Sitting of 8 November 1991

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

  Gipsies (Avon)
  9.34 am
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On a cold dark night a few weeks ago 1,100 constituents from Hengrove, Stockwood, Whitchurch, Easton, Eastville and Brislington turned out for a public meeting. They signed a petition to Parliament to curb the incompetence and political malice of Avon county council.
  The petition is about gipsies. It calls on the Government to amend the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 in such a way that the Caravan Sites Act
  "places a duty upon the local authority to publish a list of all sites under consideration for permanent, temporary, emergency or other provision"—
  something that Avon council is not doing—
  "hold public consultation on each of the sites"—
  again, something that the council does not do—
  "hold all council meetings and its committees and subcommittee meetings convened to discuss action under the act in public so that councillors can be accountable for their views and their votes"—
  again, something that Avon county council refuses to do; and it
  "states that no site be placed close to people's homes".
  It asks
  "that the running costs of the site be paid for by the users and is not a financial burden on the local residents."
  It asks that relief be afforded
  686
  "to local residents whose property may be adversely affected by the imposition of such a site."
  It asks that councils should not act in such a way
  "as to attract travellers to their area"—
  something that Avon county council is doing at the moment.
  The petition also states that
  "Section 39 of the Public Order Act be amended so that those adjacent to the land as well as the landowner are given protection under this section of the act."
  Finally, and very importantly, it asks that the Government abolish
  "Avon County Council … at the first available opportunity and Bristol returned to a single tier authority."
  The petition, from 1,100 residents in the areas concerned, has my full and hearty endorsement.
  To lie upon the Table.

  BILL PRESENTED
    COMPETITION AND SERVICE (UTILITIES)
    Mr. Secretary Lilley, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Wakeham, Mr. Secretary Brooke, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. John Redwood and Mr. Edward Leigh, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to standards of performance and service to customers in relation to the telecommunications, gas supply, electricity supply, water supply and sewerage service industries; to make provision with respect to complaints by, and disputes with, customers in those industries; to make provision with respect to the powers of the regulators of those industries and with respect to related matters; to make provision with respect to the payment of deposits by customers of certain telecommunications operators; to make further provision for facilitating effective competition in certain of those industries; to make provision with respect to mergers of water or sewerage undertakers; to make provision with respect to compliance orders against public gas suppliers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 8.]

The Environment
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
9.37 am
The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): I am very pleased to have another opportunity to set out to the House the Government's environmental record.
Our last major debate on the environment took place on 12 July. That we are again debating environmental policy reflects the priority that we as a Government, this House and the nation as a whole attach to this most central of issues. I very much hope that, unlike last time, the Opposition will have the grace to allow the Government to respond to the points made in the debate.
This debate is centred on the White Paper anniversary report, published on the exact anniversary day of the original White Paper launch—25 September. The anniversary report is acknowledged as a tremendous achievement. It is as unique in its way as was the original White Paper.
The original White Paper was the first comprehensive policy statement on the environment by any British Government. The anniversary report is the first time that a British Government have subjected their own implementation of its policies to such public scrutiny.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in this debate will have now had an opportunity to read the anniversary report in detail. Those who have read it must agree that it is an exercise in open government. Every one of the original White Paper commitments is accounted for, every action taken to date is described, and the plans for every aspect of concern are set out. Every commitment is attributed to a specific department. The targets that we have set ourselves are clearly summarised; so, too, is the substantial additional expenditure that we have given to the environment over the past year.
In all, of the 350 commitments in the original White Paper, more than 200 have already been fulfilled in this first year alone and significant progress has been made with the remainder. Well over 400 individual environmental measures have been taken over the past 12 months to deliver our commitments, ranging from telephone helplines for those concerned about air quality to major international agreements on new standards for cars and water. There are 400 commitments to take forward in the next year—from proposals for new standards for indoor air quality to work on the major international agreements which we hope will be signed at the earth summit in Brazil in June 1992.
Accountability and openness are not the only unique features of the report. Over the past year, the Government have put in place unparalleled mechanisms to keep the environment at the heart of policy making. Every Department now has a Minister charged with environmental responsibilities—no Government have ever taken such a cross-departmental approach to an issue. We have published guidance which every Department must use in assessing the environmental impact of its policies and programmes. Again, that is a first. We have given advice to Departments on drawing up environmental housekeeping strategies for themselves—another first which every Department must complete by the end of 1992. We have
688
made public the existence of two standing committees of Ministers, one chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and one by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—again an unprecedented step.
One of the Government's White Paper commitments was to establish a dialogue with the business community on environmental issues. The Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Trade and Industry appointed the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment in May. Since then the 25 business men and women on the committee have been working to an ambitious programme. Earlier this week, they published their first report containing 35 action recommendations, principally on global warming and recycling. Of those recommendations, about half are addressed to the Government; the other half are addressed to industry itself. They call for the setting of tough targets for improving energy efficiency and recycling materials, as well as other specific action.
It is a measure of how seriously the Government take the committee's work that we have responded to its recommendations within a month of their being submitted to us. Apart from those recommendations relating to fiscal measures, which are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we have set targets for action on every one of the recommendations—and we shall report again on progress in six months.
What the members of the committee have shown is that, when it comes to the environment, Britain's business community is able to provide clear, vigorous and effective leadership. That is a vital component of the nation's action on the environment, because only business can actually deliver environmental improvements.
When we published the original White Paper more than a year ago, the overall reaction was, "Good ideas, let's wait to see how they are delivered." If I may be allowed a topical rugby metaphor, we had, so to speak lined up the ball for a conversion. The question was, would we convert it?
My answer is an emphatic yes. The House does not have to take my word for it, because the action taken to deliver our commitments is there for all to see in the report.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The evidence is not there in the Bolsover area. The Minister will know that, contrary to the Government's views about linking business with the environment—we all agree that coal can successfully be converted to coke—for some reason the Coalite works in Bolsover seems to be polluting the whole environment. Certainly that is the suggestion now that the incinerator is to be replaced at the end of November. We have farms with dioxin-contaminated milk which must be transferred to the west midlands, where it is not being destroyed at the proper temperature, so dioxin is being spread in the west midlands. We now have evidence of a cluster of breast cancers in and around Bolsover—50 per cent. more than in other parts of north Derbyshire. The River Doe Lea is much more polluted than all other rivers in the area. It is high time that the Minister went to see Anglo-United and told it to get its act together and stop polluting the environment.
Mr. Trippier: I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am not going to suggest to him or to the House that I am not prepared to pay such a visit. As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member

689
for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), dealt with that very point at Question Time on Wednesday. Of course what is going on in the Bolsover area is a matter of great concern to the hon. Gentleman, as it is to me and to the whole House. An investigation is being carried out at the moment, not only by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution but by the National Rivers Authority. The most comforting assurance that I can give the hon. Gentleman, which I am sure that he will welcome, is that the results of the study will be made public.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am glad that HMIP is now becoming involved in Bolsover. However, the British people must be asking where it has been all these years. Dioxin is already in the environment. It is in the people, it is causing breast cancer, it is in the milk of cows, and it is in the rivers at 1,000 times background levels. Where has HMIP been all these years to allow dioxin to escape into the environment?
Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman is on to a weak point. I should remind him and the House that the Government set up Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, for which we got no credit whatsoever from Her Majesty's Opposition. The hon. Gentleman heard me say on numerous occasions when the Environmental Protection Bill was being considered in Committee that it was under strength. It is no longer under strength. I shall make an announcement later, indicating how I hope to increase the inspectorate.
Of course, we have not done everthing in just a year, nor have we taken things forward in every aspect as much as we would have wished. But our readiness to act is clear, and our willingness to deliver is illustrated by our early success with our half of the original commitments. We have made many new commitments. We are not sitting back in self-congratulation and the pace will not be slackened.
Yet no sooner is the ball winging towards the uprights than we find that the goal posts are being moved. This year, I am being told that the test was not whether we could deliver our unprecedented number of detailed commitments, as I had thought, but whether we would do a lot more than we said we would do just a year ago.
I and my right hon. Friend would be the first to admit that the White Paper process is the beginning of a long road. We said that it was a first step, not the last word. But I think that everyone concerned needs to realise that this is not a process without cost, nor one that can magically happen overnight.
I believe that there is a balance to be struck between environmental enhancement and economic development. I believe that this Government have got that balance right. To make sure that we keep that balance, we have created new forums to discuss environmental issues with business, with local government and with the voluntary sector, because the environment needs every one of us to work together.
There are Opposition Members who take some perverse delight in running down Britain's environmental record and who are all too often to be found, both at home and abroad, adding their voices to those who accuse Britain of being the dirty man of Europe. Being deliberately deceitful about the Government's policies has become something of a habit for the Labour party. It is just another deceit.
690
However, that is not an accusation that I could level at the Leader of the Opposition, as he has not found time to say anything at all about the environment—true or false.
Mr. Terry Dicks: Bearing in mind that Labour Members have made many promises without costing them, will my hon. Friend tell us whether they have made promises about the environment in which they claim to be interested? If so, have they costed them, or is it something else that they say that they may do in future if economic growth comes their way?
Mr. Trippier: That is a good point on which I can give my hon. Friend not only a specific example, but an assurance. Let us have the assurance first. If the Opposition do not cost their proposals, we do. The renationalisation of the water industry would cost £3·8 billion—and that is to say absolutely nothing of the £28 billion programme which is currently in place and which will run for the rest of the decade. As I shall illustrate later, that cost could not be met, and I do not think that Labour would do it.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Do not actions speak louder than words? Does the Minister recall the vandalism of the former Secretary of State for the Environment, his right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who, at the very time that the White Paper was issued, turned down the inspectors' recommendation for a tunnel under Oxleas wood? Does not that presage terrible problems for the Thames corridor plans of the present Secretary of State for the Environment? I refer to the decision in respect of roads and the environment and to the prospective legislation that will put railways into the same category, especially in relation to the channel link. Surely that threatens the environment, and surely the Government's proposals for removing the power of the House to make the final decision on railways means that the Government are not to be trusted with the environment. That is proved by their actions.
Mr. Trippier: I understand and have previously heard the views that the hon. Gentleman has just expressed. As he knows, as that matter is quasi-judicial, under planning law it has been left to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman was wrong about the timetable. The White Paper was launched in September 1990 when the Secretary of State for the Environment was my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten).
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Bristol, East): Will my hon. Friend confirm that the green belt, which enables us all to have a degree of green and open space and fresh air, has been doubled under this Conservative Government?
Mr. Trippier: I try regularly to remind everyone of that point, and I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of it. That is something of which the Government are enormously proud. It featured hugely in the White Paper and was mentioned again in the anniversary document.
I remind the House that Britain is now taking the environmental lead in Europe. I offer some key examples. Our own system of integrated pollution control, introduced in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, is to be adopted across Europe in the coming years. So that was a first. We have led on proposals for environmental

691
labelling of products, for environmental reporting by companies, for public access to information, and on directives as diverse as the nitrates directive and forthcoming tighter controls over emissions from cars and heavy diesels.
For those who still feel that we are lagging, let me say that Britain is one of only a handful of countries to have set a target for reductions in carbon dioxide. We are now developing a programme of measures to implement this target. The number of countries that have produced full comprehensive environmental strategies like our own can be numbered on the fingers of one hand. In the Montreal protocol which controls ozone-depleting substances, United Nations negotiations on climate change, in biodiversity and on forestry Britain is among the leading nations.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I have no doubt about the Minister's commitment, but I seriously doubt that of the Government. Despite what the hon. Gentleman has said, from which I do not dissent, the fact is that only 15 minutes of the time that the Prime Minister chaired the summit of the Group of Seven countries was spent on the environment. Not one word on the environment passed the Prime Minister's lips when he welcomed the Queen's Speech at the start of this Session. Neither the Chancellor's speech on the Queen's Speech nor his autumn statement, which is meant to be central to Government thinking, contained one word on the environment. The Government's commitment to the environment can have no credibility—I stress that I am talking about the Government, not the Minister—if the Prime Minister and the Chancellor do not think that the environment is important, even if lesser Ministers do.
Mr. Trippier: That is a total fabrication——
Mr. Hughes: It is a fact—there was not a word on the environment.
Mr. Trippier: It is not a case of a word, because the anniversary document contains a tremendous number of words and has the seal of the Prime Minister, who wrote the foreword. The hon. Gentleman must admit that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the first world leader to commit himself to going to Rio next June for the world summit. We have not yet had similar commitments from all the Heads of Government of the other European member states. Our commitment is real. The fact that my right hon. Friend made an important speech on the environment shortly after becoming Prime Minister is itself significant. In contrast, I have not heard any major speech on the environment, either inside or outside the House, from the Leader of the Opposition.
We have also set the pace in the negotiations for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development next year. As I have said, the Prime Minister was the first to commit himself to attending that conference. We are playing a leading part in the negotiations of the framework conventions on climate change and biodiversity; and we have committed financial assistance and resources to assisting developing countries in preparing for the convention.
In June we held a seminar on biodiversity to prepare the United Kingdom's contribution on biodiversity. In the
692
same month, we hosted an UNCED workshop on biotechnology. We have also funded two studies by Touche Ross on the role of technology transfer in relation to climate change and in biodiversity. Within the United Kingdom we have committed £150,000 to the United Nations Environment Programme—United Kingdom national committee to assist non-governmental organisations in preparing their own contribution to UNCED.
It is vital that UNCED results in practical plans of action that can be implemented through existing institutions. We are determined to avoid the creation of any new bureaucracy. That is why we are supporting an urgent review of UNCED's management and organisation which will assist implementation.
We pride ourselves on keeping to our agreements. In the last European Community report on proceedings taken against European Community countries for infringing environmental directives, Britain's record was ahead of all its industrialised competitors and behind only Luxembourg, Portugal and Denmark, which is something that the Commission forgot to mention when it wrote to us recently—just as it forgot to mention the fact that when it wrote to us about environmental impact assessment, it wrote to 10 other countries at the same time.
We believe that our record stands up to detailed comparison and criticism. We want people to look at the figures, to ask the necessary questions, and to make their own decisions on how we can build a better environment. That is why access to information and accountability must be a central plank of what we are about. The anniversary report is a major part of that process, but it is not the only aspect.
In the summer, we produced the first report of the new drinking water inspectorate. It gives the results drawn from the 3·3 million individual tests made over the year. It is frank about where we need to do better, but it shows that 99 per cent. of those 3·3 million tests met the legislative requirements for water quality. Again, we are the only member state in the whole of Europe which publishes such a report.
A cornerstone of this Government's environmental strategy was water privatization—a bold and innovative step which has given the new water companies £28 billion over the next 10 years. It is the biggest private investment programme ever in water quality and represents £5,000 for every minute of every day, day in, day out, year in, year out, for the next decade.
That is something the nationalised water boards could never have done. Now Labour says that it would renationalise water at a cost to the public purse of £3·8 billion, with no mention whatever of what would happen to the £28 billion private investment programme. The country could not and would not trust the Labour party. Because of their economic incompetence, the last Labour Government were forced to slash investment in water quality by a third and in sewage treatment by half. The facts speak for themselves. I challenge the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to say that the Labour party will drop its proposal to renationalise the water industry, just as I hear this morning that it has dropped its proposal to renationalise British Telecom.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Before the Minister leaves the subject of the water industry, may I suggest that it would be unusual if we had a debate on the environment in which we did not have to reiterate the figures for

