arctic Foxes
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to eliminate the keeping of wild arctic foxes in captivity for fur breeding purposes.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no plans to do so.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Vietnamese Boat People
  Sir Peter Blaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the United States Administration regarding the comprehensive programme of action for the return to Vietnam of illegal immigrants to Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the press release of 5 June entitled "Vietnamese asylum seekers", copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he has received from the Government of Hong Kong about the projected numbers of Vietnamese boat people coming to Hong Kong during the remainder of 1991; and what action he proposes.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 18 June to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris).

  To ease the pressure on Hong Kong, we are pursuing as a matter of urgency with Vietnam, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organisation of Migration the establishment of an internationally managed centre on territory provided by Vietnam for those asylum seekers who are determined not to be refugees and have not taken advantage of the existing voluntary return programme.

  Burma
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make further representations to the Government of Burma concerning the transfer of power from the military junta to the National League of Democracy.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We will continue to make our views known whenever it is appropriate to do so.

  European Safeguards Research and Development Association
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department was represented at the annual meeting of the European Safeguards Research and Development Association held recently in Avignon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  An official of the Department of Energy attended this symposium. The official proceedings of the symposium should be published within three months. It will be possible to obtain copies from the ESARDA symposium secretariat at the joint research centre, Ispra, Italy.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 10 June,Official Report, column 413, what steps he has taken to validate the statement of the Vietnamese Government that people are not persecuted for their religious beliefs.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our embassy in Hanoi is in regular contact with the Vietnamese authorities, in particular the Government Board for Religious Affairs, and raises with them specific cases of alleged human rights abuses, including religious persecution.

  Football
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the behaviour of England football supporters in Kusadasi on the occasion of last month's England v. Turkey match.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  About 800 English supporters travelled to Turkey for the senior and under-21 international football matches. Following incidents in Kusadasi on 1 May 1991, 22 were arrested and appeared in court the same day. Eleven were released. The others were fined for causing damage to property and released on 3 May 1991 after the fines had been paid. British consular staff visited all those arrested and received full co-operation from the Turkish authorities.

  Environmental Research Vessel
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what area of British waters the Soviet environmental research ship Akademik Boris Petrov was banned from entering; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  An application was received from the Soviet embassy for permission to conduct research in Scottish waters from Leith around to Port Glasgow. Such permission was not granted.

  Fishing Rights (South Atlantic)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of his discussions with European partners on fishing rights off the coast of British dependent territories, including Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Discussions with European partners on a fisheries agreement covering United Kingdom 218
  dependent territories have not yet started. We are examining, with the dependent territories, the possible components of such an agreement.

  E1 Salvador
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has had from El Salvador for help with improving its judicial system.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No specific request for such help has been received from the government of El Salvador. During the annual San Jose meeting of EC and Central American Foreign Ministers, however, held in Managua in March this year, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and our EC colleagues agreed to develop programmes aimed in particular at improving the administrative and legal machinery in Central American countries, designed to ensure that human rights are fully guaranteed. A committee of European and Central American experts is to be entrusted with the task of working out how these programmes are implemented.

  Brazil
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Brazilian Government to seek the transfer of forthcoming trials in the cases of Expedito Ribeiro de Sousa and Jose and Paulo Canuto to the state capital to reduce the risk of interference with jurors and witnesses.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It would not be appropriate for us to express a view on this matter.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Brazilian Government about the continuing violence against rural workers in the region of Rio Maria and Xinguara in the state of Para.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are in regular touch with the Brazilian authorities regarding a range of human rights issues, including the position of rural workers.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will send a diplomatic representative to observe the trials in connection with the murders of trade union officials Expedito Ribeiro de Sousa and Jose and Paulo Canuto in the Brazilian state of Para.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our embassy in Brasilia will be monitoring the trials.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 49, if he will give such information as is available without disproportionate cost, in the form of his answers of 30 April 1990, Official Report, column 405 and 10 May 1990, Official Report, column 205.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Further to my answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 49, the only figures that can be provided without disproportionate cost are those for total energy consumption and expenditure in Foreign and Commonwealth Office buildings in the financial year 1990–91. These are as follows:
  219

  Consumption

  Expenditure£

  (i) Electricity

  18,106,000kwh

  1,135,429

  (ii) Gas

  409,000therms

  155,633

  (iii) Fuel Oil

  1,450,350litres

  247,838

  Figures for ODA energy consumption and expenditure are not readily available. I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Peacekeeping Operations
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contributions the United Kingdom is making towards United Nations peacekeeping operations in the Gulf and western Sahara.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  At present we plan to contribute a total of £8·55 million made up as follows:

  £ million

  United Nations Iraq/Kuwait Observer Mission (UNIKOM)

  2·1

  United Nations Special Commission Iraq

  1·0

  United Nations Observer Mission in Western Sahara (MINURSO)

  5·45

  Total

  8·55

  Parliamentary approval for these new services will be sought in the winter supplementary estimate for "Foreign and Commonwealth Office: other external relations", vote —class II, vote 2. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £8·55 million will be met by a repayable advance from the Contingencies Fund.

  Latin America
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he is having with Latin American Governments on the pace of decision-making of the judicial system in commercial law.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Among the priorities of our increased aid programme for Latin America is support for good government, which includes inter alia improvements in the judicial process. Bilateral investment promotion and protection agreements are signed or under negotiation with several Latin American countries. We also continue to work with Latin American and other Governments in the United Nations Commission of International Trade Law on the co-ordination of international trade law.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he is having with Latin American Governments on optimum technical or research co-operation between the European Economic Community and the United Kingdom and Latin America.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Co-operation in the field of science and technology was discussed earlier this year at the meetings between the European Community and the countries of Central America and the Rio group. I represented the United Kingdom. Consultation continues in the framework of the communities co-operation agreements with those countries.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will call for a report on why Lee Bun and her husband were refused asylum in Hong Kong; and what information he has over their fate after they had returned to China.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 June 1991, c. 726]: The Chinese authorities have now told us that the story was unfounded and the couple have not been executed.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Water and Sewerage Installations
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the standard costs of mains water and sewerage installation in the constituency of South Down since 1 April 1980 to 31 March 1991; and what are the current standard costs.

  Mr. Needham
  The details of the standard unit cost yardsticks for water and sewerage are:

  Effective date

  Water £

  Sewerage £

  1 April 1980

  2,000

  1,500

  1 April 1981

  2,250

  1,950

  1 April 1982

  2,400

  2,050

  1 September 1983

  2,600

  2,200

  1 April 1984

  2,700

  2,200

  1 September 1985

  2,900

  2,300

  Planning Permissions
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many planning permissions have been(a) approved and (b) refused in each year since 1980 in areas of outstanding natural beauty in the constituency of South Down.

  Mr. Needham
  Information before 1987 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The information since 1987 is:

  Year

  Approved

  Refused

  1987

  278

  23

  1988

  336

  34

  1989

  350

  64

  1990

  301

  57

  1991 to date

  181

  38

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many planning permissions have been(a) approved and (b) refused in each year since 1980 in areas of special scientific interest—ASSIs—in the constituency of South Down.

  Mr. Needham
  Two ASSIs lie partly in the South Down constituency. These were declared in 1988 and 1989. Since then, no planning applications have been received in respect of sites within the ASSIs in that constituency.

  Security Statistics
  Mr. Carttiss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the security statistics for 1990 are now available, together with details of persons charged with terrorist type offences and convictions for scheduled offences for the year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Yes. Security statistics for 1990 are as follows. Statistics for earlier years can be obtained from the Library.

  Statistics on Security (January-December 1990)

  Part I—Statistics of Terrorist Activity

  Number

  Shooting Incidents

  396

  Explosions

  167

  Bombs Neutralised

  120

  Weight of Explosives in Kgs1

  5,392

  Explosions Neutralised

  15,328

  Armed Robberies

  438

  Malicious Fires

  333

  Amount Stolen

  £1,728,685

  Deaths:

  Civilian

  49

  Army/UDR (8 Army/7 UDR)

  15

  RUC/RUC'R' (7 RUC/5 RUC'R')

  12

  Injuries:

  Civilian

  478

  Army/UDR (190 Army/24 UDR)

  214

  RUC/RUC'R' (165 RUC/49 RUC'R')

  214

  1 Estimated weight only.

  Part II—statistics of security forces' activity Dwellings searched

  Army

  RUC

  Occupied

  673

  —

  Unoccupied

  191

  —

  Derelict

  195

  —

  Convictions and sentences for scheduled offences

  Sentence(January to December 1990)

  Offence

  Number convicted 1990

  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

  Detained SOS

  Life

  Murder

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  7

  Attempted murder

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  3

  1

  0

  0

  Aid and abet murder

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  Conspiracy to murder

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Manslaughter

  4

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Common assault

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

  18

  12

  2

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wounding or grevious bodily harm with intent

  23

  5

  4

  5

  1

  4

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Wounding or grevious bodily harm

  14

  9

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kidnapping or false imprisonment

  3

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rape

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Arson

  16

  6

  5

  2

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  222

  Army

  RUC

  Total

  1,059

  3,568

  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

  Number

  Weapons

  223

  Ammunition (rounds)

  22,452

  Explosives (kgs)

  1,968

  Persons charged with terrorist-type offences

  Number

  Murder

  18

  Attempted murder

  62

  Firearms offences

  115

  Explosives offences

  22

  Theft Act

  31

  Other

  132

  Total

  380

  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 arc 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.
  223

  Convictions and sentences for scheduled offences

  Sentence(January to December 1990)

  Offence

  Number convicted 1990

  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

  Detained SOS

  Life

  Petrol bomb offences

  27

  25

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Threats to damage property

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hijacking

  28

  19

  6

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Robbery

  114

  45

  15

  32

  12

  4

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Burglary

  9

  2

  2

  1

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Blackmail

  5

  1

  0

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Membership

  6

  2

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Unlawful collection of information

  8

  3

  1

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Witholding information

  15

  13

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Contributing towards terrorism

  3

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Possession of information useful to terrorists

  5

  3

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Making property available

  8

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Riot

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bomb hoax

  3

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Impeding apprehension

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Conspiring to prevent the course of justice

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Breach of suspended sentence

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Carrying firearm with intent

  6

  3

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Possession of firearm in suspicious circumstances

  12

  6

  2

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Possession of firearms with intent

  47

  12

  5

  3

  8

  6

  10

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Possession of prohibited weapon

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Causing explosion

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  0

  0

  Possession of explosives with intent

  16

  2

  0

  2

  3

  3

  4

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  440

  184

  51

  80

  35

  24

  28

  19

  4

  1

  14

  Animal Carcases
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has monitored, by council area, the incidence of illegal dumping of fallen animals which has had to be dealt with by individual councils; and what are the statistics for each of the past eight months in each council area.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 18 June 1991]: District councils are being asked for the information requested and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible and place a copy of my letter in the Library.
  224
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases have been prosecuted or have prosecutions pending in relation to the illegal dumping of fallen animals during each of the past eight months.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 18 June 1991: Records of prosecutions by district councils for the illegal dumping of fallen animals are not held centrally. However, information on such dumping including information on

  225
  prosecutions is being sought from district councils and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Labour Statistics
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were in employment in Scotland in 1979; and how many are now.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  In December 1990, the latest date for which information is available, there were 2·27 million in the Scottish civilian work force, some 20,000 more than in December 1979.

  Scottish Homes
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with Scottish Homes about the transfer of its housing stock.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have issued guidance to Scottish Homes regarding the disposal of its housing stock and proposals which have the agreement of tenants are subject to my approval. No proposals have yet been submitted for approval.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funding arrangements he has made to enable Scottish Homes to meet its target of 300 new units of special needs accommodation as part of its second strategic plan.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Homes finances special needs accommodation provided by housing associations from within its traditional rented programme, which in 1990–91 was approximately £149 million.

  Plant Closures, Leith
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from trade unions, local councils and community groups about the closure of Caledonia Mills and Scottish Agricultural Industries in Leith; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations about Caledonia Mills. The hon. Gentleman will recall that one trade union representative attended the meeting I had with him on 20 March 1991 about Scottish Agricultural Industries—SAI No other such representations have been received about SAI.

  Lanarkshire Health Services
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve the provision of general hospital services within the Lanarkshire health board area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  On Friday, 7 June my right hon. Friend endorsed Lanarkshire health board's proposal in its acute services strategy to build a new 615-bed district general hospital in Wishaw at a cost of over £70 million to serve the Motherwell and Clydesdale area. The other component of the board's acute services strategy is to 226
  provide a new district general hospital to serve the Hamilton and East Kilbride districts by either redeveloping the existing Hairmyres hospital site or by building a new district general hospital at Blantyre.

  I visited Lanarkshire on Monday 17 June to see for myself the sites involved and to hear at first hand the various arguments in favour of each of the options. I shall make a further announcement as soon as possible.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has had about the constitutional arrangements between Scotland and Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  In the past six months representations received about constitutional issues have comprised 246 letters or postcards and one petition. The petition and 14 of the letters and postcards were in favour of devolution; 222 were against devolution; and 10 were in favour of separation.

  Financial Services
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are currently employed in the financial services sector in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  In December 1990, the latest date for which an estimate is available, there were 184,400 employees employed in the banking, finance, insurance, business services and leasing industries in Scotland. This is some 50 per cent. higher than the number employed in the sector in 1979.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications have been submitted for self-governing trust status for hospitals and other national health service units.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Applications have been submitted by the South Ayrshire group of hospitals and by the Royal Scottish national hospital. A third application, from Foresterhill, is expected shortly.

  Tourism
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of overseas visitors to Scotland this year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  It is not possible at this early stage of the season to provide an accurate estimate. The Scottish tourist board expects a downturn in visitor numbers from north America but expects this to be offset by a continued increase in visitors from the EC and Japan.

  Lanarkshire Working Party
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the report of the Lanarkshire working party; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart:
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on 7 June, at columns 379–82.

  University Students
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures for full-time university students in Scotland; and what is the proportion of women students.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In 1989–90, the latest year available, there were 52,353 full-time students attending Scottish universities; of these, 44 per cent. were women.

  Training
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the chairmen of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to discuss training provision in their respective areas.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend, my noble Friend and I have frequent opportunities to meet the chairmen of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and to discuss a wide range of subjects, including training provision.

  Primary Schools (Highlands)
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on future plans for primary schools in the highlands.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The provision of primary school education in the highlands is a matter for Highland regional council as education authority.

  Health Staff Morale
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairmen of Scottish health boards to discuss staff morale; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I last met health board chairmen on 3 May 1991.

  West Coast Fishermen
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received on the condition of the west coast fishing industry.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A number of representations have been received about the conservation of fish stocks on the west coast, particularly concerning access and the need to reduce pressure on nephrop stocks.

  North Sea Oil
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many official speeches he has made this year on development of North sea oil and gas reserves.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  None. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I take every opportunity however to promote the importance of the North sea oil and gas industry in the course of discussions with organisations and individuals, and through press articles and interviews with the media.

  Heart Bypass Operations
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the waiting times in Scotland for heart bypass operations; and what steps he is taking to reduce the waiting time.
  228
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the year to 31 March 1991 a total of 1,515 patients received heart bypass operations. The mean waiting time was six months. I have already announced that I expect to increase funding for open heart surgery, which includes heart bypass operations, to around £19·8 million in 1991–92.

  Preventive Medicine
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for promoting preventive medicine in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The importance the Government attach to preventive medicine was reflected in our White Paper "Promoting Better Health"—Cmnd 249—published in November 1987. This stressed the need to shift the emphasis in primary care from the treatment of illness to the promotion of health and the prevention of disease. The new GP contract, which was introduced in April 1990, furthered this approach by actively encouraging immunisation and screening programmes and the provision of health promotion clinics. The benefits are already apparent and the attainment of targets has been impressive.

  A related review of health education in Scotland which I commissioned in 1989 culminated on 25 March this year when I published the document "Health Education in Scotland: A National Policy Statement", copies of which have been placed in the Library. This statement reflects the importance which the Government place on the promotion of good health and identifies priorities and sets targets for the improvement of health in Scotland. It also describes the role of the new Health Education Board for Scotland and sets out the framework within which it will work together with health boards, local authorities, voluntary organisations, employers, the media and individuals, to secure the health improvements we seek. In addition, I expect to take further initiatives which will be announced in due course.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of total United Kingdom inward investment was made in Scotland in 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  According to the figures recorded by the Invest in Britain Bureau, in 1990 Scotland attracted 11·5 per cent. of the total number of inward investment projects coming to the United Kingdom, and 36 per cent. of planned new jobs.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy toward the protection of adult basic education units in the Lothian region from the effects of charge-capping.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  It was entirely for Lothian regional council itself to decide which of its services should be affected as a result of the redetermination of its personal community charge for 1991–92 and to what extent.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the operation of the community charge reduction scheme.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The scheme has backdated effect in Scotland to 1 April 1990, although different rules apply in the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92. A number of local authorities have already issued revised bills, taking account of reductions under the scheme in respect of both years, and most others expect to complete this task by the summer.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the amount of community charge payable by each eligible adult in a household of one, two, three, four or five adults where one, two or no adults have been exempted due to severe mental handicap in 1991–92 after the community charge reduction scheme has been applied, for each level of assumed rates in £50 bands from £150 to £500, in £100 bands from £500 to £1,500, £1,750 and £2,000, where in each case the community charge is set at each £10 increment between £140 and £600.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 12 June.

  Local Authority Finance
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current loan debt of Scottish local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The estimated outstanding debt on each local authority's housing revenue account at 31 March 1991 is as follows:

  £ million

  Berwickshire

  10·7

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  14·1

  Roxburgh

  43·2

  Tweeddale

  3·7

  Clackmannan

  30·1

  Falkirk

  103·0

  Stirling

  50·7

  Annandale and Eskdale

  35·2

  Nithsdale

  32·6

  Stewartry

  15·7

  Wigtown

  23·2

  Dunfermline

  59·7

  Kirkcaldy

  83·4

  North East Fife

  27·3

  Aberdeen

  172·1

  Banff and Buchan

  58·3

  Gordon

  62·0

  Kincardine and Deeside

  34·1

  Moray

  55·1

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  8·4

  Caithness

  27·0

  Inverness

  48·5

  Lochaber

  32·8

  Nairn

  8·5

  Ross and Cromarty

  60·5

  Skye and Lochalsh

  14·1

  Sutherland

  17·2

  East Lothian

  50·9

  Edinburgh

  226·9

  Midlothian

  21·7

  West Lothian

  65·9

  Argyll and Bute

  50·4

  230

  £ million

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  8·8

  Clydebank

  40·1

  Clydesdale

  20·6

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  15·4

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  26·6

  Cunninghame

  70·5

  Dumbarton

  39·9

  East Kilbride

  4·6

  Eastwood

  5·9

  Glasgow

  976·1

  Hamilton

  75·2

  Inverclyde

  82·4

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  46·2

  Kyle and Carrick

  62·0

  Monklands

  102·4

  Motherwell

  110·4

  Renfrew

  120·9

  Strathkelvin

  40·8

  Angus

  36·5

  Dundee

  125·5

  Perth and Kinross

  49·2

  Orkney Islands

  10·8

  Shetland Islands

  49·2

  Western Isles

  40·2

  Note: All figures are provisional.

  Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the priority areas for the commissioning of research work by the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland as identified by the Science Research and Development Board.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The commissioning of research work by the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland is a matter for the body itself.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the membership of the science research and development board for the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, and their research experience.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The membership of the science research and development board for the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland is decided by the council. The present members, together with their research experience, are listed in the table.

  Professor George M. Dunnet—Zoologist

  Professor John A. Raven—Biological sciences

  Terrestrial and life sciences

  Dr. Douglas Malcolm—Woodlands/forestry

  Professor Paul Racey—Vertebrate ecology

  Mr. Mark Young—Invertebrates

  Dr. John Miles—Upland ecology

  Professor Robert Crawford—Plant ecology/taxonomy

  Dr. Patricia Monaghan—Ornithology

  Marine and freshwater sciences

  Professor Alasdair McIntyre—Marine science

  Dr. Peter Maitland—Freshwater ecology

  Earth Sciences

  Profesor Geoffrey Boulton—Geology and geophysics

  Professor David Sugden—Geomorphology

  Landuse, survey and data management

  Professor Jeff T. Maxwell—Agriculture/landuse/soils

  Dr. Donald Davidson—Monitoring/survey/remote sensing

  Professor R. Cormack—Data handling/statistics

  Ms. Caroline Wickham-Jones—Archaeology

  Housing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were registered on local authority and Scottish Homes waiting lists in each year since 1980; what proportion were existing tenants requesting a transfer; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Reliable information is not available centrally.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total revenue gathered by the sale of(a) local authority and (b) Scottish Homes houses to sitting tenants in each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Receipts from the sale of local authority and Scottish Homes/SSHA houses since 1980 are shown in the table. Total receipts to local authorities amount to £1·557 billion and to Scottish Homes/SSHA £0·354 billion, a grand total of £1·911 billion.

  £ million

  Year

  Local Authority

  Year

  SSHA/ Scottish Homes

  1980

  18·6

  1979–80

  0·4

  1981

  52·5

  1980–81

  15·7

  1982

  91·1

  1981–82

  17·5

  1983

  115·6

  1982–83

  19·3

  1984

  116·4

  1983–84

  23·3

  1985

  109·1

  1984–85

  35·4

  1986

  107·9

  1985–86

  25·2

  1987

  140·7

  1986–87

  22·4

  1988

  225·3

  1987–88

  46·2

  1989

  296·9

  1988–89

  78·1

  1990

  283·0

  1989–90

  70·2

  Notes:

  1. The information on local authority receipts relate to calendar years and that on SSHA/Scottish Homes receipts to years ending 31 March.

  2. Local authority returns for 1990 are incomplete.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the average weekly rental charge for(a) local authority and (b) Scottish Homes houses in each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the average increase in the weekly rental charges in (a) local authority and (b) Scottish Homes houses in each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Local authorities

  SSHA /Scottish homes

  Standard rent £

  Rent increase over previous year £

  Standard rent £

  Rent increase over previous year £

  1980–81

  5·66

  0·74

  7·21

  1·78

  1981–82

  7·69

  2·03

  9·15

  1·94

  1982–83

  9·02

  1·33

  11·26

  2·11

  1983–84

  9·86

  0·84

  11·96

  0·70

  1984–85

  10·46

  0·60

  13·06

  1·10

  1985–86

  11·55

  1·09

  14·23

  1·17

  1986–87

  12·99

  1·44

  15·79

  1·56

  1987–88

  14·58

  1·59

  17·28

  1·49

  1988–89

  16·29

  1·71

  19·02

  1·74

  1989–90

  18·80

  2·51

  20·65

  1·63

  232

  Year

  Local authorities

  SSHA /Scottish homes

  Standard rent £

  Rent increase over previous year £

  Standard rent £

  Rent increase over previous year £

  1990–91

  20·89

  2·09

  23·35

  2·70

  1991–92

  23·24

  2·35

  26·51

  3·16

  Notes:

  1. Average rents for Scottish Local Authorities are based on the estimated position as at 30 September in each year. The data for 1991–92 are provisional.

  2. Average rents for the SSHA arc based on the position as at 30 September for the years 1980–81 to 1981–82, as at 30 June for 1982–83, and as at 1 April for subsequent years. Average rents for Scottish Homes are based on the position, as at 1 April for both 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Fish Farming
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to review the role of the Crown Estate as a quasi-planning authority in marine fish farming.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government have accepted the view of the Select Committee on Agriculture that the system of regulation of the marine fish farming industry should develop in an evolutionary manner. The Scottish Office is currently preparing revised guidance on the location and siting of marine fish farms in consultation with the Crown Estate and other relevant interests. This guidance will examine carefully the environmental impact of marine fish farms and will set out clearly the parameters within which the industry should develop in the future.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many unauthorised emissions of leachate have taken place from landfill waste sites to the environment in Scotland over the last five years; and if he will provide details of where they have taken place and the names of the site owners;

  (2) how many formal compliance notices have been issued by waste disposal authorities to landfill waste site operators in Scotland, together with details of why these notices were served and the names of the site operators concerned.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally. I refer the hon. Member to the river purification authorities and the district and island councils, which have statutory responsibility for these matters.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases there have been of pollution of water courses and drinking water supplies by leachate from landfill waste sites in Scotland during the past five years, with details of the extent and source of pollution and the names of the site owners responsible.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  River purification authorities are responsible for investigating any incidents of water pollution by leachate. Information on incidents is contained in their annual reports, copies of which are held in the Library.

  Public drinking water supplies in Scotland are unlikely to be affected by leachate from landfill sites and no reports

  233
  of such incidents have been received since 21 December 1990 when the water authorities were first required formally to report significant failures of drinking water quality in public supplies. Prior to that date, comprehensive information about incidents of this nature was not held centrally.

  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the figures on the number of requests by prisoners for transfer to Northern Ireland which he notified to the Northern Ireland Office in each year since 1980, broken down on the basis of permanent and temporary transfers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 June 1991]: The information available is as follows:

  Number of requests

  Number notified to NIO

  Permanent

  Temporary

  Permanent

  Temporary

  1980

  n/a

  n/a

  7

  2

  1981

  n/a

  n/a

  1

  2

  1982

  n/a

  n/a

  1

  1

  1983

  n/a

  n/a

  2

  —

  1984

  n/a

  n/a

  1

  —

  1985

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1986

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1987

  3

  —

  3

  —

  1988

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1989

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1990

  4

  1

  2

  —

  n/a Not available

  Aldbourne Associates Ltd.
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what housing consultancy contracts his Department has placed with Aldbourne Associates Ltd; in what year they were awarded; what is their total value; and whether they were awarded by open competition.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 June 1991]: None.

DEFENCE

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which his Department was responsible for each of the past five years together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to "Public Bodies 1990" issued by the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service in December 1990; pages 12 to 14 list Ministry of Defence appointments and their remuneration. Further relevant information on salaries and the duration of appointments is included in "Public Appointments: A Handbook of Women's Organisations", pages 31 to 37, published by the Women's National Commission. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the titles of the video recordings purchased by his Department during the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92 to date.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The production of a complete list of the titles of video recordings purchased by the Department could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. It is estimated, however, that the total number of titles purchased since the beginning of 1990 is some 2,000.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the contravention by a jet military aircraft flying at less than 1,000 ft over the village of Thurnscoe, South Yorkshire at approximately 1130 hours on 3 June, of the low flying transit area;

  (2) if he will make a statement in respect of the pair of military jet aircraft that flew at less than 1,000 ft between the villages of Clayton and Hooton Pagnell, South Yorkshire at approximately 1655 hours on 22 May;

  (3) if he will make a statement in respect of a low-flying military jet aircraft entering a prohibited low-flying transit area over Clayton, South Yorkshire on 9 June at approximately (a) 1509 hours and (b) 1617 hours.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  If the hon. Member would care to write to me with further details I should be happy to consider them.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the aims and objectives of the low flying exercise Trident Eagle held in May; what types and numbers of aircraft were involved; how many complaints were received in respect of noise and low flying, and from what locations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Exercise Trident Eagle was an aviation battlegroup exercise undertaken by 9 Army Air Corps Regiment designed to practise airmobile operations and procedures. The numbers and types of aircraft which took part in the exercise were as follows:

  Seven Gazelle

  12 Lynx

  Two Puma

  Seven complaints were received in all, from the following locations:

  Horncastle, Lincolnshire

  Louth, Lincolnshire (two)

  Rothwell, Lincolnshire

  Wragby, Lincolnshire

  Benniworth, Lincolnshire

  Dunnington, North Yorkshire

  Hospitality Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the expenditure covered by his Department's hospitality fund for the financial years(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91 and (c) 1991–92 to date.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The amount spent on official hospitality by the Ministry of Defence in 1989–90 totalled some £3·7 million, in 1990–91 £3·9 million, and in 1991–92, to 31 May, £0·4 million. These figures include expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Defence itself, by formations
  235
  and establishments of the armed forces at home and abroad, and by individual officers occupying command and international appointments for which entertainment allowances are payable.

  Air Misses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was(a) the height and (b) the risk category of the APHAZ that occurred on 4 July 1989, reported by a controller when a Tornado infringed the Humberside airport zone; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The three aircraft involved were flying at heights of between approximately 1,500 and 2,000 ft, and the incident was assessed as category C—no risk of collision.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was(a) the height and (b) the risk category of the air miss on 27 November 1989, involving an SA365 helicopter and two A 10s holding for Donna Nook range area; what were the findings of the joint airmiss working group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The aircraft involved were flying at heights of between approximately 2,000 and 2,500 ft, and the air miss was assessed as category C—no risk of collision. The joint airmiss working group concluded that one of the A10 pilots flew sufficiently close to the helicopter to cause its pilot concern for the safety of his aircraft.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was(a) the height and (b) the risk category of the air miss in August, 1988 involving a Cherokee and some A10s near the Cowden range; what were the findings of the joint airmiss working group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The aircraft involved were flying at a height of approximately 2,500 ft and the air miss was assessed as category C—no risk of collision. The joint airmiss working group concluded that the Cherokee pilot had inadvertently penetrated the Cowden weapons range danger area.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was(a) the height and (b) the risk category of the air miss on 22 November 1989 involving an S76 helicopter and a USAF F111 in the Rough gas field area; what were the findings of the joint airmiss working group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The aircraft involved were flying at heights of between approximately 700 and 1,000 ft, and the air miss was assessed as category B—possible risk of collision. The joint airmiss working group concluded that the cause of the air miss was the failure of the F111 pilot to see the helicopter in time to give adequate way, compounded by the failure of the helicopter pilot to fly at the recommended level.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was(a) the height and (b) the risk category of the APHAZ reported by a controller on 15 August 1989 when a Tornado aircraft infringed the Humberside airport zone; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The aircraft involved were flying at a height of approximately 700 ft, and the incident was assessed category C—no risk of collision.
  236
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what was(a) the height and (b) the risk category of the air miss on 10 May 1989, involving a foreign F16 and a S76 helicopter in the West Sole gas field area; what were the findings of the joint air miss working group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The aircraft involved were flying at a height of approximately 200 ft, and the air miss was assessed as category C—no risk of collision. The joint airmiss working group concluded that elements of the military aircraft formation had made an unauthorised penetration of the West Sole helicopter protection zone.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what was(a) the height and (b) the risk category of the air miss on 13 June 1990, involving a Bell 212 helicopter and a Tornado aircraft 25 miles east of the Humber estuary; what were the findings of the joint air miss working group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The aircraft involved were flying at a height of approximately 1,000 ft and the air miss was assessed category C—no risk of collision. The joint airmiss working group concluded that there had been a conflict of flightpaths.

  Balanitis
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel suffered from balanitis during Operation Desert Storm; and how many had circumcision operations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The incidence of balanitis was no higher than would normally be expected. No circumcisions for sand balanitis were performed or are now required.

  Army Manpower
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a table showing(a) the nominal manpower establishment, (b) the actual manpower strength, (c) the percentage of nominal establishment achieved, (d) the number of recruits becoming available each year, and (e) the rate of retention of recruits and trained soldiers for each regiment and division in the British Army.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Members for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) of 4 June,Official Report, column 143, how he proposes to make the decisions as to where and how manpower reductions in the Army will be imposed following the consultation process within the Army; and how he intends to reconcile conflicting interests within the Army and ensure a fair hearing for all interests.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have asked the Army to bring forward proposals on how to achieve the restructuring set out by the Secretary of State in his answer of 4 June. Consultation will be widespread, including all regimental colonels and colonels commandant. I am confident that all interests will have a fair hearing and that the regimental system will show that it can adapt to change.

  Main Battle Tanks
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he expects to place an order for the replacement of Chieftain tanks before the summer recess; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  As I told the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 4 June 1991,Official Report, columns 142–43, it is our intention to make a further announcement before the end of this month.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the engine performance of Challenger 2 tanks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  As I told the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) on 24 April 1991 Official Report, columns 486–87, my Department is making a full assessment of the Challenger 2; this includes its automotive performance.

  RMP Training Barracks
  Mr. Nelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the future of the Royal Military Police training barracks at Chichester.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are currently studying the most cost-effective means of meeting the RMP's future training requirement. I shall keep my hon. Friend informed.