693
investment by the water industry under the Labour Government compared with that under the present Government. The average figures show that under Labour investment ran at £1,254 million a year whereas under the Conservative Government it was £922 million a year. Even the Minister should know those figures off by heart.
While we are on the matter of trust and the water industry, let us deal with water quality. The Minister mentioned the drinking water inspectorate. I was expecting him to give a little more detail than he did. He has had the report of the inspectorate for some considerable time. He will be aware that it shows some serious incidents of water quality breaches of standard, some serious incidents of pollution, and some problems of supply that have caused illness. Does the Minister intend to use his powers under the Water Act 1989 to prosecute any of the water companies for those breaches?
Mr. Trippier: The drinking water inspectorate, which has the teeth to recommend prosecution, believes that where there are infringements prosecution is necessary and should be undertaken. I shall not hesitate to support the inspectorate.
On the hon. Lady's first point, I shall send her a copy of a graph.
Mr. Skinner: Why?
Mr. Trippier: So that all Members of Parliament can understand it. They will be able to see at a glance the disgraceful record of the last Labour Government. It is a statement of fact, and I am making it, that under the Labour Government investment in water quality was cut by a third and investment in water treatment was cut by a half. The hon. Lady cannot deny it. As the Labour party says, the principal reason for those cuts was that the Labour Government were pushed into them by the International Monetary Fund. That is its excuse. Bur who got the country in such a mess that the IMF had to move in?
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I wonder whether we would all be saved a great deal of trouble if the Minister did the sums on the same basis that I have done them and used the figures in the Conservative party brief on how to oppose Labour on water privatisation.
Mr. Trippier: I will happily exchange letters with the hon. Lady. To be consistent with our policy on the environment, which is to give public access to environmental information. I will release my letter to the press. I trust that she will release her reply to the press.
Mr. Sayeed: Is it not a fact that today the water inspectorates, including the drinking water inspectorate and the National Rivers Authority, are independent of the water authorities and can therefore demonstrate that they are doing their job more effectively by prosecuting those who get it wrong? Previously they were poacher and gamekeeper and hid the facts from the people.
Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend is right. The principal part of the Water Act 1989 was the separation of the poacher and gamekeeper within the water authorities. Now we have set up the NRA, which is the toughest regulatory body in the whole of Europe.
The Labour party is greatly embarrassed because it opposed the Water Bill virtually clause by clause.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Trippier: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to press on a little? I have given way several times. I shall certainly give way to him in a few moments.
Integrated pollution control already requires the compiling of registers of emissions, open to public access. We now aim to take this a stage further by drawing up aggregate registers for processes and types of emission. These will make the figures much more readily accessible to those who wish to study them. I hope to issue a consultation paper on those proposals shortly. Next year we will produce a new statistical report, drawing on guidance from a wide-ranging consultation process. That will place a whole new range of environmental performance in the public domain.
There is no clearer demonstration of the Government's commitment to integrated pollution control than our expansion of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. In January I announced that the inspectorate had been allocated more than 80 posts to enable it to expand to 313 staff by 1 April 1992. I draw it to the attention of the spokesman for the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), that after further review I shall today announce a further increase of about 50 staff to raise the inspectorate's 1992–93 complement to more than 360. We hope that that approach will produce greater awareness of the role of the individual in environmental improvement and pave the way for setting ever-higher environmental standards. I am pleased to say that, already, we have responded to the very good report of the Environment Select Committee on indoor air quality by saying in the anniversary report that we would develop indoor air standards for the first time. Similar steps are being pursued elsewhere. The NRA is preparing new statutory water quality objectives. A new expert group will help to establish new air quality standards for nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide. HMIP is beginning to introduce IPC standards for industrial plant. There are new requirements for standards of cleanliness for our streets and public places.
Accountability and high standards are the Government's watchword for the environment and the watchword of the citizens charter. I remind the House that every major piece of environmental legislation on the statute book has been put there by a Conservative Government. I have every intention of ensuring that that proud record continues.
I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Dewsbury said to the Labour party conference. She claimed that the Clean Air Act 1956 was introduced by a Labour Government. Absolute rubbish. The Clean Air Act was introduced in 1956 by a Conservative Government. No one on the Opposition Benches seems to be paying attention. Labour Members seem to be studying invisible spots on the Benches. If the hon. Lady is prepared to mislead—I am sure not intentionally——
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I am becoming a little worried about the Minister's vocabulary.
Mr. Trippier: If the hon. Lady perhaps makes a statement which is a stranger to the truth at the Labour party conference, how can we believe what she says on the

695
water figures? The exchange of correspondence that will take place might flush out some facts rather than hypotheses.
On Wednesday my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his autumn statement our public expenditure plans for the next three years. Within those totals there are significant increases for expenditure on the environment, on top of the substantial increases in the past two years. I shall announce next week full details of the amounts available for the various environmental bodies. In environmental protection there will be new resources for the pollution inspectorate; and in waste disposal the new arrangements for operating through the private sector or free-standing companies should give local authorities the scope to bring in up to £50 million of private capital to bring about improved standards in that sector.
There are also significant increases for the programmes of other Departments which affect the environment. The large increases for British Rail and London Transport will lead to major improvements in the quality of public transport and conditions on the roads. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will have new resources greatly to extend the programme of support for environmentally friendly farming.
This Government are 100 per cent. committed to the protection and improvement of our environment. We have established the standards in our legislation. We are committing the resources of the public sector and bringing in the private sector. We are making the public our partners in this enterprise and giving them the information and access to decisions which they need to play their part. I am proud of what the Government have already achieved and I commend that record to the House.
10.8 am
Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister has proved again that he can get excited on occasions such as this. He was somewhat more low key than usual when he started off this morning, perhaps because of the by-election results yesterday, but, true to his form, he managed to wind himself up as the debate went on. I sometimes wish that we could have a constructive debate rather than an exchange of statistics such as we had on the water industry. However, as long as the Minister wants to conduct these arguments in that way, we shall have to co-operate. I look forward to the exchange of letters on the water issue.
I am pleased that we are having another debate on the environment—that is one thing that hon. Members on both sides of the House can agree on. I hope that this will not be the last word or the only debate during this Session, because debates on the environment are always topical, although often for the wrong reasons—because of crises that arise due to the lack of Government action and foresight.
As the Minister said, the previous debate on the environment was on 12 July. Since then there have been many interesting developments affecting environmental problems. There have also been some significant gaps in Government action, especially in recent weeks. I shall review some of those developments and try to block some
696
of the gaps, while making positive suggestions about what the Minister and the Government ought to turn their attention to in the few months left to them.
The Minister spent some considerable time talking about the first anniversary report of "This Common Inheritance"—the report of the Government's record. It would be easy for me to go through that report and point out the areas where there has been a lack of progress. Even the Secretary of State admitted when he launched the anniversary report that there had been problems, especially in many of the Departments. We could talk about water quality or hedgerows; as the Secretary of State admitted, there are many gaps. However, I intend to resist the temptation of simply going through the report and pointing out those gaps.
Mr. Sayeed: Does the hon. Lady welcome the fact that the report was unprecedented? There has never been an environmental audit of that type before. It was unprecedented to set out the targets and a year later set out how we matched up to them. No other Government have done that.
Mrs. Taylor: I was able to agree with the hon. Gentleman's first comment, as the report is, by definition, unprecedented. However, he went on to talk about targets being met and I must disagree, as I do not think that there has been a clear definition of the targets, nor the range that we would have wished and there have been many gaps even on issues that were the subject of legislation as late as the summer, such as hedgerows. We have not witnessed the progress that we had hoped for. The Government's sort of approach is good, and it is good for information to be provided, but it would be a lot better if the information showed that more progress had been made not merely in the Department of the Environment but in other Departments.
Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments about the report being unprecedented and I appreciate that she was trying to be fair. However I do not think that she would wish to give the impression to the House that there were a lot of gaps. Out of 350 commitments in the White Paper published last September there were only seven gaps and that is not a lot.
Mrs. Taylor: If the gaps that the Minister is referring to are the fact that the Department of Transport is doing nothing and that the Department of Energy has done virtually nothing, those are significant gaps.
I do not want to get into a discussion about whether some of those claimed achievements are trivial. I want to be constructive about the debate and, to a certain extent, to sympathise with the Minister. One of the largest gaps in environmental initiatives in the recent past is the lack of any mention of the environment in the Queen's Speech. Nor was there anything on the environment in the Prime Minister's speech on the Queen's Speech. In contrast, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, not for the first time, mentioned many environmental issues when he spoke during the Queen's Speech debate. I hoped that the Minister would have accepted our sympathy.
We are also disappointed that the autumn statement was not quite as rosy as the Minister was leading us to believe. When the Chancellor produced his autumn statement the figures showed that spending on environmental services is planned to decline during the next few

697
years from a total of £1,370 million in the current year to £1,290 million next year, £1,280 million the next year and £1,260 million the year after that. That is the picture as the Chancellor presented it.
I was going to sympathise with the Minister, but he was trying to turn those statistics on their head. We are especially disappointed about the absence of legislation on the environment in the Queen's Speech, because we believe that so much could be done.
As there are gaps in the legislative programme I am sure that the Minister is extremely disappointed that more has not been done, for example, legislation that would have had the co-operation of Opposition Members as well as the support of many Conservative Members—legislation on an environment protection agency or on implementing the Common Land Forum proposals. Many people outside the House are extremely disappointed about that. That was a manifesto commitment in 1987 and I was amazed to hear the Minister say on the radio recently that the reason that the Government could not introduce legislation on that issue was because they felt that they could not get it through the House of Lords. That is a remarkable admission. I wonder whether the next Conservative manifesto will be cleared with their Lordships or whether Government Ministers will make decisons for themselves.
Mr. Spearing: On the subject of admissions, the Minister had to admit to the Oxleas wood farrago. Has my hon. Friend noticed that no opportunity has been taken to put the tunnel under the wood, although the opportunity has been taken to change the design of the bridge? Does not that show lack of action?
Also—on a non-party point—should not all environmentalists examine the proposals in the Queen's Speech to give the final word on railway schemes to a Secretary of State of any Government and take it away from a long-stop position of the House? Perhaps that Bill should be scrutinised closely when it is introduced so that the House may at least be given some long-stop opportunity and not be left the victim of Secretaries of State, as has happened in the past.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend speaks from a position of expertise on both those issues. His arguments about the tunnel and the bridge show that often when Governments reconsider their policy they do so from a narrow standpoint and do not look at the full picture.
I think that the proposed changes in procedure will have to be scrutinised carefully to ensure that proper environmental considerations are safeguarded when decisions are taken on the types of programme that my hon. Friend has mentioned.
One statement that was made in the summer gave us a glimmer of hope that the Government might be coming round to the decision to take the scale of action required to offer proper environmental protection. The Minister and the House will recall that in July the Prime Minister changed Government policy and announced that they would be committed to the introduction of an environmental protection agency. He did a U-turn and that left us with a glimmer of hope that progress would be made. However, since then we have become extremely disappointed because the Minister will recall that, during the previous debate on the environment in the House, on 12 July, I asked him why it was necessary for there to be
698
a further period of consultation about the implementation of the environment protection agency when there was such widespread support both inside and outside the House for progress in that direction. Indeed, I followed that up in a letter to the Secretary of State, offering the co-operation of the Opposition to push legislation through the House quickly if that was what the Government wanted to do.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Being helpful.
Mrs. Taylor: We were trying to be helpful, as my hon. friend points out. The Minister wrote back on the day that the consultation paper was issued, when the Government had already made up their minds that there would be no progress in legislation this year. That was a great disappointment. We were hoping that progress on an environmental protection agency could be made during this Session of Parliament. I understand the Minister's difficulty and the fact that one of his Cabinet coleagues. the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, had territorial ambitions, but it seems strange to Opposition Members that a policy that was endorsed and announced by the Prime Minister could not be implemented and was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech simply because one Cabinet member wanted to divert attention away from his other problems and place a territorial claim on other functions.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend referred to our concern at the lack of progress in setting up an environmental protection agency. Is not one of the issues of great concern to us the fact that organisations such as the National Rivers Authority that would be incorporated into such an agency have already stated that in some of their actions they may use only persuasion and do not have powers to implement them? The longer that we allow that position to remain and do not given an organisation such as the environmental protection agency the power to deal with problems, the worse they will become and the longer it will take to solve them.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend, who has long been interested in the issue, is right. It is a fact that the National Rivers Authority has embarked on more prosecutions recently, but both it and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution have tried to avoid prosecutions and rely on persuasion. I am afraid that such an approach has had limited success so far.
Mr. Trippier: The hon. Lady will recall that she repeated again and again that we had rushed into enacting the Environmental Protection Act 1990 instead of taking it more slowly. From what she has just said, it seems that one cannot win if one is determined to enact correct legislation and so take the matter to full consultation, which I should have thought was laudable. Will she give the House a specific statement on where the Labour party stands on the Government's proposal to take the regulatory function of waste control out of the hands of local authorities and put it under the control of the agency? A clear statement on that would help us enormously.
Mrs. Taylor: The Minister will recall that I mentioned that matter in my previous speech on the subject on 12 July. We believe that the right way to deal with waste is for the regional tier of government—which we want to see established and which we will establish—should be

699
responsible for determining the region's strategy on waste. However, we think that it is a regulatory function of the environmental protection executive to monitor all such actions, and the agency will have a policing role. The strategy adopted in relation to waste in any district will be determined by the regional tier of government.
As for the Minister's remarks about not rushing the issue of the environmental protection agency, we did not say that the Environmental Protection Act was rushed, and were happy to see progress on it, although we wanted proper consultation throughout. The Government have been in power for 12 and a half years and were the last people to accept the need for an environmental protection agency. If they had not been the last people to do so, there would have been legislation on the issue a long time ago. I hope that in a few months' time, when roles are reversed and we are in power, we can look forward to co-operation from the then Opposition when we introduce our environmental protection executive with the strong powers that we intend to give it.
The Minister mentioned the Environmental Protection Act and, in particular, integrated pollution control, as a step forward and something on which we should build in future. When we discussed the Environmental Protection Act in Committee, on which both the Minister and I served, we had some positive debates on that aspect because there was general consensus that integrated pollution control was the way forward. Although some of us thought that the Government were not tough enough, we wanted to see progress on the implementation of integrated pollution control. We expressed much concern that there were great pressures on Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and were worried that the way in which IPC was being introduced would add to those burdens. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution was then understaffed and overworked and IPC undoubtedly presented new pressures and burdens, even though it was welcome.
The Minister said today that staffing at HMIP would be improved. The figures that he announced today do not actually meet the targets and needs laid down in the National Audit Office report earlier this summer, which outlined the operations of HMIP and problems such as failure to inspect, reluctance to prosecute and the difficulty of meeting targets. That report and the management information system for Ministers report—MINIS 12—showed that time and again HMIP, as presently constituted and supported by the Government, was unable to meet the targets and carry out the work it should. HMIP has had to farm out the production of guidance notes on many processes simply because it was so stretched. Often, companies in the private sector had to write the guidance notes on how the new rules were to be applied in future.
Following the Minister's statement, I am still worried that HMIP will be under too much pressure to carry out all its responsibilities and deliver the level of environmental protection that is obviously required. I am also concerned about what is happening in local authorities which must monitor the processes of integrated pollution control relating to pollution in the atmosphere. When the Environmental Protection Act was introduced, local authorities were not given the resources required for pump priming and setting up the system.
700
Can the Minister confirm that local authorities are finding that for more than half of the industrial processes for which applications for authorisation should have been made, companies have not bothered to apply, which is serious? If companies have not even bothered to apply for authorisation, they are technically operating illegally. Can the Minister confirm that reports of such occurrences are correct? I should be happy to give way if he wishes to do so now, although he may wish to return to the subject later.
If such incidents have taken place, I wonder why, and what the Government who introduced the legislation intend to do about the problem. Responsibility for the matter must lie with the Government who gave insufficient instructions to industry and allowed inadequate resources to local authorities. I do not know what the Minister expects local authorities to do. Will they have to face the extra work and cost of taking out hundreds of court actions against companies that have not registered and have not applied for the authorisations which form one of the cornerstones of the Government's policies as described by the Minister? Time and again, industry in this country acts outside the law and local authorities are left to make decisions about whether to prosecute, with no support, direction or instruction from the Government. IPC has obviously got off to a shaky start, which is extremely worrying, especially for those of us who thought that it was not tough enough in the first place.
The Minister referred to river quality. We should all be alarmed about a leaked report concerning river quality. The first report of the National Rivers Authority, a survey of river quality, is to be published shortly. Not surprisingly, because of its importance and also because so many people are concerned about river quality, the report has already been leaked. The NRA report states that thousands of miles of rivers in England and Wales are poisoned and that the situation has become worse since 1985. That is causing great concern within the NRA. It is also causing great concern to water users and to all of us who are worried about the environment.
The deterioration in river quality has taken place in almost every region. Water quality has declined in 6,323 km of rivers, canals and estuaries—all this at a time when the country is in recession. The length of rivers grossly polluted has risen. The quality of drinking water supplies in 15 per cent. of all the rivers monitored has deteriorated. The NRA report states that there was a trend towards a small but steady improvement in water quality between 1958 and 1980, but that the trend has not continued since then. That is very serious. It means that this Government have presided over a deterioration in water quality. If the National Rivers Authority is concerned about it, I am surprised that it did not feature in the Minister's speech.
The environmental issue that has attracted most attention in recent weeks is the letter from the European Environment Commissioner, Carlo Ripa di Meana, about the failure of the British Government to ensure British implementation of the European Community directive on environmental impact assessments. The matters involved are significant, but I must admit that even I was taken aback by the amount of attention that the issue received. That was not due to the letter—nor, alas, because of interest in the environment. The letter received so much attention because of the way in which Ministers reacted to it.