  Mr. Nelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of trainees who passed through the Royal Military Police Rousillon barracks in Chichester in 1990; and what numbers he anticipates entering training courses there in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In 1990–91, a total of 388 trainees entered the Royal Military Police training centre, Rousillon barracks, Chichester. Of these, 272 successfully completed their training. However, reflecting the RMP's healthy manning situation, only 150 are expected to enter training courses in 1991–92. It will be several months before recruit allocations are made for 1992–93.

  Ministry Bases (Contaminated Land)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been agreed for the environmental clean-up and remedial work on contaminated land at Ministry of Defence-owned bases vacated or to be vacated by United States forces.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on 21 January,Official Report, column 53.

  The Gulf
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Defence what consideration has been given to the eligibility for the general services medal of medical units from NATO countries which were attached to the British service units during the Gulf war.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Her Majesty the Queen has approved the award of a medal to recognise compaign 238
  service in the Gulf. However, decisions have still to be reached concerning the qualifying conditions for the medal, including the eligibility of non-British forces.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 131, what information he has available on energy consumption in the civil estate (a) for 1989–90 along the lines of the information given in his answer of 10 May 1990, Official Report, columns 213–14 and (b) for 1990 along the lines of the information given in his answer of 30 April 1990, Official Report, column 429.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The expenditure on energy consumption in the civil estate for financial year 1989–90, broken down by fuel, is as follows:

  Thousands

  Source

  £

  Liquid Fuel

  455

  Electricity

  3,849

  Gas

  478

  Solid Fuel

  0

  Utilities

  430

  5,212

  Figures relating to the consumption of energy are not readily available. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Member.

  The Gulf (Friendly Fire)
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to receive the findings of the board of inquiry into the friendly fire incident in the Gulf war.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The board of inquiry will submit its report once its investigations are complete.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether a lone parent with children below school age is eligible for employment training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Lone parents in receipt of income support on order books for at least 26 weeks are eligible to join the ET programme, provided that in each case the youngest child at the time of entry is in statutory full-time education. Lone parents who meet other eligibility conditions for ET can enter regardless of the age of their youngest child. Eligibility conditions are kept under regular review.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current arrangements and funding for employment training for ex-offenders.

  Mr. Jackson
  Ex-offenders fall within the normal eligibility rules for employment training and their time spent in custody or on remand counts towards the six months unemployment eligibility condition. No special funding is provided for ex-offenders as a group.
  239
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the qualifications in the north-east area that were achieved by clients for each year of employment training since its inception.

  Mr. Jackson
  The table gives the type of qualification or credit towards a qualification obtained by people who left employment training in the northern region between July 1989 and December 1990. Information prior to this period is not available.

  Type of qualifications or credits towards qualifications gained by leavers in northern region July 1989 to December 1990

  Qualification/Credit

  July 1989 to March 1990 per cent.

  April 1990 to December 1990 per cent.

  City and Guilds

  51

  48

  RSA

  25

  27

  Pitmans

  5

  7

  Scotvec

  ֵ

  ֵ

  BTEC-TEC

  2

  4

  GCSE

  2

  2

  London Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  ֵ

  1

  Other

  27

  26

  ֵ =less than 0·5 per cent.

  The base used for calculating percentages is the number of trainees gaining qualifications or credits. Percentages do not total 100 because trainees may obtain more than one type of qualification or credit.

  Source: ET Follow up survey.

  Manufacturing Employment
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of people employed in manufacturing industries in 1970, 1980 and 1990.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is shown in the table.

  Employees in manufacturing in United Kingdom

  Thousands

  June 1970

  8,339

  June 1980

  6,937

  June 1990

  5,151

  Training
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many people over 25 years and under 50 years were unemployed and not on the employment training scheme in 1989–90 and 1990–91; and what is his latest estimate of the number of people over 25 and under 50 years who are currently unemployed and not on the employment training schemes or other training schemes being operated through the training and enterprise council and local enterprise company network;

  (2) how many under-25s were unemployed and not on the employment training scheme in 1989–90 and 1990–91; and what is his latest estimate of the number of under-25s currently unemployed and not on the employment training schemes or other training schemes being operated through the TEC and LEC network.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. Those on job-related Government schemes are included in the employment estimates and are, therefore, not counted in the unemployment figures.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the funding block 3 budget 240
  allocation to all training and enterprise councils in England and Wales and to all local enterprise companies in Scotland for 1991–92.

  Mr. Jackson
  Funding block 3 budgets for 1991–92 for each of the 75 operational TECs in England and Wales are set out in the table.

  Responsibility for answering that part of the question which relates to the Scottish local enterprise companies lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  £ million

  Funding block 3 £ million

  South East

  Essex

  3·320

  Hampshire

  2·667

  Heart of England

  1·200

  Hertfordshire

  2·385

  Isle of Wight

  ·515

  Kent

  3·150

  Milton Keynes and North Buckinghamshire

  ·711

  Surrey

  1·679

  Sussex

  3·380

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  1·870

  London

  AZTEC

  1·430

  LETEC

  2·70

  SOLOTEC

  1·940

  STTEC

  2·793

  South West

  Avon

  3·491

  Devon and Cornwall

  6·070

  Dorset

  3·921

  Gloucester

  1·600

  Somerset

  1·530

  Wiltshire

  1·540

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  4 110

  Central England

  1·360

  Coventry

  2·590

  Dudley

  1·006

  Hereford and Worcester

  1·167

  Sandwell

  1·013

  Shropshire

  1·492

  Staffordshire

  2·900

  Walsall

  ·890

  Wolverhampton

  1·028

  East Midlands and Anglia

  Leicester

  2·853

  Northamptonshire

  1·522

  Lincolnshire

  1·878

  Greater Nottingham

  2·078

  North Nottinghamshire

  1·456

  South Derbyshire

  1·908

  North Derbyshire

  1·154

  Norfolk/Waverney

  2·163

  Suffolk

  1·315

  Bedfordshire

  ·985

  GP TEC

  ·601

  CAMBSTEC

  ·709

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Leeds

  2·273

  North Yorkshire

  2·048

  Bradford

  1·670

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  2·056

  Wakefield

  1·054

  Barnsley and Doncaster

  2·165

  Sheffield

  2·492

  Rotherham

  ·985

  241

  Funding block 3 · million

  Humberside

  3·168

  North West

  Bolton/Bury

  1·665

  CEWTEC

  2·443

  Cumbria

  1·596

  ELTEC

  1·759

  LAWTEC

  2·764

  Manchester

  4·506

  METROTEC

  1·043

  Oldham

  ·795

  QUALITEC

  ·608

  Rochdale

  ·775

  South and East Cheshire

  1·088

  Stockport HP

  1·520

  Northern

  Teesside

  2·521

  Tyneside

  3·820

  Wearside

  1·413

  Durham

  2·716

  Northumberland

  1·475

  Wales

  Gwent

  1·655

  North East Wales

  1·384

  North West Wales

  1·631

  Mid Glamorgan

  1·719

  Powys

  ·590

  South Glamorgan

  1·461

  West Wales

  3·490

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many persons aged 16 years were in receipt of the £29·50 a week training allowance in 1989–90 and 1990–91; and how many are currently in receipt of this level of training allowance;

  (2) how many persons aged 17 years were in receipt of the £35 a week training allowance in 1989–90 and 1990–91; and how many are currently in receipt of this level of training allowance;

  (3) how much was spent in training allowances for persons aged 16 and 17 years, respectively, in 1989–90 and 1990–91; and how much money has been allocated to the training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies, for training allowances for persons aged 16 and 17 years respectively, in 1991–92.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information on numbers of 16 and 17-year-old youth training—YT—trainees who receive minimum allowances of £29·50 and £35 per week respectively is not available. The Exchequer contribution towards trainee allowances cannot be separately identified because employers also contribute and a proportion of trainees are employed and receive wages. Expenditure on YT, including minimum allowances in allocations to training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies in 1991–92, will be some £844 million.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total budget in 1988–89 and 1989–90 for those programmes which are now the responsibility of training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies and are funded by the funding block 3 budget allocations.
  242
  Mr. Jackson
  Expenditure in 1988–89 and 1989–90 on programmes which are broadly comparable to those now operated by training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies with block 3 funding, was as follows:

  £ million

  1988–89

  250

  1989–90

  209

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which of the programmes his Department ran directly before the establishment of the training and enterprise councils in England and Wales and the local enterprise companies in Scotland, are now run by training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies and funded by the funding block 3 budget allocations.

  Mr. Jackson
  Block 3 broadly corresponds to business growth training and the enterprise allowance scheme which were previously run by my Department's area offices. Training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies have however been given a flexible remit to undertake business and enterprise activities in their area using this funding block.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he has taken to encourage businesses to provide training opportunities for employees aged 16 to 19 years in 1991; and what measures he is currently undertaking in that direction.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government have put in place a wide range of measures to encourage businesses to train their 16 to 19-year-old employees. Youth training encourages employers to offer high quality training. Training credits are being offered on a pilot basis to further encourage young people moving into employment to train. The Government are supporting compacts in urban programme areas and similar areas in Scotland and Wales, under which local employers guarantee young people a job with training, or training leading to a job, in return for their working towards agreed goals. A new standard— investors in people—is being introduced to promote employer commitment to developing their employees, including young people.

  Building on these measures, the comprehensive proposals in the recent White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century" are designed to further increase training opportunities for young people, particularly through the nationwide extension of training credits, the expansion of the compacts approach, and improvements to the qualifications system.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many people aged over 25 years and under 50 years were on the employment training scheme in 1989–90 and 1990–91; and what is his latest estimate for the numbers of people aged over 25 years and under 50 years currently enrolled in the employment training schemes through the TEC and LEC network;

  (2) how many under-25s were on the employment training scheme in 1989–90 and 1990–91; and what is his latest estimate for the numbers of under-25s currently enrolled on the employment training schemes through the TEC and LEC network.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information about entrants to employment training in the age groups requested for 1989–90 and
  243
  the latest available for 1990–91 is given in table 1. Information for those TECs operational during the period April-November 1990, the latest dates for which information is available, is given in table 2.

  Table 1

  Employment training Entrants by age group 1989–90 and April-November 1990

  Great Britain

  Age group

  1989– Per cent

  April-November 1990 Per cent

  18–24

  36

  35

  25–50

  58

  60

  51 and over

  6

  5

  Table 2

  Employment training Entrants by age group April-November 1990

  TECs

  Age group

  April-November 1990 Per cent

  18–24

  36

  25–50

  58

  51 and over

  5

  Source: ET Management Information System and ET starts database.

  Departmental Programmes
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) when and how widely full details of the United Kingdom operational programme for the now initiative will be made available to prospective applicants;

  (2) when and how widely full details of the United Kingdom operational programme for the horizon programme will be made available to prospective applicants;

  (3) when and how widely full details of the United Kingdom operational programme for the Euroform programme will be made available to prospective applicants.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 18 June 1991]: The numerous organisations that have registered an interest in these initiatives will all be sent the necessary details of the operational programme, including guidelines, procedures and timetable, and invited to apply.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) when applications for funding are to be invited for the now initiative; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when applications for funding are to be invited for the Euroform programme; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) when applications for funding are to be invited for the horizon programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Individual project applications will be invited following consultation with the European Commission on our operational programme. This is expected to be in the autumn.

  Regulations
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many regulations made by him or his predecessors have been repealed in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. My Department is responsible for repealing and replacing several regulations each year concerning matters such as fee levels and compensation limits as well as looking at unnecessarily burdensome or outdated legislation.

  We are firmly committed to reducing the burdens on business, which is reflected in my Department's aim of supporting economic growth by promoting a competitive, efficient and flexible labour market. We have made great progress in this area. In 1989 for example we abolished the national dock labour scheme, thereby eliminating restrictive working practices in the docks. The Employment Act 1989 removed a number of unnecessary measures which served as constraints on employment, in particular inappropriate barriers to the employment of women and young people. The Employment Act 1990 outlawed the pre-entry closed shop.

  The Health and Safety Executive continues to replace over-detailed and inflexible health and safety legislation with more modern and comprehensive provisions. A prime example is the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 which replaced some 350 individual regulations with an up-to-date framework of regulation for the protection of employee health.

  All new legislative proposals, including those from the European Commission, will continue to be assessed for their impact on business and we shall ensure that burdens on business are minimised where possible.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many individuals were disqualified from unemployment benefit for the maximum 26 weeks under section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975 in each of the last five years(a) in Wales as a whole and (b) in each county or district in Wales.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much was spent in 1989–90 and 1990–91 on job clubs; and how much is planned to be spent on job clubs in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been advised by officials in the Employment Service that in the year 1989–90 expenditure on job clubs, excluding marketing of the programme, totalled £24·4 million. In 1990–91 expenditure was £25 million.

  Current planned expenditure for 1991–92, excluding marketing, is £27·5 million. The level of expenditure for 1992–93 is the subject of the current public expenditure survey negotiations with Her Majesty's Treasury.
  245
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to reduce the requirement that people who are eligible to join a job club have to have been out of work for six months or more unless they are disabled or have been on employment training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Job clubs are aimed at long-term unemployed people and others at a disadvantage in the labour market and I have no plans to alter existing eligibility requirements. In addition to the categories referred to by the hon. Member, eligibility rules have been relaxed to facilitate access for ex-offenders, who can count time spent in custody as unemployment; ex-regular members of HM forces; and people leaving youth training without a job to go to.

  As part of a new package of measures to help unemployed people which I announced on 20 March, the Employment Service will shortly be launching a new programme of short job search seminars. These will be available to people who have been out of work for 13 weeks or more. The seminars will include guidance on where and how to look for work, based on materials used in job clubs.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many job clubs there were in 1989–90 and 1990–91; and if he has any estimates for the number of job clubs for 1991–92 and 1992–93.
  246
  Mr. Jackson
  I have been advised by officials in the Employment Service that the number of job clubs open at the end of the 1989–90 year was 1,010. The number of job clubs open at the end of 1990–91 was 943.

  There is no set target for the number of job clubs in 1991–92. We have asked the Employment Service to make 156,000 places available on the programme, an increase of 15,000 over the number helped in 1990–91. It is expected that the Employment Service will open a small number of additional job clubs in order to reach this number of places.

  No figure is available for 1992–93. This will be agreed between myself and the chief executive of the Employment Service at a later stage during negotiations on the annual performance agreement for 1992–93.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment under what circumstances non-EC nationals would receive a work permit to work in the United Kingdom for less than one month; and how many such permits have been issued in the last year.

  Mr. Jackson
  Any application for a work permit for a period of less than one month will be approved if the application satisfies the criteria of the work permit scheme. The number of permits issued for less than a month in the 12 months since 17 June 1990 is 3,590.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

Baroness Mallalieu
Ann Mallalieu, QC, Mrs. Cassel, having been created Baroness Mallalieu, of Studdridge in the County of Buckinghamshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Williams of Elvel and the Baroness Castle of Blackburn.

The Kurdish People
2.48 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What role the United Kingdom will play within the United Nations in providing accommodation for and meeting the other needs of the Kurdish people.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we will continue to give full support for the UN's efforts to set up a network of humanitarian centres and in the deployment of UN guards.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. May I also thank him and his ministerial colleague, Mr. Douglas Hogg, for the courteous manner in which they helped former RAF officers and myself when we wanted to make a contribution towards finding safe havens for the Kurdish people. Does the noble Earl agree that, even if we find the centres, there is still tremendous anxiety among the Kurdish people, and indeed among most of the peoples of the world, that the Kurds will not be safe unless there are sufficient allied soldiers present to guarantee their safety for quite some time so that they will not become victims of Saddam Hussein, like the Kuwaitis?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point about security for the Kurds. One can divide the subject into four areas of concern, and we are taking action in all four areas. First, there is the UN presence; secondly, there is the question of the Kurdish-Baghdad agreement, which is also important and which we hope will be signed soon; thirdly, there is the deterrence that the Americans can give to the Iraqis taking action even though the Americans may not be in Iraq at the time; fourthly, there are sanctions.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the UN guards have yet been recruited and whether in the interval members of Her Majesty's Forces will be taking part?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we still have forces in the area. UN guards are being deployed at the moment and more are going in on a regular basis. The target for the number of UN guards is 500.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the Government are prepared to accept the word of Saddam Hussein that he will not attack the Kurds? When the right honourable gentleman the Foreign Secretary meets Secretary of State Baker, can the Minister say what proposals will be made by Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the Kurds will not be attacked? It would be appalling if Her Majesty's Government and the Americans withdrew their troops from Iraq and left the Kurds completely undefended.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition raises an important point of which we take serious note. It is at the forefront of our minds. That is why we want to see in place the agreement to which I alluded earlier. We want the deterrent there and we also want to see the UN guards in place. That is why the Kurds will not be left totally defenceless.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many of us feel that 500 guards is a totally inadequate number to carry out the task? Is he further aware that we may be accused at some stage of having led the Kurds into a trap which Saddam Hussein will spring? If the Kurds are not satisfied with their security, does the noble Earl accept that there may be a further exodus of Kurds into Turkey and Iran and that we should be prepared to have emergency supplies ready for that occurrence?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the first phase of the humanitarian effort, which was led by Britain, in getting the Kurds down from the mountains and back to their homes has been a success. It is not the UN presence alone which will give the necessary security to the Kurds. It is also, as I have said, the Kurdish-Baghdad agreement and the deterrent effect that the Americans can have on the Iraqis. There are also of course the sanctions, on which we have made our position clear.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether this is going to cost a great deal of money and whether the British taxpayer is expected to bear most of that cost? How do we propose to make Saddam Hussein pay for this and other liabilities?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is taken care of in the Security Council resolutions. As regards the noble Lord's first question, of course these measures will cost a great deal of money. Britain has been to the forefront in paying her contribution. We very much hope that other countries will follow our lead.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister has said on a number of occasions that Saddam Hussein will be deterred by the American presence and the possibility of their intervening if Saddam Hussein

161
attacks the Kurds. Can he say whether we have had such assurances from the Americans and, if so, in what form and when were they made?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no, because we have not reached that stage yet. I was saying that that was a part of the package because the American forces are still there. The noble Lord raises an important point. It has to be made absolutely clear to Saddam Hussein that, should he carry out behaviour which is unacceptable, action will be taken.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that past events suggest that the safety of the Kurds is not secure without air cover? Has thought been given to the provision of air cover; and can the noble Earl say whether that point has been drawn to the attention of Saddam Hussein?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, again that is an important point. Air cover is very important and it is one of the measures that the Americans can provide close to the border of Iraq. It will be taken very much into account.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that both in this country and in America there is increasing wonder as to what the war was really about, bearing in mind the almost daily increase in the truculence of Saddam Hussein? Does he believe that Saddam Hussein is now conforming to what is being asked of him by America, even though all the time he seems to be saying no, no, no? Can the Minister say what the war was really about?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the situation earlier this year, and at the end of last year, was very clear and was debated often in your Lordships' House; it was to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, the country that he invaded.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that all the treaties that have been mentioned are to a degree encouraging? However, will he also remember that the Kurds were attacked with poison gas long before Kuwait was attacked and that they suffered intolerable agony? Is the noble Earl further aware that, having come down out of the mountains to be in the safe areas, the great anxiety of the Kurds is that those areas should be made reasonably comfortable? However, they will not be safe unless there is an abundance of United Nations troops in the region to prevent any attack by Saddam Hussein.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are well aware of the difficulties that have gone on in Northern Iraq for many years, as the noble Lord said, before Kuwait was invaded. That is why we are relying on the package which I have explained to the House and which we hope will give the Kurds the satisfactory reassurance that they need.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can we make sure that there are facilities at convenient UN bases in Cyprus to provide reinforcements at the shortest possible notice, should that be necessary?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend raises a most important point which I shall pass on to my right honourable friend.

UN Weapons Treaty: Ratification
2.57 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have ratified the 1981 United Nations treaty they signed 10 years ago prohibiting or restricting the use of certain weapons such as phosphorous and napalm which although classified as conventional are deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I realise that that completely negative answer was not the noble Earl's personal fault. However, will he perhaps be a little more forthcoming on this matter? Why have the Government not ratified this convention which they signed 10 years ago?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite wrong. The answer is entirely mine. I changed it from the original one that was presented to me because I wanted to give the noble Lord a clear and concise answer. The reason is that we are still considering ratification of the convention.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for taking on the responsibility which, of course, he was bound to do whatever the situation. Nevertheless, will he elaborate a little on what he said? This is rather unusual; we have had a signature on this convention for 10 years but for some reason we have not ratified it. Is that because Big Brother in the United States has not done so? Is that the real reason?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, of course that is not the real reason. The noble Lord must not get hung up about America, as he tends to do. We are giving the matter very serious consideration and taking into account the implications of the recent conflict in the Middle East.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl say how many countries have signed the treaty? Of those countries, how many have ratified the treaty? Can he say whether, apart from ourselves and the United States, any of the other five permanent members of the Security Council have signed the treaty?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot give the answer in the form that the noble Lord would like because it would be a lengthy operation—there are several parts to the convention. For example, France has ratified the convention in protocols 1 and 2 but not in protocol 3. The United States and Germany are still considering ratification. It might be helpful if I place in the Library copies of the document showing the true situation. It amounts to many pages.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does not the Minister consider it worthwhile to point out that this convention is an extension of the 1925 Geneva Protocol which Her Majesty's Government have signed and ratified? Does not he further agree that Great Britain has an enviable record in this respect in that it is one of the few countries that has signed and ratified every other international arms control agreement?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for drawing that to your Lordships' attention.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Earl telling the House that this consideration has been going on for 10 years and has not yet reached a conclusion? If so, what are the factors within this consideration which have delayed ratification for so long?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is, yes. The answer to the second question is the same as I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney.

Pesticides in Water Supplies
2.59 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the relatively high levels of pesticide recently found in water in some areas of the United Kingdom pose any threat to the health of consumers.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, trace amounts of pesticides, in some public water supplies, revealed by extensive monitoring, have not been shown to endanger public health.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. Is he aware that as a result of recent publicity there is considerable public concern about the state of drinking water and the pesticides contained therein? Is he further aware that at the end of last year the British Medical Association produced a report entitled Pesticides, Chemicals and Health in which the BMA stated that it was not possible to say whether the accumulation of pesticides was or was not a threat to health? The report explained that suitable analytical techniques were not available to discover what was truly the case and that the cost of providing them would be high. Does the current profitability of the water companies indicate that they are now in a position to develop such analytical techniques?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Viscount raises an important question. However, it hides the fact that there are two standards. First, there is the Community standard for pesticides, which is precautionary and much more stringent than most World Health Organisation health related guideline concentrations. Therefore, although the EC directive might be exceeded, the level might still be well below the World Health Organisation recommendations.
164
The noble Viscount is right. Reports are being prepared at the moment about the amount of pesticides. Some have been discovered for the first time as technology improves. Likewise, this is an area where the water companies will spend billions of pounds in the future. However, what they do not want to do—I am sure that the House will agree with this—is to introduce technology which in itself makes matters worse without improving the situation.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, can my noble friend explain to me and to the House what the European standards are?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords. The EC drinking water directive pesticide standard is 0.1 microgrammes per litre for individual pesticides. In simple English, that is one drop in an Olympic size swimming pool.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is it not the case that the European Commission is about to take action against the United Kingdom for exceeding EC limits? Is it not also the case that 10 million of us are being supplied with water which contains pesticide levels above those supposedly safe limits? If injury is proved to be caused as a result of drinking this polluted water, who will be liable? Does the "polluter pays" principle hold good here? If that is so, will the farmers who use the pesticides pay or will it be the chemical companies which produce them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I regret that I cannot answer the second question. I shall try to find an answer for the noble Baroness. With regard to the first question, I have heard that the European Community is thinking about taking action against us. That is perhaps the penalty that Britain pays for producing facts and figures.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in his Answer to my noble friend Lord Falkland, the noble Earl said that there is no evidence that pesticides in water supplies are dangerous to health. Is there any positive evidence that pesticides in water supplies are not dangerous to health?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I said in my first Answer that they have not been shown to endanger public health. I go back to an answer that I gave to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. A further report is being prepared at the moment. Until we get that report I cannot fully answer the noble Lord's question.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, criticism is being made about this country's compliance with European legislation. Can my noble friend put the matter into perspective by saying to what extent action is being taken against other countries of the European Community?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. Action can be taken only if one provides facts and figures. We have provided facts and figures. As far as we are aware, all other European Community countries have problems in implementing the directive. I can say from my experience of

165
travelling round the world that we are extremely fortunate in this country to have a water supply in the condition that we have it; and it is going to be yet further improved.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Earl has explained clearly the difference between the European Community standard and the World Health Organisation standard. As the Government do not make clinical judgments, can he tell us on what basis the Government have decided which of those standards is correct?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, they are both correct. We have to abide by the European standard, although I remember taking the Commission to task in order to bring the standard more into line with health related standards. We are continuing to pursue that matter. In addition, we take great heed of what the World Health Organisation tells us.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that a great deal of work is going on to evolve techniques which involve a much lower use of pesticides to provide the same protection? Can he say what help the Government are giving to this work, or do they regard it as near market research?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, considerable efforts are being made by companies to produce less potent pesticides. When, following years of negotiation, the EC drinking water directive was signed at the beginning of 1980, there was concern about organo-chlorine pesticides, concern which I know the noble Lord will well remember. Now different pesticides such as atrazine and simazine are affecting the water supply. As more people use other types of pesticides, so we shall have less problem with those.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, are the Government doing anything to help?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the water companies are doing a lot to help. I know that the farmers are doing things to help. Most of the problems from simazine and atrazine are dealt with by local authorities. I know that they are doing things to help.

Environmental Policy
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the conclusions reached on environmental policy in the recent discussions held by the Secretary of State for the Environment in Washington.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State visited Washington on 5th to 7th June. This was a private visit and was not intended to reach conclusions on any specific subjects.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, has the noble Earl had the opportunity to read the working document
166
which the British delegation put to Brussels in March? It concerns the different approaches to the Rio conference of next year, in particular the difference between what is called the basket approach—the comprehensive approach—supported by the Americans and the step-by-step approach supported by the Europeans. Can he say whether his right honourable friend has had any effect in persuading the Americans to modify their stand, which many people believe will lead to a deadlock at the Rio conference next year? Secondly, is he aware of the issue of double counting which is also referred to in the document? It indicates that in estimating the targets for the reduction of omissions, those reductions which have already taken place, such as those in the Montreal Protocol, will be counted as credits against the final target reached in Rio?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is aware of the document to which the noble Lord refers. The point of the discussions in America was to cover a wide range of issues without reaching any conclusion. With regard to the second question, we are not counting the action of CFCs twice.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he is the first Minister ever to answer all four Questions at Question Time, and that I admire his stamina?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the noble Earl take this opportunity to reassure the House that the Government have not lost sight of their agenda which is laid out in the White Paper This Common Inheritance? For example, are they actively seeking an acceptable definition of "sustainable development"? Do they intend to carry on with the promised action to reduce the dumping of waste at sea? Those are just two of the objectives outlined in the White Paper.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, those questions are a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I raised this question yesterday when I was discussing the issue. I was delighted to hear that the Government are pursuing the objectives of the White Paper.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to the noble Earl's second answer. If he refers to paragraph 18 of the document that I mentioned, he will see—I shall not read the whole paragraph—that it concludes:
"If a nation wishes to take such actions, it would be right to devise a credit for this against their total commitment on greenhouse gases".
Does not that suggest support for the concept of double counting? Does the noble Earl agree with me that that process of double counting would be grossly unfair to third world countries which start at a much lower level of emissions? If there is double counting, that would allow a luxury use of emissions as against, for third world countries, those emissions which at present are essential to life.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I find the noble Lord's statement interesting and it stimulates a long discussion. Much is under consideration at present and I take careful note of his point.

Business
3.10 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a few words about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. On the principle that the mover is allowed 20 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 25 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, all other speeches should not exceed 11 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of other speakers in the debate.
It may be useful if I remind your Lordships that when 11 minutes appears on the clock, the 12th minute will have begun.