701
I realise that the Minister of State may be in a difficult position. He attends some of the meetings in Brussels; he knows the Commissioner; he discusses these matters with him; he knows that the Commissioner is a reasonable and fair-minded man. I am sure that the Minister of State wishes to dissociate himself from some of the more outlandish remarks of some of his colleagues. At least, I hope that he does, given what he knows to be the truth of the matter.
I wonder whether the Minister can explain why his ministerial colleagues, including the Prime Minister, reacted as they did and why they said what they said. Like the whole country, the Minister of State will be aware that the Prime Minister described the Commissioner's letter as "astonishing". The Prime Minister said that the Government had had no previous notice that a problem existed. The Minister of State knows that that is not so. Therefore, I ask him to use this occasion to set the record straight. I shall gladly give way to him.
Will the Minister of State confirm, first, that the European Commissioner is not trying to dictate planning decisions? He is not telling Britain what to do about specific projects. Will he confirm that the Commissioner is trying to ensure that the European Community directive is applied and that relevant environmental impact assessments are made?
Mr. Trippier: Is the hon. Lady seriously asking me to reply point by point to her speech after I have sat down, or is she asking my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, to do so when he winds up the debate? My hon. Friend intends to deal with this issue in his speech. Would the hon. Lady find that satisfactory?
Mrs. Taylor: As the Minister of State, rather than his junior colleague, goes to Brussels, it would help if he could confirm these points. If he would like me to give way again so that he can confirm that that is the nature of the letter from the Commissioner, I shall gladly do so. He may, however, prefer me to make all the points and then to deal with them. I repeat that I shall be happy to give way now on my first point if the Minister wishes to clarify that the Commissioner is not dictating planning decisions but asking Britain about the implementation of the European Community directive.
Mr. Trippier: That is correct.
Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the Minister. At least we agree on the first point. That being the case, will he confirm that, contrary to the Foreign Secretary's statement, the Commissioner is not "dictating" through which field a road should go?
Mr. Trippier: Correct.
Mrs. Taylor: I am pleased that the Minister of State has contradicted the Foreign Secretary. It shows that he knows more about European legislation than the Foreign Secretary does, which perhaps should not surprise us.
Thirdly, can the Minister help the House by confirming that the Prime Minister was mistaken when he said that the letter was the first time that the Government had heard anything about the problem.
Mr. Skinner: That is an A-level question.
Mr. Trippier: Actually, it is a degree question. The Prime Minister never said any such thing in the first place. The Prime Minister was quite right to react so fast and so forcefully to Commissioner Carlo Ripa di Meana's recent letter. There is a clear convention that communications between the Commission and member states should be confidential. The leaking of the article 169 letter weeks ago and of the separate personal letter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport were just the last in a succession of leaks on the subject throughout the summer. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received a satisfactory reply from Mr. Delors. That should have some impact on the hon. Lady—that Mr. Delors did send a letter which, by any standards, was a letter of apology to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mrs. Taylor: The Minister of State found that question harder. He did not answer it. He did not say whether the Government knew that a prosecution was pending.
Mr. Trippier: That is not the point as to why the Prime Minister wrote to Mr. Delors. The hon. Lady knows that very well.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman says that that was not the point of the letter. What the Prime Minister said at the time of the announcement was that the Government had not had any warning that this situation had arisen and that the Government had not known about it whatsoever. It is clear that the Government were well aware, and it ill behoves Ministers to criticise leaks, especially after the resignation today of a member of the Select Committee on Health, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. Win Griffiths: Former member.
Mrs. Taylor: Former member of the Select Committee.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Former Member for Harlow.
Mrs. Taylor: Soon. My hon. Friend is anticipating events.
As the Secretary of State for Health's Parliamentary Private Secretary was also involved in the leak, Ministers cannot complain about leaks from other sources.
The Minister has not confirmed that he knew that such a letter would be sent to the Government, but it is clear that one would be, not least because in the environment debate on 12 July the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I referred to the likelihood of prosecution.
The Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister should not be surprised by the Commissioner's action, because almost a year ago to the day a senior member of the Conservative party wrote to the Commissioner asking him to intervene and said, "I shall be delighted if he reacts positively." Perhaps some members of the Conservative party do not speak to each other, but Ministers speak of the need for accesss to information so information should be available between one senior Conservative and another.
Mr. Trippier: Who was it?
Mrs. Taylor: The Minister is asking who it was, because he obviously does not know what is going on in the Conservative party. I am happy to refer him to a cutting

703
from The Times of 16 November last year, which mentioned a Conservative Member of the European Parliament, Peter Price.
Mr. Trippier: I am amazed that Mr. Price would suggest himself to be a senior member of the Conservative party.
Mrs. Taylor: Perhaps the Minister of State belongs to that wing of the Conservative party that sets no weight by Members of the European Parliament. Perhaps he is entering into that debate more than our debate today.
Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister still vice-chairman of the Tory party?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend asks an interesting question. The Minister was vice-chairman at the time of the last European elections. Therefore, perhaps he should have known where some of his colleagues stood on these issues.
I hope that today's debate will not be the last word on the environment in this Session. The Minister's comments have not reassured us that environmental issues will move further up the Government agenda. He said that it is for business to sort out our environment problems. That is not right. We require a more positive lead from the Government, but it will not come from the Conservative Government and we look forward to sitting on the Government Benches and giving a proper lead.
10.43 am
Mr. Gwilym Jones: I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on the environment, which was so ably opened by my hon. Friend the Minister.
Most hon. Members attach the highest importance to their local environment and I wish to draw attention to two problems in my constituency that deserve resolution. The first is perhaps not the most obvious, as it involves not an industrial process but one of the four excellent hospitals in my constituency. We are well served by our four hospitals and the finest must be the University hospital of Wales, which, as its name implies, is not only a large and important national health service hospital but a teaching hospital, part of the University of Wales. As such, its medical facilities are highly valued by its neighbours and by people from further afield.
Sadly, the hospital has been a significant cause of environmental problems and pollution, especially for my constituents who live immediately alongside it. The most obvious is the consequence of traffic growth. Since it was opened about 20 years ago, health care has continued to grow and to be more successful every year, but traffic has grown even faster. As a consequence, the residential roads adjacent to the hospital have had to suffer an intolerable burden—one far worse than they might have reasonably expected.
Until the early 1980s, the only access to the hospital was by King George V drive from the east or by Rhydhelig avenue from the west. Fortunately, some 10 years ago new access to the hospital was opened via Eastern avenue, a major dual carriageway running alongside it. Although that provides access, it does not provide egress from the
704
hospital and has not contributed significantly to reducing the steadily increasing burden of traffic that continues to use the residential roads around the hospital.
In turn, we have had significant problems of overspill parking as the number of cars seeking to use the hospital has spread beyond the hospital site into surrounding roads. Some years ago, that necessitated the imposition of a residents' parking zone. Somewhat surprisingly, and for reasons that have never been well understood by residents, it was withdrawn by South Glamorgan council, which claimed that it was not justified and was under-used. I am glad to say that, because of the excellent hard work of councillor Tony John, who represents the area, there will be a new parking zone.
Mr. Win Griffiths: What about Rhydhelig avenue?
Mr. Jones: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I am happy to give way. Otherwise I shall ignore his sedentary comments.
Mr. Griffiths: What is the hon. Gentleman's view on access and parking on Rhydhelig avenue, St. Augustine's avenue and St. Alban's avenue?
Mr. Jones: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question because I suspect that he has considerable sympathy for the problems that my local councillors and I are fighting to deal with. Perhaps he would join me in urging South Glamorgan council, the highway authority, to show more concern for local residents. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
Traffic and parking are not the only environmental problems that are consequences of the University hospital of Wales. Perhaps far more worrying is the spewing out of pollution from the chimney of its incinerator. Local residents living in the wards of Heath and Gabalfa have become increasingly apprehensive about what is coming out of the chimney and what the pollution is. They know that they have been polluted, but they do not know what the pollution is. As much as anything, it has become a fear of the unknown. Certainly there have been visible incidents of pollution, and complaints to the hospital have flowed almost as quickly as the smoke coming out of the chimney. As a result of the pollution and the problems of traffic and parking, the hospital has lost considerable good will among the people who live immediately around it. It has lost that good will not because of its medical facilities but because it has not been a good neighbour to those who live nearby. Local councillors felt forced to adopt a policy of opposing any further expansion of the use of the site of the University hospital of Wales until there were at least some positive proposals to deal with the various problems that the hospital had occasioned.
I applaud the work of local councillors, including the senior member, councillor Clive Milsom; councillor Granville Tatham, who is very experienced; and our newest colleague, Dr. Peter Donnelly, who practises at the University hospital of Wales. I must also mention councillor Watkiss, who died just before the local election in May this year. He lived in King George V drive and took a keen interest in the problems of the University hospital of Wales. He was a former lord mayor of Cardiff, acting chairman of the Association of District Councils, and the leading light of local government in Wales.

705
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we have all become increasingly concerned about our local environment, and that concern certainly extends to such problems as the hospital incinerator at the University hospital of Wales. We recognise that we need higher standards and more openness about the operation of facilities such as hospital incinerators. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister because the Government have led the way in making the necessary' environmental protection improvements.
The new environmental protection legislation will bring hospital incinerators under the higher standards which are necessary. In addition, the pollution emitted by such chimneys will be monitored and the results recorded with, in this case, the environmental health department of Cardiff city council. That information should be held on a register that is open to public inspection. In that way, the neighbours of the University hospital of Wales would at last know exactly what was going on.
South Glamorgan health authority has responded to the new requirements, installing a new incinerator at the University hospital of Wales. The health authority tells me that it has spent almost £2 million on putting in that new incinerator and almost £5 million on the boiler house. I have some pleasure in knowing that the health authority has responded to the new higher standards set by the Government because it should mean an improved environment for those of my constituents who live in Heath and Gabalfa.
The health authority has sought to maximise its investment in the new incinerator and the boiler house. It submitted a planning application to Cardiff city council, whereby practically all the refuse from all the hospitals in South Glamorgan could be incinerated at the University hospital of Wales. I can understand that a health authority would want to make the maximum possible use of any new investment, and on that count the incinerator is no different from any other investment. However, I do not welcome the authority's choice of the University hospital of Wales to maximise the incinerator operation. I do not understand why the health authority would choose that as the site for centralised incineration.
The population around the University hospital of Wales is the most densely situated in South Glamorgan. Waste from other hospitals must be trucked in, involving several large lorries coming in every hour of every day to keep the incinerator fed. Why should the health authority choose the busiest area in Cardiff for that centralised operation? I would not want to wish this problem on any other hospital in South Glamorgan. I do not want to say, "Not in my back yard" and wish it on someone else. But I wonder whether there are other hospitals with far fewer neighbours that might have provided a much better site for this operation.
As might be expected, the proposal about increased incineration at the University hospital of Wales immediately raised great fears among my constituents and their local representatives, the councillors. They were concerned about not only the increased volume of refuse which was to be incinerated and what that would mean to the local environment but the pollution which might result from some hospital waste—for example, material with traces of radioactivity.
The health authority made a commonsense response, suggesting that no health authority would want to pollute any hospital and certainly not the University hospital of
706
Wales. The concern about the environment of the hospital extends to concern about those living around the hospital. But, by now, residents in Heath and Gabalfa are not swallowing that answer easily, in the same way as they are not swallowing easily the emissions from the chimney of the University hospital of Wales.
Local councillors have felt it necessary—I have supported them—to continue their policy of oppositon to any intensification of use of the site of the University hospital of Wales. Recently, we had the opportunity to meet representatives of South Glamorgan health authority. The health authority made a good response and immediately admitted what we have been claiming for a long time—that the hospital has not been a good neighbour to those who live alongside it.
The health authority recognised that the hospital had been a source of major traffic problems and overspill parking and promised us that, in response to those problems, it would provide new access to Eastern avenue, which would provide the egress that the existing route does not provide, and new multi-storey car parking to increase parking within the hospital site. The health authority said that it hoped that those measures would be in place within about two years.
I very much welcome those moves and the positive attitude behind them. In the meantime, my constituents are afraid that they may suffer even greater problems. While the multi-storey car park is built, existing parking might be displaced, further inconveniencing the residents of King George V drive, Rhydhelig avenue and other roads around the University hospital of Wales which are named after saints.
We persuaded the health authority to withdraw its planning application providing for the incineration of all the extra refuse from all the other hospitals at the University hospital of Wales and, before it submits another planning application, at least to consult all the residents. The health authority has written to every immediate neighbour of the hospital inviting them to a public meeting next week in the hospital at which they promise to respond to every concern and to try to answer every question that is raised by neighbours. Those are steps forward in trying to improve our local environment in Cardiff, North. The problem of increased use of the incinerator must still be resolved—that must be a matter for Cardiff city council in making a decision about the planning application and for the new, far tougher standards of environmental protection which will be monitored by the environmental health department. At last, the health authority is showing the right approach.
Any belief that we were going forward on all fronts and confidence that we were making progress was, however, rudely disrupted a week ago. South Glamorgan council suddenly revived a proposal to establish a medi-centre on the site of the University hospital of Wales. That medi-centre will not be part of the NHS but will be purely commercial in operation. It will involve a development of 20,000 sq ft. There is a certain irony. If anyone other than a Labour-controlled council had come forward with this commercial operation for the campus of a national health service hospital, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and other Labour Members would be jumping up and down and shouting, "Privatisation". This Labour council not only is applying for planning permission but intends to determine that application. It is not the

707
planning authority—planning is usually the role of Cardiff city council. I understand that South Glamorgan county council will even be involved in the development.
Mr. Win Griffiths: During the passing of the Planning and Compensation Bill, Labour Members tabled an amendment to stop local authorities giving themselves planning permission in the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman described, but we were not successful in getting that amendment through. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should talk to Ministers about that point.
Mr. Jones: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Perhaps we have common cause in the whole-hearted will that exists in Wales for a move towards single-tier authorities in order to avoid the confusion of one council giving itself planning permission that might be in contravention of another council.
South Glamorgan council will be judge and jury and, perhaps, beneficiary of the commercial operation at the University hospital of Wales. We are threatened with a fait accompli, and it is feared that there will be little or no consultation with local residents about the latest intensification of the site of that hospital. Of course, South Glamorgan council is the highway authority. The planning application for increased incineration, which has now been withdrawn, would have entailed 20 heavy lorries a day going in and out of the hospital, so South Glamorgan council recommended that that application be turned down. A commercial development of 20,000 sq ft on the hospital site must surely entail many more vehicle movements than 20 a day, so it would be hypocritical if South Glamorgan council reversed its earlier judgment merely to give itself planning permission for a commercial development with which it is involved.
I felt that we had reached a stage at which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales needed to be involved—as far as he could be—in the matter. On Monday I led a delegation of local councillors to see him. We told him of the environmental problems caused by the University hospital of Wales. Although he doubted whether he could call in the latest planning application for a medi-centre, he promised that he would consider calling it in if it involved national matters, but local matters fall solely to the two local councils. However, he recognised the problems and instructed his officials at the Welsh Office to do what they could when South Glamorgan health authority made its proposals for new car parking and for access to Eastern avenue. He advised that the medi-centre should be part of the consultation process, and we look forward to its being on the agenda at next week's public meeting so that those who live around the hospital may have their say on that issue as on the incinerator. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his concern about the problems.
My constituents have endured too much. The environment around the University hospital of Wales which they might reasonably have expected has been ravaged. I believe that the proposal for the medi-centre is the final straw. Such proposals should not over-intensify the use of sites such as the University hospital of Wales where there is precious little room and too many adverse consequences for those who live alongside. Instead, there are the exciting plans for the redevelopment of south
708
Cardiff. Such proposals should be encouraged there. I still believe that the much expanded incineration should not go ahead at the University hospital of Wales. However, I am conscious that many steps have been made in that direction and that much investment has already been made. Any increase in incineration should at least be delayed for two years when the health authority hopes that the extra multi-storey car parking and new access to Eastern avenue will be in place so that there will be the least further environmental disturbance to my constituents. Even so, my constituents want the most stringent tests carried out under environmental protection legislation. My constituents in Heath and Gabalfa deserve the best guarantee that we can look forward to a better—not worse—environment because of the new incinerator at the University hospital of Wales.
I urge the two local councils—Cardiff city and South Glamorgan councils—to have as their prime consideration a regard for my constituents who live alongside the hospital. There should be no fait accompli or hypocrisy. Similarly, I look forward to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales taking any action that he can take on these important environmental problems.
Finally, I refer, briefly, to a no less important matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) mentioned this morning. He said that the number of green belts in England had doubled under a Conservative Government. We have no green belts in Wales, as the same legislation does not apply there, although that is being reviewed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. He has some sympathy with many of us who have campaigned for a statutory green belt policy. I look forward to the result of his review, which I hope will come soon.
Wales needs the protection of green belts and my constituency is an obvious candidate for such protection. My constituency extends from the central part of Cardiff to the mountain rim that forms the northern boundary of the capital city of Wales. There is little room for development in my constituency and any possible developments should be encouraged to go to or should be exclusively in south Cardiff. The M4 motorway should be regarded as the absolute limit of further development. There should be no developments north of the M4 as they would despoil the mountain edge of Cardiff which should be protected by a green belt. There are open green spaces south of the motorway between Lisvane and St. Mellons, but there is now a threat of development there. I should like to see that area protected by green belt legislation.
There should be a form of planning purity. All too often I hear of cases in which a developer proposes a form of planning gain in return for obtaining planning permission. That has been mentioned with regard to interchanges with the M4 in my constituency. However, the two matters should be entirely separate. A developer may apply for planning permission to the planning authority, but that application should be judged and determined solely on its merits. If the developer wants subsequently to pay for his own interchange with the motorway, that should be an entirely separate matter which should in no way influence the giving of the planning permission.
On the matters that I have brought to the House's attention, and in general, I support the stance outlined by my hon. Friend the Minister for the need to maintain and improve our environment.
10.56 am
Mr. Tom Cox: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), because he has mentioned issues to which I intend to refer, including the burning of hospital waste. I agree with all that he said—the same problems exist in my constituency and I am sure that many hon. Members will join me in supporting the action for which he has called.
This has been—and, I am sure, will continue to be—an interesting debate. It is an important one, because every aspect of the environment in which we live is of interest to us as individuals and is certainly of interest to the people whom we seek to represent. The issues involved in a healthy environment grow year by year. I represent a constituency very near Westminster and I bring to the House many groups of youngsters from schools. They are full of enthusiasm and questions, and the environment—our environment and the world environment—is top of the list of their questions. That is good for the country, as, I hope, is the legislation.
I welcome the increase in European Community legislation. I am a member of Parliament's delegation to the Council of Europe. The Minister for the Environment and Countryside is no longer here—I make no criticism of him for that—but I listened to his opening remarks, and I know that he will speak to colleagues in Brussels. I have never seen him at the Council of Europe and I serve on the social, health and family affairs committee, which he has never attended. Perhaps a colleague will convey my remarks to him. The Council of Europe and the social, health and family affairs committee comprise delegates from many countries and of various political persuasions. If the Minister attended and attempted to make the type of speech that he made here he would be laughed at.
The Council of Europe covers a much wider area with a much greater population than that covered by the European Economic Community. Many of the countries in central and eastern Europe now enjoy guest status in the Council. Sadly, under the old systems in those countries, protection of the environment did not figure highly. It is evident from the work in our committees that the environment is now of great importance to those countries. However, it is also evident that much greater co-operation is required between western European countries, which for a long time have been concerned about the environment, and the countries of eastern and central Europe. We need an exchange of ideas and those countries need help to improve and protect the environment.
The Minister of State did not touch on that. What is the Government's policy about helping emerging democracies in central and eastern Europe on this crucial issue? As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said, the environment knows no frontiers. The nuclear accident at Chernobyl affected this country even though we are hundreds of miles from the reactor. Pollution in rivers travels long distances. Therefore, we cannot say that the environment elsewhere does not concern us.
I am concerned about the Government's attitude to many things European, and certainly to the whole area of environmental protection. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury challenged the Minister to say where he stood on the criticism by the Environment Commissioner, Carlo Ripa di Meana. The current edition of the European
710
Parliament—EP News contains a major article headed "Environment Commissioner defends action". The article states that the Commissioner
"came before the House to defend his action of insisting on proper respect for EC environmental impact assessment legislation. He rejected the charge that he had acted with bias against the UK. This he described as 'offensive and unjust'.
Adding that he would not allow himself to be intimidated, he pointed out"—
as did my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury—
"that legal proceedings were pending against ten of the twelve EC countries for failure to respect EC rules on the assessment of large-scale works."
The European Environment Commissioner is not singling out the British, even though the Minister and other senior Ministers seek to attack this honourable Commissioner.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: One of the proposals affected is the road through Oxleas Wood. The major constitutional issues are whether British law complies with the directive and whether the transitional arrangements are adequate. May I plead with the Commissioner to reply to letters? I have not had a reply to a series of letters that I have sent, nor has the prospective Labour candidate in my constituency. Better communication might clear up some of the problems.
Mr. Cox: I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman, because I am sure that all hon. Members are annoyed when they do not receive replies to letters. If he wishes me to try to speed up replies, I shall certainly do so. The hon. Gentleman has been a Minister and is conversant with the systems that operate here. He has a local European Member of Parliament and I am sure that he is aware of ways by which he can speed up replies.
I can cite many examples of Government attacks on EC reports of the Government's actions. Some time ago, there were reports about pollution on British beaches. The Government complained about the cost and said that it was not a matter for them or that matters were not that bad. They also complained about unfairness, but there was no willingness to look at the charges or to have proper consultation with local authorities to see how they and the Government could work together to improve the general standards of our beaches.
Lord Stanley Clinton-Davis is a former European Commissioner and for many years he was in the House. I have read his highly critical speeches in the other place about the difficulties that he repeatedly encountered when trying to pursue European legislation and the obstruction that emanated from senior Ministers. A current example, the social charter, gives a clear indication of the Government's continuing hostility to anything European. The charter covers not only salaries, a minimum wage and maternity benefit but deals with many issues. The minutes of the Council of Europe, which were published in October, refer to the fourth environmental action programme of the European Economic Community and the Council of Europe. Under the heading "Protecting the Environment, the Worker and the Public", the minutes state:
"The Single European Act and the Fourth Environmental Action Programme make clear that the environment is an integral part of the Community's economic, social, industrial, agricultural and other policies. The Action Programme declares the Commissioner's intention of making maximum use of contributions made by the Foundation whose work programmes have already included issues such as hazardous wastes, contaminated land, and voluntary initiatives in the environment."

711
That shows that, despite what we are told by Conservatives, the social charter is not solely about salaries and general working conditions on the shop floor but also plays a major role in the environment. The document also states that the charter intends to broaden work on the urban environment, industry, local communities and general safety at work. It refers to urban decline and work on rural and coastal areas.
The social charter has an enormous role to play and we should concern ourselves with that, because it is relevant to us all, wherever we live and whatever part of the country we represent. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how much of that programme, which the EC and the Council of Europe support, is supported by the Government. We are full members of both bodies.
When I attend meetings in Paris or Strasbourg at which such issues arise, I find it frustrating to hear the continuing opposition from Conservative Members, especially in the Council of Europe. It would be interesting to hear just how much of the programme that I have outlined the Government support, those aspects of it that they do not, and why.
I represent an inner-city area of London. As we all know, not only in London but in many of our big cities, there are areas of great depression—neglected areas where there are thousands of people out of work—and those areas have existed for a long time. We have had troubles in various parts of the country in recent months, and I realise that there may be many reasons for that, but I am convinced that one of them is the depressing effect that such areas have on those who live in them. When one asks people what they think of their area and why they do not show more interest in it, their response is likely to be, "Why bother? What concern is it of ours? Who shows any interest in us?" The environment is crucial in this respect, and that is why the Council of Europe and its social, health and family affairs committee show continuing interest and involvement in these matters.
I have expressed the view held by the whole of the committee, which represents countries with Governments of various political colours and is made up of members belonging to various political parties. There is complete agreement on the commitment of the Council of Europe to dealing with the issue, and I repeat that it would be interesting to hear just where the Government stand.
I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, North that, although we must be involved in protecting the environment nationally and internationally, in the end, it is a local issue, crucial to those whom we represent. I shall refer briefly to one of the matters touched on by the hon. Gentleman, although I shall not speak on it for as long as I had intended, because the hon. Gentleman made wide-ranging reference to it himself, I congratulate him on that. The burning of hospital waste is certainly relevant in my area because, for years St. George's hospital, Tooting has been burning enormous quantities of such waste—often for days on end. The soot deposits from its chimneys fall in the residential area in which it is sited, settling on washing, paintwork and parked cars and on the plants in people's gardens—all of which suffer. I am sure that the House can imagine the feelings of someone who hangs out the washing one sunny morning only to find, on going to collect it three or four hours later, that it is full of holes
712
caused by the soot deposits coming out of the hospital chimney. People have brought their cars to my advice surgery to show me burnt paintwork caused by soot deposits. No doubt the hon. Member for Cardiff, North shares a problem that I have, which is that, unfortunately, it is the most difficult thing imaginable to try to get any recompense in respect of property damaged in this way. An elderly constituent of mine came to me and said, "I have had my car for 12 years; it is my life. I have always looked after it because I know that I cannot afford another one." The chap in question went to his car one day and found burn marks all over the bodywork. When he came to see me, I said that I would write to the chairlady of the health authority, who replied that she was very sorry that this had happened but asked whether the gentleman could prove that the burn marks had been caused by the deposit from the hospital chimney. Most of our constituents—and possibly we ourselves—would be likely to respond, "Where else would it have come from?" Perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff, North agrees with me that, although one knows what the problem is and the damage that it is causing, it is very difficult to get anything done about it.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment and was told that it was really a matter for the chief environmental officer of the local authority, but when I took the matter up with the local environmental officer, his response—and it is to his credit that he responded—was, "Well, it may be bad, but it is not really so bad that I must take any action." When one passes such messages back to one's constituents, they say, "Who will do something to stop this nuisance, which is causing enormous problems not only to me but to the whole area?" Sadly, in these cases, one gets nowhere. I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, North that we must consider the question of responsibility and tighten up the legislation.
A nuisance is also caused by the siting of petrol stations in residential areas. A planning application has been made for the building of a petrol station in the midst of a residential area in my constituency. Hon. Members may say that petrol stations are to be found in residential areas everywhere in the country and I do not dispute that, but in the area in question there is no shortage of petrol stations and the local people say that they do not want another one damaging their environment and that there is no need for it. The parents of youngsters who go to play at the two local nurseries are very worried about the effects that the petrol station will have on their children. People are also worried about the general effect of the new station on their community. But what happens when one tries to get it stopped? We are told that there are procedures—and I accept the need for them—but when the matter goes to the local council's planning department, it is argued that there are strong grounds for allowing the application. When one asks what they are, one is told, "Oh, well, the petrol company wants to build it." One can only ask, "But what about the local community, which does not want it?" I know that the Minister may not be in a position to respond in detail to the comments made on this subject by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North and me, but I hope that he will take them on board and I ask him to write to us on these important local issues.
I hope that the remarks of those who speak in this debate—critical or otherwise—will be acted upon, because the environment is crucial to all those whom we seek to represent.
11.27 am
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: No one can possibly be against a cleaner environment and the conservation of rare and irreplaceable species such as elephants, whales and orchids. Similarly, no one can possibly be against the concept of better quality air and drinking water. Nevertheless, it is very important that, before we start legislating on the scale that the Opposition advocate, we make very sure that we are doing so on a sound factual basis.
I should like to point out to the House just how ignorant we are about many of the matters on which we legislate. We legislate because we are put under great pressure by a new group of what I call eco-terrorists, who seek to press their opinions on politicians. Many of them are ex-socialists and their green wellies have red linings. They want more rules and regulations and more Government interference. They put all environmental problems down to the wicked industrialists, notwithstanding the fact that much of the pollution comes from eastern Europe. Presumably, it is the wicked socialists who are responsible for that, but we never hear them mentioned.
The motor car is now the big demon of the left because, supposedly, it pollutes our atmosphere, but the fact is that it is the most treasured possession of many people—including working people—because it allows them to get around independently. That does not seem to enter into the reckoning, however, and the socialists want use of the motor car to be controlled. Before we start slapping all sorts of controls and restrictions on cars, we ought to find out a little more about the effect that they are really having on the environment.
I want this morning to consider the effect of some of those issues on our planet and particularly on our atmosphere, and I begin by considering the ozone layer. We have been told that it develops holes which allow radiation through and that causes all sorts of curious and devastating effects. The big villain substances are the chlorofluorocarbon gases—or CFCs, for short. Those substances are basic to many industrial processes.
People have argued that hairsprays, hamburger packaging and refrigerator gases are causing holes in the ozone layer. However, we do not compare the effect of those things with natural elements in the environment. Mount St. Augustine is one of the great volcanoes on earth. In 1976 it exploded and gave out 290 billion kg of hydrochloric acid into the upper atmosphere and into the ozone layer. That was the equivalent of 570 times the world's industrial production of CFC gases. That must have a profound effect on the ozone layer.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Gorman: I will give way later.
Observations about the ozone layer are being made in MacMurdo sound in the Antarctic which is just 15 miles upwind from another great volcano called Mount Erebus. That volcano erupts constantly. For the past 100 years it has ejected more than 1,000 tonnes of chlorine into the atmosphere every day. Compared to those massive events, the quantity of CFCs produced by industrial complexes is absolutely negligible. It is potty and ridiculous to suggest that stopping people spraying their armpits with deodorants will have an effect on issues of that scale.
People who make such assertions do so not so much on a scientific basis, but because they have another axe to
714
grind. They want to condemn industrial output. I am not saying that we should allow industry to pollute, and I entirely support the Government's claim that the polluter should pay. For example, it is possible to monitor pollution from incinerator chimneys in hospitals and in that regard I sympathise with the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and the problems that he has in his constituency.
There should be codes of practice and we should prosecute people who carelessly ignore the interests of their surroundings. I am in favour of that, but that is different from setting up international agencies whose legislation and ideas may have devastating effects on industries in western countries while leaving eastern countries to carry on processes over which the rest of us have no control. We should discover the facts before we peddle such half-baked and unscientific ideas.
The greenhouse effect is something else that is supposedly happening on our planet. The theory is that carbon dioxide and other related gases accumulate in the atmosphere, raise the temperature, melt the icecaps and flood countries. We are going to boil or drown that is the basic, crude, but nevertheless simplistic theory upon which we are supposed to legislate.
We are extremely ignorant about climatology in our atmosphere. We know little about the effect of clouds on our climate. If the theory is correct, when the sun shines, the heat builds up, the water evaporates and more clouds form, what happens to those clouds? Clouds act as a blanket above the earth. They deflect the sun's heat. We never hear about that.
What about plants? When I was a 10-year-old school girl, I knew enough biology to know that plants gobble up carbon dioxide in the way that dogs gobble up bones. They love it: the more they get, the more they grow. In fact, more carbon dioxide means more forests, more grass and more green plants. I do not think that there are 50 people in this place who know enough biology to appreciate that. If the theory was correct, plants would welcome a build-up of carbon dioxide because most plants photosynthesise at less than 50 per cent. of their full capacity, and I can say that as a practising biologist for the past 25 years.
People like Sir Crispin Tickell, who, I believe, was once our ambassador in New York, join in with the eco-madness and advice us that unless we do something to control carbon emissions from motorcars the earth will heat up, the icecaps will melt and Florida and, I dare say, Parliament will be submerged. However, melting ice does not occupy very much more space that the ice floes. The only extra bit is the little bit that sticks out above the water. The effect that that would have in raising ocean levels is absolutely minute. If we melt a block of ice, it does not take up more space. I hope that all hon. Members understand that, I sometimes feel that I am talking to one of my classes for 10-year-olds when I give them lessons on very elementary and basic science.
However, that aspect of the greenhouse theory is another piece of mumbo-jumbo. Some organisations in this country now have a vested interest in frightening the wits out of us. They are worriers and meddlers. Organisations such as Friends of the Earth do some good work, but in many ways they go right over the top in trying to persuade the Government to introduce legislation. People like Mr. Porritt make a great profession out of being eco-champions of our country. He talks a load of rot as well. Then there are mega-millionaires like Sir James