Manufacturing Industry
3.11 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel rose to call attention to the importance of manufacturing industry to the national economy, and to the problems it faces; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. First, we are fortunate this afternoon to have the pleasure of listening to no fewer than five maiden speakers, all of them of great distinction in their own fields. I look forward to hearing what they have to say.
It is extremely flattering for an Opposition spokesman to be able to attract four maidens from the Benches opposite. I can say with every confidence that as they come to speak, each will demonstrate to us that in the biblical tradition they will be numbered among the wise virgins rather than the foolish virgins. We shall rejoice accordingly.
Our theme this afternoon is manufacturing industry, its importance and its problems. As I am sure your Lordships are aware, there are some impressive documents which will serve as background to our debate. Perhaps of most immediate importance is the report of your Lordships' Select Committee entitled Innovation in Manufacturing Industry. I have no doubt that some of your Lordships will refer to that document during the course of the afternoon, as I shall do.
There is also—and I believe this to be no less important —the publication by my own party entitled Modern Manufacturing Strength which, again, I wish to refer to. All I say at this stage is how striking I find the similarity between the conclusions drawn by my party and those drawn by your Lordships' Select Committee.
Thirdly, and I am not sure that this is available to all your Lordships, there is a Conservative research
168
department brief issued last week entitled The Economy and Business. Noble Lords opposite may draw on this brief but I should warn them that in our view the document should have had attached to it something in the nature of a health warning. I do not wish to be too harsh on the document. Parts of it are quite good and parts of it are not so good. However, I wish to make a serious point to noble Lords opposite who may wish to draw on the brief. As they will know, my noble friend Lord Peston, who is to wind up for these Benches, is a dab hand at figuring and is even now sharpening his lap-top computer—if that is what one does to a lap-top computer—and is prepared to refute what I regard as some of the more aberrant statistical assertions in the Central Office brief. I simply warn noble Lords opposite so that they are on their guard.
However, there is one point in the brief which, although it may be surprising, I agree with. Page 1 lists a series of 10 what are called "Key Points to Make". In all delicacy I shall pass over the first nine but I am in agreement with the last, which states:
"This recession has affected the corporate sector particularly severely".
I agree.
However, I go further. I argue that the current recession is not just affecting the corporate sector particularly severely, but is wounding precisely those companies which will be so important to us if and when we come out of recession. Those are companies engaged in manufacturing. Banks may be hit; property companies may be hit; and car hire firms may be hit. But on the assumption that they survive, they will bounce back when the recession is over. Manufacturing is not like that. It will not necessarily bounce back and in our view—and I shall elaborate on this as I continue—manufacturing has its own separate problems which can be solved only by policies which go well beyond the need to restore a stable macro-economic framework.
We must do that as a start. We must also recommit ourselves to economic growth with a sense of urgency. However, even if that commitment is made, our contention is that government policies—and these are government policies—have damaged manufacturing so badly that nothing less than a complete reversal in industrial policy will be sufficient to allow and, indeed, nurture a manufacturing recovery.
Furthermore, without a manufacturing recovery, we shall never arrest the decline which has underlain our economic performance over the past decade. That has only been masked —and masked it has been—by the extraordinary, once-for-all, God-given bonus of North Sea oil. That is the argument which I wish to put before your Lordships this afternoon.
Perhaps I may make the first part of my case here and now since it serves to demonstrate the first part of my Motion which, as your Lordships will notice, calls attention to the importance of manufacturing. We are in a severe recession. How and why we reached that point is not my concern this afternoon. If your Lordships need evidence about the state of the economy, only this week the Government announced retail sales down 2.9 per cent. over the same time last

169
year and industrial output down by 6.6 per cent. The figures are dreadful. I hope that I need say nothing more than that.
In such a severe recession we should normally expect to be running a balance of payments surplus. Normally we should expect domestic demand, when depressed, to reduce the import bill and allow capacity that was previously devoted to home markets to be diverted into export markets.
What is happening? Far from running a balance of payments surplus, we are running a balance of payments deficit in a severe recession, and a deficit which looks like being in the range of £8 billion to £9 billion. Why is that? Why is it that all previous economic history is being turned on its head? I am afraid that the answer is both sad and unpleasant. It is because our manufacturing industry has been so battered over the past decade that the sector has simply become too small in terms of its volume of output, even in the sunniest of times, to produce the exports which will correct our balance of payments and so lead us out of recession. It is simple but I am afraid that that is the truth.
Therefore, we are entitled to ask ourselves the question—and I ask noble Lords opposite the question: what has gone wrong? Again, I am afraid that the answer is equally simple and sad. In their spasm of what we can now refer to as mad monetarism, the Government reduced manufacturing industry in size to the point at which it became unable any longer to play the central role in our economy which it used to play and must play again if we are to get out of the mess which we are in at present. The service sector cannot do it for us. As a nation, we cannot hope to improve or even sustain our living standards and the quality of life without being a major manufacturing power. That is the extent of the importance of manufacturing.
Let me illustrate the point as clearly as I can with one or two figures, because it is fundamental to my argument. In 1988, our balance of payments on current account, before the balancing item, showed inflows—what the rest of the world bought from us —at £168 billion; and outflows—what we bought from the rest of the world—at £182 billion. Of those overall totals, visible trade—goods shipped through our ports, either inward or outward—accounted for roughly £81 billion of the inflows (say, about half) and some £101 billion (say three-fifths) of the outflows. Of those totals, £65 billion of those exports and £80 billion of those imports were in manufactured or semi-manufactured goods. In other words, to put it simply, exports of manufactures accounted for nearly 40 per cent. of current balance of payment inflows; and manufactured imports for some 44 per cent. of outflows.
The plain lesson to be learnt from those figures is that there is no way that any conceivable surplus on oil, services, dividends or tourism can make up the deficit on non-oil trade. The magnitudes are too great. Therein lies the whole problem. It is such an obvious problem that only the intellectually blind could fail to see it. But not only have the Government failed to see
170
it, they have exacerbated the problem. The truth is that the ravages of 1980 and 1981, compounded by the ravages of the current recession, with investment down, sales down, output down and unemployment up, have left us with a manufacturing base that no longer has the capability to close the gap in our foreign trade that I have described.
Whole branches of manufacturing have been wiped out. When could we last buy a camera made in Britain? When could we last buy a hi-fi set made in Britain? Where are the equivalent British exports that are conquering the world? They do not exist.
I now turn to the second part of my Motion. What are the problems manufacturing industry has to confront? It is not just a question of numbers—the shrinkage of the manufacturing sector, the lack of investment or insufficient research and development. Just as important there are the qualitative signals of decline. Those were well set out in the report of your Lordships' Select Committee. Our attitudes to manufacturing, as was pointed out as long ago as 1985 by another committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, tend to the view that it is perceived as a second-class occupation. We are insufficiently innovative; our product ranges tend to be technologically at the lower end of the scale, and hence price-sensitive rather than quality-sensitive. There is a shortage of skilled manpower and the high cost of capital, both equity and fixed interest, deters investment. "Short-termism" is real. It is not just a journalist's invention. The attitude towards takeovers, as some kind of game that is entertaining, is remarkable. The Government's attitude towards contested bids is wholly confused, witness the latest example of the absurd diversion of ICI's management time over the Hanson affair. Last but not least, and here I quote directly from the Select Committee's Report:
"all the evidence shows that the lack of Government commitment, support and assistance is deeply damaging to industry and to our national interest".
Quite so! Since the publication of that report, nothing, but absolutely nothing, has happened.
Those are the problems. It is now abundantly clear that we need a change in direction. We must draw a line under the sorry chapter of the past decade and start a new chapter. We must accept that North Sea oil, instead of being used as an opportunity to invest in the next generation of industrial assets, has so far largely been frittered away. There needs to be a new agenda.
The agenda which my party proposes is new. It has been set after widespread consultation with industry in what we call the "Industry 2000 project". It may sound new to us, but it would not sound new to the Germans, as we find that many of the ideas that we put forward in this country as being radical are commonplace in Germany. If your Lordships are disinclined to believe me, I recommend reading the latest report of the Centre for Exploitation of Science and Technology which was summarised in yesterday's Independent.
First, we are determined to ensure long-term investment in new manufacturing technologies. We need an enhanced first-year capital allowance for

171
investment in innovation and design. We shall replace the business expansion scheme with a growing business scheme, designed to encourage individuals to invest in growing manufacturing firms rather than in stocks of fine wines. We shall be much less accommodating towards takeover bids. We cannot allow the long-term growth of manufacturing industry to be impeded by the short-term views of financial markers. Again, I cite the Hanson/ICI affair as something that, as a nation, we can do without.
Secondly, we shall be prepared to invest in people; in the training and skills which we believe will be the key determinant of success in the next century. German companies are legally obliged to train their staff. The CEST report states that only 41 per cent. of firms in Germany say that they face a skills shortage compared with 88 per cent. in Britain. When asked what they will do about the problem, 90 per cent. of German companies said that they intended to train their staff to solve it. The British response was more recruiting—"recruiting" in this instance being the poaching of staff that had been trained elsewhere.
Thirdly, we shall devote more funds to civil research and development and encourage firms by means of fiscal incentives to increase their own spending on R&D. All of that is quite uncontroversial in Germany. We also have a programme to establish technology trusts, to bring together universities, industrialists, bankers and local and national government to promote the development and diffusion of new technologies. All quite ordinary in Germany, but very radical here.
Lastly, we are determined to achieve a proper balance of industrial activity between the regions and countries that make up the United Kingdom. We propose to build on the experience of the development agencies set up in Scotland and Wales by the Labour Government and extend that experience to the regions of England. They will be run by local people, taking decision is to suit local needs. Their job will also be to ensure that the most successful technologies are available to firms in their areas.
There is much more I could say about our programme this afternoon, but I do not wish to weary your Lordships unduly. It is—and we recognise that —extremely ambitious—for this country. But that is only because we have been living for so long under the "hands off" policies of the present Government that we have to be ambitious. It will need a great deal of hard work and application. Above all, it will need a spirit of co-operation, of partnership, between government and industry at all levels and on all sides, national and local government as well as management and employees. We have not seen that for more than a decade. I have no doubt that many noble Lords opposite will say, "But it can't be done, it's not the British way. The whole initiative will fail". I do not believe this for a moment. If it can be done in German it can be done here. I believe that as a people we can do just as well as others, if we put our minds to it. It will need change and I have no doubt that it will be uncomfortable but then nothing good is achieved without effort and the discomfort will be worth it in the end.
Of one thing I am certain: without such a programme, we might as well kiss goodbye to success within the European Community. If we stick to our present policies we shall become finally and irrevocably the sick man of Europe, declining gracefully on the periphery of a continent that is moving away from us, proud of our history, proud of our old rituals, and our stately constitution, but losing out in the fiercely competitive world in which we have to live.
It will be above all our manufacturing industry, not the City of London—however valuable that will be —that will be the making or the breaking of us in the Europe of the next century. That is the importance of manufacturing; no more, and no less. The present Government have had their chance and they have failed. It is time for them to depart, quietly and with dignity, and let others with more energy and fresh ideas remedy their failures. That is what we propose to do. The sooner we are allowed to get on and do it, the better. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.32
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I share with you my nervousness at rising so quickly since receiving the privilege of joining your Lordships' House. Many greater women than I have addressed the House and I have a lively awareness of the wisdom, wit and learning which have adorned their words. My nervousness increased when I realised how illustrious was the company of maiden speakers I was to join. I consoled myself that at least the adjective is in my favour and, as a Yorkshire woman, I know that one more speaker would have given us an over.
My resolve is driven by the great importance of the issue being debated today. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for providing an opportunity for me to speak on the first occasion in your Lordships' House on a subject very dear to my heart. I have been fortunate to work for some time in the automotive industry, latterly as a director of Austin Rover, while currently, as deputy chairman of the Black Country Development Corporation, I have spent the past four years endeavouring to ensure that investment returns to the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution. With this experience, I have today a message of good news: that of the fundamental and enduring nature of manufacturing industry in this country.
I wish to make three points: to praise the British workforce; to register the need for sensitivity in pollution legislation; and to tell the House that there is a brighter future if the growing number of qualified women entering manufacturing industry continues at the present rate.
The British motor industry today, instead of being one of the Government's permanent headaches, is one of our leading success stories. Even as the domestic market falls away, production figures continue to rise and we now produce cars in this country which people throughout Europe are proud and pleased to buy. In the recently published May figures, car production for

173
export was 159 per cent. ahead of the same time last year and for the first five months of 1991 it is well over double last year's performance.
The majority of these vehicles are not being built by British owned companies but they are being built by a British workforce. The figures prove what I believe many of your Lordships have always known, that we have a workforce in this country capable of competing with the best in the world.
Productivity at Rover has increased in recent years so that now the group produces nearly 20 vehicles per employee, compared with only six in 1979. That is an enormous step forward. In the same way, in the past 10 years British Steel has reduced from 13.2 to 4.8 the man-hours needed to produce a tonne of liquid steel. That again is a substantial improvement.
This leads me to contend that the success of manufacturing industry cannot be measured in employment figures. Productivity is the key to a successful future for industry. Large companies in this sector will at best protect jobs: they are very unlikely to increase them. Growth comes from small to medium-sized companies and they will need to be helped and supported.
In the Black Country Development Corporation's area we have over 75,000 workers, two-thirds of whom are involved in manufacturing. Surveying our 3,000 companies recently we learnt that well over half of them expected turnover in the next year to remain static or increase. Thirty-nine per cent. of our manufacturing companies are operating at over 90 per cent. capacity and they invested over £90 million in plant and equipment last year. This is just a snapshot of the national scene but it is positive. We see firm evidence that smaller manufacturing companies are putting their houses in order and looking towards a bright future.
Our snapshot illustrates, too, the total linking of national and regional policy. The successful local manufacturing company cannot survive on domestic markets, it needs the whole of Europe as its marketplace. It needs roads to move its goods efficiently—very few companies have a rail freight terminal in their back garden—and it needs understanding of its pollution problems. I am not for one moment underestimating the crucial importance of the protection of the environment but, if legislation is imposed at too great a speed and with too much severity, we shall have green banks for people to sit on and blue sky for them to look at but they will not have jobs. There has to be a balance.
Those noble Lords who know me will not be surprised if I mention another reason why I believe manufacturing industry in this country has a bright future. More and more women are qualifying as engineers and entering the industry. Last week the first woman finance director of a major engineering conglomerate was announced. The fact that almost 20,000 more people applied to take engineering degrees last year compared with 1989 is an indication that more and more young people are recognising that wealth has to be created before it can be spent. As a member of the Engineering Council, I am very pleased
174
to report to your Lordships a 25 per cent. uplift in entries for our "Young Engineers for Britain" competition this year. This enthusiasm we must not allow to disappear.
Manufacturing industry did not in the past change as quickly as it might. It policed rather than nurtured its employees, it did not let its young people through quickly and the customer was not king at the boardroom table. But it has changed and is changing and there is much evidence of success. I am sure the future holds more.
It has been a great privilege for me to participate in this debate on such an important matter. I look forward to learning much in the coming hours. I am, however, confident that the concern and support which your Lordships feel for manufacturing industry will ensure that it receives the high priority that it deserves.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, on the remarkable maiden speech which she has just given us. She has come to the House with considerable experience in the transport sector, in engineering and in management education—to name but a few of her pursuits and her experiences. Her speech today has shown us the considerable depth of her knowledge of the state of the motor industry. It was encouraging to hear someone as experienced as the noble Baroness deliver a positive message from that important sector of British industry in these difficult times. I very much hope that we shall hear her speak on many occasions in the future. I wish to express the thanks of all noble Lords for the contribution the noble Baroness has made to this important debate today.
It is remarkable that we shall hear four other important maiden speeches today. I do not know whether five maiden speeches in a debate is a record but, if not, it must be getting very near a record. That demonstrates the importance of the subject that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has chosen. This is by no means the first time we have debated the subject of manufacturing industry. I personally have introduced about three Motions on the subject and there have been many others. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out, two important reports have been prepared by Select Committees of your Lordships' House on this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, presided over a report on overseas trade that was issued in 1985. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, presided over a report entitled Innovation in Manufacturing Industry which was issued earlier this year. It is satisfactory to note that both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord will speak in this debate.
The latter report was issued in January but we are now in June and have not yet had a formal debate on it. It seems to me a most unfortunate aspect of our procedure that there should be such a long timelag before we have a specific debate on the subject of that report. An inquiry is now taking place into our procedure and some of us have been asked for our views on the subject. We have been asked whether we

175
consider that we are debating major reports produced by our Select Committees speedily enough after they have been produced. I have stated that I believe our procedures are defective in that respect.
Nevertheless the subject chosen by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for debate today will enable us to refer to both the reports that I have mentioned. I wish to quote briefly from the reports as I believe that will show that during the five years that have elapsed between the issue of the two reports little has changed. The words and the conclusions of the reports are virtually identical. The overseas trade report states in paragraph 125, after analysing the manufacturing situation, particularly with regard to overseas trade:
"The present situation undoubtedly contains the seeds of a major political and economic crisis in the foreseeable future".
That report was issued in 1985.
The report on Innovation in Manufacturing Industry states:
"Our manufacturing base has declined. Our home market is increasingly penetrated by imports. Our share of world markets in manufactured goods is too small. The implications for our future prosperity are grave".
The report on Innovation in Manufacturing Industry stated those sentiments more than five years after the report on overseas trade was issued. It is dispiriting indeed that major Select Committees of our House, which include noble Lords from all parties, should come to these rather depressing conclusions after considerable objective research. I can only express the hope that if we meet in five years' time to consider another report on this subject, it will not be possible to quote from it in the same terms.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I wish to make some suggestions on how we can get out of our current difficulties. But before doing so it is important to remind ourselves of where we stand in relation to our main competitors. I shall do so briefly as that gives us an indication of the ground we have to recover. I shall first of all discuss innovation and research and development. The report on innovation shows that in recent years the UK was the only country in the OECD in which expenditure on research and development declined as a proportion of GDP. The OECD represents all the developed countries of the world. It is a most unsatisfactory situation that we as the country where the industrial revolution took place and as the country which led the world in the 19th century and for a large part of the 20th century through our innovative expertise should now be spending less than other countries on research and development in relation to national income.
Yesterday an article in the Financial Times compared the attitude to innovation in the UK and German industrial sectors. In Germany 90 per cent. of the quite large number of firms that were interviewed could indicate precise new products which related to R&D efforts which they had entered into. Interviews with similar firms in the UK did not produce anything like that answer. It was not at all clear where new products—if any existed —had emerged from. In Germany smaller firms in particular are helped by a network of research institutions which are jointly funded by public and private resources. There are no
176
such institutions in the UK. The attitude to research and development is a positive continuing one in Germany, France and other continental countries. It seems to be spasmodic in the UK and is very much dependent, as regards its level of expenditure, on the economic climate of the time.
The position is similar as regards training. I am glad to say that my noble friend Lady Seear will speak on that subject later. As regards output, taking the UK as 100, USA output has been of the order of 169. In Japan output has been 158 and in Germany and France 137. Those figures relate to 1989. I remind your Lordships that since 1989 our output has declined whereas the output of those countries I have mentioned has continued to grow, albeit at a slower pace. The gap has widened.
Regrettably the same is true of investment. In 1989, according to the CBI's figures, £2,600 per year was invested per worker in the United Kingdom. The figure in Germany was £3,200 and in France it was £3,650. In investment, too, the gap has widened. In 1989 the growth in manufacturing investment in the UK was of the order of 8 per cent. compared with the previous year. However, in 1990 the level of investment went down by 5.5 per cent. compared with the previous year. In 1991 it is estimated that investment will be down by 17.5 per cent.
Whichever way we look at it, and even though we are undoubtedly doing well in sectors such as the motor industry —the noble Baroness referred to that industry—we compare badly with our main competitors in respect of our manufacturing activity as a whole and in respect of our economic performance. The two clearly go together. What can we do about this position? Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I feel we must open a new chapter. I very much fear that the Government hope we shall get out of the present recession through a resumption in consumer spending. They feel that if there were such a resumption, that would work its way through into the manufacturing and productive sectors. All our experience shows that things do not work that way and that a rise in consumer spending can quickly lead to an increase in imports and to an overheating of the economy. That is the situation which we had in 1988 and 1989. In order to emerge from the present situation we need an investment led recovery. At the first opportunity we need to bring interest rates down further. In addition we need to consider seriously improving investment allowances, particularly in the manufacturing sector. We need to provide more stimulus to training by manufacturing concerns, more fiscal stimulus for R&D and innovation and special help to small firms.
It will be argued that all of that will cost money. Certainly it will. However, in my opinion that money would be very quickly recovered through increased tax revenues resulting from increased production, increased employment, increased earnings and improved exports. In other words, we should be in a virtuous cycle as opposed to the unfortunate situation in which we would be if we sought to achieve recovery by re-stimulating consumer expenditure. Of course consumer expenditure is important. We want people

177
to have better living standards. But let that come as a result of improved manufacturing activity and improved investment.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, your Lordships may well imagine the trepidation with which I rise to speak. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield. She has opened the batting and taken the sting out of what happens in the first few balls.
I well recall that as a child I thought that it was axiomatic that British manufacturing was the best. Of course I learned the lesson under somewhat advantageous circumstances for British manufacturers, for in those days Japanese or German manufacturers were synonyms for shoddy goods. I never thought then that I should rise so many years later on my first occasion in this House to speak on the manufacturing industry in this country. If noble Lords will bear with me for a few minutes perhaps I may give my views on the topic.
This is indeed a timely moment to have such a debate. This morning we have seen the statistics on industrial output. As my noble friend Lord Williams pointed out, it is 6 per cent. below the level of last year. What is more, it is barely above the level of manufacturing output in 1976. Therein lies a story. I believe that the present crisis has three overlapping elements. The first is the recession, and I believe that the depth of the recession has not yet been reached.
More than that, we have to see the present crisis in its historical perspective. Except for the quarter century since the Second World War there have been few years in which we could take it for granted that that year's industrial output would be above the previous year's industrial output. The years 1945 to 1974 were a period of unprecedented industrial growth. Indeed, if we go back in history we can see that there has not been a period like it since the period before the 1870s.
Therefore, the problem of British manufacturing is not a new one. Both Houses of Parliament have been debating it for a hundred years and more. In the 1880s there were reports of how the German industrial training system was better than the British system. Indeed, as early as the Great Exhibition we first encountered American inventions and were astonished to see that that newly industrialising country had done so much better than we had. Therefore, the problems that we face are not new.
There have been several analyses of the problem and many Select Committees have reported on it. There is no lack of proposed solutions. Our problem arises not so much in the lack of solutions but in implementing them.
As a pioneering country, in the Industrial Revolution we had about a hundred years when we faced no competition and had a monopoly as the first comer. Once that monopoly was lost we faced continuous problems. There has been heart searching in the attempt to find the secret of the success of our competitors. It is not so much that the country does not have manufacturing ability or that our working
178
people are not capable; it is our ability to survive competition from other countries which poses the challenge. It is true that we can achieve manufacturing growth. The question is whether we can have sustained manufacturing growth and whether we can have a faster rate of growth than our rivals. That is the nub of the problem.
The nostrums which we have tried since the Second World War, especially since the mid-1960s, have included mergers, an examination of the sources of credit for our manufacturing industry and redefining and restructuring the industrial bargaining system. After all that we still lack a successful all-round strategy for reviving our manufacturing industry. Although we shall get out of this recession, the question is whether we shall get out of our long-run problem.
There are three major issues to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. First, manufacturing is no longer the concern of one nation alone. There is now an international division of labour. In the motor industry, for example, it is rare for a car to be manufactured entirely within one country. As many as 60 to 70 per cent. of the components may be manufactured abroad and there is co-ordination among different countries. Therefore we live in a world in which manufacturing has become a multinational rather than a national enterprise.
Secondly, we also face the problem that over the past 20 years or so newly industrialising countries have appeared on the scene which can compete in all the older lines of manufacturing much better than not only the UK but most developed countries. The cheap wage strategy will not work against those competitors because they have wages which we cannot ever contemplate in this country. The newly industrialising countries have given notice to us that we need to move on further up the product range and innovate not only in existing products but in new products and new materials. That is the challenge we face.
The third and most vital change which affects modern manufacturing is that we increasingly see progress such that the material content is not as important as the content in terms of ideas—design, fashion and innovation. We have to move away from metal bashing—I do not mean to offend anybody by saying that—to a more innovative line of products which are intensive in ideas. As a developed country we have to grasp the advantage that we have of long experience in manufacturing and a trained workforce. At the same time we have to move on to products which cannot be lost to competition with cheap wage economies.
So I come to the matter of innovation. Your Lordships' Select Committee on innovation and manufacturing defined innovation as the transformation of an idea and went on to describe that idea. I passionately believe—I say this not just because of my profession—that ideas and knowledge are the most important input in modern manufacturing. We shall not get anywhere at all unless we drench the country in education and training.
I was surprised when I first heard many years ago before I touched the shores of this country that there

179
is widespread here a kind of contempt for education, a glorification of the untaught genius—someone who cannot read a book but who can innovate. If that was ever true, that time is past. Innovation is no longer the privilege of the single, lonely person. It is a corporate activity which requires sustained investment in high-powered scientific and technical knowledge.
We must raise the general level of education and knowledge in this country and continue to invest in the education and training of everyone from age five onwards. We must not drop people at 16 or 19. Let us make sure that there is no conflict between basic research and applied research. Basic research is extremely important to innovation. There is no false dichotomy between basic science and applied science. Unless we invest much more in education—primary, secondary and tertiary—and in research and development, we shall not be able to have the sustained foundation that we require for manufacturing. I am grateful to noble Lords for having had the patience to listen to me.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
4.2 p.m.
Lord Benson: My Lords, it is my privilege to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Desai, on his maiden speech. He speaks with unexampled authority on the subject now before the House, not only in this country but abroad. We hope that we may hear him on many occasions on this and other allied subjects.
I wish to draw attention to one particular course of behaviour which is damaging British industry; namely, the failure in recent years to observe sound financial management. The result has been that many companies have had to retrench and some have collapsed altogether. The recession has thereby deepened and unemployment rises.
If manufacturing industry is to be healthy, it must observe three vital financial principles. First, the debt-equity ratio must remain low. That point has been flagrantly disregarded in recent years with the result that there has been retrenchment. When trade falls, companies are faced with crippling interest charges, profits fall, banks begin to call in their loans, retrenchment occurs and unemployment rises.
The second basic principle is that all companies must set aside every year sufficient sums to cover the depreciation of their fixed assets, and a retention of profits, so that those two sums together will enable them to replace assets, at greatly enhanced prices, as they fall out of use; and, more importantly, so that they can install the new technologies that are being developed in every sector of industry. Abandonment of that principle has caused many companies to fail to be competitive or up-to-date, and disaster follows.
The third basic principle is a variant of the second; namely, that companies should not distribute by way of dividend more than they can afford. That principle has again been ignored and the matter has been greatly exacerbated by what I shall refer to as predator disease.
The House may ask what has brought about this disgraceful state of affairs. I venture to suggest seven
180
reasons. The first is predator disease. It is important that there should be a free and open market in corporate stocks, but it is a mixed blessing. Sometimes it stimulates industry and sleepy management, but it often leads to high debt-equity ratios. Apart from that, the whole process has now got out of hand. In the downswing of industrial development and the economy, predators lurk in the City, seeking to snap up companies which in their opinion have not distributed sufficient profits or which have accumulated a fund of liquid assets. The acquired companies' assets are often disbanded and the long-term plans of management are destroyed. Frightened by predator disease, boards of directors have distributed far too large a proportion of their profits or have sometimes been panicked into seeking to expand too quickly without the necessary money and management skills.
The second cause is the herd instinct. Financial markets the world over behave like sheep. If an institution abandons one or more of the basic principles, others will follow suit, fascinated by what is apparent but only temporary success. The House may remember that the typical example of the herd instinct is the epidemic of management buy-outs in America in the past two or three years involving enormous interest borrowings.
The third reason is the boards of directors with whom the prime responsibility rests. They have abandoned the three principles because they are frightened of catching the predator disease. Alternatively, they do not have the courage or experience to ignore the herd instinct.
Fourthly, the clearing banks, under intense competition between themselves, have lent too much money without ensuring that their customers have observed the three basic principles. The enormous provision for bad debts that we have seen in the past year or two tells its own story.
Fifthly, the institutions and fund managers have not always been helpful. Their judgments seem too often to be based on their own short-term interests and not on the long-term interests of the companies in which they invest. The predator disease—indeed, even the threat of it—enables them to reap rich, short-term profits. However, worse than that, in the past year or two there has been evidence that some institutions have sought to influence the companies in which they invest to maintain or even to increase dividends when, in a period of recession, they should give exactly the opposite advice.
The sixth reason concerns my own profession which is partly executive and partly advisory. It is executive in the sense that many of its members act as financial directors, but the two sectors together have failed to emphasise the basic realities of business. They have been unable to convince their employers in the one case or their clients in the other to observe the basic principles that have been successful in guiding my profession and business for well over 100 years.
Finally, the Government have no part in management, but they are able to watch the course of events. They are particularly able to proffer advice and

181
warnings through the many channels open to them. I question whether they have done enough on those issues.
It may be asked how this sorry state of affairs can be corrected. It cannot be done by legislation, save possibly by creating a few obstacles which might impede the predators without interfering with the free and open market. For the rest, the only solution is leadership by those organisations that support manufacturing industry—the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the Bank of England and the clearing banks, the heads of our great industrial groups and of our institutions, my own profession and the Government. If the heads of those organisations believe that these principles are important for manufacturing industry, they should say so loudly and clearly as often as may be necessary. Above all, they should observe the principles within the activities in which they themselves engage.
In short, manufacturing industry cannot survive without liquid resources. The profligate habits of the past four or five years have done immense damage. We are now faced with the long and arduous task of trying to repair it.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Haslam: My Lords, I feel very privileged to be making my maiden speech today on a subject which reflects my view that an important manufacturing industry is vital and basic to the prosperity of our national economy. I must confess that before leaving school my ambition had been to qualify as a geography teacher but a chapter of accidents led me to my first job down a coal mine. That is not exactly a classic example of career planning. Indeed, that could not have been a more unpredictable start to my industrial career, which has now spanned 47 years: 37 years in the private sector and the balance in nationalised industries. Nevertheless, it has been an exciting and enjoyable life, although the past five years of British Coal have had their masochistic undertones.
Sadly, I believe that too many of our young and talented graduates still regard industry as a somewhat grey, inferior career. We need to intensify our efforts to change that false image. Today inevitably we shall be reflecting on current problems. We should recognise that it is not gloom and doom all the time. Our industry is in far better shape than it was a decade ago.
One of the outstanding achievements of the present Government has been the execution of their vigorous privatisation programme. The emerging benefits are already clear. These undoubtedly flow from the management feeling a great sense of release. Moreover, managers are suddenly freer to deploy their talents on a wider canvas and on an international basis. We often hear criticism of government underspending in the public sector and in the nationalised industries. Speaking from my experience as chairman of British Steel and thereafter British Coal, I can confirm that we were never starved of the necessary capital expenditure. Equally important, we were allowed to employ generous redundancy terms
182
which in turn made possible the massive beneficial restructuring of both those major industries without resorting to enforced redundancies and thereby led to their return to profitability after a decade of massive losses in both industries.
The past decade has also seen beneficial changes on the industrial relations front and there is no doubt that the miners' strike created a real watershed in that respect. Industries like British Coal, which had previously been regarded as somewhat semi-social services, have now become fully fledged commercial businesses. Employees increasingly recognise that the world no longer owes them a living and are now well aware of the economic facts of life. That has led employees increasingly to identify with the success of their individual works or collieries and has seen the marginalisation of even the most confrontational of trade union leaders, such as Arthur Scargill.
Even so, we cannot be complacent in this respect as we lag well behind the meaningful level of collaboration which exists between management and employees in Germany and Japan. The growing identification of employees with the success of their individual businesses and the cultural change that that implies need to be fostered and built upon by both employers and the trade unions.
I propose now to focus my remaining remarks on two deep-seated cultural issues which markedly and adversely affect our industrial performance. The first I shall characterise as "pulling together" and the second as "short termism".
Turning to the first topic, I do not subscribe to the view that our industrial leaders are in any way inferior to those of our major competitors. Indeed, I believe that our ability to manage major international business is pre-eminent. Equally, our banking and financial institutions are rightly envied for their excellence. Our Civil Service too is highly regarded on the world scene. Nevertheless, as a nation we are still not as successful currently as are, for example, Japan, Germany and France. Despite the eminence of our institutions individually, we do not seem able to pull together in a cohesive way as do our formidable competitors in supporting their own industries.
That was first vividly brought home to me in the early 1970s, when I was in charge of ICI's fibres division. The Japanese had been importing rapidly increasing quantities of polyester fibre into the US. Suddenly the authorities there abruptly stopped those imports. Ships full of Japanese fibres were already at sea and they were immediately diverted to Europe. Virtually all that product flowed into the United Kingdom. Hardly a single kilo was imported into France or Germany, even though the formal import restrictions were the same. That is a classic example of the United Kingdom playing to the Queensberry Rules while other countries are able to erect informal barriers to keep out damaging imports. Many industries have shared comparable experiences in their own business sectors. Similar considerations also arise in the lack of reciprocity in acquisition policy across corporate Europe. The highly liquid London Stock Exchange and our liberal attitude towards foreign investors allow easy access to UK takeover targets.