715
Goldsmith. He has also become part of the eco-terrorist movement and is going to devote his great fortune to saving us from our sins. I wish that he had stuck with baked beans. Incidentally, baked beans also produce a great deal of carbon dioxide gas, as do cows. There was a theory that the increase in the number of cattle kept in civilised societies was contributing to the greenhouse effect. That was put forward as a scientific point of view. So much for the evidence on which a great deal of that theory is based.
My message to the Government is that before they pursue or are pushed or goaded into introducing yet more regulations, which would have to be draconian to have effect, they should seriously consider the matter. It is estimated that, if we did away with every car in the western hemisphere, we would prevent temperature increases by less than 1 deg C. We can all work that one out. It is alleged that there has been a 100 per cent. increase in CO2 over the past 100 years. However, many of the measurements 100 years ago were extremely susceptible to error. The actual increase has been from three parts in 1 million to four parts in 1 million. That is hardly Armageddon. Even if those predictions are correct, the amounts involved are minute, yet we are often asked to introduce regulations on cars and industry based on that kind of evidence.
Mr. Hugo Summerson: From her biological experience, would my hon. Friend tell the House something about the effects on human physiology of having to breathe in exhaust fumes?
Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I have told him that I believe that we should apply codes of practice to pollution. I do not like the smell. I hate crossing the road at the corner of Parliament street and being deluged by very unpleasant smells. I entirely support my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson). However, that is different from the attacks that the eco-terrorists make on the car industry in wanting to restrict the number of cars. By all means let us have clean cars, but do not let us pretend that the car is responsible for the greenhouse effect and global warming. Let us get our facts and science right. Let us go to people who know some good, real science. Let us invest in the quality of science that can be produced for us by the Royal Society and by other organisations so that we legislate on the basis of good scientific information.
The people who are now pushing the idea of global warming and the greenhouse effect are the same people who, 10 years ago, were telling us that we were moving into an ice age. They are exactly the same pseudo-scientists. They are very active in America, although, thank goodness, a rearguard action is now being fought there and politicians such as President Bush are now thinking twice about pursuing some of the more extreme environmental legislation.
If we did away with every industrial process, the effects on our climate would be practically nil, because the effects on our climate are entirely due to our proximity to the sun, the movement of our planet in its orbit and the fact that it wobbles about a bit, which causes other periodic changes in our climate. Gigantic outbursts of energy from the sun—sun spots—affect what happens here on the earth. They
716
create holes in our atmosphere from time to time, and that in turn affects the transmission of electronic signals. All those things are facts. Bearing in mind the little bit of the earth which is actually occupied by people—less than 10 per cent. of the earth's surface—the mega effects in which the eco-terrorists believe are a contradiction of any kind of common sense.
I ask the Government not to be stampeded or terrified into legislating in an atmosphere of ignorance. Most of the people who try to push those fashionable theories are about as accurate as a horoscope or "Old Moore's Almanack" in predicting what our planet will be like. I will join any of my colleagues who want to make our streets more pleasant and clean and who want to stop dirty old chimneys or dirty old industries dumping their rubbish in the environment without a proper costing of what they are doing to the rest of us. All hon. Members would support that. However, we must not be driven into draconian legislation that would have a devastating effect on our industries, because, at the end of the day, every time we push a factory out of existence because it has been polluting the atmosphere we destroy people's jobs.
We must not let this matter develop into a campaign against the motor car. The motor car provides the greatest pleasure that many people have. Even the hon. Member for Tooting would find that his constituent did not want to do away with his motor car. We must do as the Government say—make the polluter pay and keep an eye on things. Best of all, we must have good scientific information on which to work. We must not allow the Porritts and the Goldsmiths of this world to dictate the rest of the legislation that we design on this subject.
11.43 am
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) I understand that she was a biology teacher. I suggest that she sticks to biology and does not mention chemistry or physics or talk about the ozone layer and chlorofluorocarbons, because there were profound scientific errors in what she said, but then that is the standard of science after 10 years of Conservative Government.
I am pleased that we have this debate on the environment so soon after the previous one on 12 July. I was pleased then that it was our first full-scale environment debate during this Parliament. It is a pity that we could not wait another couple of weeks before holding this debate, because, before the end of this month, the National Rivers Authority will publish the results of the water quality survey which it carried out during 1990. That will be a significant report because it is a cumulative index of water pollution. It gives an idea of what has been achieved in river quality in the past five to 10 years.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) pointed out in her excellent speech, that report, which has been leaked, will show that 6,323 km of our rivers have deteriorated since the previous survey in 1985 and that 4,631 km have improved—11 per cent. have improved and 15 per cent. have become worse. The balance is negative—a 4 per cent. net deterioration in the quality of our rivers.
From 1958 to 1980, successive surveys showed that we were improving the quality of our rivers. However, the new survey will demonstrate that there has been a net deterioration of 6 per cent. during the past decade. That

717
shows the measure of care of the environment under this Government. That is the real measure, not the Minister's windy rhetoric. Our rivers are not getting better. They improved for more than 20 years, but they are now getting worse.
The report blames intensive agriculture, slurry, effluent, droughts—there have been two years of drought, especially in eastern Britain—acid rain, run-off from contaminated land and, the biggest culprit, reduced Government expenditure on sewage treatment in the run-up to water privatisation. The Government call water privatisation the solution to our problems, but it is the cause of our problems. Privatisation and cuts in expenditure on sewage treatment have led to the deterioration of our rivers. I hope that that report will get the publicity that it deserves. I challenge the Government to offer a three-hour debate on that report.
The National Rivers Authority is our independent watchdog. We supported its creation and we are very glad of its relative success. It is doing very good work. I am delighted to note that the number of prosecutions last year increased from 334 to 908. Every privatised water authority was prosecuted, but the fines were quite trivial. The fines that were imposed on the 10 water companies total £49,000. Quite honestly, last year's pay rise for Elfed Jones, the chairman of Welsh Water, would have paid all the fines that were inflicted on the water authorities. In 1988, the last year for which we have figures, there were 26,926 incidents of water pollution. We must ask ourselves and the NRA why only one in 30 of those incidents led to prosecution. Why does it not enforce the law much more regularly?
In the past few months, Greenpeace has successfully prosecuted Albright and Wilson for pollution in Whitehaven. It intends to take legal action against the NRA for default of its legal responsibilities and to call for a judicial review, particularly of why there were so few prosecutions when there are so many incidents of pollution, and why British consents to industrial companies are so lax compared with those in the United States and Germany. Why do we not adopt the same high environmental standards as those countries?
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred earlier to the problems in and around the Coalite plant in Bolsover where dioxin contamination has been found in the river, in farm animals and in cows' milk. We now hear that there is cluster of breast cancers around Bolsover. At environment questions on Wednesday my hon. Friend was told that HMIP is now investigating that matter and taking some action. I am glad that the Coalite plant, which is undoubtedly the prime suspect, if not the cause of the problems, will be closed down at the end of this month and overhauled. However, why has HMIP taken so long to identify that problem? Dioxins are now so abundant in that environment that it is too late to solve the problem.
Let us consider HMIP's record over the years. Last year I worked on the report produced by the Select Committee on the Environment on the ReChem plant in Pontypool, where polychlorinated biphenyls are incinerated, especially imported PCBs which are much more profitable. The monitoring of that plant by HMIP has been pathetic and feeble. Hardly any samples have been taken. It has simply been a case of drawing up a code of practice and entering
718
into discussions, negotiations, encouragement and exhortation as a means of trying to encourage the plant to adopt good practice.
Mrs. Gorman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us how he suggests that we deal with industrial waste. All societies produce it, so we must have sensible plans for dealing with it. What are his plans if we are not to incinerate such waste safely?
Mr. Williams: There must generally be far greater emphasis on waste minimisation, which does not happen at all at the moment in British industry. Because it is cheap to throw things away and to pump waste into the air or water, that is what industry does and that is exactly what would continue to happen in the undisciplined, anything goes, free market society that the hon. Lady advocated earlier.
Waste minimisation is proving highly successful in Germany, on the continent generally, and in the United States. Between three quarters and 90 per cent. of industrial waste is unnecessary. Incineration is not the right way to treat PCBs or other highly toxic organic solvents which produce dioxins. There are other methods of dealing with PCBs and contaminated organic solvents, such as by hydrogenation or heating them with lime. I should prefer PCBs to be stored above ground until the alternative methods of dealing with them prove economic and viable.
The low level of air pollution monitoring in this country is a scandal. Water pollution is monitored by the National Rivers Authority. Solid waste dumping is subject to some regulations; perhaps they are not strong enough, but there is reasonable enforcement of them. However, there is hardly any legislation on air pollution and virtually no enforcement. The total number of air pollution prosecutions by HMIP since 1987 is nine—that is two a year. That can be contrasted with the 900 prosecutions brought last year by the NRA. When it comes to air pollution, it is open house for the polluter.
Mrs. Gorman: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to give way again. One of the nice things about Friday mornings is that hon. Members are so good about letting their colleagues get in on the act. What about the clean air legislation? When I was a little girl, we went to school in winter in thick smog—in choking ghastliness. The air in this country has been improved enormously, so why do people keep saying that things are getting worse? They are getting better.
Mr. Williams: There is no question about the success of the Clean Air Act 1956 and I pay tribute to the Conservative Government for introducing it. The problem now is not one of soot and carbon monoxide, which the Clean Air Act was designed to solve, but of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, the Clean Air Act does nothing to solve the problem of acid rain. Sulphur is present in all coal, oil and gas which, on burning, produce sulphur dioxide and acid rain. We have known for a century that all fossil fuels produce acidic fumes, but in the past 20 years we have come to realise that acid rain is a serious problem. The British Government, however, were the last Government in Europe to realise that. It was only in 1987 that the former Prime Minister suddenly woke up to acid rain on a flight to Norway where she was due to meet Mrs.

719
Brundtland. Although I am glad of that late realisation, the sad fact is that when the Government leave office some time next year, not one of our power stations will have been cleaned up. Let us compare the position here with what happens in Germany, Holland and many other European countries. Virtually every fossil fuel power station in Germany has flue gas desulphurisation, but not a single power station in this country is fitted with such equipment.
I represent Carmarthen in west Wales. The neighbouring constituency to the west is Pembroke, which contains a 2,000 MW oil power station. Unfortunately, because of the price of oil, since it was built 20 years ago that power station has operated at only one third of its capacity. There is currently a proposal to convert it to burning orimulsion, which is a new fuel that is derived from Venezuelan tar sands. That is a type of surface bitumen which is cheap to extract and which can be transported from Venezuela to Britain and be used as a cheap fuel. I should be delighted if it were possible to burn orimulsion cleanly, because the Venezuelan deposit contains as much oil as the middle east reserves.
However, the problem is that orimulsion contains about 2·7 per cent. sulphur, which is a high proportion—twice that of British coal and much higher than the sulphur content of fuel oils. National Power has submitted a planning application to use orimulsion in that power station which it would then run at full capacity—at either 1,000 or 1,500 MW. That would churn out a massive amount of sulphur dioxide.
It is a sign of the climate created by the Government that that planning application has been submitted without any thought being given to the installation of flue gas desulphurisation. There is no question but that if that plant was located in Germany, Holland or any other western European country, the owner—the power generator—would fit flue gas desulphurisation. If that application goes ahead, the Pembroke power station will become the largest sulphur dioxide emitter in Britain, emitting 200,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide per year in its fumes. As I have said, the power station is located in Pembroke which has prevailing south-westerly winds. My constituency neighbours it and, in turn, is abutted by mid-Wales. Then we have the rest of Britain. That must be the worst possible location for any high acid rain polluter.
Earlier this year scientists at the Department of the Environment produced a report that was critical of the Government's acid rain record.
It said that in the privatisation programme
"the Government should have insisted on power stations in the west being fitted to cut acid rain which sweeps across Britain with the prevailing wind."
That is the feeling within the Department of the Environment.
I ask the Minister to contact her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to make it clear that when it considers the planning application it must insist that the project has flue gas desulphurisation. I should be happy if that were the case. In my constituency we have problems of acid rain in the Towy valley and the head waters of the Towy. Sinbrianyw Llyn Brianne reservoir at the head of the valley has to be limed regularly to counter the problems of acid rain. Will the Minister comment on the view of the
720
Department of the Environment on the oil emulsion project? Does he agree that the power station should have flue gas desulphurisation cleaning equipment?
I have talked about rivers and air pollution and I now wish to deal with solid waste. I welcomed many of the measures in the Environmental Protection Bill introduced two years ago. I welcomed the measures on the disposal of domestic waste, and to some extent, industrial waste. However, the importation of toxic waste presents serious problems. We now import 10 times as much toxic waste as we did in 1980. One such waste is incinerator fly ash. We accept that incinerators produce dioxins, heavy metals and several other pollutants. In many countries fly ash is classified as a special or toxic waste. In Britain it is not. There is a trade in its import. The waste is dumped in landfill sites in Britain. That is not good enough. That trade should be stopped. All toxic wastes should be disposed of in their countries of origin. It is for Germany, Switzerland and other countries to develop their own facilities for the disposal of wastes.
Back in July the Opposition welcomed the Government's apparent decision to set up an environmental protection agency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury explained, we had hoped to co-operate with the Government in this Session of Parliament to establish such an agency. But the measure is not in the Queen's Speech because of squabbling between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is important that when the agency is set up it takes over the whole of the National Rivers Authority. The NRA must not be dismembered. It is a good, impressive environmental watchdog and we need it to have sharper and sharper teeth. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should not take over any of the NRA's responsibilities, especially given the record of MAFF and its lack of concern on any environmental issue.
We want an environmental protection agency based on the NRA and incorporating HM IP. There should be much stronger measures on air pollution monitoring and control. The agency should also have responsibility for waste disposal and the type of work done by the countryside councils. All those matters should come under one powerful umbrella organisation which is independent of the Government. Clearly the Government do not have sufficient commitment to go ahead with that. We await a general election next year after which we shall have a Government who are properly committed to the environment and that environmental protection agency—so much so that we shall have our own Minister for environmental protection.
12.3 pm
Mr. Hugo Summerson: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). He speaks with great knowledge and expertise on environmental matters, so it is all the more pity that he does not always get things right. He spoke about the National Rivers Authority's report. I have here a copy of the Water Bulletin of 1 November. It is the journal of the water industry. Under the heading "Rivers report is leaked", it says:
"The long-awaited five-yearly river quality report due to be published by the NRA later in November has been leaked in an incomplete form to Friends of the Earth… This week, however, water companies had only seen incomplete copies of the draft report.…This is the second occasion in a week when important and confidential information related to the water