183
That contrasts starkly with the obstacles that face British companies wishing to expand by acquisition on the Continent.
These differences are not primarily a matter of government strategy or regulation. Nevertheless, the governments of Japan, Germany and France take a much more positive and creative attitude to industry, which represents very different cultural behaviour. It is essential to bring about a change here so that suspicion and confrontation between the key players are replaced by wholehearted understanding and collaboration. The mutual identification of government, financial institutions and industry with the success of UK plc is essential if our industry and indeed our country is to fulfil its obvious potential.
My second point expresses my concern about our adherence to a philosophy that market forces must prevail even on a short timescale. That short-termism again contrasts strongly with what happens in Germany where, conversely, the collective culture of the government, the banks and industry is to play it long. For example, despite being in the private sector their government's policy has been to protect and ring-fence their coal industry because they believe that their coal reserves are a national resource which should not be discarded. That is an extreme example which, frankly, I would not advocate. But it provides a dramatic contrast with the attitude of our own Government in relation to the future of our coal sector, which is based on the short term "market forces" philosophy. The consequence is that we shall continue to close pits in this country which have much lower production costs than even the best coal mines in Germany.
Also conversely, the approach to our nuclear industry is not consistent with the market forces concept as it will be ring-fenced and protected until at least 1998. Recognising too that the French heavily subsidise their nuclear industry, the level playing field hoped for in the European energy market beyond 1992 remains a distant mirage. However, I should stress that I am not pleading for hand-outs or feather-bedding; nor do I advocate saving industries which have completely lost their way. However, if an industry is obviously actively endeavouring to put its shop in order so as to survive and compete on the rapidly changing world scene, or if it is living through a severe economic downturn, it should be given time and understanding in order to adjust to such problems. Failure to recognise particularly the latter situation has led in many UK industries to an undesirable erosion of the industrial base and to a loss of world market share which in turn has been gratefully picked up by our major competitors, who meanwhile have been playing it long.
Before commenting on my next example, I should declare my interest as a former deputy chairman of ICI—now a pensioner. If the recent investment of Hanson in ICI were to develop into an all-out bid, it could be another classic example of short-termism, which I am sure will be watched with amazement by major chemical companies around the world. Also, it is most unlikely that a German Hanson would ever make a bid for any of the three major chemical
184
companies in Germany. In my view should this indeed occur, it would be quite inconceivable that the German Government would allow on national interest grounds for the bid to be consummated.
Very different national cultures exist across our main competitor countries and any radical change will obviously be a prolonged evolutionary process. However, cultural changes in the specific ways that I have outlined should be achievable if the collective will is there. Those methods alone could have a dramatic effect on our future industrial performance.
Our Government naturally believe that our current policies suit our needs. However, countries such as Japan and Germany, pursuing different strategies, are demonstrably the pace-setters in relation to industrial growth, our investment and an increasing share in world trade. We cannot afford to ignore the benefits of those important attitudinal differences and we should be prepared to learn from the more successful countries on those specific issues.
To sum up, we already possess most of the ingredients to enable our industry to return to its rightful role among world leaders. That in itself is a great advance on the position of a decade ago. I believe that if we take the right steps now there is no reason why we should not rate with the best in the world in the 1990s. I hope that we will grasp the opportunity with both hands.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Scanlon: My Lords, I am sure that the whole of your Lordships' House will join with me in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, on a most magnificent maiden speech. I have had the pleasure of knowing him—perhaps crossing swords with him is a better way to put it—over the years. He brings to the House a unique record of knowledge and experience within the chemical, coal and steel industries as well as long experience in industrial relations. We hope that we shall receive many more such contributions from him in the future.
I have to express regret that I shall be unable to stay for the entire debate since I have to attend a meeting on industry and parliament elsewhere in your Lordships' House. However, it is truly a timely debate. We should concentrate more on what needs to be done rather than—tempting as it is—make recriminations about the past.
I hope that it is common ground between all of us that if we wish to have improved living standards, better education for our children, better care of the sick and the aged, more roads and better hospitals, we can only achieve such improvements if we produce goods of sufficient quality and in sufficient quantity to pay for them. That means the establishment of an efficient, viable and technically modern manufacturing industry. I wish to emphasise two points in regard to achieving that aim.
First, there must be substantially increased long-term investment both in capital equipment and in research and development. In Britain, returns on both types of investment are expected within one year or a

185
maximum of two years, whereas our industrial competitors, in particular Germany and Japan, think in terms of a minimum of five or 10 years.
It is also recognised that there are many difficulties connected with raising investment. The difficulty may be lack of supply, high interest rates or an unwillingness to undertake the expense. Whatever it is, if private capital is not forthcoming, public funds with public accountability must be established. No Government concerned with Britain's future prosperity can stand by and let industries vital to Britain's economic recovery perish through lack of finance.
Secondly, I should like to emphasise training. It is as important an investment as finance. It is also very expensive. However, the present slipshod approach to training must be ended. Voluntarism may be desirable; but, as we have said before in debates in this House, voluntarism always seems to bring a lack of volunteers. Moreover, under such a system, good employers prepared to accept responsibility for training have no guarantee that the persons they train will not be poached by employers making no contribution whatsoever to training.
The outmoded, outdated system of apprenticeship has been ended. Gone are the days when no matter how bad the instructors, how incapable the trainees of assimilating instructions, how bad the equipment on which the training had to be undertaken, at the end of seven years (subsequently reduced to four) a person was recognised as skilled merely because of the amount of time he had served. We now have the module system whereby status is given only by the achievement of standards. That is in common with other professions. The sooner a craftsman or technician establishes those standards, the sooner he will be recognised as qualified.
However, technology is advancing so fast that an individual man or woman will receive training or retraining two, three, or even four times during his or her industrial life. The levy grant system previously in operation is now ideal to meet the requirements of training for our manufacturing industry. It calls on all employers to pay into a pool and to receive from that pool the full amount of their cost of training if they themselves are reaching standards determined by the board. It withholds from employers money that they have paid in until they reach those standards of training.
One of the greatest disasters—I am now doing what I said we should not do; namely, to recriminate—towards efficient training was the abolition of the training boards. The sooner they are reinstated, perhaps in an improved form, the better it will be for training in this country.
We are a rich country—rich in the true sense of the word. Wealth is not digging up gold in South Africa and burying it in Fort Knox. Wealth is the application of human endeavour, whether by hands or by brains, to raw materials. We have plenty of all those factors. Name any modern invention, fibre optics, carbon fibre, the Hovercraft, supersonic civilian flight—you name it, we invented it—someone else has exploited it.
Let us consider another aspect: our indigenous
186
wealth. It has been said before but it bears repeating. We are an island built on coal, floating on seas of oil and on natural gas. We are surrounded by plentiful supplies of fish. We are about the only nation in the world which can create a shortage of all four at the same time. But if we were to apply our brains to that raw material, and achieve that change in attitude towards training and investment, what a truly great nation we could become!
4.30 p.m.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: My Lords, I rise with considerable trepidation to address this House for the first time. My career as an academic, and certainly my previous job, have not encouraged me to be non-controversial. However, today I shall endeavour to be so. I wish to thank your Lordships for the gracious way in which you have made me feel at home in this House since I was introduced.
The Motion today calls attention to the problems faced by manufacturing industry and I should like to consider three of them. As was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, the immediate problem facing manufacturing industry is an unexpectedly deep recession linked to high interest rates and the high cost of borrowing. I do not in any way wish to underestimate the seriousness of the rise in unemployment or in the number of bankruptcies. However, we must see the present recession in context. We must not forget the remarkable successes scored by our manufacturing industry during the 1980s following the even more serious recession in 1980–81. During the 1980s, productivity in British manufacturing grew at a higher rate than in any other major industrialised country. In 1990, output reached a record level. In 1989 manufacturing investment reached a new high. The UK's share of world trade in manufacturing, which had been declining for a long time, finally picked up. In addition to all that, we saw a remarkable inflow into the country of foreign investment. By the end of the 1980s the decline of British manufacturing industry, which had lasted for a long time, was finally halted.
Why did those successes come to an end? It was certainly not through any fault of industry. We know that, regrettably, it came to an end because of the problems posed by rising inflation. As we understand all too well from the experience of the post-war years, whenever inflation enters an economy there is no painless way to remove it. In this context I believe that noble Lords are right to explore every noninflationary avenue to reduce interest rates. It is right to question the possibility that small businesses may face a banking cartel. It is also right to urge the Government to cut interest rates as aggressively as possible within the ERM. However, I do not believe that manufacturing industry will easily forgive the Government if they bring down interest rates quickly only to find that they must push them up again in the near future. That is the path of uncertainty. It is a way to halt the recovery of British industry and it is a sure way to rekindle inflation. In that respect, economics may be a dismal science but I am afraid that it is an honest one.

187
Yet even in our present troubles there is some good news: inflation and interest rates are falling. It is because of the prospect of an eventual recovery and despite our difficulties that we must consider the longer term problems facing manufacturing industry. One of the problems relates to competition. I see great value to the consumer in business being conducted in a competitive environment. However, I also believe that, from the point of view of companies, competition must be fair.
When I visit a company or a factory I almost always find that businessmen are excited by the challenge offered by the Single Market and 1992. However, I come away with one distinct message; repeatedly they say that British manufacturing industry is not at present facing a level playing field in terms of competition. For example, the tax paid on profits by British companies is almost twice that paid by German companies; small firms in this country are not treated nearly as favourably from a tax point of view as are small and medium-sized firms in Germany. It has been said today that UK companies are open to being bid for by foreign firms. Yet, because German banks have such stakes in their companies and the French Government has interests in many industries, it is much harder for our companies to enjoy reciprocal freedoms.
It is frequently alleged that public sector procurement is more open in this country than in others and that our Government and public bodies are more stringent in applying environmental standards than are the equivalent institutions of some of our competitors. It is also said that, one way or another, foreign competition receives more subsidies than do British firms. Many of those factors are a real handicap to British firms but the Government can take action.
One item I would not include in that list is extra government funding of research and development. It is a subject about which I remain rather agnostic. At present the British Government spend more on R&D as a share of GDP than do the Japanese Government. They spend roughly the same as the German Government and only slightly less than the US Government. Britain falls behind other countries in that our private companies invest far less in R&D than do companies in competitor countries. Before investment can be made companies must be profitable. During the 1980s profitability returned to manufacturing industry and the rate of return on capital was raised.
Recently I came across an interesting study carried out by Professor Porter of Harvard University. It dealt with competitive success in the 10 leading industrial nations. The study's clear conclusion was that the, major factor which accounted for competitive success in most industries was the vigorous domestic rivalry of companies in those countries. Therefore the greatest contribution that government can make to the success of manufacturing is to ensure that after 1992 the playing field of business in Europe is level, open and competitive.
Finally, I wish to draw attention to the deep-seated culture problems from which manufacturing industry
188
in this country has suffered. For too long manufacturing industry has been the Cinderella of wealth creation in Britain. Times are changing, but slowly. I well remember that towards the end of my time in government service I visited the Longbridge works of Rover. I met recent graduates from some of our best universities—women as well as men—who were managing the shop-floor and finding it a rewarding and exciting career. That would have been unthinkable 20 years ago.
The education system, with which I have been associated all my life, and government have together taken numerous initiatives to try to foster a change in attitudes towards manufacturing. They have, for example, introduced technology into the national curriculum and TVEI into schools. They have created City Technology Colleges and have introduced schemes into universities and polytechnics for teaching within companies. Our goal as a nation should be to make it as attractive for our best graduates to be employed in manufacturing industry outside London as it has previously been for them to be employed in the City of London. That could be achieved by the introduction of suitable fiscal incentives which would allow enterprising young people to build greater stakes in the ownership of our manufacturing companies.
Britain already has world class manufacturing companies. The 1980s showed us that manufacturing industry could reach new levels of success. I believe that the 1990s can be even more successful. I sincerely hope that, as the recovery eventually comes, it is a theme to which we in this House will return. Meanwhile, I thank noble Lords for listening so courteously to what I have had to say.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Gregson: My Lords, on behalf of all your Lordships I offer congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, for an excellent maiden speech. I must say that I was personally surprised with how much of it I agreed; I expected to say otherwise. With the noble Lord's background of a remarkable career, achieved at such a young age, I am sure that we can all look forward to many more such contributions in this House.
The Select Committee on Overseas Trade chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, reported to this House some time ago and was rubbished by the Government—then led by Mrs. Thatcher—with such fatuous statements as, "manufacturing industry is no longer important to the economic well-being of this country". There appears to have been a minor change in the attitude of the Government under John Major. They now appear to be paying lip service to the importance of manufacturing industry to a trading nation that depends so patently on its exports to maintain the standard of living of the whole population.
I say "lip service" because as yet we have seen no real action proposed by the Government to recreate our manufacturing industry to the position of critical importance both in size and science and technology to restore and sustain our economic well being. There is

189
a remarkable and almost exact correlation between the decline of our standard of living compared with other leading nations of the world and the deterioration of our balance of payments in manufactured goods. Not many years ago we were among the top three or four countries of the world for wealth generation and standard of living and we had a very healthy positive balance of payments. According to the United Nations' report issued only two weeks ago we are way down the list with a miserable negative balance, and I think your Lordships will agree that that is a particularly sorry state of affairs.
It is a demonstrable fact that the size of our manufacturing sector has shrunk considerably in the past 11 years, and by the various measurements that are now available in science and technology citations and the number of patents reserved for the UK, we are no longer one of the five leading nations in science and technology. For manufacturing industry to shrink in size gives considerable cause for concern; but for this country to drop behind in the technology race is much more serious. Without being in the forefront of technology our goods and services are considerably devalued and our industry is competing with the second and third tier nations in the world. That is simply not possible on the basis of our standard of living.
Innovation is the life-blood of the added value we must apply to our manufacture, and innovation is only possible in a country in the forefront of technology. The two outstanding examples of that in the world are Germany and Japan, whose standard of living, unfortunately, far exceeds our own by the dint of their tremendous thrust into technology right at the cutting edge. That is further demonstrated by the advent of the Japanese setting up considerable manufacturing facilities in this country. When one thinks about it, one realises that that is precisely what we were doing a few years ago in the second and third tier countries of the world. There is no question but that the Japanese invasion of our manufacturing sector, combined with the accident of North Sea oil, saved this Government from an economic collapse worse than anything we have ever experienced in our history.
As other noble Lords have said, there have been many attempts to analyse the reasons why the United Kingdom manufacturing industry is falling so far behind. The latest, and I believe it is one of the most comprehensive, analysis is the recent report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology into innovation in manufacturing industry.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Benson, I believe that the fault for our industrial decline must lie with the boards of directors of our manufacturing industry. Driven by short-termism, which is the manifestation of an over sophisticated capital market, they are more concerned in doing deals than with indigenous growth from within our industry. Developing technology requires long-term thinking and patient money. Neither of those seems to be contained in the culture
190
of the interaction between the City and industry in the UK; the culture of the "quick buck" dominates that relationship and, without a shadow of a doubt, that has got to be changed by hook or by crook before we meet the full blast of competition by the end of 1992.
The two most important manifestations of the short-termism culture are the pressure by the institutions to extract more and more dividends from companies instead of insisting on investment of the money for long-term well being and growth. UK companies pay three times the dividends from their profits compared with Japan and nearly two-and-a-half times compared with Germany. We recently had the crazy experience of one institution requesting the companies to pay dividends even though they were fighting for their very existence.
Secondly, we have this mad desire for take-overs; we are, by far, the most deal-ridden country in the world. By evidence take-overs do not expand industry; they contract it, and the record on technology is lousy. Germany and Japan have very few take-overs and they are driving us out of market after market.
One of the most bizarre side effects of this culture is the fact that this country is spending many billions of pounds supporting science research in universities and research establishments only to have it exploited by our overseas competitors. The UK taxpayers are subsidising competitor countries to increase our balance of payments deficit. How much more crazy can we get? In the present circumstances the taxpayer would be far better off if we gave the money to the National Health Service instead.
Around the time the Aldington Report was being rubbished by the Government, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer committed, in my opinion, the most fundamental error of the 11 years of this Government's rule. He wiped out investment allowances and halved corporation taxes, which was pure gold to the devotees of short-termism—pay it out today and to hell with the future. That piece of Alice in Wonderland logic simply must be reversed.
I am totally aware that we shall not be able to change the culture of the relationship between industry and finance in time to meet the challenge of the Common Market. We must, therefore, either by incentive or by restraint, cause industry and its shareholders—of which over 70 per cent. are the institutions of the City—to stop the mad rush, like lemmings, over the cliff. To fail to innovate and carry out product development, British industry can only deteriorate either to oblivion or to the menial tasks of a third world country.
Almost every country in the world gives more assistance to its industry than does the United Kingdom. Even the Common Market rules allow for a good deal more assistance to manufacturing industry than this country has been prepared to recognise. Our children and their children will never forgive us if we do not take this last opportunity to recover the situation we have so stupidly contrived for ourselves.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Laing of Dunphail: My Lords, it is a very great honour to be a Member of your Lordships' House; but to speak in it for the first time is more than a little daunting. I therefore cast round for a little comfort and advice; of comfort I found little, but good advice I found in Ecclesiasticus:
"Speak, if you are old, it is your privilege, but come to the point and do not interrupt the music".
Your Lordships have thoughtfully refrained from providing music, but nevertheless I shall endeavour to come to the point as quickly as possible.
In this House and elsewhere there has been much debate about the negative effect of short-term thinking on manufacturing industry and more widely on our society and our economy. I do not much care for the word "short-termism" but it lies at the root of many of our problems. Our attention has been deflected from the essential issues, however, by our eagerness to allocate blame for the shortsightedness in which we have all shared. Industry has blamed the City, and the City has retorted that industry's record on investment does not itself demonstrate much commitment to the future. The truth is that no sector is blameless. Our society as a whole is shot through with short-termism.
When we criticise British companies for failing to invest in research and training on the same scale as our competitors, or financial institutions for their reluctance to lend for organic growth with the same alacrity as they lend for take-overs, and when we attack the failure of successive governments to invest adequately in the basic fabric of our society, we are attacking the symptoms and not the cause.
While our collective myopia no doubt has many social and economic causes, a prime contributor has to be Britain's lamentable record on inflation. With the 1970 pound now worth only 14p., it is inevitable that past experience plays a major part in determining our time horizons. When savings are eroded by inflation and it pays to borrow, it is hardly surprising that spending is encouraged and that as a society we lack confidence in our future.
Ecclesiasticus had some advice on this front too:
"Be not made a beggar by banqueting upon borrowing".
But by repeatedly paying ourselves more than we are earning, we have for decades been banqueting upon borrowing from the funds which should have been invested in keeping our industry in the forefront of modern technology. Our habit of living beyond our means is a direct cause of inflation and if we do not master both, all our efforts in other fields, no matter how imaginative, will be frustrated. The high interest rates, which we all regret, are the painful alternatives to the self-discipline, even self-denial, which our successful competitors accept as necessary and which rewards them with stable currencies.
Our common objective must surely be to bring greater stability to the value of our currency so as to cut back the premium which we have habitually put on the present over the future. That is why I welcome wholeheartedly the commitment of the Government and of the Bank of England to restore the integrity of
192
sterling. We need to pursue all the means open to us to enable building for the future to be seen to obtain its just reward.
Strategic vision—essential to building anything worth while for the future—is the one fundamental attribute shared by the founders of successful companies. They are not hypnotised by the bottom line but invest in the lean years as well as in the fat, believing, rightly or wrongly, that their enterprises will continue through the generations.
Their consistency of purpose builds trust in the working communities which they establish, and trust is essential if people are to give of their best to any enterprise. It certainly cannot be established on the shifting sands of businesses whose ownership passes from hand to hand with frequent changes of management.
We must, despite the current downturn, have the courage and vision to continue to invest in the public sector to restore a really efficient national infrastructure and in the private sector to build launchpads for growth and improved competitiveness when the upturn comes. We must invest in people as well as in plant because we need healthy, well educated and well trained people as well as modern communications networks, hospitals and schools.
Your Lordships do not need me to spell out the consequences for manufacturing industry—for quality and efficiency of production—of having employees who are less well equipped with training and technology than those of our competitors abroad. Quality of people requires well judged, long-term investment in quality training, but Britain's sorry record on education and training seems to be another reflection of short-term attitudes. Fewer children leave school in this country with any worthwhile qualification than in any comparable country. That, it seems to me, is a consequence of their experience of what education has to offer. They appear to see immediate earnings as preferable to an investment of time and effort in their long-term careers. That is not someone else's fault; it is our fault as employers, trade unionists, educationists and politicians.
I am sure that we all want to see a better quality of life for all the stakeholders in Great Britain Limited. Crucial to achieving it is the success of our manufacturing industry. The success of Germany and Japan in the international marketplace was not achieved by chasing short-term profit. If we are to succeed in increasing exports and limiting imports we should learn from them that greater reward comes from taking the long-term view at the expense, if necessary, of immediate bottom-line returns. For this our manufacturing industry will need the long-term support of its shareholders and the banks.
The prospect of the single European market and the approach of the year 2000 encourage us to look further ahead than the next set of company accounts, the next publication of backward-looking statistics or the next election. If we can raise the level of the debate on manufacturing industry from a fruitless attempt to apportion blame to a constructive determination to lay sound foundations for our grandchildren, we shall

193
be helping to restore the sense of vision and of common purpose which are essential if this country is to play its full part in building tomorrow's world.
Being a poor reader, I can manage only one very short book at a time, so I am still with Ecclesiasticus for my exit line:
"Happy the man who has found a friend and the speaker who has an attentive audience".
I am grateful to your Lordships for your courtesy and patience.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Varley: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Laing of Dunphail, on behalf of the whole House, on an excellent maiden speech. As Secretary of State for Industry in the 1970s, from time to time I used to see the noble Lord and seek his advice. Perhaps much to his regret and to my disadvantage, I did not always follow his advice. But by any standards he has been one of the leading industrialists and businessmen in the country. He has made a significant contribution to our nation. I am sure that he will make a significant contribution to the House and to the service of the House. I congratulate him again.
One of the more worthwhile recommendations of the excellent report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, is:
"Government Ministers must be heard to proclaim the central position of manufacturing to our national prosperity".
So I read the whole of the debate in the other place last Thursday and in particular the speech of Mr. Peter Lilley, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to see whether he had taken that advice on board. I regret to say that in a speech of about 40 minutes he mentioned the word "manufacturing" only once and then only to read it out because the word appeared in the title of a Labour Party policy document. It is true that he mentioned taxation, pay settlements, trade unions, inflation and a new Sex Equality Act—all important subjects on their own. However, I should have thought that Her Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would have had something to say about manufacturing industry, especially as the report of the Select Committee has been out since January.
I have held the belief for some time—and like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I am not in the business of recrimination—that the fundamental reason for the decline in our manufacturing capacity, especially over the past few years, is the philosophical approach to it by our Government. I accept straightaway that there has been a relative decline in manufacturing industry going back more than 30 years. However, what has happened over the past 12 years has been catastrophic. I know that members of the party who formed the Government in 1979 held the passionate belief that to get the economy moving they had to make room for manufacturing industry to expand and, roll back the frontiers of the state—I think that was the phrase used at the time. That is a perfectly sincere ideological belief; but to be successful that can be very difficult to achieve. I know that from
194
the outset manufacturing industry has experienced terrific problems and difficulties. As the Select Committee on Science and Technology has reported, the pendulum has swung too far, and the lack of government support has damaged our national interests. These are not my words but those of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House.
Heavy manufacturing industry, and supporting basic industries like coal and railways, find no favour with this Government. What Ministers prefer—at least, this is the impression that I get—are small, light, diverse, and it is hoped, non-unionised companies, which seem trendy and fashionable, but unfortunately sometimes only transitory. I have nothing against small companies, in fact I am all in favour of them. But large companies are important, and large national industries are important. I know there are perfectly good reasons why the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and perhaps the Minister who is to reply to this debate, cannot say much about the possible bid for ICI by Hanson because of fettering discretion and because if such a bid were to take place it would be outside the jurisdiction of this country. However, the whole stance of Ministers over the past few years has made them now seem so complacent and indifferent to the potential threat of the break-up of ICI—something with which I agree very much in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Haslam.
So it is very strange, because quite the opposite takes place in other countries such as Germany and Japan, who cherish their market economies just as much as Ministers do here. In those countries there are huge conglomerates big enough to shake off problems in one sector and confident enough to invest colossal sums of money and wait tens of years to get a payback on their investment.
Goodness knows! I enjoyed nearly every minute of the three and a half years during the 1970s that I spent as Secretary of State for Industry. However, there were many problems, mostly the legacies of the private sector, such as the problems of British Leyland and Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace and the shipbuilding industry. However, in each of those years manufacturing investment increased. Manufacturing investment collapsed as soon as the present Government came to office and embraced first of all the mumbo-jumbo of the medium-term financial assessment and the unrealistic money supply targets.
I listened very carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and I know that it is true that by 1989 manufacturing investment got back to where it was in 1979 and exceeded it. However, now it is back below the level it was in 1979. That is an appalling record. We have gone backwards. For a period of about two years we actually got above the level, but now we have gone backwards again.
The only consistent policy that this Government have had when it comes to industry is to transfer state industries to the private sector. But turning state monopolies into private monopolies is not necessarily a substitute for successful national enterprise. In my view what is all the more culpable is that during all the years of our declining manufacturing industry the Government—as was said from the Front Bench—

195
have had the benefit of primary energy in abundance; not only sufficient for our own needs, but able to sell a surplus to the world.
In the middle of the past decade oil exports brought us in £8 billion a year; at today's prices North Sea oil has contributed over £60 billion to our balance of payments, and about £100 billion to the revenue. However, that is all going to change and change pretty rapidly. Self-sufficiency and surplus in oil has already changed to just about self-sufficiency in terms of value. We already import something like 13 per cent. of our gas. In 10 years we will need to import 50 per cent. of our energy requirements. If National Power and PowerGen get their way and more gas turbines are used to generate electricity, coupled with their desire to import more and more coal, before long we shall be importing primary energy totalling £8 billion a year. That will be a swing from something like £8 billion in the m td-1980s to something between £14 billion and £16 billion by the mid-1990s.
The manufacturing deficit last year was nearly £11 billion and the prospect of an energy deficit was something like £16 billion. If preferred policies are carried through, that adds up to a terrifying prospect for our national economy in a relatively short time. There are many other aspects that could be mentioned in relation to that. If British Coal is put into private control, it would be devastating to our plant manufacturers. The noble Lord, Lord Prior (who was in his place a moment or two ago) will know of the howls of anguish coming from our generating plant manufacturers because now the electricity companies want to install low capital gas turbines and not the traditional ones. Incidentally, such turbines are ideally suited for maximum overseas competition. Our mining machinery manufacturers will experience exactly the same pain when the coal industry contracts further as a result of a greater level of coal imports.
Over the past five years British Coal has spent £6.5 billion, on mining machinery and largely British-made goods—purchases of well over £1 billion a year. I cannot say very much more about that.
I acknowledge that we have some brilliantly managed, successful and highly profitable companies in this country which are second to none in the world. So far they have not succumbed to short-termism. I should like to pay tribute to British managers and engineers and the workforce who for far too long have not had the support of the British Government. It is about time that they did.
5.8 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who initiated this important debate, sought to make party capital out of the debate by relating the problems of manufacturing industry to the past 10 years. It simply shows that he does not appreciate the very long-term nature of the problems of manufacturing industry. Of course I agree about the importance of manufacturing industry; not least because of the high proportion of exports and imports of manufactured products—three times as high as service industries. Thus, to reduce or eliminate the balance of payments deficit will require an increase
196
of over 30 per cent. in the output of service industries, compared to the 10 per cent. or so needed in the output of manufactured products. The former is quite unobtainable, whereas the latter is perfectly possible.
That is very significant because the large balance of payments deficit puts a downward pressure on the value of sterling. High interest rates have been required to control inflation, which is coming down very satisfactorily. However, interest rates are now being kept high largely to maintain the value of the pound in the EMS against the effect of the large balance of payments deficit. The need to increase the output of manufacturing industry to meet home demand and to increase exports is perfectly clear. Surely, that is no party issue. There is no disagreement on the objective but perhaps some divergence of views as to how that objective may be achieved.
No party can escape responsibility for the state of affairs in manufacturing industry and its contracting base over the past nearly 50 years. The post-war Labour government squandered the US loan on imports of consumer goods instead of investing in the re-equipment of industry. In 1977, during the period of another Labour government, the CBI action plan called for action,
"to shift resources back into trade and industry [for] ultimately our economy, our currency, our whole standard of living all depend on industry being fully competitive in world markets".
We would all agree with that. However, nothing effective was done by that Labour government to help manufacturing industry.
Eight years later the Select Committee on Overseas Trade revealed a similarly unsatisfactory situation. It said:
"The committee believes that expansion of the manufacturing base is the principal means of achieving growth".
But, again, no effective action was taken to help manufacturing industry, for the cult of the postindustrial society and the dominance of the service industries was still in vogue.
What can now be done to expand our manufacturing base and output? There is only one answer: the marketing of a greater volume of competitive products and processes in world markets. In turn, that can be achieved only by higher investment in innovation. I am glad to see that the CBI is again drawing attention to the crucial importance of manufacturing industry and emphasising what needs to be done. It draws attention to the fact that the United Kingdom share of GDP contributed by value added in manufacturing has fallen from 30.5 per cent. in 1974 to 23 per cent. in 1990, compared with 28 per cent. in Japan and 33 per cent. in West Germany. United Kingdom imports of manufactured products represent a higher proportion of GDP than in any other major industrialised country.
In its study of innovation in manufacturing industry, the Select Committee sought solutions to some of these problems. It took evidence from a wide cross-section of people and organisations, including a delegation from Japan, and it visited Germany and Italy. We noted the major improvements in productivity and profitability in manufacturing industry during the 10 years of Conservative

197
government, as mentioned by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, in his excellent maiden speech. Both are most important—productivity to ensure that costs are competitive; and profitability to generate funds internally and externally for investment in innovation and expansion. But, in spite of those important and significant improvements resulting from the Government's policy, in spite of the better cash flow and increased liquidity, investment has been inadequate and output volume has grown far too slowly in comparison with our competitors.
Over the whole period from 1973 to 1990, a period embracing both Labour and Conservative governments, the average annual growth rate of manufacturing output has been less than 0.5 per cent. per annum. Clearly, something is wrong. Greater investment in innovation is a necessary condition for faster growth in output—non-inflationary growth. It is not a sufficient condition, for better management, marketing and training all have their part to play, as other noble Lords have emphasised. The Select Committee concentrated on innovation. It sought to identify obstacles and incentives to innovation. There is time to mention only a few salient points. I hope that there will be a chance to debate the report when the Government's response is received.
We identified, first, the need to change the culture and outlook of manufacturing industry in this country. However, that will take time. It must be promoted and advocated by Ministers and industrial leaders; and it must be done energetically and unambiguously. Supported by the authority of the Prime Minister, every policy should be scrutinised for its effect on industry. The Minister with responsibility for industry, working closely with a designated Treasury Minister, should have a clear mandate to implement that.
As many noble Lords have said, although we have many world leaders in manufacturing industry, including ICI, we have too few of them. Other companies must seek out and implement the best practice in innovation. The chairmen and chief executives must cultivate and lead enthusiastically a positive attitude to innovation. They must regard expenditure on it as an investment and not a cost to be reduced to the minimum.
The Select Committee identified the high cost of capital in this country as a serious obstacle. We made proposals to improve the cash flow and generation of internal funds for innovation. We also concluded, as did the noble Lord, Lord Benson, that short-termism is a serious issue. It favours deal-driven activity and short-term money profits at the expense of real added value. We made proposals to alleviate that problem, observing the absence in Germany, where manufacturing industry flourishes, of opposed takeovers and all the wasted effort that they involve.
I fully support the view that industry, and not the Government, must pick winners. That was the committee's view. But that does not mean that the Government should withdraw all near-market support for innovation. The committee stated that
198
properly targeted selective government support can be of great value. We did not advocate a return to wasteful subsidy but concluded that the present level of government support was below the optimum. Expenditure by government should be regarded as investment on behalf of us all, a sharing of risk and not a cost to be minimised.
Lastly, but by no means least, action in schools is necessary to promote a better understanding of industry's important role and the career opportunities there. As the former chairman of Understanding Industry, a charity set up by 3I, I know how effective such charities can be in this work. In the current year UI will spend £750,000. It will produce more than 900 courses in curriculum time in schools. Each course is 11 hours long and involves 25 or more sixth form pupils. UI reaches some 15 per cent. of A-level takers in the country. Those courses are given by more than 3,000 skilled managers from 1,000 companies throughout the UK. UI and other similar charities working in the same field could, with more government support, provide a foundation course on industry and commerce for all post-16 pupils in secondary education. Surely that is what we should aim for. I hope that the Government will accept the recommendation of the Select Committee that they should give greater support to the activities in this area of charities and other bodies.
We look forward to the Government's response to the Select Committee. In the meantime my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is showing most encouraging signs of a better understanding of industry's value and the need for much greater innovation and a change of culture. At Warwick he said that companies',
"ability to innovate and willingness to give priority to investing in new products and processes are both crucial".
That is a great advance on the attitude of his two predecessors. He made many more constructive comments, and his indications of a refreshing new outlook on manufacturing industry are greatly to be welcomed. But one passage showed that he has not wholly broken free of the old dogmas. The DTI truly said in evidence to the Select Committee:
"Industry alone may not always generate sufficient innovation for the national good".
That implies that Government have a part to play—and they do, including providing financial support for industry in selective ways. The Secretary of State came down dogmatically against such support. Clearly the Secretary of State has set out on a new road which is more constructive and more understanding of the needs of industry. We must hope that steady progress towards the ultimate objective of stimulating greater output of competitive products will be made. Above all, I hope and am confident that there will be no turning back on that road.
5.20 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for giving me an opportunity to address your Lordships on a subject which has been of concern to me for all but two years

199
of my adult life; that is, research into and development and commercialisation of the products of manufacturing industry.
Some people seem to be unaware of that. One of those who was unaware of it was Napoleon Bonaparte. He said that the English are a nation of shopkeepers. I see nothing wrong in shopkeeping. It is a device for coupling a multiplicity of manufacturers to a multiplicity of consumers with respect to a multiplicity of products. The reason that Napoleon Bonaparte ended up in St. Helena was that he did not notice that he was speaking at the only time in our history when we were not a nation of shopkeepers: we were developing the industrial revolution.
I believe it worthwhile to recite the roll of honour, as it were, of those who made us what we are, which was referred to in general terms in a most enchanting maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. First, in 173:i Abraham Darby of Colebrookdale developed the first blast furnace which was improved in 1828 by Neilson, a gas engineer in Glasgow, who developed the hot blast. That ushered in the epoch of cast iron engine ring of which I think Maidenhead railway bridge is one surviving example.
A few years later William Huntsman of Sheffield invented the crucible process for tool steel. In 1783 there was Henry Cort's open hearth puddling process and rolling mill and that enabled us to win the Napoleonic war by ensuring that we had the necessary materials. That made possible steam power based on metallurgy. In 1781 Watt was the first to convert reciprocating into circular motion, and in 1814 Stephenson was getting to work with the locomotive engine on steel rails. From 1830 through the 1850s was the great epoch of railway laying all over the world. Why was America operating in arrears compared to our country? That was because it did not have a single rolling mill in the whole of the United States of America. Therefore, we were able to steal a march.
I shall not go into too much detail in that respect. However, I remind your Lordships that in 1851 the Great Exhibition took place sponsored by the Prince Consort in which it was observed that Britain in general and Birmingham in particular was the workshop of the world.
In 1856 there was the Bessemer converter. In 1856 William Siemens—and your Lordships will notice the introduction of foreign names—introduced the open hearth furnace. I do not know whether a Welshman can be regarded as foreign but Sidney Gilchrist Thomas introduced the basic open hearth furnace in 1877. Of course, the epigones—to borrow a term from classical literature—simply copied what we were doing. The question of patents and so on did not arise. When the Indians and the Chinese were making textiles for themselves, one or two options were open to us but we never made up our minds. At a later stage I shall deal with the change which took place at about 1870.
What we should have done as a matter of policy, if the textile manufacturers had the apparatus to declare a policy, should have been to do what Italy did after the war. It went into high grade textiles as opposed to plain cotton cloth for the Indians and the Chinese. We
200
never took that decision; it was taken for us as an alternative after the war because textile machinery was being exported in excess of the exports of textiles themselves. We were financing the seeds of our own textile disaster by exporting capital goods with which to make textiles.
What is the third option which we could be taking now? Other people will make textile machinery just as they made textiles. We could be designing the electronic controls for textile machinery. That is what our electronics industry should be doing.
I referred to 1870 when many influences were brought to bear on this situation. Marxist analysis has always emphasised that finance capital was replacing manufacturing capital as the centre of gravity of the investment business. That is one item which I am not prepared to argue because I am not an economist let alone a Marxist economist. However, I note that that is not the only factor in the story because around 1870 —and I cannot recall the exact date—the German education system was overhauled from top to bottom with the setting up of the Technische Hochschüle to provide graduate engineers. I remind your Lordships that "engineer" in German is the title given to a person who has a graduate qualification from a Technische Hochschül in almost any one of the sciences or technologies. Therefore, Ingenieur Chemiker is not a chemical engineer but merely a chemist like myself. Other people were modifying their education systems but we did not.
Then came a post-war development which I welcomed although it had a side effect which I did not anticipate. That was the result of the Robbins Report which postulated much greater educational opportunities for every class of the community involving the very welcome expansion of our universities. That entailed more students which entailed more academic teaching staff.
I cannot speak from direct experience but I only quote what has been said to me. At that period of expansion in the aftermath of the Robbins Report, the universities recruited many of what I might call introspective academics who were to some extent hostile to industry—oily hands, oily fingers and so on. They biased their undergraduates against manufacturing industry.
Whether or not it is the truth, something of that still remains. Recently I was speaking to a young man of some 23 summers who has finished his education with, I hope, a qualification. I asked what he thinks of doing with that qualification. He said, "I am rather attracted to sales promotion". I replied, "Yes, but you cannot sell anything unless it is manufactured. It must be made first and sold second. You cannot promote the sale of something which does not exist". He said, "No, I do not think I like the idea of manufacturing industry very much". That appeared to be his view and that of his contemporaries.
I come now to modern times and the way in which the art of shopkeeping has developed, where finance capital has been overtaking manufacturing capital. We must now deal with the matters mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Varley and Lord Williams of Elvel; that is, the takeover bid and its consequences.