721
industry has been leaked. A few days before, a letter from EC Commissioner Carlo Ripa di Meana about drinking water was leaked to the Labour Party".
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that he quoted from an incomplete draft of the report.
Another article in the magazine is entitled:
"WSA attacks Labour leak 'travesty"'.
It says:
"Claims by Labour's environment spokeswoman Ann Taylor that an EC letter showed the Government had given water companies 'licences to pollute' were described as a 'travesty' by the Water Services Association last week.
WSA Secretary Mike Carney said of Ann Taylor's statement, issued under the headline 'New initiative by Ripa di Meana (EC Commissioner) adds to embarrassment for John Major'…
'These so-called "pollution licences" are statutory undertakings given to Government by each of the companies. They commit the companies to investment in work to be completed by specified dates to correct the few remaining exceedences of EC requirements.
It is clear that Mrs. Taylor does not understand the statutory arrangements for water companies and is grossly ignorant of the facts about water quality in her own country'."
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his position? Does he believe that the Government have the power to grant a domestic derogation which was, after all, the subject of the letter from the Commissioner? He will not find the answer in the article to which he referred. However, the Commissioner has written on the basis that the British Government have once again failed to abide by EC regulations and have tried to grant domestic derogations on more than 4,000 cases. That is the point. Will he comment on that technicality?
Mr. Summerson: I can best reply to that point by quoting the WSA which goes on to say in that article:
"'Britain is in breach of the pesticide parameter in a few cases,… But there is no health risk and work is being undertaken to comply. Until then what does the Commissioner want us to do—turn off the supply to all the people affected? The directive does not say what we should do."'
Does the hon. Lady also advocate turning off the water supply to people before the work is done? It is clear that there is no risk to health.
Mrs. Taylor: I want to make a constructive suggestion which I hope will receive the hon. Gentleman's support. One of our problems when we are discussing water quality is that many people in Britain do not know whether their supply of water reaches EC standards. Would the hon. Gentleman join me in calling on the Government, perhaps in the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill, published today as part of the citizens charter, to introduce amendments to legislation so that when individual consumers receive their water bill they also receive information at the bottom about whether the water supply reaches EC standards?
Mr. Summerson: It is clear that already no water is supplied to customers which is not of the required quality. I have also told the hon. Lady that work is being carried out to ensure that water satisfies the various requirements. I do not see that there is any difficulty.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is not in the Chamber to hear my remarks, because I want to mention some more examples of Euro nonsense. Of course I shall relate them to the subject under debate.
722
Standardisation is a theme that has become the bureaucrat's hobby horse—Commissioners can talk of little else. For instance, Mr. Antonio Cardoso, the EC Energy Commissioner, claimed at a recent conference in Copenhagen:
"Citizens of Europe cannot accept rail gauges which are not uniform… Citizens of Europe cannot accept that even simple actions like the use of an electric razor can become impossible by lack of use of normalization of domestic power sockets… Citizens of Europe cannot accept different dialling codes, different speed limits, different currency units, even different external policy, security and defence concepts."
I should like the House to ponder briefly the effects that attempting to impose standard rail gauges would have on the environment of this country.
A lot has been said about water in the debate. Last year, I introduced the Water Requirements (Planning) Bill under which all those who sought to put up new buildings would have to give notice of the building and its water requirements to the local water supply company.
The use of water has become excessive. The National Rivers Authority has developed extensive safeguards to ensure that new water abstractions cause minimal impact on river ecology, but the problem arises with existing abstractions.
With the passing of the Water Act 1989, provision was made for all existing abstractions for domestic and most agricultural purposes to be granted a licence of entitlement. That has had and will continue to have devastating effects on ground water abstraction. The great advantage of taking ground water is that it tends to be pure and needs minimum treatment. However, as people install more washing machines and dishwashing machines, and as they get more cars and want to wash them more frequently, they use more water.
Most people have no idea where water comes from and simply do not realise that rivers are drying up in this country because of excessive ground water abstraction. Most people do not realise that one third of domestic water consumption is used for flushing lavatories. We will have to introduce metering in people's homes, and I believe that in times of drought when water is short there should be a higher tariff to make people aware that it is in short supply. At the moment there is no mechanism for bringing home to people that water is in short supply, that rivers, streams, springs and wells are drying up and levels of ground water in many areas are falling unacceptably.
The answer lies in building more reservoirs to store high winter flows. There would probably be a public outcry at that until people realised that less than one quarter of 1 per cent. of the surface area of England is covered by still water, and that percentage is even lower in the south east where there is the worst problem.
Many of our rivers are sick and no one knows why. Famous rivers such as the Test and the Avon are suffering. The number of fish caught in those rivers falls year by year. What is going on? The answer lies in agricultural practice. Much sediment goes into rivers which did not go into them before. Pesticides, fertilisers, silage liquor—which gets spilt from time to time—and slurry are being put on the land and they all have an effect on rivers, especially when one bears in mind until recently the Test flowed through water meadows, reed beds and wet woodlands. Intensive arable agriculture has only recently taken place in the Test valley.
I advocate riparian buffer—zones strips of woodland, a minimum of 10 m and perhaps up to 100 m wide, running

723
back from the banks of the river. They would absorb much of the detritus of agricultural practice—the pesticides, slurry, fertilisers and all the effects of ploughing and cultivation. Perhaps they could be set up as environmentally sensitive areas or even as water protection zones under section 3 of the Water Act 1989.
With the advent of set-aside, there is great potential for riparian buffer zones. After all, we are told that apparently more than 6 million acres of farmland will be surplus to requirements by the turn of the century, so there must be huge potential for such schemes. A strip 50 m wide on each side of a river would take about 40 acres per mile. So 1 per cent. of 6 million acres would protect about 1,500 miles of stream. I recommend that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench consider that idea.
As regards my constituency, I must mention the channel tunnel link which is to come through Stratford to King's Cross. I welcome the fact that the link will come through Stratford, which is quite close to my constituency. It will help to rejuvenate an area which is badly in need of investment. However, I give this warning. Those people who may cast a greedy eye over Walthamstow marshes, to build new railway lines to take some of the traffic through north-east London to the midlands, the north and Scotland, had better think again. The people of Walthamstow value Walthamstow marshes highly. They are a site of special scientific interest; they are extremely ancient and are full of the most interesting species of plant and bird life, including owls and foxes. I have seen a tern fishing in one of the little streams that runs through there. The marshes are an open lung in an otherwise heavily built-up area and must remain undisturbed.
While on the subject of railways, may I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the Barking to Gospel Oak line, which is a byword for inefficiency and uselessness. We all know that railways are environmentally sound and friendly. If that line could be made to work efficiently, it would help the environment greatly by taking a lot of traffic off the roads.
The day will come when future generations will look back with incredulity on our willingness to share our cities with the internal combustion engine. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay that the car is a great asset, but surely there must be different ways to propel it. I look forward to the day when in our towns and cities there will be electrically powered cars which are quiet, pollution-free and efficient. The generation of power for the motor car will be moved back to power stations and so the pollution generated when generating that power can be dealt with in one place, at the power station. The Environmental Protection Act 1990—a fine Act—contains two aspects relating to noise and litter pollution. Many of my constituents and those of other Members suffer from noise generated by selfish people and their activities. The Act contains strong measures to enable local authorities and local people to stop noise. I urge people to take note of those provisions and to use them wherever possible. If they were to do so, their own quality of life would be greatly enhanced.
12.20 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that Environment Ministers will listen to three of the issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson). I agree with his comments on water, and our abuse and excessive use of it.
I also share the hon. Gentleman's view that we have become a nation, and a world, increasingly in hock to the motor vehicle in a way that substantially undermines our quality of life. And we are increasingly blighted by noise. As I do not want to make a great contribution on that subject, I shall ask Ministers to consider merely one noise issue, that from vehicles. I understand that the Environmental Protection Act does not cover noise emission from moving vehicles. It deals with noise from moving vessels and from buildings, but not noise from vehicles, which is the cause of much complaint.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) made a new sort of green contribution today; she was dressed in a new sort of green outfit, which should have warned us about what was coming. I think that her attack on eco-terrorists and pseudo-scientists will be answered line by line and verse by verse in due course by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. The hon. Lady has a capacity for speaking in lay people's language, but she does not always understand the implications of some of the ideas that she propounds. Although volcanoes may contribute enormously to the destruction of our atmosphere, it seems that there is not much that we can do about preventing that, whereas we can do a little to protect the atmosphere from destruction by industry and transport. Although there is a native logic in some of what the hon. Lady says, we should not be beguiled by the first-year secondary school biology lesson she sought to give us this morning.
Today is the first day after the week's debate on the Queen's Speech. The subject of the environment was not thought sufficiently important to be debated—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): That is a matter for the Opposition.
Mr. Hughes: I am just about to deal with the Minister's sedentary intervention, which is correct.
The environment was not thought sufficiently important to be included in the debate on the Queen's Speech. That was the Labour party's fault because it chooses the subjects for debate, and it chose to exclude the environment.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: The subject was not contained in the Queen's Speech.
Mr. Hughes: It is not enough to say that the subject was not contained in the Queen's Speech. I have already criticised the Government on the matter; the Queen's Speech contained just one sentence referring to next year's Brazil conference. There was nothing on the subject in the Prime Minister's speech and not a word from the Chancellor in the autumn statement or in the speech that he gave in the last day's debate on the Queen's Speech yesterday. The Secretary of State for the Environment chose not to speak about the environment at all.
We must ensure that the record is straight. We have had one week's debate on the priorities for this new political

725
year; the Government chose not to put the environment as a priority in the Queen's Speech and the Labour party chose not to put it as a priority in the subsequent debate.
Mrs. Ann Taylor rose—
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady is desperate to make her defence, and I shall let her do so now.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, although I am not desperate to make the defence. The hon. Gentleman is merely saying, "A plague on both your houses"—the normal Liberal line. I was expecting slightly more constructive comments about the environment. The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that the fact that the environment did not feature in the Queen's Speech except for one reference to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development which we spent considerable time debating on 12 July—must be a reasonable reason for the subject being squeezed out of the debates. In addition, we knew that today's debate was taking place.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady's case will rest on its merits. The Labour party could have chosen to debate the environment. The fact that it is being debated today was a matter for negotiation between the Tory and Labour spokesmen through the usual channels. There was a carve-up and neither of the two largest parties thought fit to put environment in the first week's programme of the Session. People may draw their own conclusions about that.
Mr. Morgan: The environment debate is two days later than the other debate.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) seeks to make light of the subject. However, everybody protests all the time about how important the issue is and the hon. Gentleman knows prefectly well that the Labour party could have chosen to make it a priority.
Mr. Gerald Bowden: I am not making a party political point, but we should note the number of Members in the Chamber today. On an issue of such dramatic importance, it is disgraceful that the attendance should be so light.
Mr. Morgan: There is a higher proportion of Liberals than of other parties here, even though there is only one of them.
Mr. Hughes: So unfair is the system that by being here myself I am ensuring that my party has a high percentage attendance. When the revolution comes, and we have a decent system, there will be many more of us.
The obvious omission from the Queen's Speech was the environmental protection agency which was derailed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There were lesser omissions such as the legislation on hedgerows—a cause to which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is personally committed, but which was not included in the Queen's Speech—and legislation on common land, which has sadly slipped down the Government's agenda from its position three years ago, for no very obvious reason. Another obvious failure in the political rather than legislative programme was the failure to commit any significant new resources to environmental matters—that point was conceded by the Secretary of State for the
726
Environment in his press release, the announcements and the simple figures. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary is nodding negatively——
Mr. Baldry: I shall deal with the matter.
Mr. Hughes: The Minister says that he will deal with it, but if we look at Government expenditure Department by Department, we can break down the Department of the Environment element into the environment sector as opposed to the housing or local government sectors, we see a reduction from the estimated outturn this year—£750 million—to £610 million next year, £600 million for the following year and £580 million for the year after that. It is a matter of fact that, according to the Government's projections, the amount of money that has been committed is less. That may be defended, but it is incompatible with their argument that priority is being given to environmental matters.
Also shunted off into a convenient siding was the Government's commitment to do what they said was necessary about raising fuel prices. On Monday of this week the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment expressly recommended that fuel prices should be increased. The Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Trade and Industry said that they could not comment on that; it was up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the Chancellor said nothing about raising revenue from that source. I appreciate that that is principally a matter for the Budget. Nevertheless, the Government could have said something about taxing the use of environmental resources. When the Chancellor referred to the success of the economy he could have talked about evaluating growth in environmental terms rather than in traditional gross domestic product terms, but all that was ignored.
We welcome the fact that the Government published their checklist of action a year after publication of the White Paper. In it they were honest enough to admit some failures. We also welcome the fact—although it has been commented on with cynicism, because many argue that this should have been Government policy for many years—that there has been a substantial increase in the Government's commitment to improve public transport. That may have something to do with the impending general election and public perception of the importance of the issue.
I want to deal, as did the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), with the European Community's environmental impact assessment directive. When the directive came before the House, in regulation form, the Government commended it through the mouth of the then Minister of State, now the Secretary of State for Health. It was a debate in which the Labour spokesperson, for whatever reason—I have never discovered why—did not show up. The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) had to hold the fort. In January of this year the Commission gave an early warning to the Government. In March the Commission sent a draft letter to the Government. Subsequently there was a continuing dialogue between Brussels and Westminster. The Environment Commissioner says that in the summer he had a long telephone conversation with the Secretary of State for Transport regarding his concern about non-implementation of the directive. There was a last-ditch meeting the night before the letter was made

727
public. it is not true to say—it is no good the Minister of State trying to duck out of it—as the Prime Minister said in Harare:
"we had no previous notice of it."
Not only had the Government had notice of the letter; they had had conversations about it and they had seen a draft copy of the letter. The Government must not pretend that this was a belated attack by Brussels. The matter had been under discussion for nine months. They—the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for the Environment—knew it.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Will not the hon. Gentleman admit that for a Prime Minister who thought that the poll tax had been abolished this was one of his lesser slips?
Mr. Hughes: Nobody is perfect, but there is a difference between making a slip and saying that one did not know about something when one did—unless the members of the Cabinet do not talk to each other and do not talk to the Prime Minister. I suppose it is possible that the Secretary of State for Transport had never talked about it. In that case, somebody should have briefed the Prime Minister to say nothing instead of what he did say. There is an inconsistency. In another place Lord Brabazon was asked questions yesterday about it. It appears that the Government's answers are all over the place too. On Wednesday the Under-Secretary of State did not answer my question; he answered another question instead. We must, therefore, take it as admitted that the Government knew what was coming.
The solution now is easy: to give in, to say, "Okay, if you don't think the regulations are perfect or satisfactory, let's negotiate, get some satisfactory ones, bring them to Parliament and apply the test." That does not mean that all the projects suddenly stop; it means that we shall have the proper methodology for judging them. The same methodology should be applied throughout Europe. As a postscript, I do not believe that the people of Twyford Down in Hampshire, or the people who live in the London borough of Greenwich in south-east London regard Twyford Down and Oxleas Wood as "nooks and crannies"—a description from some who suggest that the European Community is prying and probing into our affairs. These places are important environmental assets in Britain. I hope that we regard them as such.
I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow that we must consider how the public's natural demand for the accessibility and mobility which the car offers can be rendered compatible with a decent quality of life, particularly in urban areas. It is not only, as the hon. Member for Billericay hinted, an air pollution problem, but a resource depletion problem. According to some good estimates, we have only 45 years of oil left. Therefore, cars may not be able to be powered by oil-based fuels 45 years from now.
Although those estimates may be wrong, we must consider the best options. There are problems with the electric car because it is still necessary to generate electricity. There are also problems with a car driven by water because, again, it must be powered by electricity.
There is an urgent need to give the public information on the best form of motorised transport. It is best to walk and the next best option is to cycle, but if neither of those
728
is possible and it is not possible to use public transport, which is the most economic use of resources and causes less pollution per number of users, we must give people advice about the best alternative.
The Government have been honest to admit that petrol prices will increase. We must therefore protect those who will be particularly disadvantaged. My colleagues and I will shortly explain our policy on that, because people must know how they will be affected. We are right to address that as a key part of the environment debate.
For those who represent and live in urban areas, excessive congestion and the disadvantage of additional people and cars are bad news. In other parts of the world, the problem is becoming considerably worse. That is our legacy to people who are far less able to cope than we are.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: The issue with which the hon. Gentleman is dealing is supremely important. I have followed with interest his comments about the need to price fuel appropriately. He now acknowledges the essential dilemma in his proposal—that to be effective, energy taxes must be raised enormously. The problem is how to raise them without penalising the people who are least able to afford increases, such as those to whom the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) referred yesterday—car drivers in rural areas—but it applies equally to people who would face higher fuel bills and can least afford to meet them and who do not have the flexibility of changing from one fuel system to another. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that in supporting energy taxes he is creating such dilemmas.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady makes a perfectly proper point. I have spent much time with my colleagues working out how to deal with that dilemma. She rightly alluded to two aspects of the problem. First, we must ensure that we do not penalise people who have no alternative because they have no public transport. I was brought up in rural Britain and know that such people cannot fairly be clobbered by huge increases when there is no alternative. Pensioners and people on basic incomes should also not be penalised by increases in the price of domestic and other fuels. They must be protected. I assure the hon. Lady and those who are concerned about the problem that it would be irresponsible of me as spokesperson of my party not to address it properly. I hope that she will respond positively when we make our announcement of our conclusions, which may be within days, although the final timing is not entirely in my hands.
One of the other great issues that are tests of our environmental progress is what we do with water. I entirely endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Walthamstow. We must reduce consumption. We must stop wasting water. Because of defective pipes, 25 per cent. of water does not get around the system and move from reservoir to tap. We must make people value water properly. My mother lives in a house which still has a well. When we go home, we are used to not having water sometimes but also to looking after it carefully. Those of us who have been brought up without immediate access to mains water know how valuable water is, just as most people in the third and fourth world do.
We must also be much tougher about extraction, particularly in areas around London. People are extracting water from urban rivers and there is a serious problem

729
with the drying up of river beds. We must provide the facility to get water to where we need it and we must consider whether that should be done through a national grid or some other means.
Drinking water quality is generally good, although not as good as the Government would argue. But I urge the Minister to pass on to his colleagues the need urgently to improve bathing water quality. If we had not had this environment debate today, I would have been in Swansea bay in a wet suit, surfing with many people from all around Britain as a protest against the toxins in Swansea bay.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I would have been there as well.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman would have been there as well. I do not know whether he would have been in a wet suit as well, but if so, the pair of us might have been a sight for sore eyes.
Air pollution is bad enough in Baglan bay and Port Talbot, but the sea is equally polluted. During the Langbaurgh by-election, I went to the coast at Saltburn and Marske. A pipe that is about 25 in across discharges sewage into the sea 24 hours a day. One can see all the stuff that comes out and which is thrown around straight into the sea. At high water, an escape hatch on a pipe also opens and the sewage is then also pumped straight on to the beach—there is no pretence that it goes further out. The same happens in many places around the coast—in the south-west, the east and in places such as Southend-on-Sea.
Not just rural dwellers worry about bathing water quality. Urban dwellers who go to the coast for their holidays also worry. They want to take their children to the beaches. There are also all the people who swim, sail, surf or windsurf.
If I could achieve only one thing as a result of today's debate, I should like the Government to take more seriously the need to clean up our act around our shores. It is clear that they are backsliding. The first-year report makes that clear. The original commitment in "This Common Inheritance" refers to
"£13·7 billion to improve sewage works which includes £2·9 billion to bring all bathing waters up to EC standards by the mid-1990s through building long sea outfalls and treating the sewage discharged through them".
That commitment has one year later been modified to read:
"agreed an accelerated programme of investment for the improvement of bathing waters to bring virtually all bathing waters up to EC standards by 1995".
There must be much better monitoring, not just in the summer but all year round. There must be more frequent monitoring of bacteria and viruses, not just of one. It is not good enough to say that we have cleaned up our environmental act, when around Britain's coastline the beaches are often foul.
Mr. Morgan: It is just going through the motions.
Mr. Hughes: I shall attribute that one-liner to the hon. Gentleman—it is just going through the motions. The hon. Gentleman is good at those one-liners.
Pollution was a big issue in Langbaurgh and our good candidate, Peter Allen, rightly joined those campaigning for improvements.
I hope that we will be tougher on toxic wastes and will not just allow this country to become a trading post for them. I hope that we will be much more committed to renewables than the Minister announced this week we
730
would be. The Government's belated conversion is welcome, but a real conversion would be much more welcome. I hope that we will be much more committed to energy efficiency. The commitment has been pathetic, starting from nothing and moving on only slightly.
This is an important issue and it is good that we have held a debate on it so early in a Parliament.
Mr. Morgan: It should have been in the Queen's Speech.
Mr. Hughes: Yes, it should have been in the Queen's Speech, but at least we have debated it sooner rather than later.
The psephologists tell us that if the results of yesterday's three by-elections are followed by similar results, there will be no one party in control after the next general election. Therefore, if there are general election results like yesterday's, my colleagues will be in the House in increasing numbers to fight for these issues. Our pledge is that the environment will remain a very high priority for us, higher I believe than it has been for Labour or for the Tories during the past decade and more.
12.45 pm
Mr. Gerald Bowden: The debate has covered a wide range of global issues, but I wish to bring a tighter focus to the environment in our towns and cities—the urban environment—because care for one's locality can influence the quality of life of those who live there perhaps in an even more dramatic way than by dealing with the broad global issues.
Where we live and how we look after it has in recent years become an issue of greater concern to those who are interested in the environment. The growth in the number of amenity societies is reassuring. The Southwark Environment Trust in my constituency and borough plays a full part in ensuring that aspects of urban life which should be preserved and conserved are cherished. The Dulwich Society plays an important role in ensuring that the aspects of rural life which remain in an urban area are retained. The Camberwell Society and the Peckham Society have in the past few years been active in trying to preserve the benefits and good points of their areas which have been under threat from the channel tunnel rail link proposals.
Dulwich village, in my constituency, is one of the most attractive urban environments to be found in the United Kingdom or—dare I say it—in the world. It is a highly desirable area in which to live and it is appreciated and treasured by those who live in it.
The area around Warwick gardens—also in my constituency—has over the years been neglected. Only in the past 10 years has there been an appreciation of the inherent and intrinsic quality to be found in its architectural heritage, in its layout and in the opportunities for regeneration. It has not been a matter of local authority planning or large-scale capital investment; the area has regenerated itself. Its architectural heritage has been brought back to its former glory by those who live there and often by those who have little money but who appreciate the opportunities of the locality and have developed them.
That work was at risk when British Rail decided with great insensitivity to drive the channel tunnel rail link through south-east London and through the Warwick

731
gardens area. The effect was that during the past three years there has been a loss of confidence in that area. A blight settled on it and will remain for some time. It is important to appreciate the need to preserve and conserve and to recognise that it is an environmentally sensitive area—like so many in London—which can be built slowly and painstakingly, but which can so easily be damaged by an insensitive decision, which is what happened. I plead today for our urban environment and for the quality of life that should be retained there. When we consider how the blight can be relieved, we should do so in a way that reassures and which re-establishes confidence in the area.
British Rail purchased some houses that were within its corridor of intended operations. It also purchased some houses that were not in that corridor, because once such a route is threatened the adjacent housing market collapses and there is no opportunity for those who wish or need to move to sell their properties. In one instance firms of estate agents refused to take any flats in one block on their books on any terms. I think that that is the first time that that has happened, and it was due to the negative housing market in that area. With great wisdom, the Secretary of State for Transport has turned down British Rail's proposed route and has chosen another which is far more environmentally sensible.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the sensitivity of rail routes through urban areas. Does he agree that in choosing the alternative route the Secretary of State for Transport was second guessing and ignoring the possibility that an environmental assessment would conclude that the general route that he has selected was as inappropriate as the one from which the hon. Gentleman thinks his constituents would suffer?
Mr. Bowden: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I hope that I can approach the issue as a fighter for my constituents' interests while at the same time recognising the broader issues. I shall later develop that point.
The alternative route was chosen on three criteria: that it should be environmentally acceptable, operationally effective and financially viable. The British Rail route failed on all three. The alternative route proposed by Ove Arup, which the Secretary of State has sensibly accepted, was acknowledged in all its aspects to be environmentally acceptable. Of course in one or two places difficulties will arise, but the route will pass through areas which will benefit environmentally. For example, industrial wasteland which needs an uplift will benefit from a freight and passenger route passing through it.
British Rail is now a large residential landowner in Warwick gardens and will wish to offload on the market the expensively obtained properties that it has acquired. That will have a disastrous effect upon the locality equal to that which arose from the threat of the route. A glut of properties could cause a slump in the housing market. It will take time and sensitive marketing to ensure that the housing market recovers progressively rather than being artificially injected with activity. In order to ensure confidence in the Warwick gardens area, British Rail should be told to ensure that the properties are offered for sale in a positive and constructive way that will benefit the community and the quality of life in the area.
732
We must also consider the question of compensation. To some extent, the environment must be planned and allowed to grow organically. However, when planning we need to make sure that people are compensated for disruption in a way that does not put them at a disadvantage. It is a matter of planning, management and marketing to ensure that what is good in the locality is preserved and conserved. It is also a matter of money, but I would argue that money plays a lesser part than the necessary will and the understanding of those other factors.
The channel tunnel rail link has been at the centre of my thoughts about my own urban concerns. It offers an opportunity to improve the environment of the United Kingdom generally, by taking traffic off the roads and by diverting some of the airline traffic which causes such congestion because the link will probably provide an equally fast alternative route to the continent. What causes me some disquiet, however, is that British Rail's thoughts seem to be entirely devoted to the passenger opportunities that the link affords. I agree that they are important, but I am concerned that so little is made of freight. The current culture at British Rail seems to be—and I have heard this said by the chief executive—that freight is not time-sensitive. The chief executive and British Rail generally reportedly say that they do not see themselves as being in the business of transporting goods that need to be moved fast. They are looking only at aggregates and pig iron and other goods which can be trundled around the railways for many weeks and do not need to reach their destination at any particular time.
That attitude will create a knock-on problem. If British Rail feels that the first stage of the channel tunnel rail link to Stratford and King's Cross does not offer immediate opportunities for a freight route, there is something seriously amiss in its thinking. The implication of such a decision is that freight will continue to be carried, as at present, on existing lines, with the intensified use of those lines possibly throughout the night. By and large, we are talking about commuter lines designed to bring people from the south-east to central London in the morning and to take them home in the evening. There is little traffic on them during the dark hours at present, but if the lines are to be used by freight trains—some of them a mile long—trundling through the night and causing heavy vibration and noise, there will be a dramatic effect on the environment and quality of life of those who live in proximity to them.
That brings me back to my earlier point about the importance of considering giving compensation in such circumstances and perhaps introducing a new code of compensation. If one buys a house near a railway line, one expects some disturbance from it, and that is a factor which will no doubt be reflected in the price. I would argue, however, that there is a difference between what one might consider to be reasonable use by passenger traffic during the day, and the disturbances that might arise from that, and the use of the line at night by heavy goods traffic. That represents not merely an intensification of the use of the line but a change in its character. To my mind, it represents a change of use so significant that compensation should be given to those who suffer injury as a result.
If we are to ensure that we preserve and protect the quality of life in the urban environment, we must recognise the need for a change in the code of compensation and the circumstances and amount in which it is given. It should be

733
more generously calculated than at present and should not merely be the bare minimum market value, as seems to be the case at present. When the bare minimum market value is offered to compensate for disturbance or injury, disputes inevitably ensue, with professional advisers saying, "This is too little" and the proposer saying, "It is about right" with the inevitable delay that results.
By increasing compensation in those circumstances to a more generous level of 10 or 15 per cent.—and in some countries it is 25 per cent. above market value—we would not only right an injustice or injury, but speed up the process. People would believe that it was unnecessary to dispute the matter and that they had received an additional benefit for the injury that had been forced upon them. In the long run, that would be a cheaper and more effective way of dealing with the issue. As a lawyer and a chartered surveyor, I recognise that the professional opportunities in the area of compensation would be limited if people did not dispute the compensation that they were offered.
Elsewhere in Europe, freight is being taken off the roads. There are refrigerated freight vans and trucks travelling on the railways throughout Europe. Why are there no plans in this country to ensure that we have a fully compatible freight arrangement that could take refrigerated herrings from Aberdeen to Milan on refrigerated rail trucks instead of having traffic trundling along our motorways and on channel ferries? We have an opportunity to improve the environment of our towns and cities by ensuring that freight is taken off our roads.
The decision on the channel tunnel rail link was environmentally sound. It has provided an opportunity to develop many aspects. I beg that those who are responsible for making it work will now take full advantage of the opportunities. I trust that the issue will be considered not simply as a transport or environmental matter, but as a trade and industry matter as well.
1.1 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few points about the environment. Initially, I want to consider environmental impact assessments from a slightly different perspective from that which has been referred to so far. There have been disputes between hon. Members over whether Carlo Ripa di Meana, the European Community Environment Commissioner" was within his rights or was interfering in every nook and cranny of British daily life—as our Foreign Secretary put it in rather colourful language—when he commanded that work on construction projects in this country should cease because environmental impact assessments had not been prepared although they should have been. I do not want to enter that dispute. I want to consider whether the way in which environmental impact assessments are drawn up at the moment is satisfactory. Are they objective? If they are not, can we introduce improvements to the current environmental impact statement—EIS—procedure to make them objective?
It is timely to consider that, because since the beginning of this Session it has become compulsory for us to comply with European EIS legislation. We have modernised the procedures of this place to make it compulsory for all private and hybrid Bills to incorporate environmental impact assessment statements.
The Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, which affects my constituency and is returning to the House for the third
734
time, now has an EIS which has been published and is freely available to the hon. Members in the Vote Office. It is a large document which is one inch thick. There is also the compulsory brief, non-technical summary which, although it tends to fall apart when one tries to read it, due to unsatisfactory stapling, is nevertheless an easy, quick 10-minute read.
The wider question is not whether the summary falls apart because the staples are not strong enough, but whether it falls apart because it is not sufficiently objective simply because it has been commissioned, paid for and its contents finally determined by the promoter of the original Bill, now working in co-operation with the Government. That aspect is the essentially corrupt relationship between promoters of private legislation or Government Departments, when using the hybrid Bill procedure, and the consultants who are asked to draw up environmental impact assessments.
For a further improvement in our environmental legislation, in future, when consultants are hired—there are some very good environmental consultants—to produce environmental impact assessments to comply with European directives and with our new private and hybrid Bill procedures, the last word on exactly what is contained within the environmental impact assessment should not be left exclusively with the Bill's promoters. Some further strengthening of the environmental obligation that we and the European Commission's directives are now laying on the promoters of private Bills should be introduced by not giving a promoter the last word.
I hope that other hon. Members on green Benches—we can see mostly green Benches today—will join me in trying to find out how we can avoid the consultant-promoter corrupt relationship. Perhaps "corrupt" is too strong, because we do not know who has actually taken out key words or added sections at the last minute because they are worried about the public impact of certain phrases. We do not know what the consultants originally said when they first produced a draft for the promoter, and what they were then asked to add afterwards to make it a little more toothsome for the promoters, to make it a safer version of the environmental impact assessment.
When compulsory environmental impact statements are produced for Parliament for a private or hybrid Bill, the promoter obviously has to pay for the environmental impact assessment. There can be no question about that. It is not an obligation on the taxpayer, because the promoter wants to build a harbour, bridge or whatever it might be that requires parliamentary procedures. The trouble is that the promoter can then bowdlerise or doctor the final version that appears before the House, and it is presented as though it is objective, but is it really objective?
Once a Bill or a proposed measure requiring parliamentary approval enters the lists and it is realised that an environmental impact assessment must be produced, and once it is decided to commission an environmental impact assessment it becomes public property. My idea—I admit that I came up with it only this morning—is that the entire transaction involving the definition of the terms of reference for the study for the consultants should then become public property and not an enclosed relationship with the promoters.
Reference should then be made to the Environment Select Committee, and its staff, jointly with the promoters of the Bill, could settle the terms of reference and observe