201
There are three kinds of organisation, one of which I welcome and another two which I condemn. The one I welcome is the horizontal merger of people who are all engaged in the same business. That has great advantages in solving one of those problems which needs to be solved from time to time; the problem of succession and the problem of replacing dead wood. In a horizontal merger if a general manager of a unit has gone soft, he can be replaced by the assistant general manager from another unit in the horizontal merger. That solves many managerial problems.
The vertical merger is one in which one tries to make everything which is incorporated in the product which is sold. That is well illustrated by Kynoch who made sporting cartridges. He argued that since a sporting cartridge is made up of materials like cardboard, sheet brass, copper percussion caps, shot and propellant then he must have a factory which made propellant, a factory which made shot, a factory which rolled brass sheet and another cardboard and so on. He attained something that no one, except himself, could manage, and he was not managing it all that well when he died; so the component parts were broken up and returned to people competent to manage them.
The third, and worst, example of putting Humpty Dumpty together again is the conglomerate. Conglomerates have been referred to during the course of our proceedings as predators, but I think of them more as parasites. The only lesson of history —I had to write an essay with that title when I was at school—is that the lessons of history are never learnt. It is possible to learn from the lessons of history that conglomeration is only a passing phase and that in due course we shall be rid of it. I have been warned that once 11 minutes goes up I am into the 12th. I therefore conclude what I have to say, and hope that it is relevant to your Lordships' proceedings.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, the Great Exhibition of 1851, which has recently been referred to, has been identified as the high point in British manufacturing development, for after that date, our manufacturing industry has been in steady decline. Our weakness in industrial technology has become more apparent as technology itself becomes more sophisticated and more firmly based upon science.
I was a member of the committee chaired by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, which produced the report Innovation in Manufacturing Industry. We attempted to face that deep-seated problem which goes back to 1851. To that extent, our report should not be seen as a criticism of the Government. One could say that since 1851 all governments have failed industry. Our report pleads for a fundamental change amounting to a change in our culture.
I shall echo what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said about Germany. A few members of the committee were privileged to visit Germany. We were all impressed by the different climate in which industry and innovation operate in that country. The German nation believes in its industry and it regards it as self-evident that industry can prosper only by
202
appropriate and continuous innovation. Those propositions are so embedded in German culture that everyone we met—management, workforce, unions, bankers, central government and Länder—all understood and recognised that greater investment in innovation is essential and fundamental to industrial progress.
Our report is clear: we complain that industry is held in low esteem by our society and attracts too little of the country's talent and other resources. The urgent need is for a change in our culture to be brought about by a campaign which must be led by government. So far, so good! While our report makes recommendations for government to act in specific issues, we tend, I am afraid, to be silent about how the culture in the country will be changed. For example, will the acceptance of our recommendations be sufficient in itself to produce a cultural change or is more needed?
The truth is that government, in changing attitudes and culture, are much more effective in some areas than others. For instance, let us take the point that industry does not attract its fair share of the ablest. I suspect that in that area the influence of government is marginal. If more able people are to be recruited by industry, then industry itself must make the changes, giving young people more responsibility from an early stage, and what is more important, paying properly, especially engineers, so that our engineering profession becomes as respected as any other profession, be it law or medicine, as it is in Germany.
I shall give an example of where governments—because it is the government who are involved—could change attitudes. I should like to introduce your Lordships to a company of which you have never heard: Butterfly Manufacturing plc. Research and development has convinced that company that it can produce a car, including its engine, wholly from plastics and ceramics. There is no metal in it at all, not even in the engine. It is convinced that that revolutionary development is on the edge of becoming commercially viable. However, timing is of the essence because international competitors are themselves experimenting with similar developments.
The Butterfly Manufacturing company proposes to build a large plant, costing some £800 million. It will save resources if it can construct that plant next to its existing plant in Rugby. It needs to settle finance and acquire a site and access land. The company has already approached the DTI, but it has been told that the acquisition of land is something that must be pursued locally. It has of course already approached the local authority with regard to possible planning permissions, but it will need a huge supply of water —200 times more than the existing supply—it will need drainage for foul and storm water; it will need an extremely large volume of gas; a greatly enhanced electricity supply; greater rail facilities; much more parking space; new large access roads tied in to the neighbouring motorways; and at one point the road will need to go through a tunnel to pass under common land. The company will also have to satisfy all the authorities that its activities are pollution-free.
Your Lordships will not be surprised to know therefore that that company will have to have separate

203
negotiations, inter alia, with the following: the DTI, the DoE, the Department of Transport, British Rail, the Health and Safety Executive, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, authorities for water, gas and electricity, probably two local authorities and of course a parliamentary agent, because a Bill will almost certainly be necessary whether it is private or hybrid. All that the company can achieve; but it will take at least five or seven years to do so. We have already seen that time is of the essence. There is no way in which that byzantine procedure can be avoided by one unified negotiation, because that is the fractured way in which the law, government, local authorities and the Civil Service work. The company cannot know whether it can successfully construct that plant until that byzantine procedure draws to its close. If the Butterfly company is an international company, it may of course investigate alternative sites, perhaps in Sweden or Germany. In that case, the development will almost certainly be undertaken in Frankfurt. Our report says that the Prime Minister and all his Cabinet must give their unequivocal and wholehearted support to the campaign. The only hope for the Butterfly company is if the Prime Minister himself comes to hear of the project, takes it under his wing and personally pushes it through. In short, our ordinary methods of operating have become so byzantine that we can no longer cope with an innovatory scheme where time is of the essence.
Surely this is a limited area where, by change of attitude and change of procedures, the Government could be effective. Who knows? Once a revolution has taken place in this limited field, the knock-on effect in government, in local authority and the Civil Service may he so considerable that a change of attitude may spread to other fields in which manufacturing industry is involved.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, after that remarkable plug for the Butterfly company, I hope that it is not long before it takes off. There is undoubtedly consternation and deep concern about the state of manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom. As we have heard, the evidence is overwhelming. Our manufacturing base has been eroded while our service industries have expanded. Of course they have soaked up some unemployment—women workers, part-timers and so on. But service industries cannot be the backbone of a nation which has to survive on international trade. That means that we must have more manufacturing industries and more manufacturing exports.
The Department of Employment statistics show a drastic fall in employment in the manufacturing industries. The CBI also reported only last month that the number of employees in the manufacturing sector in Great Britain fell by 32,000 in February and there was a further fall of 45,000 in March. At 4,087,000, it was 209,000 less than the previous year. There must be a massive increase in productivity to make up for such vast, rapid job losses.
The report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology revealed that the failure of
204
British manufacturing industry had already had serious consequences for our economy; that our home market was increasingly penetrated by imports; and that our share of manufactured goods was too small. The implications for our future prosperity are grave. The report is riddled with warnings. It emphasises that the only hope for recovering our position is more innovative manufacturing. Indeed, even the OECD survey of 1989–90 stated that the United Kingdom had been slower in adopting important engineering innovations than competitor countries. The Select Committee report also declared:
"Too many companies are insufficiently innovative or competitive—we must create a climate in which innovation can more readily flourish".
Flourish, not die.
Perhaps we may look at what has happened in the regions during the course of the recession and the decline in manufacturing industry. South Yorkshire, one of the county's oldest industrial regions, has seen the run-down and restructuring of its basic coal and steel industries, with terrible results for the local economy. The steel industry plays a vital role in supplying specialist and engineering steels throughout the whole manufacturing sector, particularly to the car industry, aerospace, medical equipment and construction.
However, during the 1980s employment in the industry fell by 75 per cent. from 60,000 to less than 16,000. Also since 1984 in South Yorkshire there has been a massive run-down in the coal industry. Unemployment has fallen dramatically from 34,000 in 1984 to less than 9,000 at present; from 29 coal mines to 11. The impact on the local economies has been traumatic.
My town, Barnsley, was a mono-economy. Coal mining was the lifeblood of the area. This has declined catastrophically. Between 1982 and 1991 coal mines were reduced from 19 to three. Employment plunged from 20,100 to just over 2,000, with all the suffering that that entailed.
All this has meant job losses for the existing workforce and fewer job opportunities for school-leavers. It has had a major knock-on effect in other local industries and resulted in a loss of spending power in the local economy.
Steel manufacturing and supportive manufacturing industries for the coal industry have been drastically reduced. Of course the local authorities had to take steps urgently to halt this pace of change because it contained the seeds of economic disaster. The Government could have done more to help the regions. The cuts in regional aid were particularly cruel during this phase of economic change.
Therefore the local authorities affected had to act boldly, taking a series of initiatives to attract new industry in order to broaden the base of the local economies, clearing up some of the now derelict sites, providing sites for expansion and encouraging new firms. There have been some successes, albeit few, in contrast to the huge scale of the task. The Department of Trade and Industry could and should do more to help these areas where labour intensive traditional industries have virtually died. There is an urgent need now for more manufacturing industry.

205
I draw the Government's attention to the longstanding grievance of additionality. Moneys were earmarked for these areas through the European Regional Development Fund for infrastructure, servicing industrial land and factory buildings. The European Commission argues that its grants should have a genuine impact in the areas to which they are given. The British Government, especially the Treasury, agree that it should be additional but should not go to specific areas. They believe in spreading it around; they dissipated it. Therefore, the distressed regions are not receiving the full financial aid to which they are entitled. It is about time that this was corrected.
With the full allocation of European Regional Development Fund finance these run-down regions would have a better chance of economic revival. The United Kingdom seems to be out on a limb in the Community in this regard. It is an injustice to the local authorities and harms their attempts to put their own economies on a sounder footing.
Perhaps I may also ask what prospects we have of receiving aid under the European Commission's new RECHAR programme. Will we also be denied the finance specially allocated to coal and steel regions because of the Government's attitude on additionality? I should like the Minister to clear the air when he gives his reply. There is the vexed question of additionality and what prospects of aid we shall have from the RECHAR programme.
One method of breaking out of this decline, recognising the importance of technological innovation, is that Barnsley established a business and innovation centre. The Select Committee took no evidence on this issue and never visited it. The Barnsley local authority teamed up with British Coal Enterprise Ltd. and the European Commission. It is their brainchild. Twenty other financial sponsors from industry, the banks and commerce developed the project with them. It is called the Barnsley Business Innovation Centre. It operates from a purpose-built complex containing incubator units helping individuals and companies to develop and successfully market high technology based products and innovative projects. It is fully occupied, with 17 companies engaged in a variety of innovative technologies. Most of them, having developed their technological product, will leave the Barnsley BIC and establish themselves as new high-tech industries in South Yorkshire. We are now building phase two, which comprises another 20 incubator units. There are eight business and innovation centres in Britain. There are 60 operating throughout the European Community; that constitutes a European BIC network fostered by the European Community.
Those BICs need more promotion by the Department of Trade and Industry as they are a regional asset. They are developing a technology culture. The DTI should establish a major network of BICs throughout the country using the existing ones as models. Will the DTI co-operate more closely with the European Regional Development Fund and with DGXV 1 in Brussels to build upon the Common
206
Market BIC initiative? Will the DTI join that initiative and enhance it, thereby enabling Common Market funds to be channelled directly to the BICs? The BICs are concerned with business, innovation, people and technology in their regions. They are non-profit-making organisations. They are involved with local authorities and private enterprise in developing and launching high-tech manufacturing industries.
If a nucleus of technically innovative companies can be established in Barnsley, a countrywide network of BICs should ensure a major impact on the innovative and creative abilities of our manufacturing industry. That is precisely what the Secretary of State for Industry calls for, but he is not giving the backing where it is needed. I hope the Minister will be able to assure me today that the department of enterprise, initiative and innovation really means what it says.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley. I believe I first spoke after him in another place many years ago. He may be interested to know that one of the subjects he mentioned in his interesting speech, the support for regional policy given by the European Commission, is a matter under inquiry by a sub-committee of the European Communities Committee of which I happen to be the chairman. I noted carefully what the noble Lord said.
I must say with all humility that I do not think I have ever before listened to a quintet of maiden speeches. I have certainly never before heard speeches of such high quality and of such interest from which I have learnt so much. I congratulate my noble friends and the noble Lord opposite. I have a particular reason for congratulating my noble friend Lord Laing of Dunphail as there is a connection between my family and his in that my daughter is married to one of his nephews. I look forward to hearing many more contributions from all the maiden speakers on this and other subjects.
I also wish to refer to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. He has made more speeches on this subject than even I have. However, I have never heard him speak in an electioneering role before. I believe I detected that emphasis today. I shall have a few words to say about some of the implications of his speech in a short while.
There can be no doubt in your Lordships' minds as regards my views on the importance of manufacturing industry. There can be no doubt either in your Lordships' minds as regards the views of the members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology who earlier this year published a most significant and historic report on innovation. I hope that we shall have a chance to debate that report, with a government reply, before we become very much older. I take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Caldecote both on his speech and on his chairmanship of the inquiry which led to the report.
As has been indicated, the subject of our debate is a long-term problem and it has a long history. During the past 140 years many reports have been produced

207
which emphasise the importance to our country of skills in manufacturing and the need for the nation as a whole to believe in the paramount importance of manufacturing industry. The value to young people of a career in manufacturing industry has also been stressed. However, as my noble friend Lord Butterworth indicated, all those warnings have been pigeon -holed. The long-term trend of the decline of our manufacturing competitiveness has continued. But I believe that that decline has slowed to a halt in recent years. Although our manufacturing industry is now much too small, it is much more efficient than it used to be. The attitude of our education system towards industry is being reformed. Training is being given within industry and without. Companies are expending more effort on civil research and development I have seen a report of £6 billion being spent on this research and development last year. That is not enough but the figure is increasing. The need for constant innovation is now understood.
Much more needs to be done, but I no longer fear that the slide will continue under this Government's policies. Nor do I fear that we cannot rebuild a proper sized manufacturing base. But I must repeat that our present manufacturing base is much too small. However, we have not begun to increase our competitiveness relative to others. I said that we had halted the slide, but nevertheless our competitiveness relative to others has not been increased. Neither have we increased the size of our manufacturing base. We are still arguing about what precisely needs to be done to encourage the quick building up of our manufacturing base to enable it to reach the size it must attain to match the demand for manufactured goods of our countrymen. Those who believe in market forces should note that the demand for manufactured goods in this country has grown year by year. Between 1973 and the end of 1988 the demand for manufactured goods grew by 25 per cent. while the supply did not increase at all. That is the position in which we find ourselves due to our lack of competitiveness.
It is our manufacturing base and the size of it that have caused concern to so many people who care about the future of our economy and of our country. We have insufficient capacity to take a proper share of our home market. That is why we import goods to such a great extent. The larger the manufacturing base, the stronger each part of it becomes. That point has not been made today but it was made by several witnesses who gave evidence to the Select Committee in 1985. From the national point of view we cannot obtain a healthy surplus in our balance of trade unless we can produce manufactured goods at home competitively. At the very least we need to produce those goods in the amount that is demanded by the British economy. The market has been telling us what the demand is but the supply has not reacted to the demand.
As I have said, this is a long-term problem with a long history. The importance of attitudes was stressed in the report of my noble friend. Attitudes have been wrong for decades. I withdraw nothing from the comments made by the Select Committee I chaired in
208
1985. But I do not wish to repeat what was said then. In his opening speech the noble Lord, Lord Williams, seemed to me to assume that the blame for the present low level of output rests solely with the present Government. However, the truth is that a lot of good things have happened in the past decade to benefit the future strength of our manufacturing industry. Many of them have been mentioned. It has also been said that certain problems have to be tackled. They have been tackled—both by industry and by government.
As several of my noble friends have said, the most important issue has been inflation. Connected with that is the labour cost per unit of output. That must not increase if we are to remain competitive or to improve our competitiveness. Investment by industry in new plant, R&D and training and the encouragement of innovation have all been mentioned. The key to it all is stable price and exchange rate levels—noble Lords on both sides of the House have welcomed the entry of the British pound into the ERM, which helps—and an economic climate which rewards initiative and enables profits to be earned and invested, for without profits there cannot be investment in plant, there cannot be investment in R&D and there cannot be investment in training.
I hope that this will not be thought to be too much of a party point. The idea that socialism in Britain will help is an idea from Cloud-cuckoo-land. Look at our main competitors. In Germany, Japan and the United States there is no sign of a socialist wand waving benignly.
I also have to remind your Lordships of a point in our report of 1985 which has been overlooked. Competitiveness in British manufacturing industry fell sharply and woefully between 1973 and 1980. Table 3.3 on page 29 of that report shows that in national currency terms—which means excluding the movement of exchange rates—relative unit labour costs in Britain (the principal element in competitiveness) increased by 72 per cent. between 1973 and 1980. That is a point which is often overlooked. That is the situation which my right honourable friends and my noble friends on the Front Bench had to face when they came into government.
There is not much time for me to make the many points that I want to make. However, I should like to correct the noble Lord, Lord Varley, concerning the attitude of the present Secretary of State. The noble Lord quoted from a speech of the Secretary of State in another place. I do not know what that speech was about, but I know that my right honourable friend has made two very important speeches, one at the Institute of Directors and one at Warwick, in which he emphasised his interest in and his concern about manufacturing industry and innovation. The noble Lord opposite is frowning. I fear that he has not read the speeches. They were closely argued and very long. I commend them to him. I have the same proviso as my noble friend about one of the points relating to innovation.
Before I sit down I should like to welcome the change of attitude, as I see it, in the way that my right honourable friend sees the role of the Department of Industry in the two-way channel between government

209
and industry. That point has been rather lost in the past five years or so and I am glad that he has emphasised it. I hope that it will mean that he will improve the organisation of the Department of Trade and Industry, which in my opinion needs to be improved.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, not everything about manufacturing industry in this country is bad. I often find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. However, most of the points that have been made about the good aspects of British industry have been pretty selective and have applied to particular parts of it and to particular periods. That was the case in the excellent maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, who told us of one industry in which things are a little better. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, told us that we had halted the slide. I wish that that were true but I am afraid that the facts do not bear it out. The noble Lord is always very good with his facts and he is too modest to quote his own report so I shall quote it for him a little later.
Generally, manufacturing output, allowing for the Government's own forecasts to the end of 1991, shows sadly that over the past 12 years growth in the United Kingdom has been slower than in any country in the European Community, any of the G7 countries and any of the top 20 countries in the OECD. That is the sad and unfortunate fact. If we are seeking lasting solutions to the problem it does not help to pretend that it is anything other than that. I agree that the problems did not all start in 1979. Some noble Lords have suggested that the problem goes back as far as 1851, but I do not propose to go back that far. If one looks at the facts the problem goes back at least as far as 1972. In the period since that date our performance relative to others abroad has been poor. I do not necessarily blame any one particular Government. There has been a long-term, steady decline relative to our competitors.
The facts, I hope, are not in dispute, and certainly not by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, when he is in a less electoral mood, if I may put it that way. I should like to quote from his report of 1985. It is worth repeating because it is excellent stuff, as the noble Lord knows and as I have always told him. On page 83 the report states:
"Unless the climate is changed so that steps can be taken to enlarge the manufacturing base, combat import penetration and stimulate the export of manufactured goods, as oil revenues diminish the country will experience adverse effects which include:

(i) a contraction of manufacturing to the point where the successful continuation of much of manufacturing activity is put at risk;

(ii) in irreplaceable loss of GDP;

(iii) an adverse balance of payments …;

(iv) lower tax revenue for public spending …;

(v) higher unemployment …;and

(vi) the economy stagnating and inflation rising".

The noble Lord will recognise that. Nothing has changed.
The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and his committee added:
210
"Taken together, these constitute a grave threat to the standard of living and to the economic and political stability of the nation".
That is what the noble Lord said in 1985. Marvellously, the report looked beyond that year to 1991. The noble Lord's committee was absolutely right. That is exactly the situation today. The climate has not changed.
Unlike the noble Lord I am not seeking to make party political points. I am talking about the facts and facts are not party points. In a debate of this kind in your Lordships' House, none of us being up for election in the near future, we can look realistically at the solutions to the serious problems which we face.
First, I hope that we can all agree that nothing we do now will quickly transform the situation. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, effectively said just that. Secondly, I hope that we can all agree on an objective —a situation where we can compete with the best in the world, including Germany, Japan, France and other competitors against whom we are doing so badly. Thirdly, I hope that we can also agree —and, indeed, the debate has shown that we can—on the need for increased manufacturing investment, for increased investment in training and a more skilled workforce, including management, for investment in R&D and for investment in innovation. I hope that we can all agree on those points. Those are not party political differences.
A much more difficult issue is how we achieve those objectives. I want to suggest two courses of action whereby we should at least give ourselves a chance. The first relates to action which we can take now but which will take some time to come to fruition, and the second relates to action which we can take now which might have a short-term effect.
Perhaps I may deal first with the action that we can take now. We can do something on investment tax allowances for capital investment in manufacturing industry and for training, but I am under no illusions about the huge and immediate advantages of that. The reason why most companies are not investing now is not that they do not receive tax allowances, but is a result of the economic climate in which they find themselves. They will not invest all that much more simply because they receive a tax allowance. I am under no illusion that it will be of great benefit, but it is something worth trying. More money is clearly needed, as is provided by other countries, for investment in training, R&D and the rest. We should do that to some extent through public expenditure, as others do.
Where is the money to come from? For me, this is the highest priority. If we are to provide the resources for the better things that we all want to see, this is the highest priority. However, as I found in the days when I tried to persuade Cabinet colleagues that this was a high priority, they were willing to accept that but were never willing to accept the logic that there were lower priorities. I see a former Chief Secretary on the Benches opposite nodding. Assuming that we all agree that it is the highest priority, sadly it will mean that even things like higher rates of child benefit and pensions—all those things that we would love to see —must be a lower priority.

211
If that happens—it will apply particularly to a Labour Government, even one with a woman Chief Secretary to the Treasury—the pressures to find more resources to help social security, education, transport, roads, infrastructure and local government, all of which are desperately needed, will be enormous. If we accept that investment in manufacturing output is the highest priority, everything else will have a lower priority. I hope that that point will be accepted.
I make it clear that I have no illusions about the difficulties of the job, having done it for five years with all the traumas that I faced during that time. Some additional help can and should be provided, as has been suggested, by banks and financial institutions. In his report, the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, pointed out that in Germany, France and Japan banks and financial institutions are much closer to manufacturing industry than we are in this country. Others have talked about the short-termism that applies in this country and does not apply in the best of our competitors. Something can certainly be done in that respect, but, even if all that is done, it will still take some years to come to fruition.
The immediate problem is the short-term competitiveness that our manufacturing industries face. I fear that when the upturn comes—it will probably come towards the end of the year even though it may not be noticed —it will come from an increase in consumer demand. There is no other way that it will come. Yet, at the height of the recession, we have a balance of payments deficit. Can one imagine how quickly we shall return to a recession if this recession ends by way of a consumer demand boom? That would be disastrous. Therefore, it is essential that increased output should not come primarily from increased consumer demand. We need increased exports and reduced imports. That means immediate and urgent selective help to manufacturing industry. It will have to be differential help with government pressure on banks and financial institutions.
There would need to be a substantial cut in interest rates very quickly. In another excellent maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, talked, as otter noble Lords did, about the dangers of what happens to an exchange rate if interest rates are reduced too much. I recognise and understand that point. On the other hand, there is a much greater problem regarding the general decline of our manufacturing industry and manufacturing output. Certainly, if we reduced interest rates at this time, the pound might drop to the bottom of the range in the exchange rate mechanism. Unlike Professor Walters, I do not regret entering the exchange rate mechanism; I advocated our entry eight years ago and earlier. However, I recognise that, if we cut interest rates as I want to do, the pound might drop to the bottom of the range. but we could live with that better than with not cutting interest rates. There may ultimately be a need for a realignment of the exchange rate mechanism. On the other hand, I concede at once that all past evidence shows that the benefits of that are frittered away very fast with high inflation and unit labour costs rising even faster. It is difficult to see how we shall stop that happening again.
212
How do we give ourselves a chance to do it? I regret to say that the short-term policy would need to be combined with a tight control of public expenditure along the lines that I have described with a tight fiscal and monetary policy and, above all, an unprecedented degree of co-operation from trade union leaders. As the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, said, there is no other way of changing the climate. I only wish that I could be more optimistic that it will happen.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will not mind me drawing your Lordships' attention to the fact that he is a man from the North West who speaks with great common sense and in a practical way. It is always a joy to listen to him. We have had a feast of speakers in this debate who have great experience and knowledge. I congratulate all the noble Lords who sit in front of me and the splendid noble Lord who, for some reason or other, sits on the other side, on their excellent speeches. All noble Lords have drawn attention to what appears to be a serious situation in manufacturing industry; namely, the recession that we are all going through and the disaster that it appears to mean to many people. However, we have simply gone back about two years from the highest peak that this country has ever seen and from a period when people had never been richer, investment had never been greater and the support and confidence of businesses had never been higher. We are now suffering from an adjustment from that high level. The worst thing that we could possibly do in reacting to what we now see as a rather unfortunate situation is to think that the solution is to ask government to do more. It would be a disaster if we were to return to that period of government involvement in industry and particularly manufacturing which we suffered in the 1960s and 1970s and which resulted in the disasters that became instrumental in turning out the Government in the late 1970s and in adopting a new approach to how we invested and how we ran our companies and our country. We need only look at what is happening in Eastern Europe where they are doing their best to get away from planning controls and all those things that have brought their industry to its knees.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, to whom I always enjoy listening, drew our attention to what was the peak of Britain's strength in the manufacturing world and the suggestion that we might have gone back from that peak. We have not gone back; the rest of the world has caught up with us. We were unique in our innovation and expertise in the middle of the last century, but that knowledge and information is now known by all the world. Our competitiveness must therefore be seen not in the light of what is right for us and right in our market place, but in the light of what everyone else in the world is prepared to do to compete with us.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Desai, commented on the importance of multinational businesses and on the fact that they are now the leaders in innovation and investment with regard to manufacturing with whom we must

213
compete. We must realise the strength of what has happened in the 1980s and that what makes businesses tick is the people who are prepared to run them. It is the management of the expertise, innovation and motivation of the people concerned which drives on the industries. In the face of all those noble Lords with close links with ICI, it is imprudent of me—I am not involved with either Hanson or ICI—to become involved in that discussion. However, I am surprised that noble Lords who believe so strongly in competition do not realise that in that kind of environment it is inevitable that companies which believe that they can manage other things better will do so. If they are not run in the best way by management, they will lose either the customers or the business for which they compete. I believe that what is happening now with Hanson is an inevitable consequence of a free market system from which so many of us are benefiting.
I should like to tell a story to illustrate the point that I hope government will not again become involved in business. Sir Ian MacGregor told me that when he took over as chairman of British Steel he was shown around a new estate at Corby where BSC had invested a good deal of money to re-employ those who had lost their jobs in the steel mill. He was taken to a factory where he met a large Italian gentleman who had been set up in business to boil hams for the local people. Sir Ian asked him how he was getting on, and he replied, "Now things are marvellous". Sir Ian asked him, "What do you mean by 'now'?" to which he replied that the previous week the traditional ham boiler had gone out of business. British Steel had put money into setting somebody else up in business with the result that the traditional ham boiler could no longer survive. That is one of the dangers of the kind of approach which says that government money must be used to support this or that. At the end of the day, unless we are competitive not just as individual companies but as a country we will never survive in the environment we are about to enter.
Next year, competition from Europe will increase. Nothing dramatic will happen, but more and more people will seize the opportunity to look for other people's customers. They will all want to survive and maintain or increase their standard of living. That can be done only by increasing turnover and profit, and they will be looking everywhere for opportunities to see where they can put their goods on somebody else's toe. That will happen here. We do not deal with that by softening our industries and helping with hand-outs or trying to reorganise and find ways of bringing them together in the way the noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggested might be the approach. We do it by making them more efficient in what they do and by making them invest, not because they want to do so but because they have to do so to exist at all.
I entirely support the Government's policy. The present Minister talks about innovation, competition and deregulation as his principles. I believe that is the right approach. The opportunities for British industry, particularly in the North West where it is
214
poised to take great advantage of export opportunities, can be tremendous. They can be tremendous not as a result of what governments do but as a result of how individual entrepreneurs, financiers and banks are motivated to do it. In an earlier speech the noble Lord, Lord Benson, described how important were our standards of financial control and that, somehow, as the country had become rich those people had luxuriated in that richness and built up their private advantages.
We have seen houses go up and fancy cars being driven around, whereas that money ought to be put back into businesses to strengthen and improve them. That is something which individuals can do but which governments cannot. Governments can say how wonderful it is to manufacture. At all levels in which they are involved—education, training and speaking—it is all to do with how to make manufacturing the most important thing in which to participate. The leadership of government, in particular that of the previous Prime Minister, in explaining to many industries the need to invest, innovate and be expansive was something which got through to many people. In my time, I have never come across industrialists who are so confident about doing something and getting on with it. I hope that the leadership given by the Government will ensure that never again will they become involved in telling manufacturers what they must do.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Pennock: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is not sitting on the Front Bench at the moment. I wanted to tell him that I have found this debate one of the most enjoyable I have ever experienced in the House. I think it was George Bernard Shaw who once said, "I have enjoyed myself; I have not enjoyed anyone else". In my case it is exactly the contrary: I have enjoyed everyone else and therefore I have enjoyed myself. I have found it a novel and quite exciting experience to sit for the first time on a Bench sandwiched between four star-studded maiden speakers, not to mention the one immediately opposite. In the businesses in which I have been brought up it has always been a strong characteristic of the board to look for men and women of potential. I would say to both Front Benches that these giants from outside are men and women of potential here and now. I hope that their further participation in the business of the House will be eagerly awaited.
The debate has ranged far and wide. One of the amusing features has been that some speakers have said that the past 10 years have been the worst in our history in economic and manufacturing performance; others have said they have been the best. Someone must be having hallucinations. Eventually we shall find out.
I should like to deal with something quite specific which I believe has far-reaching implications. Whenever ICI has been mentioned this afternoon I have sensed a rumble of approval. In the next few minutes I should like to give noble Lords some hard facts as to why that rumble of approval should