735
the final version of the EIS. The report that hon. Members receive and that the public pick up outside would have been looked at from the point of view of the client, the promoter and the public interest. The Environment Committee and its staff would ensure that the promoters could not interfere with the consultants' conclusions and that the consultants, during the preparation of the report, had consulted local authorities and environmental agencies such as HMIP or the NRA, or other agencies.
I am concerned about the contents of, lack of objectivity of and lack of thoroughness in the study that was carried out by the Environmental Advisory Unit of Liverpool University Ltd. for the Government and the promoters of the Bill, Cardiff Bay development corporation, when there was still a private Bill, in preparation for the Government's hybrid Bill, which was laid before the House on Tuesday.
I should like to give some examples of my concern about the report's thoroughness and/or objectivity. I say "or" simply because I am not aware—and at the moment there is no way of finding out—whether the consultants who wished to involve the NRA or Cardiff city council's environmental health department were told not to do so by the Cardiff Bay development corporation or whether, off their own bat, they simply chose not to do so, in which case, if there is a design fault, it lies with them. At the moment, we have no way of knowing and, although the report is now public property, its contents during preparation and its final contents are determined entirely by those paying the bill—and they are the promoters who have every interest in avoiding drawing attention to anything that could be used against them when the Bill is debated publicly or scrutinised in the House on Second Reading, Report or in the Special Select Committee or the Standing Committee.
At those stages, people from outside the House who oppose the legislation as petitioners or hon. Members who might also be opposed to it can seek to improve the Bill and can point out the problems that the proposal might cause. Although the promoters are faced with an environmental impact statement compulsion, at the moment there is no way of ensuring that the work is carried out objectively.
One of the issues covered in the non-technical summary and then, in detail, in the full-length version of the statement, is flooding. The statement tries to come to a view on whether the proposed barrage would be good, bad or indifferent in terms of the flooding problem in the low-lying areas of Cardiff. The problem is that flood control is the responsibility of the National Rivers Authority. The statement says that the barrage will improve the position as regards flooding, but we are not sure how that statement was arrived at. Was the NRA consulted? It has the statutory obligation. Are the promoters giving their view after consulting the NRA, or are they giving the NRA's view?
I spoke to the NRA this morning and asked what consultations it had with the Environmental Advisory Unit of Liverpool University Ltd. before the unit produced its chapter of the full-length study on the Cardiff bay barrage proposal. The message that I received from the NRA was:
"The answer to your question is no. Liverpool University has not approached us regarding flood defence assessment."
736
Why not? Was that the consultants' own decision or were they prevented from consulting the NRA by the Cardiff Bay development corporation which originally proposed the Bill in close co-operation with the Welsh Office? Can we rely on the document? Can people who read it believe it to be objective and thorough when those who prepared it did not consult the agency that has the statutory responsibility for preparing flood prevention plans and for carrying out works to prevent flooding?
After the expenditure of a large sum—about £150 million or so—on improving the environment and creating an impounded lake behind the barrage, one of the attractions is supposed to be the facility for water sports. Paragraph 4.15 of the non-technical summary rightly states:
"there will be restrictions on the type of watersports that can be carried out in the Bay. Whereas angling, pleasure cruising, canoe touring, rowing and bankside activities will be possible, water sports which inevitably lead to immersion, such as bathing, diving, rafting and waterskiing, will not be permitted.
There is some dispute as to whether dinghy sailing and windsurfing are classified as immersion sports and whether or not they will be permitted. Regular monitoring will be taking place to see whether the water is of suitable quality for immersion sports."
I ask myself whether that is a fair summary which is based on the views of the body that will have the job of monitoring water sports and the safety of the water in which the water sports will take place. That body is the environmental health department of Cardiff city council.
I spoke to the environmental health department this morning. I asked whether the Liverpool university environmental advisory unit consulted it on whether certain water sports might be, would be or would not be permitted. It said that the unit had not done so in the past three or four years. I find that breathtaking. In the case of flooding and water sports the unit did not consult before giving to Parliament the final version of the environmental impact assessment. If that is true of flooding and water sports, on how many other matters did the unit not consult? The assessment purports to be an objective statement to be given to the House and, via the House, to all the people outside who will be directly affected by the proposal. The unit did not consult the statutory body with the job, again given to it by our legislation, of taking care of flooding or water sports.
Furthermore, the environmental health department of Cardiff city council told me that one of the statements that I have just read out was plain wrong. What is one to do about that?
We have been given the printed version. We will not receive another version. The department told me that windsurfing is definitely out and that it was true that:
"There is some dispute as to whether dinghy sailing and windsurfing are classified as immersion sports and whether or not they will be permitted."
That statement left the matter open and as yet undetermined. But that is not the case according to the body that is responsible for deciding whether certain sports will be permitted. That body has already made up its mind. Windsurfing is out, not "still to be determined".
This is supposed to be the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Its legislation is supposed to be followed once laws are passed. We have just introduced a great improvement to the existing legislation by making environmental impact assessments compulsory. However, we have no way of controlling the quality, objectivity or

737
thoroughness of the assessments or interference in the final version by the promoters of a private Bill, who have every interest in fixing the assessments so that they do not say anything which could later be used against them during the proceedings of the House and when people make their minds up.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is our rule that in an Adjournment debate we do not discuss legislation. If the hon. Gentleman confined himself to discussing the merits or otherwise of the scheme, he would be on good ground. I may have to reproach him if he impinges too much on the debates that we are likely to have when the legislation comes before the House.
Mr. Morgan: I appreciate your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to raise questions about the merits of the scheme. I simply wish to deal with whether we can rely on the objectivity of environmental impact assessments when we have no procedure for ensuring that promoters do not interfere with them during their preparation, to avoid the inclusion of material that may be critical of the scheme. Such material may give rise to problems for the promoters when seeking to secure the passage of the Bill through Parliament.
My point relates to the structure of our legislation and whether we should be satisfied with it. It became law only this week. I wonder whether we need to go a step further and take out further insurance so that we can be certain that environmental impact assessments are reliable documents. The Environment Select Committee should be involved to ensure that there is joint commissioning and setting of the terms of reference, even though the promoters obviously have to pay. At present it is a simple case of he who pays the piper calls the tune. That is thoroughly unsatisfactory.
The Government are trying to pretend to the country at large that they are far greener than in the so-called bad old days and that the Secretary of State takes full account of environmental matters when preparing legislation. However, in the past week something has cast severe doubt on whether that is a sustainable proposition. I refer to the decision last Friday to exclude the area within the Cardiff bay barrage site of special scientific interest from the special protection area to be registered in Brussels under article 2 of the European Community's wild bird directive. It is probably fair to say that many of us deeply suspect anything that the Government announce late on Friday afternoon. It is probably almost entirely done to secure the minimum amount of press discussion.
Last week the Government submitted a four-page document to the press and to the successor to the Nature Conservancy Council—the Countryside Council for Wales—and to English Heritage. The document stated that they had to take the Cardiff bay area out of the proposed special protection area that they intended to register with Brussels because otherwise they would be in severe legal trouble due to their proposal to build a barrage across the mouths of the Rivers Taff and Ely.
What does that say about our procedures? Obviously, when one is about to register a special protection area—I think that we have about 41 such areas now—one receives documentation about it from what was the Nature Conservancy Council. It was subsequently split up into three bodies to cover Wales, Scotland and England, but
738
their part in the process remains the same, as they classify sites according to their significance for nature conservation and they inform local landowners, local authorities and do all the donkey work and the accounts. They also inform local wildlife organisations and then give the documentation to the relevant Minister. In the case of Cardiff bay, it had to be given to two Ministers, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for the Environment because it involves both sides of the Bristol channel. They check that it is in order and finally make their decision.
After the Nature Conservancy Council had submitted the lower Severn estuary special protection area proposal to the Secretaries of State for Wales and for the Environment, a court case took place in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg—we call it the Leybucht bay case—which involved a German Government-assisted fishing harbour on the German-Dutch border. The case resulted in a victory for the German Government, not for the European Commission.
As an interesting obiter dictum, a signed letter from the European Court of Justice last year, affirmed the principle that in areas designated as special protection areas, the first priority was to be given to developments offering an improvement to human health or life, such as protection from flooding, the second priority to ecology and nature conservation and the third priority to leisure or economic development.
At that time the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill was live in the House and opponents of the Bill, such as myself, pointed out that the judgment could deal a blow to the proposal as it was already a proposed special protection area—it was merely awaiting a decision on the Minister's desk. That idea was pooh-poohed and we were told that there was no comparison between Leybucht bay and Cardiff bay and that the judgment was irrelevant. The fact that the Government sent a posse of lawyers from the Welsh Office, Cardiff Bay development corporation, the Treasury Solicitor's department and a local firm of solicitors in Luxembourg to observe the case was merely because they wanted them to have some alpine air or because they just happened to be passing through Luxembourg. The case was of no interest and immaterial to Cardiff bay.
Now we know the truth—it was a killer blow to the Cardiff bay barrage proposal because SPA status for Cardiff bay would have meant that only those forms of construction development that contributed to the avoidance of flooding and endangering life or health could take priority over the nature conservation designation: not economic development, marinas, leisure developments, dredging to deepen the water for fishing harbours or creating large walls of concrete for a barrage that would completely inundate the inter-tidal mud flats—the reason for the SPA designation proposed by the Nature Conservancy Council. Last Friday the exclusion device employed by those in favour of the barrage was to admit that the principle of the Leybucht bay judgment in the European Court of Justice last February would apply to Cardiff bay, but to say that the way round that was to exclude the bay from SPA.
The argument used was that although we might agree that an SPA designation would imply that a barrage could not legally be built across Cardiff bay, we could go to the European Court of Justice—although it lacks injunction procedures—and ask that court to declare the barrage proposal to be contrary to the directive relating to the

739
special protection of wild birds. We could then say that we would put a ring fence round the district, which we would not submit for SPA status, even though the Nature Conservancy Council proposed to do so. That leaves us with the question: why bark and keep a dog? Why do the Government collect taxes to pay the salaries of those in the Countryside Council for Wales but not take its advice? The Nature Conservancy Council has assessed the district as being of higher nature conservation interest than the other parts of the Severn estuary mud flats that are being submitted for SPA protection. Therefore, the district with the higher nature conservation importance is being excluded from SPA protection, while districts with lower nature conservation importance are included.
The Secretary of State has taken upon himself the power to override his own nature conservation experts, who are up in arms. As from last Friday they feel that they have been stabbed in the back, betrayed and made to look foolish because the Government have used the blatant and perverse device of excluding the most important district on the Welsh side from nature conservation.
Where does that leave the Government's proud desire to register more sites at Brussels for SPA purposes? It leaves the Government's reputation in tatters because it simply means that the Government are interested in nature conservation only when it is in their interest and when they feel like it. That is not the spirit in which the European directive on wild birds should be interpreted. Nature conservation sites are supposed to be designated according to their importance to nature conservation, not according to how convenient they are in relation to man-made proposals for economic or leisure development. The criteria should not be whether the Government feel like having the protection sites, but whether those sites are important for nature conservation.
The Government's decision to exclude the site has blown to smithereens any reputation that they may have had for being interested in green issues. It was an embarrassing decision for the Government to make. During the Prime Minister's recent visit to Cardiff he was told—as Conservative party managers are always told—that it would be a great moral boost if he visited the people running the Cardiff Bay development corporation and looked at the proposed site of the lake that was being impounded behind the barrage. The Prime Minister went to visit the Cardiff bay district, and was taken for a walk down by the pier head along the newly constructed boardwalk intended to attract visitors to the district. He was surrounded by a large number of security men. Those who were there, including reporters from the South Wales Echo, said that there was a peculiar, foul smell due to the fact that during construction of the boardwalk two years ago, the Cardiff Bay development corporation fractured Bute Town's main foul sewer which runs directly underneath the boardwalk. When they were sinking the boardwalk piles they did not know exactly where the old sewer was and went right through the middle of it. That has resulted in a steady trickle, which I shall not describe, running out from underneath the boardwalk to the mudlfats. There was the Prime Minister, surrounded by security men, journalists and television crews, trying to avoid breathing in the smell. Two opponents of the Cardiff bay barrage, Stan Perkins and Les Baxter from the docks
740
area of Cardiff, managed, in their baseball caps and anoraks, to get through the security cordon surrounding the Prime Minister and went up to him, at which point Stan Perkins uttered the immortal words, "Get a whiff of that."
Earlier this week I asked the Prime Minister what consultations he had had concerning the Bute Town main sewer and the foul odours emanating from it underneath the boardwalk at the pier head in Cardiff. In classic Majorese, he replied that he would write to me shortly. Such an embarrassment would not occur if the Government adopted a comprehensive, integrated and committed approach to improving the environment. Instead they regard the issue as a convenience, to be used only when they feel like it, and regard it as an inconvenience when it conflicts with other Government objectives.
1.31 pm
Mr. Neil Thorne: I am delighted to be able to participate in the debate. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said about his constituency, in particular about nature conservation. I have many happy memories of south Wales. Some of my relations live in the Porthcawl area. I have spent many happy holidays in that part of the country. I can well understand his constituents' annoyance at the fracture of the sewer pipe. The Government are, however, listening. What the hon. Gentleman said will not fall on stony ground. The Government are firmly committed to improving the environment. Many issues that have been a source of considerable annoyance to me and others in recent years are coming to the top of the agenda and will, I hope, be taken seriously.
I hope, too, that the general public will recognise their importance and will want considerable improvements to be made so that infringements of what we all consider to be our right to enjoy the environment to the full are dealt with properly. We do not want the environment to be desecrated by thoughtless and mindless individuals and corporations. That is at the root of the problem.
People are thoughtless on many occasions and cause environmental pollution for others. We must educate people. I refer to parents as well as to children. Parents have an important role to play. They must teach their children to look after the environment and not throw tin cans and litter about. People must be taught that it is not environmentally acceptable to wind down the windows of their cars and throw out used cigarette packets. It causes much annoyance and offence to others. We must educate the population to clean up the environment.
Some people will begin to understand its importance only if they are fined severely. We must ensure that the law is implemented. I realise that the police have many other duties to perform. When laws are passed they say that they will do their best to implement them within the resources available. I accept that murder, rape and other extremely important issues are right at the top of their agenda. Nevertheless, the standard of our lives depends considerably on the way in which other people abuse the system by scattering litter, which is extremely expensive to clear up.

741
The Scandinavian countries recently conducted an experiment whereby each housewife tried to divide the household refuse so that it could be collected and recycled. That is a major step forward.
Wastepaper is not readily marketable. For many years, I had the pleasure of saving all my newspapers for the scouts, who collected it, sold it and used the proceeds for their own purposes. It is not worth their while doing so any more because there is too much paper. People do not appreciate that many soft-wood trees grow much faster than they can be used, so there is little pressure for recycling.
It is more expensive to recycle paper than to start from scratch with wood pulp. We therefore pay a premium for wastepaper to be recycled. We must seriously consider whether it is not worth having wastepaper recycled and suffering the premium to ensure that we do not have so much litter on our streets and general environment.
Glass recycling is now well established and I know of many points in my constituency where it is collected in brown, green and white canisters. That makes a valuable contribution to reducing the amount of glass that is thrown around. When people visit supermarkets, they are careful to take along their used glass.
Cans