215
continue and an analysis of the reasons for those facts which I hope will be well received. Like the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, many noble Lords will know that I was a deputy chairman of ICI for four years, a director for 10 years, an employee for 34 years and, much more importantly, I shall be a pensioner for a lot longer—I hope. I have a direct interest in ICI which I hope will enable me to give some important information.
First, ICI is one of the four largest chemical companies in the world. On more than one occasion in the past decade it has been the world's number one profit-performer in this industry. That is not a new phenomenon. It happened also in the 1970s, 1960s and 1950s, when I was too young to appreciate the implication of such massive figures. I suspect that since its foundation in 1925 by Mond and McGowan it has been a world leader. It is still easily the most international of all chemical companies in the world. I was surprised to discover that it is the fourth largest chemical company in the USA. It has factories in over 40 countries and has business operations in over 150. That enables it to contribute positively to the UK trade balance to the tune of £1.5 billion to £1.7 billion at a time when for the reasons outlined British manufacturing has a huge deficit. It is the world's number one in paints and explosives and the world's number three in agrochemicals. In pharmaceuticals, ICI produces the world's leading anti-cancer drug and provides the leading beta blocker heart drug.
It is my contention that those results could have been achieved only by a broadly based chemical group, not by a collection of separate businesses. In a word, ICI has practised long-termism.
Pharmaceuticals and petrochemicals are currently its most successful and profitable businesses. In their first 10 years of existence they both consistently made either a loss or a minuscule profit. When I was chairman of the Agrochemicals Division, our profits ran into tens of thousands of pounds, sometimes perhaps hundreds of thousands. Today the profits are well over £100 million. I recall on more than one occasion on paints and explosives, in which it is now a wor1d leader, the main board debating long and loud as to, whether we should continue to persevere with those businesses. The finance to build up embryonic businesses and take the long-term view and the finance on which to depend and persevere with businesses temporarily in trouble can only come from a broadly based group.
I should like to turn now to research. So much of ICI's success is based on research—£700 million this year and 7 per cent. of all research in British manufacturing industry. Even more important than the size of the research commitment is the fact that it is integrated. It moves between the businesses. What is discovered in one business is transferred to another in a way which could never happen with small separate businesses. Initial research on Diquat and Paraquat, two outstanding weedkillers in the 1970s and 1980s, began in the dyes business. Milstem, which is today a prominent fungicide in agrochemicals, came from early research in pharmaceuticals. Fluothane, an anaesthetic which revolutionised anaesthetic practices
216
throughout the world, was developed from research in fluorocarbons in the general chemical business. Hibitane, a major hospital antiseptic, was aided by the development of an intermediate originating in, of all places, a nylon process. Finally, research in fluorochemicals, pharmaceuticals, catalyst research in the old Agricultural Division and process research in the central technical laboratories have produced very recently KLEA 34, which is replacing the CFCs in refrigerator production and as such will be a leading component in helping to dispense with the problems in the ozone layer.
I should like finally to move to the topic of competition. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that ICI is aware of competition. Although it is 10 years since I left ICI, engraved on my heart like Mary Tudor's Calais are Badische Bayer and Hoechst in Germany, AKZO in Holland, Rhone Poulenc in France, Enichem in Italy, and Dupont Dow and Monsanto in the United States. I put it to your Lordships that all those competitors are widely based group chemical companies. They all practise cross-fertilisation between research and technology in all their businesses. They all practise financial support between the businesses on a long-term basis in the way that I described.
In conclusion I hope to have given some conviction to the theory that a break-up of ICI into separate businesses would be received by the competition first with glee and amazement. However, for ICI and, I believe, for the United Kingdom such a step would be a national tragedy.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, in this discussion we should not worry too much about party politics. I should like the two former Chief Secretaries to have a discussion. If they did, I wonder whether they would end up in total agreement or total disagreement.
I must say that after the way in which Ministers treated his report the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, was almost unduly generous to Ministers today. It was a shocking story. It was before the civil servants managed to get hold of his report. Ministers rubbished it and then the Government had to change their opinion rather quickly. But it was a good report and I am glad that my noble friend quoted from it.
The purpose of my brief speech is partly to demonstrate that I can talk about something other than HMS "Endurance" and partly to urge the Government carefully to consider the reports. I do not expect the Government to answer the Caldecote Report today but I ask them to take it seriously. Recent replies from the Government on Select Committee reports, particularly those from the Science and Technology Committee and especially the report on R&D, have not been worthy. I ask them to consider particular recommendations. The recommendation in an earlier report—namely, that there should be some real remission of taxation in relation to R&D in industry—was dismissed in a contemptuous fashion in a reply by the Treasury. But that has

217
worked successfully in other countries. It may be more psychological than real or physical; nonetheless I urge that it should be seriously considered.
There are a number of detailed recommendations which will need comment. I do not know what the Government will say about takeover bids. We have had a good example in relation to ICI in two admirable speeches—one from the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, and a maiden speech. I should like to add another reason for ICI being as good as it is. As a former deputy chairman of the largest mining company in the world and as one of the great legal deputy chairmen, the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, may remember that Sir Val Duncan had a series of meetings with trade union and industrial leaders. Time and again when there was criticism of the trade union side, they would turn to the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, or whoever was there for ICI, and say, "We don't mean you".
Quality of leadership, which has not been much referred to in this discussion, is very important. I owe a great deal to both the noble Lords, Lord Pennock and Lord Haslam. I have asked for their advice on numerous occasions and they always willingly gave it, particularly in the personnel field. I believe that ICI is entitled to its reputation. It is in the national interest that we should somehow face up to this takeover bid. I certainly know that the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, gave us a wonderful speech. In his time he was a personnel man. He was a director of ICI at the time that we took his advice and it was very good. Leadership is important.
That brings me to another maiden speech, that of the noble Lord, Lord Laing of Dunphail. Quite unashamedly I exploited him for my own company. I asked him to talk the staff and preach his ideas, which were a wonderful mixture of practical capitalism and idealism. We are very lucky to have such distinguished speakers in this House. Their contribution was very good indeed. It has been a remarkable debate.
I am determined to make the shortest speech of this debate. I want to say only that I hope that the Minister will not waste too much time on answering some of the unanswerable points made by the Opposition but concentrate on the positive recommendations. I look to the Government to tackle the report of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, who incidentally spent a lot of time on it. The report is very critical of the Government although he did his best to electioneer as well. That is perfectly all right. Noble Lords should use such arguments. However, I hope that the Government will not waste too much time on attacking the Opposition. Let the Government answer the criticisms that have been made and then we shall be happy.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Clitheroe: My Lords, I very rarely speak on the Floor of the House. There are so many noble Lords who are wiser and speak with greater fluency. I made my maiden speech in that debate opened by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, in 1985. As I have served for the past year on the Select Committee on Science
218
and Technology, which is studying the subject of innovation under the admirable chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Caldecote, I thought that I should allow myself the privilege of speaking tonight.
I am probably a most inappropriate person to be on a committee studying innovation because, like many noble Lords no doubt, I do not readily welcome change. Many innovations are anathema to me and I am a great believer in the old American adage: if it works, don't fix it.
I entered industry 40 years ago—not 140 years ago. It was a most discouraging time. The system was not working. It needed fixing—but how to fix it? It was a most intractable problem. We had been suffering for years from the shrinking market of a previously protected Empire trade. Unions and management were at loggerheads, defending their positions using World War I tactics of trench warfare. We were stuck in this self-destructive mode, and efforts to invest in new equipment to improve productivity were completely stymied.
I speak from management's perspective. The unions were like the Bourbons: they learnt nothing and forgot nothing. And so it continued. Management felt that it had precious little incentive to waste its time with innovatory ideas which would not be brought to fruition. It was easier to invest overseas. Despite many and varied tax incentives—sticks and carrots—from Government, British malaise was such a profound disincentive that overseas investment was the logical imperative.
Unions and management were victims of a shared problem. It has often been said that this country is class-ridden and that that is one of the roots of our industrial problems. I do not agree with that analysis. I believe that the USA is much more class-ridden. One can see class very clearly defined in the precise salaries, the size of motor cars, and the clubs to which people belong. The hierarchy of industry is more rigid in Germany, Japan and in most of the other countries in which I have had the privilege to work, than in this country.
Our problem is more difficult than one of class. Due to the extraordinary stability with which we have been blessed as a nation, we have developed a kind of crystalline structure which, while greatly strengthening us in many ways, creates a rigidity which makes it difficult to adjust. For instance, as long as one remains within one's discipline—which is more or less predetermined at school—one can reach its heights. But to move from one discipline to another is extremely difficult. In most of the countries in which I have worked it is much easier to move through the more amorphous structure. Industry, academia and the Civil Service can communicate and understand each other's languages and points of view. They can even exchange jobs with one another. The problem of communication exists through the crystal lattice of society in this country. My noble friend Lord Butterworth referred to it in another context in his speech. The difficulty of getting the different crystals to communicate with one another is very great.
In the 1970s we trailed badly in industry behind most of our competitors. However, the 1980s

219
introduced a revolution which I had despaired of ever seeing. At last we were finding our way and were introducing innovation into the basic fabric of our culture. We had improved productivity in industry. We had regained confidence and were even the preferred vessel for overseas investment by countries such as Japan. That in turn introduced further innovation and awoke us to new skills such as total quality management. I believe that that is an important feature of industry today.
An enormous tribute is due to the work of the Government during the 1980s. They had at last grasped the realisation that their true duty was to provide a well-equipped concert hall, not to conduct the band. They started to break down some of the rigidity of our cultural heritage although there is much more that needs to be done. One cannot cure the problem in 10 years.
In the Select Committee report which many noble Lords have read, a number of conclusions are reached, and a good deal of advice offered to the Government. During the early 1980s, many companies went to the wall. The Select Committee took evidence last year during the current recession which provided a picture of almost unrelieved gloom. It presented deep anxiety that similar threats of company failures were in the offing I do not have such a pessimistic view. Great strides were made in improving the management of the companies that survived the previous recession. I am optimistic about the future of most of them. Nevertheless, the anxieties exist. Our manufacturing base is so small now that we must ensure that it shrinks no further. We have to make great efforts to ensure that it expands.
I add my congratulations to those already made about all the maiden speakers today. In particular, I refer to the important speech of my noble friend Lord Haslam, and to the wisdom spoken by my noble friend Lord Pennock. I am not an interested party in ICI; I have never worked for the company. However, I have worked in the chemical industry for most of my life. I know what a debt we owe to that company. I cannot view with anything but foreboding the possibility of the break-up of that great company. It has provided and continues to provide the major part of the infrastructure of this country's chemical industry. The chemical industry in this country is one of the most successful examples of manufacturing industry. It owes a great debt to ICI which is not to be forgotten.
I was particularly delighted by the speech of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last month at Warwick University to which reference has been made. It gives me great hope because there is much common ground between the views that he expressed on behalf of the Government and many of the recommendations reached by our committee. However, I should like to press him to consider carefully some of the other recommendations that the committee made, in particular those concerning short-termism and takeovers. The noble Lord, Lord Benson, expanded ably on that subject in his speech today. It would be a tragedy indeed if the great changes for the better in our industrial performance
220
achieved by this Government's policies were brought to naught because the industrial base had shrunk into non-existence.
6.48 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, the House must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for instigating the debate. We must also be grateful for the experience of maiden speakers today which has added greatly to the information at the disposal of your Lordships' House. We are grateful and hope that not too much time will elapse before their voices are heard again. I hope also that the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, will become a member of the all-party motor industry group.
The subject is given regular exposure in this Chamber and in another place, both through Questions and in debate and through the media of press and television. There are many voices on the subject, but little unity. That is not surprising when one considers the number of associated interests involved: fiscal and monetary policies; trade unions; the Confederation of British Industry; the Department of Trade and Industry; clearing banks; and manufacturing industry itself. However, there does not appear to be a unified manufacturing voice. Perhaps that gives testimony to the wide variety of manufacturing that we enjoy in this country. Perhaps it is time that we sincerely addressed ourselves to that point and sought a means whereby the voice of our manufacturing industry was heard in unison and not, as is so often the case, in discord. Could this be an area for the leadership referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Benson?
I bring to this Chamber my experience of an industry which spends much of its time minding other people's business. The materials handling industry is largely involved with the manufacturing and distribution industries. Here I must declare an interest in that I work for the Lansing Linde Group, one of the largest manufacturers of forklift trucks and warehousing systems in the world. During the next three years the company will invest in the UK £40 million of the most modern production plant of its type anywhere. The industry is almost a barometer of other people's economic success; the first company budget to be reduced or cancelled in hard times is the materials handling budget and it is usually the last to be reinstated. For us it is very much a stop-go world. That is underlined by the statistics which show that the total market can move as much as 25 per cent. on a three-month moving average basis. It is a market which reacts very swiftly to a downturn in the economic situation.
However, there are further conclusions to be drawn from the past 12 years. Although the peaks and troughs have been present there has been a distinct lowering of the average. That must be a matter of concern when compared with other European markets which have maintained their levels on an average basis over a longer period of time. However, we are a major exporter and aim to continue to be so.
Much has been said of the increased investment made during the past years which in many areas has

221
shown dramatic increases in efficiency. But there has been a downside to that increased efficiency. It was predicted by the effect of the competition which has weeded out those who are not up to today's standards. That must be the accepted price of modern progress. Our successes are there for all to see but there are areas of manufacturing which have been replaced by overseas supply; they have just not been able to compete.
There is a great danger that we spend too much of our time as paid-up members of "the tears before bed" league. For example, it is well known that imports in certain sectors are not in essence sustainable. In that respect the agriculture industry, although not in most minds a manufacturer, needs to grab the nettle of marketing. Our supermarkets do not have enough British produce on their shelves and a change in that area would produce a dramatic benefit in our balance of payments. Personally, I prefer British to Egyptian potatoes.
There are many who seek to return to a world where tax avoidance and the grant begging bowl were the order of the day. It is not for Ministers to run business—government have no superior wisdom in that area—but it is for managers and investors to make the decisions which will determine the future of industry and will ensure our presence in Europe in 1993.
The support of the Department of Trade and Industry has been manifest in that area. In Warwick last May the Minister of State for Trade and Industry confirmed that an important part of the role of the DTI is to listen to business and to ensure that, within government, policies reflect the needs of British business. It is to be hoped that the Treasury will also be invited to partake in the dialogue and that it will result in a reduction in its demand on manufacturing industry. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Aldington.
Manufacturing is a side of industry requiring high investment and much expertise in the form of qualified engineers. There tends to be a cultural disdain at present for such qualifications. That was highlighted by my noble friend Lord Caldecote in his report on innovation in manufacturing industry. The report showed that 35 per cent. of United Kingdom students seriously considered media as a career whereas fewer than 10 per cent. gave serious consideration to manufacturing. The change must initially be cultural. Perhaps the media might assist in that.
As regards investment, I believe that the banking community would be well advised to research and to understand in greater depth the industries that it supports. Lack of understanding in that area has led to unnecessary anguish for a number of dedicated industrialists who have had to spend more of their energy solving short-term, artificial problems created by unsympathetic listening banks than on managing the core of their businesses.
Times change and with that change must come a change in our own culture. We must recognise and accept the market place as it is today; a market place where the most efficient and productive will survive
222
only by giving the service that guarantees future business. That is not the job of government; it is the job of industry itself.
6.56 p.m
Baroness Seear: My Lords, today we have had a positive gala of maiden speeches of an exceptionally high order. I congratulate all the speakers. I hope that I shall be forgiven for picking out for special mention the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Denton. This is not a case of one woman scratching the back of another. Many noble Lords have talked about the importance of women in industry and in management. The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, is the role model of women in industry and management. We must give the world such examples to show that women can hold such positions. I extend my grateful thanks to her not only for what her position does for women but because it shows that a great untapped resource of woman power and manpower is available to industry and is of the quality that is required.
Perhaps I may also be forgiven for paying special tribute to my former LSE colleagues the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Griffiths. We are almost approaching the point where we need an all-party LSE Lords dining club. No doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, will be included because she is a governor at the LSE. The thought will probably make the founding fathers and mothers turn in their graves, but no matter.
In opening the debate the noble Lord, Lord Williams, reproved the Government for the way in which industry has been running during the past 10 years. We are told that there is great joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth; there must be a riot of delight about the conversions that have taken place inside the Labour Party. Far be it from me to defend the actions of the Government. However, when the noble Lord, Lord Williams, reproves the Government I must remind him that when they took over in 1979 there had been a decline in Britain's share of world markets. That had been the case under a series of governments, including that of the noble Lord's party. I also remind him that in 1979 the percentage of people in British industry who had not received training was no less than 50 per cent. The Labour Party had plenty of opportunities to do something about that; opportunities which it did not take.
The Labour Party ethos was responsible in those days for decrying profit in a way which had an extremely bad cultural effect. To my certain knowledge it discouraged many able young people from going into industry. If the Labour Party denies that it decried profit, why did it continue to support an 83 per cent. tax on high level incomes? Of course nobody at that level with any sense ever paid it; there were so many loopholes. But it would have been possible for the Labour Party to do something about it. The party is now converted to the idea of wealth creation and therefore to the view that riches are something we must accept, even though it may not altogether welcome it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, started with a little electioneering, I see no harm in indulging in my

223
share, though since we now know that there will not be an election until next year, it would be better if we gave up electioneering in this House. This is especially true at Question Time, which is a particularly unsuitable moment to indulge in electioneering, but we seem to get it every day now.
There is no doubt that what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said in regard to manufacturing industry is correct. Manufacturing industry is the locomotive of economic recovery and of continuing economic success when that recovery occurs. Without successful manufacturing industry there will be no recovery. If there is no recovery, all the other improvements that all sides of the House wish to see will not be brought about.
Why is that? It is because the success of manufacturing industry in exports is greater than the success of any other sector when it comes to export trade and to the avoidance of excessively high imports. Unless we have success in manufacturing exports, the future is bleak indeed. On that we can all agree absolutely. If we can obtain success in exports—can increase exports and decrease imports—that will have the desired effect on the balance of trade; without improving the balance of trade it will be difficult to bring interest rates down. They are being kept up partly to combat the threat to the pound that comes from an adverse balance of trade. Therefore there is no difference between us regardless of where we sit: we all believe that the recovery of manufacturing industry is of the highest possible importance.
I am glad that today nobody spoke of the contrast between success in services and success in manufacturing industry. The idea has died that somehow or other success in services makes up for failure in manufacturing. The truth of the matter is that successful manufacturing contributes to success in services; failure in manufacturing industry leads to a decline in services. The two work together. It is false to believe that it is possible to make up for weaknesses in manufacturing by success in services. Even if that were true, we are now seeing such a decline in services that the argument can hardly be relevant.
What can we now do to improve the position? We on these Benches do not wish to see a return to picking winners. But there are things that the Government undoubtedly could and should do. I agree with all those who said that to try to get recovery in this country by encouraging increased consumption through the consumer market would be disastrous. That is certainly not the way to bring about improvements. The way to bring about improvements is undoubtedly through investment.
Unless it was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, when I was out of the Chamber, I am surprised that nobody spoke of the importance of investment in the infrastructure. Investment in the infrastructure is most important in helping manufacturing industry to recover. We are woefully behind as regards the infrastructure in railways, roads and housing. That is part of the trouble with the rigid labour markets, dominated by the fact that people find it extraordinarily difficult to move house. If the Government can see their way to investing in the
224
infrastructure, which to a large extent means helping the construction industry, we shall begin to see some effect on employment and, indirectly, on consumer expenditure. The construction industry is an industry which will employ a large number of people if there is real investment in the infrastructure. I do not need to tell your Lordships that the construction industry is in an extremely bad way. Help to that industry would be help also to manufacturing industry in a way that other consumer expenditure would not be.
As other noble Lords have said, the other area where it is extremely important that there should be development on a much more ambitious scale than at present is the area of education and training. Here I agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, about the tremendous importance of making a quantum leap in education and training. It requires not just a little more here and there; we must get into a completely different kind of market if we are to hold our own.
It is not only a matter of government injecting more money into education and training, although they must do that. It is no good leaving it entirely to the TECs to do it, especially when the money to the TECs is being cut. We do not want every company to train; they are not capable of doing it. What has been urged upon the Government many times and could be done very quickly is for the companies which do not train to pay. I do not suggest going back to the old levy grant system, which was too bureaucratic, though the principle was right. There are ways in which it could be done through the tax system so that money is obtained not from the taxpayer but from those sections of industry which do not pay their way in contributing to training and which should be made to do so. The Government could do that immediately and it would be an important improvement in the way training develops.
Finally, we need to improve the participation of all those working in industry and to develop a different system of industrial relations. Much has been shown to us by the Germans in that area. If we are to achieve success in industry we must achieve far better industrial relations. Tributes have been paid to ICI. Perhaps I may conclude by saying that one aspect of ICI's contribution to this country is the lead it has taken over 50 years in showing how successful industrial relations, successful employee involvement, can be developed. I hope that the Government will see their way to encouraging that.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as the last speaker from these Benches perhaps I may add my voice to those who have congratulated our five maiden speakers. It was a great pleasure to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, especially her remarks praising the workforce —with which I agree—rather than blaming it for all our ills. Perhaps I may also say how much I agree with her views on women in industry. If the noble Baroness speaks on that topic on other occasions she will find that I and my noble friends will be extremely supportive of her. However, I believe that she was being a trifle optimistic. I speak purely from memory,

225
but I am fairly confident that if we look at the top 100 companies in this country to see how many chairmen are women and how many managing directors are women, the answer is either nought or not far from nought. There is a long way to go.
I was impressed with essentially how much in common my noble friend Lord Desai had with the noble Lords, Lord Haslam, and Lord Laing, on so many topics, particularly on the question of taking the long-term rather than the short-term view. It is encouraging when the problem is diagnosed in the same way by so many different people. However, I am bound to say that it is easier to diagnose the problem than to find a solution to it. It has been with us for so long that I remain somewhat pessimistic as to how easily we will solve it.
The contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, on those matters was quite outstanding. His reference to the profligate habits of the past four to five years was most telling. I hope that all the major companies of this country buy today's copy of Hansard, which is comparatively inexpensive. They will obtain the benefit of his excellent financial advice which is available virtually free.
I turn finally to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, who gave an excellent maiden speech. I was a trifle disappointed that he did not mention that he is an old student of mine. Perhaps he did not for very good reasons. I did teach mainstream Keynesian economics in those days. I understand that he has moved a little from that position. I believe that I should be encouraged by the appearance in your Lordships' House of an erstwhile student, but it makes one feel a trifle old.
As regards the main theme of the debate, there is no doubt about the importance of manufacturing. Points have been made that it is vital for our exports, for our imports savings and also for growth. I do not make the vulgar error of saying that producing goods is good, and producing services is bad. That is completely wrong. I believe that the important point has been made that we need a balance; but in terms of international trade, manufacturing is of vital importance. It is also important in terms of innovation.
As regards innovation, there is a topic which is significant but which has not been mentioned. It is closely connected with the protection of intellectual property rights, patents and related matters. It is vital that this or any other government ensures that our laws on the subject are always strong and enforced. That is important for the future because innovatory competition is tremendously important to us. ICI has been mentioned, but I am not going into the detail of that controversy. I was very impressed by a statement put out today especially for our debate, by The Royal Society of Chemistry. It states that a settled, large scale research environment is essential for UK industry and the potential effects of the dismemberment of a company's research effort, whether it be ICI or anybody else, should be a key factor that we take into account in the current debate.
226
I have referred to the short-term and long-term view. We shall have other occasions to discuss the problems of the recession. I am not going into them except to make an obvious economist's point that the short-term recession has long-term effects through what it does to investment. That is a matter we have to bear in mind. I believe that the present position is serious. We should look at the long-term and not just at the short-term view. In that connection, one of the factors which worries me about the long view is how we can get back on track to a long running growth path. I refer to the balance of payments.
The point has been made that in a recession of this magnitude for the balance of payments still to be in deficit is extremely worrying. If we get out of the recession via a consumer-led boom, as my noble friend Lord Barnett pointed out, it will not be long before we go back into recession because we cannot sustain that kind of deficit despite a world of free capital movement and so on. The Government must find a way of moving us out of recession led by investment if that is possible. I am not one for throwing indiscriminate tax concessions at industry, but simply to let consumption boom away again will not help us.
Unemployment has been considerable during the 1980s. Once it looks like falling, it begins to grow again. Along with everyone else, I was extremely sorry to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer blunder. I believe that he just made a blunder because I cannot believe that he actually meant it when he said that the increase in unemployment is a price worth paying for dealing with inflation. I believe that was an error. It would be a double error in so far as he said it, and that it was his own predecessor who created inflation in the first place.
My worry concerning unemployment is not the present increase, but what is happening in the long term. We seem to have moved into a set of economic circumstances where essentially the economy seems to overheat once unemployment gets much below 2 million. That problem requires very considerable sorting out. It is clearly but not wholly connected with training and other related factors. I have some political things to say, but I am not going to get too involved in politics on the history of training.
There is no doubt that we must make certain that our labour force is as highly trained as industry requires. In that connection, I take the view that, especially as regards young people, there should be no access whatever to jobs without training. I know that the CBI is rather scared that one might legislate to achieve that. To allow our young people to go into essentially dead-end jobs with no mandatory training is a betrayal of them and therefore a betrayal of the future of our country. We must do something about that.
I throw out en passant— and in the hope that we shall debate the matter on another occasion—that there is a connection here between our view on the training of young people and on minimum wages. We would not allow a minimum wage policy just to be left to the free market where predictions are made that

227
that would lead to unemployment. A minimum wage policy coupled with a major training policy will not lead to unemployment but to a rise in employment.
I have written in my notes "What is the Government's economic policy?" So far as I can see it contains these factors: it involves deflation to get rid of their own created inflation. I believe that it involves keeping us in the exchange rate mechanism. I hope very much that that is so. Though we got into it rather late, a; I have pointed out before to your Lordships, I would rather have gone in at a slightly lower exchange rate with a narrow band. Nonetheless, I am convinced that we must stick to the arrangement we have. I believe that it is a non-party point (I hope it is on my side) that it would be catastrophic if we devalue sterling. To let people know that we would be willing to devalue sterling would undermine everything we have clone. I say that even though, paradoxically, I have pointed out that in my opinion we went in at slightly too high a rate. We must not devalue.
It is my worry that, apart from the policies I have just mentioned, the Government have been engaging in a policy of "do nothing-ism". I cannot see what the Government's policies are for the longer term. Often we are told: "We shall leave it to the market because it is nothing to do with us". I do not call that a policy.
Some reference has been made to the infrastructure. I totally agree with what has been said. What impressed me is that the Bank for International Settlements, which is not known as being a particularly socialist or a moderately progressive body, said categorically in its latest report which was issued a few weeks ago that, as regards our own country, the lack of public investment in the infrastructure would actually hold us back. That is an interesting proposition coming from that body. The point has already been made and I am simply underlining it. It is said that there is a link between private sector productivity and investment in core infrastructure including, as that body states, airports, water, sewerage and energy works.
I do not accept at all that we are late in learning. I have been saying for as long as I have been an economist—which is a very long time—that we have to take the private sector seriously and encourage it. Therefore I ask noble Lords opposite to take equally seriously in this area the need for the public sector to be sup ported for it to prosper.
I must warn one or two noble Lords that my concluding remarks contain a slight political element. I apologise immediately to the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I wish to summarise what we are saying with the following statement:
"The recession has once again emphasised the fundamental weakness of the British economy, that we do not produce sufficient goods of the kind we ourselves—never mind foreigners—wish to buy. It is some time since the Tories realised the folly of the view taken by some influential Right-wing economists in the earlier Thatcher years—that it was unimportant whether or not this country possessed a strong manufacturing basis".
That statement was not made by a friendly critic—the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, for example—and it was not made by an unfriendly critic; namely, me. It was
228
in the main leading article of the Daily Telegraph last Saturday—so that all sinners repent. That seems to me to be the central lesson to learn.
My conclusion is going to be very political. The Government have had a fair run for their money and they have done some good things. If I had time, I would tell the House what they were. Overall, however, their economic policies have failed. As my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel said, it is time for them to go, at least for a while—preferably a long while—to think things through again. We are ready to take over. It is a pity that it looks as if we shall have to wait a year or so for that. It looks as if our inheritance may well be nigh catastrophic. But we are used to clearing up the mess left by the party opposite. We know what to do and we shall do it.
7.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, this House has a long tradition of distinguished debates on the prospects for manufacturing industry. This afternoon's debate has been fully within that tradition, only more so. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Pennock that we have been extraordinarily fortunate in having had five maiden speakers this afternoon, not only in their number but in their quality. All were speeches of enormous value and interest. I find it a privilege to listen to the distilled experience of a distinguished career. To have that experience five times in one afternoon has made this debate a rare and wonderful occasion in the annals of the House.
The noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Peston, and other noble Lords, have made their case eloquently and forcefully. They may be surprised to know that I agree with some of the points that they have made. To those noble Lords, such as my noble friend Lord Caldecote, who have called for a declaration from the Government of their belief in the importance of our manufacturing industry, let me give that right at the start.
I agree that a prosperous manufacturing sector is central to this country's economic performance and prosperity. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said on many recent occasions that he simply cannot imagine a healthy British economy without a vigorous manufacturing sector. I also agree that the Government have an important role to play in promoting the health of manufacturing industry. However, what I cannot agree is that the Government have neglected manufacturing industry, or are indifferent to its current difficulties. Nor can I agree that manufacturing would be strengthened by the type of interventionist policies advocated by noble Lords opposite, and whose relevance I suggest has already been discredited by history.
Noble Lords opposite have suggested that manufacturing is in a parlous state. In this, they are, if I may say so, engaging in what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has called our two great national failings: focusing on bad news, and taking a short-term view. That was a theme taken up by several noble Lords and was given particular emphasis by my

229
noble friend Lord Laing. It is of course true that times are exceedingly difficult for many firms, and not just in manufacturing. But the priority has to be getting inflation down. There is no painless way of reducing inflation. Until we do so we cannot tackle other problems nor see the opportunities which will then be open to us.
Recession is not confined to the United Kingdom. The United States, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland and Finland are also in recession, and there have been marked slowdowns in France, Italy and Spain. The cause is the same everywhere. Very rapid growth in the industrialised world during the 1980s led to the re-emergence of inflationary pressures. Firm policies were needed to stop inflation taking hold again.
High interest rates impose additional costs on business. But the cost to industry if inflation was allowed to become entrenched would be infinitely greater in terms of lost competitiveness, lost jobs and lost investment. Inflation is the enemy of the long-term planning which several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Laing and the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, have pointed out as being vital for industrial success. That is why business is fully behind our commitment to lower inflation.
Our policy is working. Inflation has fallen rapidly from the peak of nearly 11 per cent. reached last Autumn to under 6 per cent. now, and is set to fall to 4 per cent. by the end of the year. Lower inflation has meant that we have been able to reduce base rates by 31 percentage points since last October while keeping sterling within its ERM bands.
The difficulties facing manufacturing are therefore short term in nature. Experience shows that recessions, although always painful, are always temporary. The current recession is no exception. Growth is set to resume in the second half of the year as consumers' expenditure responds to lower inflation and interest rates, and as exports are helped by a recovery in the world economy. The recovery in the United Kingdom will gather pace next year. Outside forecasters agree that manufacturing output should grow by 2.5 per cent. between this year and next.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, quite properly raised the issue of unemployment. Of course we regret the current levels of unemployment. Two and a quarter million is too high; but unemployment lags activity. The extent of any further rise would in part depend on the behaviour of wage bargainers. The quickest way to lose jobs is for firms to allow jobs to be priced out of existence by conceding wage increases ahead of what the market can bear. It is particularly important for firms to have in mind now that ERM membership rules out the option of us devaluing our currency and so bailing out firms who fail to control costs and wages. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, touched on that point. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in a speech made in his usual, if I may say so, amusing and impish manner, nevertheless made a serious and non-partisan point about the inflationary impact of devaluing the exchange rate.
I should also like to remind noble Lords that the number of jobs in the United Kingdom has increased
230
since 1983 by 3 million—a larger increase than in any other European Community country. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, I remain extremely sceptical that the Labour Party's proposed plan for a minimum wage will not very substantially add to unemployment.
Noble Lords opposite and some other noble Lords have suggested that the Government, and specifically the Department of Trade and Industry, have not done enough to help manufacturing industry, and that the Government lack an industrial policy. I take issue with those noble Lords.
It is certainly true that the Government's industrial policy is not an interventionist one. The Government do not believe in selecting strategic industries, or in building chosen firms into national champions who then stifle domestic competition, or in channelling investment into certain activities by exhortation, subsidy, tax privileges, protection and intervention. Nor, would I add, does business. The CBI's Business Agenda for the 1990s explicitly rejected any return to the corporate state. The agenda states:
"It will certainly be important that the United Kingdom does not retrace the steps that have been taken to advantage over the past decade".
It goes on to say,
"CBI members prefer reductions in the rate of corporation tax to the reintroduction of special allowances for particular types of investment".
I agree with my noble friend Lord Wade, that we have been fortunate in having in the past few years been provided with proof of the absolute failure of policies of state intervention in their purest form by what has been revealed to have happened in the countries of Eastern Europe. There the state has been able to direct whatever proportion of GDP it wanted into investment—and it has been a far higher proportion than in the West—and to select whatever strategic industries it wished for special emphasis and treatment and the result has been what? It has been national bankruptcy. Any significant step down that road is a step towards the same result.
The Government's industrial policy is to create a framework of open competitive markets. A framework which rewards enterprise and wealth creation. A framework which gives individuals the freedom to develop skills. A framework which gives managers the freedom to run their businesses according to their own commercial judgment. My noble friend Lord Clitheroe put it very well: the purpose is to construct the concert hall, not conduct the orchestra.
Competition underlies all our policies. It harnesses self interest to the public good. Competition is not always comfortable. Many individual producers would probably prefer less, rather than more, competition. But experience shows that industry is weakened, not strengthened, when it is shielded from competition. The success of Japanese, German and American companies in overseas markets demonstrates that vigorous competition creates internationally competitive firms and industries.
Private ownership and competition are different sides of the same coin. That is one reason why we have privatised nearly two-thirds of the nationalised sector,

231
transferring 44 businesses to the private sector. The result has been increased efficiency and better service to the consumer.
Competition also underlies our trade policy. That is why we have taken a leading role in promoting the single European market and pursuing a successful outcome to the Uruguay Round. We in the United Kingdom export nearly one quarter of all the goods and services we produce and our exports per head are actually higher than those of Japan. So clearly it is a paramount national interest to maintain a free and open world trading system. I agree with my noble friend Lord Griffiths that the Government must fight to secure a level playing field in Europe.
We have cut tax rates to restore incentives. Britain now has the lowest rate of corporation tax among the major industrial countries and the structure of corporation tax rates for small companies is the most favourable both in the Community and in the G7 countries. The total tax burden on business in the United Kingdom is lower than in most of our major competitors including France, Germany and Japan.
The Government's deregulation initiative, by dramatically cutting the burden of compliance with government control, has freed business to concentrate on the task of creating wealth and jobs. That is why we have scrapped pay controls, price controls, exchange controls, credit controls, and countless other controls. It is why we have abolished the closed shop, and simplified export licensing, company law and accounting requirements for small companies.
We have reformed trade union law so that union members could take back control from militant leader. The result has been a transformation in the industrial climate: 1990 saw the fewest stoppages due to industrial disputes since 1935.
Nothing demonstrates more clearly the improvement in the business environment than the degree to which inward investment has been generated in recent years, bringing new jobs, new products, new manufacturing and management techniques. In 1988 and 1989 Britain attracted almost 40 per cent. of all OECD inward investment flows in the EC, nearly three times more than France and six times more than Germany. Over the same period the United Kingdom accounted for more than 60 per cent. of all US investment, and more than 40 per cent, of Japanese investment, in the EC. Recent Japanese figures suggest that Japan's inward investment to the UK rose by 30 per cent. in 1990. There can be little doubt that none of this would have happened had we not introduced the changes that I have described.
The result of our policies has been that, in the words of the CBI,
"there was a remarkable transformation in the critical manufacturing sector in particular".
My noble friend Lord Griffiths was right when he said that by the end of the 1980s the decline of manufacturing had halted. Let us look first of all at productivity. During much of the post-war period the United Kingdom languished at the bottom of the international league table for productivity growth. In the 1970s manufacturing productivity grew on average by only 1.6 per cent. a year, compared with 3.2
232
per cent. in our major competitors. In the 1980s productivity grew by 4.7 per cent. a year, faster than in any of the major industrial countries, including Japan.
The volume of our manufactured exports rose by nearly 60 per cent. over the decade. While countries like France, Germany, the USA and Japan have been losing market share to the newly-industrialised countries over the past 10 years, British manufacturers have actually held their share of world markets, halting 30 years of decline. That is the answer to the charge of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that we are losing out in world markets. My noble friends Lady Denton and Lord Haslam demonstrated in their maiden speeches how this transformation of our manufacturing performance can be illustrated by the enormous changes that have taken place in the car industry and in the coal industry, both of which present a wholly different face to the world from the one they presented a decade ago.
Some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, strongly lamented the fact that output had not risen more strongly during the 1980s. But during the 1980s manufacturing output rose by nearly one quarter. That is substantially faster than in Germany, and in line with France and Italy. Other industries and other companies have done outstandingly well. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked: where is the British camera? But what about the British aerospace engine. Rolls-Royce has 20 per cent. of the world market—up from 5 per cent. 10 years ago. There are other examples. We have world class companies, a point acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Varley. I did not recognise the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
I turn now to investment. It is correct to suggest that the immediate outlook is for investment to fall in the short term behind that of some of our competitors. But it is normal for different countries to be at different stages in the economic cycle, apart from the fact that Germany of course is today in a special situation. It is also the case that in previous years we have been surpassing those countries in investment. I make that point to, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. For example, taking the decade as a whole, business investment grew faster in the United Kingdom than in any other G7 country with the sole exception of Japan. Between 1980 and 1988, manufacturing investments grew at the same rate as in Germany and faster than in France.
While on the subject of investment, I remind the House that in the 1984 Budget corporation tax was cut from 52 per cent. to 35 per cent., and 100 per cent. first year depreciation was abolished. In other words, a very significant step was taken to transfer from government to managers more of the decision-taking over what types of investments should be made by industry. Following those very important changes and despite all kinds of dire prediction, business investment has grown by two-thirds. Therefore, I cannot go along with the claim of the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, that the abolition of capital allowances was Alice in Wonderland economics.

233
Some noble Lords have expressed concern about the declining share of manufacturing in total output or have argued that we have now too small a manufacturing base for it to be viable. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that anyone who does not agree with him must be intellectually blind. I must be intellectually blind for I do not share that view. The share of manufacturing in total output has been falling over time in all the major industrial countries. The manufacturing share of the United Kingdom GDP in 1988 was 21 per cent. having declined from 32 per cent. in 1980. In France, it was 21 per cent. having declined from 29 per cent.; in the United States, it was 19 per cent. having declined from 28 per cent. In Canada it was 17 per cent. Those are OECD figures. In Japan and Germany there were comparable declines but from a higher initial level. In the United Kingdom the share of manufacturing in output has also been affected by North Sea oil which currently boosts the energy component of GDP by 4 per cent. I reject the idea that there has been any decline in the manufacturing share of the economy which is unhealthy or abnormal by international standards.
I should like now to turn to regional policy. The Government are fully committed to an effective regional policy. The most important influence on our regional economies is the state of the national economy. That is why we are determined to get inflation down, and to keep it down. But we also plan to spend directly more than £500 million between 1991–92 and 1993–94 in England alone. We have tried to ensure that such expenditure on regional policy is cost-effective, is targeted and is flexibly applied to meet identified problems by the scrapping of automatic regional grants and by the continuing evaluation and improvement of our schemes.
We have also recognised that the regional problem has many dimensions and requires a range of measures beyond those normally associated with regional policy. We want to attract new investment—including foreign investment—which introduces new skills and methods to regional economies. We want to help business development of small and medium-sized firms in the regions through the Consultancy Initiative, and we have given special help to small firms in development areas through regional enterprise grants. Studies have shown that our policies have created jobs, often on a substantial scale, and helped to strengthen local economies.
Our policies have been successful in creating new jobs in the regions. For example, in the North East during the 1980s our policies created about 70,000 jobs in manufacturing and a further 100,000 in the service sector. In the North West, over 250,000 jobs have been created in manufacturing and in services since 1983. They have been particularly successful in dealing with the restructuring problem caused by major closures. That is why we announced on 13th June an exceptional package of measures to help Barrow and part of West Cumbria.
I turn now to training which was the subject of the latter part of the attractive and brilliantly delivered
234
contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Desai. He said that we must drench the country in education and training. I agree with him. Training, of course, plays a vital role in helping manufacturing industry to compete effectively. The recent White Papers on education and training have reinforced our commitment to raise the skill level of the workforce. But our view remains that training is primarily a matter for employers. It is they who know the skills they require and who reap the benefits from good training policies. The Government's role is to establish the framework which gives employers the freedom to train and develop their workforce in the way that they want to, not in a way that Ministers or civil servants may dictate.
The Government spend nearly £2.75 billion per year on training enterprise and vocational education. The success of our policies can be seen in the 85 per cent. increase over the past six years in the number of employees receiving training from their employers. Employers currently spend around £20 billion a year on employee development and training. The CBI industrial trends survey shows that more than 75 per cent. of manufacturing firms plan to maintain or increase their level of investment in training despite the recession. The training and enterprise councils allow employers to take the lead on training. When TECs were launched it was thought that it would take four years to complete the full network of 82 TECs. In fact, they will all be operational this summer, two years ahead of schedule. That is further demonstration of the welcome and growing commitment of employers to training. I do not understand those who decry our record in that respect.
Innovation, the subject of the Select Committee's report referred to by many noble Lords and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has always been the prime source of economic growth and our success in the 1990s will depend increasingly on the willingness of firms to invest in effective R&D. I can tell the House that the Government will shortly be publishing a considered response to this important report and I shall not attempt to give a reply today. However, I wish to make one or two remarks.
In our view it is for industry, not government, to identify the most appropriate areas for R&D. It is not research in which the UK is weak, but effective development. We believe that needs to be carried out by commercially motivated firms in response to market opportunities, competition being the first condition for private investment in R&D, profitability being the second. We have endeavoured to supply both these conditions, and apparently with some success. Industry's own funded investment in R&D has increased by over 50 per cent. in real terms since 1981.
But we cannot rely on the market alone. That is why DTI schemes have been designed to encourage collaborative research projects in the UK and internationally, to assist the transfer of technology, and to help smaller firms. We are also seeking to create a pro-innovation culture in the UK by making Britain's business, educational and financial sectors more aware of the importance of innovation. That was

235
very much a theme of the Select Committee's report. That was taken up by my noble friend Lord Butterworth. The number of science parks has risen from two, when the Government came to office, to 39 now, with a further 22 planned.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, asked me about additionality which he linked to the Barnsley business and innovation centre. I have an answer but I should like to write to him on that because it is a technical matter.
I do not believe that I need to remind the House what life was like for industry in this country towards the end of the 1970s and how depressing, unpromising and different from today it was. However, it is those days to which noble Lords opposite wish to return with a wave of what my noble friend Lord Aldington described as the "socialist wand". Their policies of subsidy and subvention set out to pick winners in industry by replacing the workings of the market and the decisions of managers with the judgment of politicians and civil servants, but they end up by distorting the judgment of industry and creating a paradise for accountants. Their unregenerate taste for excessive government expenditure, which even the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was able to describe from experience, cannot be squared with the commitment required to control inflation.
I have a different view of the future. It is quite plain that British manufacturing will be presented with a great challenge by Europe after 1992 and by the containing dynamism of the Far Eastern economies. I am confident that industry, continuing to operate in a framework which gives it maximum possible freedom to make its own decisions in the light of its own commercial judgment and not have them second guessed by Whitehall, and a framework which encourages enterprise and initiative will be incomparably better placed to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 1990s than it has ever been. In addressing that task, industry will not fail the nation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to those five maiden speakers who made such distinguished contributions to the debate. I am also glad to see that the last three minutes of the debate have been graced by the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Denham. The fact that he is sitting on the Bishop; Benches should not be construed as a new career for the former Government Chief Whip.
This is not the time to respond to any of the arguments put forward. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, that there has been some electioneering. However, not all the electioneering came from the Opposition; a certain amount came from the Minister. It only remains for me to beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Armed Forces Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Medical Qualifications (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.47 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord McColl of Dulwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Alport) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of definition of primary United Kingdom qualification]:
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of definition of "primary United Kingdom qualification"
1. In section 4(3) of the Medical Act 1983 (definition of "primary United Kingdom qualification")—

(a) in paragraph (b) (licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians of London etc.), after "London" insert "or the Royal College of Surgeons of England"; and

(b) in paragraph (c) (membership of the Royal College of Surgeons of England), after "England" insert "granted before the coming into force of section 1 of the Medical Qualifications (Amendment) Act 1991".").

The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the Department of Health, the Privy Council and the Royal College of Surgeons for their help in formulating these amendments.
Amendment No. 1 would replace the existing Clause 1. Paragraph (a) makes the same amendment as the original Clause I but it is inserted in a more appropriate place in the parent Act.
Paragraph (b) is to retain the present membership of the Royal College of Surgeons—MRCS—for those who secured that diploma as part of their primary United Kingdom qualification before the coming into force of this Bill. It should be emphasised that the MRCS qualification is not currently awarded on its own. It is always part of the conjoint diploma—MRCS LRCP. LRCP stands for Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians.
The present MRCS never stands on its own and therefore will not be confused with the new MRCS, which will in future be awarded to those who have completed their basic surgical training. That change will bring the Royal College of Surgeons of England into line with the Scottish Royal Colleges. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: When the noble Lord introduced the Bill I said the appropriate words of congratulation to him on seizing the opportunity to do so and on the clarity with which he explained the Bill. I accept everything that he has said today. It is now as clear as mud. The amendments are longer than the Bill, but I

237
cannot find anything with which to disagree. That being the case, I shall take up no more of the Committee's time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My noble friend has clearly explained the aims of his Bill and how the amendments he has tabled seek to protect the position of existing members of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.
This is a welcome Bill, designed, as my noble friend said, to bring the primary qualifications of the Royal College of Surgeons of England into line with those of the Royal College of Physicians, the Society of Apothecaries and the equivalent Royal Colleges in Scotland. I understand that the consultations which are required under the Royal College of Surgeons Royal Charter are being undertaken. In the light of my noble friend's assurances, the reservations we voiced on Second Reading no longer remain and the way is now clear for the Government to support the Bill, which I happily do.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Short title and extent]:
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert:
("(1A) Section 1 of this Act shall come into force on such day as Her Majesty may appoint by Order in Council.").
The noble Lord said: On Second Reading it was accepted that the Royal College of Surgeons would have to consult its fellows and members before making its petition to the Privy Council for amendment of its charter, which of course is required to change the MRCS. Since Second Reading, the council of the college resolved on 13th June that an extraordinary meeting of its fellows and members should take place on 10th July to seek approval for amendments to the college ordinances that will enable the change in nomenclature to occur.
The purpose of the amendment is to delay the commencement order until that consultation has been completed and the charter of the Royal College of Surgeons has been amended by the Privy Council. We trust that that will occur within the next few months. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 3:
Line 2, leave out ("recognition") and insert ("registration").
The noble Lord said: The amendment to the Bill's Long Title proposes reference to "registration" rather than "recognition". The reason for the proposal is to make the Long Title consistent with Sections 3 and 4 of the Medical Act 1983 which relate to primary qualifications for registration of medical practitioners. I am advised by the Department of Health that in the context of the Medical Act 1983 it is more appropriate to refer to "registration" than "recognition" of medical practitioners. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Accident and Emergency Services in London
7.55 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the accident and emergency hospital facilities to deal with terrorist and other emergencies in central London, in view of planned reductions in hospital accident and emergency services.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on several occasions I have asked Questions in the House about the consequences of the planned closure of the Westminster Hospital and the Westminster Children's Hospital. I am proud to be a Friend of Westminster Hospital. I believe that my subscription is up to date, but I shall check within the next day or two. I was invited to, but had to miss, the recent party at No. 1 Carlton House Gardens, the official home of Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Hurd, but was delighted to see that the Minister, Mrs. Bottomley, said:
"There are a great many Friends of Westminster Hospital in the Houses of Lords and Commons. It's our local".
Mrs. Bottomley said that, knowing that the "local" was going to be pulled down during the course of the next two years. That party raised £5,500 for the intensive care unit which also, if it is erected, will have to be moved within two years. Tonight I want to concentrate not just on what I believe to be an appalling misjudgment and ghastly waste of money in building a hospital at excessive cost with far too many beds in an unsatisfactory location, but also on the Question on the Order Paper.
Apart from the effect that it will have on the residents of Westminster, the Government are taking a grave risk with the lives of millions of people who work in, or visit as tourists, the heart of London. The area is part of the City of Westminster. The area which I wish to describe has been worked out by town planners. They describe it as a central activities zone of the City of Westminster. There is an official map issued by the Westminster City Council showing its boundaries. The CAZ starts a little to the north of Oxford Street, taking in its great shopping stores; it includes the embassy area of Belgravia; the transport interchange and offices at Victoria; it runs south of Victoria Street to include the several important departments of Government; and has a spur running south to the Tate Gallery and the Embankment. It includes the Palace of Westminster, Whitehall and the Strand, ending at the Royal Courts of Justice and the boundary with the City of London. Consequently, that area includes most of the important places of Government; the major tourist sights, including Buckingham Palace and St. James's Palace; and one of the largest concentrations of retail shopping space in the world.
Due to its nature, the area has few residents, but it attracts daily hundreds of thousands of workers, users and visitors. In bad times, that concentration of

239
people, tourist attractions and centres of government, attract demonstrators, rioters and sometimes terrorists who seemingly see them as an increasingly attractive target.
The only accident and emergency unit now within the CAZ is Westminster Hospital. Outside the CAZ, within a 10-minute journey time from its boundary, there are Bart's Hospital; Guy's Hospital; St. Thomas's Hospital; St. Mary's Hospital; University College Hospital; and, for children, the Westminster Children's Hospital, all with their accident and emergency departments. Any proposal which closes or reduces one of those units inevitably affects 15 per cent. of the major incident cover for the centre of the capital.
The Government have said that the Hammersmith and Charing Cross Hospitals also cover the CAZ, but Hammersmith Hospital is about the same distance (four and a half miles) from the Palace of Westminster as is Canary Wharf in Docklands. Charing Cross Hospital is three and a half miles away. When traffic is normal, that is about 30 minutes in day time traffic.
Twenty years ago there were four accident and emergency units in the centre of a fully equipped teaching hospital. Charing Cross and St. George's hospitals have been moved out, beyond effective reach. In 1986, the Middlesex Hospital closed its accident and emergency department, despite what the Minister said in the House of Lords on 2nd May 1990 and on 7th March 1991. Only Westminster Hospital was left, covering the CAZ from a position within it. Now it is to be closed, regardless of considerations of national emergency.
Since the King's Cross tube station disaster in the late 1980s and the recommendations contained in the subsequent Fennell Report, since 1st January 1989 there have been a significant number of major incidents which have highlighted the requirements which have to be met in coping with any major incident. On 13th January 1989, in the Clapham rail crash more than 30 people were killed and about 150 were seriously injured. The new trauma centre of St. George's hospital coped with about 60 of the victims. Thereafter, the still open accident and emergency department at St. Stephen's coped largely with the balance, with some being sent to the Westminster Hospital and some to Charing Cross. Four units were involved.
On 20th August 1989, the "Marchioness" boat collision occurred with 51 killed and about 80 victims who were not seriously hurt. St. Thomas's was the designated hospital to handle about 50 victims. Westminster Hospital was the first supporting hospital and a total of three units were used to cope. On 31st March 1990 there were the poll tax riots with 339 policemen injured; between 100 and 200 members of the public were hurt. Because the bridges remained closed or clogged from 1400 hours to 1600 hours on that Saturday afternoon, most of the injured were taken direct to the Westminster Hospital from Trafalgar Square and Whitehall. Two units were used because. St. Thomas's was used later in the day.
On 8th January 1991, in the Cannon Street rail crash, one person was killed and several hundred
240
passengers were injured. Three units were used. On 18th February 1991 there was the Victoria station terrorist bombing with one killed and approximately 50 casualties, many seriously injured. Two units were used to cope with that.
All these major incidents like the Harrods and Hyde Park bombings previously—which were also serviced by Westminster Hospital—demonstrated clearly the following twin needs. First, the need for several accident and emergency departments to be available in close proximity to any such major incident. Secondly, there is the need for a speedy ambulance service available to use good spine roads, leading to the accident and emergency hospitals located in suitable places, with good road access. That was 20 years ago. Twenty years ago the capital's centre was properly serviced by five expert teaching hospitals' accident and emergency departments.
I believe that the risk of terrorist and other possible major incidents is greater now than 20 years ago. The recent matters that I have reported prove that. On 18th April 1991, the London ambulance service was advertising for an emergency planning manager on the basis that "major incidents on the scale of King's Cross, Clapham, Cannon Street and Victoria stations are becoming increasingly likely in our complex and sometimes hostile society". Meanwhile, the Government go ahead with plans to close the one remaining hospital accident and emergency centre in this area.
After the planned closure of Westminster Hospital in 1992–93, there will be none of the previous five hospitals, safeguarding the CAZ. The three fringe hospitals will also have been closed.
In July 1988, Westminster City Council conducted its own ambulance journey times experiment with ambulances on site, going from Westminster Cathedral to Victoria Street, both to Westminster Hospital and to the four suggested alternative hospitals after it has been closed. The ambulance took four minutes to reach Westminster Hospital; 10 minutes to St. Thomas's Hospital, 19 minutes to St. Stephen's Hospital; 22 minutes to St. Mary's Hospital; and 26 minutes to University College Hospital. I submit that in many of those cases, patients would have died en route. It is far too long and far too dangerous.
We may learn lessons from examining the care planned by the other emergency services for the centre of the capital. The London Fire Brigade finds it necessary to have Westminster Fire Station in Horseferry Road a few hundred yards from Westminster Hospital. That is, in addition to its Lambeth station, a few hundred yards from St. Thomas's hospital.
The Metropolitan Police are planning a police station on a site once occupied by the Charing Cross Hospital, near Trafalgar Square. The London ambulance service is retaining its Westminster station, a few hundred yards from Westminster Hospital, despite its huge new ambulance station recently opened in Fulham.
How will a major incident of any substantial size, with heavy casualties on the ground, be coped with in

241
the mid-1990s by the NHS, without a Westminster Hospital? I believe the only answer can be that it will be coped with in the best way possible if we do not have adequate provisions. However, it cannot possibly be as well as it is being coped with now and I suppose people will say, "We shall muddle through". I am sure that any emergency or major incident will be coped with by whatever facilities there are. Frankly, that is not good enough; it is not the point. The Victoria station bombing incident proved that because there was swift transport by the London ambulance service. Because the Westminster Hospital was there in close proximity, many lives were saved by speed. I wonder how the Government propose to deal with a major crisis. We could easily have a crisis five or 10 times as bad as those in the past two years which I have listed.
Stepping back a bit, we have no London strategic government. So far as I know, the present Government have no plans to create one, although the plans of the Labour Party have been made publicly clear and welcomed, even by the Evening Standard. It does not welcome many of the things that the Labour Party does.
What about the National Health Service? I wish to ask whether the Minister read the statement by Sir Alan Greengross, a few days ago. He is chairman of the Bloomsbury and Islington Health Authority, a well-known Conservative. He was leader of the Conservatives on the now deceased London County Council. He wrote an article in the Health Service Journal which called for a single capital region. He said,
"I am concerned that the health service reforms are dismantling vital parts of the framework, particularly in London, and putting nothing in its place".
He later said:
"If the powers that be don't see London as a single entity I do not know how we are going to plan for London. London is a single entity".
Having said that London is a single entity, we come to examine how we will cope with the issue of accidents, emergencies and the kind of tragedies that could occur from malicious intent by terrorists or what-have-you. I believe that since there is no London health service nor is there a strategic local authority, the Government must at this stage look at the subject. So I put the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the accident and emergency hospital facilities to deal with terrorist and other emergencies in central London, in view of the planned further reductions in hospital accident and emergency services.
My answer to the Question is that I am by no means satisfied. I believe that the Government are taking a risk. It is a risk at great expense, one that no Government of any capital city should take. It is not just a risk for its residents but a risk for all those other hundreds of thousands of people who work in the central part of London or who come as tourists to our capital. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
8.9 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for putting down the Question. The most sensible way of trying to answer it is to examine what happens when there is a major disaster in the London area. We are able to do that because on 8th January this year a train ran into the buffers at Cannon Street station. This resulted in 258 casualties. A large number of the casualties—126—came to Guy's Hospital. About five went to St. Thomas's, 106 to St. Bartholomew's Hospital and about 21 to the Royal London Hospital. Of the 258 casualties, 38 were detained in hospital for more than 24 hours while 22 were detained for a little under 24 hours. The rest went home. I was present at Guy's Hospital when the casualties arrived. The reception they received was superb. The casualty department at Guy's is run by Major General Norman Kirby. I have never seen so many doctors and nurses assembled in one place before. Every casualty of the accident who arrived was immediately attended to with great expertise and kindness. All the other ordinary, run-of-the-mill casualties who arrived at the hospital were also treated with great speed and expertise. They were left wondering what had happened.
The news is good news, in that the disaster was well catered for. There was no real problem. As I have already said, St. Thomas's received only about five of the casualties and the Royal London Hospital received only about 27. There is a tremendous capacity there to cope with even bigger disasters.
I have many friends on the medical staff of the Westminster Hospital. It is, of course, traumatic that that hospital is closing, but the decision had its roots in the 1970s with the introduction of cash limits in the National Health Service. The belief grew up that London had too many resources from the NHS and that those resources should be allocated to the provinces. Needless to say, the provinces agreed very much with that policy.
Inevitably as the population of London has declined, it has seemed reasonable to move resources out of London into the provinces. It is fair to say that all the major political parties accepted that policy. Inevitably there will be a decline in the number of hospital beds available in London. Almost every year in the history of the National Health Service there has been a rumpus about the closure of beds. However, since 1965, 7,000 beds have been closed in the National Health Service every year, irrespective of the government in power. Thirty to 40 years ago patients were kept in hospital for far too long. Surgeons did not realise the damage they were doing by that practice. Patients who had gall bladders removed were kept in hospital for two to three weeks. Nowadays they are lucky to be kept in hospital for 24 hours. It is better to get those patients out of hospital and to move them back to their own homes.
The story is even more interesting as regards children. Since 1948 Guy's has had a policy of operating on children and allowing them to go home the same day. That is not done to save money, because

243
it does not save money. It is done because it is the best thing for the children concerned. It is better if patients do not stay in hospital longer than is necessary.
As I have said, it is inevitable that resources will be allocated to the provinces rather than to London and that there will be fewer hospital beds in London. The problem is how we achieve this policy. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the district health authority of Lewisham and North Southwark, in which I work. That district health authority covers an area of 25 square miles and serves a population of a third of a million people. At one time that district had 11 hospitals which all had accident and emergency departments. There was no way in which those accident and emergency departments could continue to be adequately staffed. Clearly we needed to move their facilities into fewer premises. Eventually we hope to condense the facilities into two or three premises. That will be the right number of premises. Even though there are more doctors and nurses in the NHS today than there have ever been, we cannot continue to staff 11 hospitals in that district and provide a full service, including intensive care units. We have to condense those facilities into fewer premises. That is what we are doing.
The Sydenham Children's Hospital is a lovely small children's hospital. It has carried out excellent work over many years and the staff morale at the hospital is very high. The last thing the district health authority wanted to do was to close that hospital but the buildings were falling down and there was no way the staff at the hospital could continue to provide a first-class service. The hospital facilities have been moved into purpose built children's wards at Lewisham Hospital. The facilities at Lewisham Hospital are better than the facilities that existed at the Sydenham Children's Hospital. Parents can sleep in beds adjacent to their children in the children's wards. There is also a sitting-room for the parents and every mod con is available.
We must concentrate on retaining the facilities of such excellent small hospitals as the Sydenham Children's Hospital but we must move those facilities into larger hospitals within the curtilage of the big teaching hospitals. St. Marks Hospital has a worldwide reputation. It is a marvellous hospital that specialises in treating ailments of the lower part of the alimentary tract. Those who have been treated in that hospital for ailments in that part of the anatomy have been tremendously grateful for the services that hospital offers. The local health authority does not wish to close it, as it has a worldwide reputation. The facilities must be maintained, but the building is falling down. Intensive care facilities cannot be offered at that hospital as well as at all the other hospitals in London. Presumably the facilities at St. Mark's will be moved to a hospital such as St. Bartholomew's. The secret of success is to move the facilities into a separate building within the curtilage of St. Bartholomew's. In that way St. Mark's will retain its identity.
I think it is true to say that all the political parties are committed to reducing the number of hours that are worked by junior medical staff. In order to do that the total number of centres that exist in any particular
244
area must be reduced. That is another reason for closing some hospitals and moving their facilities into larger hospitals. I believe London is well able to deal with catastrophes that may occur. The evidence we have at present supports that theory.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Richardson: My Lords, I am greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for giving me this opportunity of drawing to the attention of your Lordships a situation that is relevant to our discussion and one that could be remedied easily and relatively cheaply if agreed procedures could be put into effect. I confess to an interest in St. Thomas's Hospital. That interest goes back nearly 60 years.
Members of your Lordships' House refer to St. Thomas's as if it were a very long way away. The psychological effect of the barrier of the river and a very wide bridge seems to be nearly insuperable. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said that St. Thomas's was brought in late in the day on one occasion. Why on earth was that? The casualties came from places where they could have been taken to St. Thomas's as quickly as to Westminster Hospital.
The noble Lord also said—I am sure that he was being strictly accurate—that Westminster Hospital was the only hospital providing an accident and emergency service in this area. He then went on to say—and I profoundly agree with him—that London is a single entity. My point is that St. Thomas's is very near to us and is an extremely up-to-date and "with it" hospital.
My problem can be stated briefly. It relates to the effect of the lamented closure of Westminster Hospital. It was realised by many people some years ago that that was almost certain to happen and that local services would have to be met. At St. Thomas's various points were considered and particular interest was directed to the accident and emergency services.
In December 1988 it was agreed with the Department of Health and the regional health authorities concerned at a meeting convened by the Department of Health that there was need for an increase in the size of the St. Thomas's accident and emergency department. The implications of such an increase for the local geography of St. Thomas's present accident and emergency department was also worked out. It was recognised that the workload of the accident and emergency department at St. Thomas's, which at present is 69,000 patients a year, would rise to 104,000 a year in the first year following the closure of Westminster Hospital in October 1992; for various reasons, such as an increasing number of visitors to the London area as a result of the Channel tunnel and so on, by the turn of the century the number of patients would be 120,000.
In order for the essential alterations to be made it was agreed that the two regional authorities concerned on this side of the river—the North West Thames Regional Health Authority and the Riverside Health Authority—and the regional health authority on the opposite side should share the cost of the developments. That was accepted, but unhappily nothing has happened because those authorities claim

245
—and I do not question their claim—that they do not have the money. Therefore no work at all has been done on the provision of the essential structural changes to meet the increased demand. The matter is now one of urgency, quite apart from emergency.
Your Lordships will readily see that those who work in the Palace of Westminster have a very personal interest in this matter. It is an interest which they should, and I sincerely hope that they will, take in all the other top level services which St. Thomas's could provide when the Westminster Hospital is closed.
Perhaps I may enlist the interest of the Minister so as to ensure that the agreement reached with her department and those authorities in 1988 is implemented in time to meet what by its very nature would be a crisis for those who have to use the service and in particular for the special cases to which the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, relates.
I was fascinated to hear of the excellent way in which Guy's Hospital had dealt with the terrible railway emergency. I was proud to feel that I share with the noble Lord, Lord McColl, membership of the united hospitals, as St. Thomas's and Guy's have been known for hundreds of years. I am perfectly aware that if St. Thomas's was faced at this moment with that enormous load of acute emergencies it would be able to deal with them. However, I very much doubt whether it could have done what the noble Lord, Lord McColl, stressed, namely, maintain the service for the area for which it is responsible. We are in that area now, or shall be when Westminster Hospital closes next year.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, like other noble Lords I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Ennals for initiating this debate through his Unstarred Question. The debate has centred on the threat to the hospitals and the emergency facilities if there should be a particularly serious emergency through terrorist action or a train crash. I should also like to make a plea for the ordinary casualty.
My noble friend described the zone which stretches from Oxford Street in the north to the Thames and from Park Lane across to Kingsway in the east. As he said, that zone contains the highest concentration of retail and office space in the world. The zone has comparatively few residents, and the number has been diminishing, although, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said, Mayfair is becoming increasingly residential again. However, there are many hotels and government offices. I should like to stress that by day the area fills up with hundreds of thousands of office and shop workers and visiting tourists. Those are the people for whom the hospitals will be responsible, as individuals, if they need immediate and early treatment.
Of all the great hospitals which the Victorians, with their wonderful vision and planning talents, placed around London, in this particular zone Westminster Hospital is the only one that remains. Apparently it is now to be closed.
246
We are told that in future cover is to be provided by the Hammersmith and Charing Cross Hospitals, which are respectively four and a half and three and a half miles away from Westminster. That is as the crow flies. In heavy traffic the journey takes at least half an hour and can take even longer during the rush hour. An ambulance may not take quite so long. A VIP going along with motorcycle outriders may be able to do it in a shorter time, but if you are an ordinary person having to go by taxi or by Underground—there are 12 stations on the route—it is a long journey.
I know that to my cost because I once had a bad nosebleed. It was not the kind of nosebleed that you can cure by putting a key down your back. I was sent from the Palace to the Westminster Hospital. At the hospital I was told, "We have closed our ear, throat and nose unit. You will have to go out to the Charing Cross Hospital". Contrary to what the noble Baroness appeared to think at one time when we had a Question on the matter, that hospital is no longer at Charing Cross but right out almost at Putney. The hospital provided a taxi for me. The first thing that the taxi driver said as I was holding my nose with the swabs that the hospital had provided—it was very helpful—was, "Have you got £5? That is what it will cost you?" Fortunately, I had five pounds. The journey took nearly 40 minutes. The taxi driver was very helpful. He had done the run many times before and he showed me which of the units to go to. I did not have to wait long. I found a good young surgeon who treated me and cauterised my nose. It was fixed up in a short time. However, if it had been a heart attack or a desperate emergency, it would have been a long journey.
As the noble Lord said, at the time of the terrorist bombing at Victoria Station last February, many of the seriously injured were taken to the Westminster for immediate treatment and assessment. What is to happen in future if there is a similar outrage or a bad train crash? I realise that the old St. Stephen's Hospital, which was a well-run hospital at the most north-easterly part of the Fulham Road, is being rebuilt and will be called the Westminster and Chelsea Hospital. It is only two miles from the centre and slightly nearer than the Hammersmith and new Charing Cross Hospitals, which, as I said, are almost at Putney. Perhaps the noble Baroness who is to reply will tell us when the Westminster and Chelsea Hospital will be finished and able to open. I understand from a senior and distinguished member of the medical profession that there are doubts about its future. That seems almost unbelievable, but with this Government you never know.
I hear too that St. Thomas's Hospital—that great hospital at which the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, has had such a distinguished career and about which he spoke so movingly, and the hospital to which I owe a great debt—is also under threat. That is incredible. Certainly, several wards and dozens of beds have been closed there and many staff, both specialist and ancillary, made redundant, to the Government's lasting shame. Can we be assured that hospitals such as St. Thomas's, which will have to deal with the emergencies once the Westminster has closed, will

247
receive the funding necessary to deal with the extra workload? I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to reassure us on that point.
It appears that those decisions are being taken because of the high land values in the centre of London. This is not about patient care; it is all about real estate and property speculation. Populous areas, with their high land values, are effectively stripped of their local cover on grounds of cost and the so-called rationalisation of services. It appears that the situation has been brought about because the Riverside Health Authority is required to save £15 million each year from 1991 and its new plans must be self-financing within the district. Surely it would have been letter to have left St. Stephen's alone instead of spending £236 million on the new hospital, which may never open as, I understand, it is unlikely to be cost-effective, to use the current jargon, unless the Government provide more finance, and to have used some of the money to refurbish Westminster. Surely that would have been better than replacing St. Stephen's, which was an excellent hospital. I know from personal experience that it did not need rebuilding, with all the attendant delays. There would then have been some money left over to refurbish the Westminster and perhaps St. Stephen's.
The whole situation gives cause for grave concern. I hope that the noble Baroness, whose heart we know is in the right place, will be able to reassure the House that the Government will think again and save Westminster Hospital.
8.35 p m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, in the words of one of the plays of the late J. B. Priestley, "We have been here before". However, I do not think that there need be any apologies for returning to the scene even though this Question, or a rather more limited Question on the Westminster Hospital—again asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals—came before your Lordships' House quite recently.
It is often said that London has too many teaching hospitals, and that may well be the case. When those of us in either House of Parliament talk about Westminster Hospital we may well be faced with the cynical comment, "Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?" because it is our hospital; but so what? It is our hospital. It is also a hospital which deals with an increasing number of people in the area.
I do not live in London. I live in Surrey, but for 25 years my father was chairman of a children's hospital in London which was part of the old St. George's Hospital. I was on the house committee of that children's hospital for several years and my father was on the house committee of St. George's when it was at Hyde Park Corner. As your Lordships know, I am President of the Friends of Epsom General Hospital, which falls outside the area of the debate.
Several years ago my gall bladder flared up and I just managed to get home to see my doctor. My noble friend Lord McColl made a pertinent point about gall bladder operations. I was in hospital for nine days because the problem was more serious than I had thought as my liver was infected. However, 20 years
248
ago I would probably have been in hospital for three, four or five weeks for a gall bladder or appendicitis operation. It is therefore fair to say that many casualties can be treated much more quickly than they were 25 to 30 years ago. Your Lordships will accept the fact that there is probably less need for casualty departments at all the London teaching hospitals.
Like many of your Lordships, we have friends whose relatives or friends themselves worked at Westminster Hospital. One of my elder daughter's school friends was a nursing sister there for many years. Another friend of ours was a house doctor there for some years, so I have been round the hospital several times. There is a general belief that the hospital is in need of rebuilding, but I return to the question that has been raised in both Houses of Parliament and elsewhere: why can we not build on that site a new hospital with a full casualty department? I accept that St. Thomas's Hospital is nearby but I should like my noble friend the Minister to inform the House—I have not given her notice of this point, but it is a question that has been asked many times—about the casualty department arrangements at St. Thomas's Hospital.
Reference has been made to the terrorist attack at Victoria Station in which, mercifully, only one person was killed. A friend of mine was at the scene 10 minutes before the incident. Who knows what might have happened had the bomb gone off then?
I have travelled from Surrey to London, either on the Victoria or Waterloo line, almost every day for 37 years and until now I have never been involved in an accident. My mind goes back to a time before the Cannon Street and Clapham Junction disasters. There were two horrific accidents: one at Lewisham in the 1950s and one near Paddington—at Harrow, I think —where well over 100 people lost their lives. One speculates as to what would happen if an accident of that kind took place at the present time. Lewisham is not far from Guy's or St. Thomas's Hospital, and there may well be hospitals between Harrow and St. Mary's Hospital. It is not so much a question of terrorist attacks. If there is a major disaster—which we all hope will not happen—we have to be prepared for it. Let us say two trains collide between Wimbledon and Waterloo or between Streatham and Clapham Junction.
My noble friend gave an impressive description of what happened in the Cannon Street disaster. One pays a warm tribute to him and his team for the way they treated those casualties. Mention has been made of the Royal London Hospital. My younger daughter trained as a nurse at that hospital and I have some knowledge of it. A helicopter service was provided between the hospital and the scene of the accident, which I suspect saved a number of lives.
The main anxiety relates to the second part of the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals—namely, the planned reductions in hospital accident and emergency services. What are these planned reductions and what is their timetable? I believe that that question is worrying many people. It is not a party political matter. The closure of a number of casualty departments may well have been planned under all governments of all political parties. It is

249
unnecessary to man casualty departments at every London hospital. On the other hand, the whole question of the provision of casualty departments extends well outside the London area. Anybody who lives near the M.25 in Surrey, as I do, knows that the accident and emergency provisions are not entirely adequate. We have to bear in mind not only Westminster Hospital and that area but all other areas of London.
Mention has been made of the distance between Westminster and the St. Stephen's and Charing Cross Hospitals, both of which I have visited. (I was at the opening ceremony of the new Charing Cross Hospital). Even if, in the event of a major accident in Pimlico or at Victoria Station, one had a bevy of police cars and traffic lights on red one would only have to have roadworks to make the difficulties of getting there very severe.
I wonder whether my noble friend can say what facilities there are at St. Thomas's Hospital. Obviously, if there were complete facilities at St. Thomas's Hospital it might be fair to say that casualty arrangements at Westminster were not entirely relevant. Although terrorist attacks seem to be on the wane at the moment we have to be prepared for a major accident. I believe that we owe a great duty to people like my noble friend and his colleagues to provide facilities for such awful contingencies.
8.46 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for giving us the opportunity to bring before your Lordships some of our anxieties over the diminishing accident and emergency facilities in central London. I am sorry that this debate takes place this evening as I am missing a very interesting engagement at the Royal Society of Medicine which I had accepted, but this is a vital subject.
The noble Lords who are doctors have spoken of the merits of their individual hospitals, which is quite understandable. Maybe I should voice the feelings of the ordinary person. We are in the very heart of London sitting in the Mother of Parliaments discussing what to some people will be a life or death situation. Since the days of Guy Fawkes, Parliament has been a high-risk target. Last night when driving my noble kinsman home from an engagement in Piccadilly and nearing Marsham Street we saw policemen at nearly every corner, especially around Smith Square. My noble kinsman remarked on it. We have many police and security personnel around the Palace of Westminster. Could this be in case of a terrorist attack?
Not long ago there was a large hospital at Hyde Park Corner —St. George's Hospital—which had a busy casualty department. (I took my Red Cross nursing and first aid exams there.) Near Charing Cross Station was another hospital with a casualty department that dealt with many of the inner city problem cases needing emergency care. Both hospitals were moved out of central London. The moving of Charing Cross Hospital but the keeping of its name
250
still causes confusion to many people trying to find that hospital as they look around the area by Charing Cross Station.
A friend of mine from North Yorkshire who visited London last week was told by a taxi driver that if Westminster Hospital with its accident and emergency department closed there would be only one A&E department left in the heart of London. He told her that that would be St. Thomas's Hospital which was on the wrong side of the river. People may argue that St. Thomas's is only a short distance across the bridge, but a river is a natural division and in history has always been so. In an emergency, such as a riot, a train crash, a tube station fire, a gas explosion or a terrorist attack—of which in recent years there have been many—a hospital like St. Thomas's needs back-up support. In recent incidents these hospitals have worked together sharing the casualties.
As crime rises, so does the fear of crime, leaving the most vulnerable centre of one of the important capitals in the world feeling insecure. Statistically, central London may not have as many residents as some other places but daily attracts hundreds of thousands of workers, users and visitors; and it attracts demonstrations, many held at weekends.
One of the advantages of the location of the Westminster Hospital is that most people know where Westminster is. The hospital is easy to get to and has easy access. It has a good reputation and is trusted by the people of inner city London who have to live with the fear of crime. It can be identified by foreigners and visitors to London. There is a car park nearby, and public transport is available.
There is a team of Ministers at the Health Department whose members seem to be quite young and very healthy. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, told me that she has been lucky in that she has never been a patient in hospital. I hope that she will continue to enjoy good health. But the experience of illness makes people understand and be more sensitive to the needs of the sick. The Ministers have a good deal of responsibility. They should not wash their hands of the situation and they must face the fact that central London is unique. It is a special case.
The City of Westminster has an enormous number of homeless people as well as alcoholics and drug addicts. It has the largest number of people with the HIV infection. There are caring, voluntary groups working round Westminster Cathedral who help those unfortunates. Many of the homeless people become acutely ill and, not having a GP, they are taken to the A&E department of the Westminster Hospital. The Westminster Hospital has experience of such emergencies which are more pertinent to this part of London than to any other. Perhaps I may ask the question: how good is our medical care of the homeless? If the Westminster Hospital closes, it will raise just one more dilemma for the voluntary agencies which are trying to cope with this problem. That is very relevant to the Question asked tonight and should be included as one of the "other emergencies".
Those difficult and tragic cases are not popular with hospitals. These people who have numerous infections and problem life-styles drift to the capital cities. They

251
do not feature as a residential statistic. I read in the paper that the City of Westminster wants to deport them lo other parts of the country. If that is done, others will take their place. There is a problem of hundreds of Italians, Spanish and South Americans who have come to London and who have the HIV infection because of drug abuse. With the first attack of pneumonia, they become critically ill emergencies. If central London shuts its doors and services to such difficult cases, the dilemma will grow and there will be endless problems. Who will the public blame? It will not be the health authority but Parliament.
We who speak tonight know that our words will be recorded, in the Official Report. Central London needs to feel secure. The Government's health service shake-up may have some benefits but many members of the public are saying that enough is enough.
Having had my life saved in an accident and emergency department, I know the value of a quick, efficient service with skilled consultant input. In the past I have always felt that it was wrong to have some of the most junior doctors manning A&E departments. The situation is improving. If there are serious accidents, skilled A&E teams should be available and they should have quick egress from their hospital and easy access to the site of a catastrophe. A&E departments have been chronically underfunded and cannot do all that they would like to do at the present time. To take but one example: Westminster Hospital was built to take 25,000 patients a year. It now takes around 40,000 new patients every year.
One cannot have an A&E department without having the back up services and beds in which to put the patients. I have heard said that the A&E department of St. Thomas's Hospital will be extended. But where are the beds which will take the critically ill patients? St. Thomas's belongs to another health authority. Who pays the bills of the patients who are brought in suffering from a stroke or coronary thrombosis or stab wounds from a pub brawl in Piccadilly, or other disasters? Who pays for the ambulance service? Is it the district in which the person is injured or is it the receiving district? What happens if the wards are closed because of underfunding or staff shortage?
One Member of your Lordships' House thought that the new hospital, which has no parking facilities and no standby space for ambulances, was just down the road. She was getting muddled up with the new private hospital. The new Royal Chelsea and Westminster Hospital will, yet again, confuse the public. Why not call it the Fulham and Chelsea Hospital? That name makes where it is much clearer to the public. It also shows the public that Westminster will be without a hospital.
Many of the doctors were told that the new hospital would be the most modern in London; but they seem to have been conned. I have been told that they were promised the most up-to-date digital imaging system of filming X-rays. Apparently that has had to be shelved through lack of money. I have met many worried people—elderly people from the housing estate in Page Street. How are the little old ladies who live alone going to manage to travel half-way across
252
London when they feel desperately ill? They will not be able to afford the £5 that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, had. I wonder what the traffic division of Scotland Yard will say about the parking facilities at the new hospital site in Fulham Road if there is an attack on Westminster.
Every medical emergency that has serious results can mean a family tragedy. If one has chest pains, the stress of being stuck in a traffic jam, be it in an ambulance or a private car, will make the condition worse. I hope that not too many obituaries will read: "He died on the way to hospital".
I hope that the Minister will be able to give assurances tonight which will make people feel more secure, less vulnerable and less confused than they do now.
8.58 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, on my own behalf and also on behalf of my noble friend Lady Robson of Kiddington, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for introducing this debate. In the normal course of events she would have spoken in the debate. I have been brought in as a long stop because she has been unavoidably detained elsewhere. As often happens in your Lordships' House when one comes fairly late in the evening to a debate in which one does not expect to figure, it turns out to be fascinating. No doubt I am the least qualified of noble Lords to speak on this subject but I have been well, if hastily, briefed by my noble friend.
These Benches would not want to become involved in any party political angle on the subject of the changes that will inevitably happen with accident and emergency departments. It is inevitable because it seems that the many drawbacks in the present situation have to be dealt with. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, gave us a number of reasons for that and I was most impressed by his speech. The question of how those changes take place and how they affect patients concerns us all on these Benches.
Although I do not have personal experience, happily, I have had friends and relatives involved with accident and emergency departments. The care has always been excellent, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. That is so not only in major and tragic events such as the Cannon Street and Victoria explosions but in large traffic accidents and so on. In such situations I have heard very good reports of the attention that people in London have received.
It follows that there must be great anxiety when a major hospital such as Westminster is scheduled to close. I enjoin with all that has been said by noble Lords on that aspect and on the problems that we face in the intervening period until we obtain a proper network of hospitals and, equally important, the transport which inevitably needs to go with that. I agree absolutely over the problems raised by many noble Lords, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. They include the traffic situation in London and the time that it takes to get people from one place to another, even with a blue light flashing and with expert drivers.

253
On occasions I have taken people to accident and emergency departments. Those departments appear to look after people with various problems. Normally an accident and emergency department treats a wide range of patients apart from those brought in after a tragic accident at, for example, a railway station, as has been referred to. They include people suffering as a result of household accidents and minor traffic accidents, people who have had minor as well as major heart attacks, people with broken arms, and so forth.
On occasions when I have been to such departments I have wondered whether a number of the patients should be there. The word "inappropriate" was used in one of the papers that I read. It is a good word to refer to people who attend through eccentricity, because they find it more convenient as they do not have regular access to health care or because they are homeless. After all, there are about 75,000 homeless people in London. It may include those who suffer from alcohol problems. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, knows that I have had something to do with that problem. Such people find their way to these departments. In particular at weekends, when social services are not available in the way that they are during the week, the elderly and mentally ill are also to be found in those departments.
Perhaps the noble Baroness will answer this question when she replies. If the move to new and more efficient modern accident and emergency departments takes place, what will happen to those people who are to be found every night in such departments? If we were to visit a department tonight we should find them there. Will the future of the accident and emergency services be considered as part of the provision of health services overall? That seems the only way to deal with the issue.
The centralising trend for accident and emergency departments appears to follow what occurs in many other countries. I believe that in some other countries such centralisation has worked well. It has reduced the number of deaths in many cases because of increased efficiency. However, we are still faced with the particular problems of London which have been referred to by noble Lords.
I have heard the centres referred to as regional trauma centres. If they are to be better equipped and to offer a much more professional service, how will they be supported by other services such as ambulances? The staffing of the departments raises a number of questions. One of the most important points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, concerned a strategic planning authority for London. Such a body does not exist, whether it be for dogs, holes in the roads or any other issue. It certainly does not exist for health services.
There is a danger in making decisions about such changes when an overall picture of the needs of an area is not known. Many noble Lords have referred to the problems of London. The dangers of terrorism prompted the noble Lord's Question. There are also enormous numbers of homeless people. There is a high concentration of people with drug and alcohol
254
problems. There is the problem of the mentally ill sleeping rough and the dangers which they face. Vast movements of people aggravate the situation.
Other noble Lords have referred to bed closures. I have received two letters which I read before speaking in this debate. It is distressing if, due to a shortage of beds in accident and emergency departments, people who require serious medical attention have to wait on trolleys for hours. It is extremely disturbing not only to the patients but to the relatives who are anxious for them to be treated.
I do not point the way forward as strongly as the noble Lord, Lord Strablolgi. However, I believe that it must be clinical rather than economic. The noble Lord referred to real estate being a priority rather than patient care. That puts it rather more mildly than my colleagues have done. However, I take his point. Staffing levels are another problem which has not been mentioned. The ratio of qualified and unqualified staff in such centres needs seriously to be addressed. When one calculates the number of staff required, one must consider the needs of the patients rather than the number of bodies going through the system.
I wish to raise one matter which is not in my brief but which has worried me for some time. Recently I was talking to a nurse who had been attacked in an accident and emergency department of a hospital. Violence against staff working in such departments has reached an intolerable level. How is it possible to move forward to an age of efficiency and professionalism if staff are living in perpetual fear of being attacked by someone who is mentally unstable, under the influence of drink or for any other reason? The issue must be addressed and I wonder whether the Minister has any comments to make this evening. Some of the stories that I have heard about attacks which take place on a regular basis are horrifying and complicate the situation unnecessarily.
The need for comprehensive planning is a vital aspect of the issue. London should be treated as a single entity and not piecemeal. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments and hope that she will give the House an optimistic view.
9.9 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that the last thing we wish to do is to make a political football of the National Health Service, and in particular of the accident and emergency services. I wish to extend our heartfelt thanks to all those who work for the accident and emergency services and who dealt with the casualties resulting from the tragic incidents about which we have been reminded this evening. We cannot praise them too highly.
I must dispute the contention put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that accident and emergency services are being reduced. That is not the case. The examples that he quoted demonstrate plans to re-provide existing services but in more suitable surroundings. He may dispute the location of some emergency services, as have other noble Lords, but he is being unnecessarily alarmist in suggesting that the

255
level of these services has been reduced. Furthermore, Westminster Hospital—the local—is not being closed down but is being relocated only some four miles away. Therefore I take the opportunity to reassure your Lordships and members of the wider public who have an interest by showing that the Government have a com prehensive plan for dealing with major incidents in London.
We recognise all too well the dangers from terrorist activities and the need to react to crises and major incidents. Each district health authority must have a comprehensive set of plans for dealing with major incidents. All regions must maintain a list of hospitals with A&E departments suitable to receive casualties on a 24-hour basis. The lists set out the hospitals' capacity to deal with various types and different degrees of severity of casualty and their ability to send medical and nursing teams to the site of an incident if required. The list is held by the London Ambulance Service, which nominates one or more hospitals for standby.
The hospitals designated to deal with emergencies must draw up detailed plans, including arrangements for ensuring that teams of staff are available to receive casualties. They must also ensure that beds are available for patients who need to be admitted and that there are arrangements for keeping relatives and the media informed. Guidance also lays down that any major incident is followed by a debriefing session in order to examine how the incident was handled and what lessons can be learnt. It was admitted during the course of the debate that the reaction to recent incidents has been extremely good. To that extent the system and the arrangements that are in place have proved themselves.
As regards the City of Westminster there are and will remain no fewer than seven major hospitals within easy travelling distance—I realise that is a disputable suggestion—which are designated to treat casualties in an emergency. They include all the hospitals mentioned this evening; they are Westminster Hospital at its present and future site, and Hammersmith, St. Mary's, St. Thomas's, Guy's and University College hospitals. No other part of the country is so well served.
I sympathised with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, when he told the House about his nose-bleed and his journey to Charing Cross Hospital. However, I wondered why he did not go across the river to St. Thomas's Hospital—
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness but I was sent there by the Westminster Hospital.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I wonder why the noble Lord himself did not suggest that he would prefer to go somewhere closer.
I take the opportunity to refer to something raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who mentioned that I had previously referred to accident and emergency facilities at the Middlesex Hospital. He is right to say that the accident and emergency department at the
256
Middlesex Hospital has been closed. However, that hospital is linked with the nearby University College Hospital, which has accident and emergency facilities.
Existing arrangements are impressive but it would be foolish to pretend that no improvement is possible or that services need not adapt as medical techniques change. One important subject of debate in medical circles is whether more small facilities should be provided or whether services should be concentrated in larger centres. In some areas health authorities maintain the so-called minor casualty units for the walking wounded, where less seriously injured people can refer themselves for treatment. Those units have a role to play in areas where it is a considerable distance to the nearest large accident and emergency department. As my noble friend Lord McColl pointed out, the trend over recent years has been to concentrate accident and emergency services in district general hospitals, with the back-up of sophisticated diagnostic techniques and treatment facilities, and where senior medical staff across a range of specialties can provide additional advice in cases where a patient has suffered multiple injuries.
Research studies published by the Royal College of Surgeons show that significant improvement in the chances of survival for major trauma patients can be achieved in larger departments. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, recognises that. The Royal College recommended the greater use of special trauma centres. That proposal is currently being evaluated at a new trauma centre in Stoke on Trent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked who would pay for the emergency admissions to hospital. I can reassure her that it is the health authority where the patient normally resides which will be responsible for meeting the cost of treatment and systems are in place for carrying out the necessary arrangements to ensure that.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and others referred to the London Ambulance Service, which is the major means of transporting casualties. That service decides which hospital should be designated for taking casualties and which others should be on standby. It can also call on the assistance of the police to clear routes for ambulances. The effectiveness of all that was proved in the recent major incidents.
The London Ambulance Service carries half a million emergency patients a year. Every one of them and their families have good reason to be grateful for the service's effectiveness. The four Thames health regions have a centralised contract, which means that there is a unified emergency provision across the whole of London. The emphasis is on high quality emergency care at short notice.
Again, we are seeking to improve the London Ambulance Service. Some of the most exciting developments in that service relate to emergency ambulance provision. We are investing in improving the command and control centre of the Ambulance Service. We hope that that will result in improved response times. We are providing cardiac defibrillators in every ambulance and staff training so that they can be used by the end of July this year. We are also providing training for ambulance staff to ensure that

257
we have an extra 144 paramedical staff in emergency ambulances each year. We are looking at the possibilities on the basis of the helicopter emergency medical service which is currently operating from the Royal London Hospital.
The second main point which emerged in the debate and on which I should like to concentrate is how the emergency services coped with recent incidents. As I have already said, we are full of admiration and gratitude for the swift and splendid response by the staff and everyone else involved in both the Cannon Street rail crash and the Victoria bomb incident. From what I have said, it is evident that we fully recognise the valuable work that is being done.
The third point I wanted to make to reassure your Lordships is that planned service changes in London will not reduce the capacity to respond effectively to major incidents. As has been stated, we have debated the replacement of the Westminster Hospital by the new Westminster and Chelsea Hospital. I repeat that before the scheme was approved careful consideration was given to the implications for services including the emergency services. The London Ambulance Service was consulted and it agreed the proposed changes. The project was subject to full consultation and debate. The decision was reached after very careful consideration of all the views expressed.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister agree that most of those who were consulted stated their opposition? The consultation was wide, short and conclusive. It was a conclusive no—that this was not a good thing either for the residents or for most of the professions involved. Certainly the Westminster Council opposed it from the very beginning.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I repeat that the Government gave careful consideration to all the views expressed. It was considered necessary to relocate the Westminster Hospital. I believe that there is fairly wide agreement that the facilities available on the present site need replacing. Specific questions were raised about the new Westminster and Chelsea teaching hospital. There was particular reference to the increased costs. The North-West Thames Health Authority originally planned to finance the whole cost of the project from land sales achieved from the reconfiguration of the hospital services. However, the region faced considerable difficulties outside its control because of the downturn in land values and sales. As a result, the capital programme in the region is being reviewed.
Nevertheless, I am pleased to be able to tell noble Lords that it is still planned that the hospital will open in April 1993. That will coincide with the new contracting year. The services will be greatly improved when they are relocated in one modern district general hospital with all back-up and support services available. I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that they will include adequate parking facilities. The new 650-bed hospital will provide a modern, up-to-date environment for health care into
258
the 21st century. That will also help staff recruitment and it will enable the health authority to maximise the use of scarce qualified staff.
In addition, the new hospital will have an accident and emergency department capable of dealing with up to 60,000 cases a year. I repeat that we must not forget St. Thomas's Hospital across the river to which the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, also referred. It can deal with over 75,000 attenders a year. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that there are no plans to close that hospital. I am sure that a hospital with such a great reputation as that held by St. Thomas's will be attractive to district health authorities and GPs and they will send their patients there.
The noble Lord, Lord Richardson, raised the specific question about an agreement between North-West and South-East Thames Health Authorities to give more money to St. Thomas's Hospital to deal with more patients because of the construction of the new Westminster and Chelsea Hospital. I understand that additional revenue and capital funding has been transferred from the North-West to the South-East Thames Health Authority. I believe that the sum is over £200,000. However, I am happy to assure the noble Lord that I shall check whether there is any continuing disagreement about the level of funding to be transferred. Perhaps I may return to him on that matter. I hope that I have dealt with most of the points concerning those two hospitals. We heard from my noble friend Lord McColl about the position at Guy's and Lewisham.
I turn now to the issue of the general provision for London. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to the recent call by Sir Alan Greengross for a London health authority. We consider issues such as this on a regular basis. We are nevertheless not convinced that a single authority is the answer to London's problems. London cannot be looked at in isolation from the shire counties, which currently depend on London hospitals for many services. But the NHS Management Executive fully recognises the need for the four Thames regions to work closely together to ensure that services for London are properly co-ordinated, and there are systems in place to ensure that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and my noble friend Lord Auckland said that London is a very special case. No other part of the country is as well served as London. The noble Baroness also referred to the plight of the homeless. Although I think that that is a little wide of the Unstarred Question, I refer her to the initiatives of my honourable friend Sir George Young on that front.
There was a suggestion that London has lost a good many beds. The population of central London has fallen substantially, particularly relative to surrounding areas, since many of its hospitals were originally built. There is a need to ensure that more people can be treated locally if that is what they prefer; and that is what they seem to prefer. This point was referred to by my noble friend Lord McColl. Bed numbers have been falling steadily nationally for some years because of shorter stays, new methods of treatment, more use

259
of day surgery and so on. Although the fall in bed numbers in London has been faster than elsewhere, this reflects the policy of successive governments to distribute resources more fairly throughout the country and to allow more people to be treated locally since that is what they wish.
We have received a report prepared by York University as a study of London health costs. It gives a considerable amount of detailed technical analysis. We shall wish to study it carefully and discuss any implications with the Thames regions. I am glad to say that the report did not suggest that we should try to prevent change in London. We shall, however, be looking to the NHS Management Executive and the regions to ensure that any changes which are necessary, and are shown to be so needed, are properly managed.
While I understand the anxieties that have been expressed I hope that I have been able to demonstrate
260
that we have in hand comprehensive plans for dealing with major incidents, that the capital's hospitals have put their plans into action and have shown unquestionably that they are able to deal with these tragic incidents, and, finally, that the planned changes, particularly the opening of the new Westminster and Chelsea Hospital, will enhance the service. It is important to remember that we have a health service to be valued, with staff who are highly trained and committed to their tasks and who provide an excellent service, not least here in central London.

Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past nine o'clock.

  MAURITANIA: HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
  MAURITANIA: HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
  THE BALTIC REPUBLICS: EC POLICY
  THE BALTIC REPUBLICS: EC POLICY
  THE HATTON-ROCKALL AREA: TALKS
  THE HATTON-ROCKALL AREA: TALKS
  KOREA: TRADE POLICY
  KOREA: TRADE POLICY
  DIRECTORS' REMUNERATION
  DIRECTORS' REMUNERATION
  POSTAGE STAMPS: COMMEMORATIVE ISSUES
  POSTAGE STAMPS: COMMEMORATIVE ISSUES
  UNIVERSITY LECTURERS: STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENTS
  UNIVERSITY LECTURERS: STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENTS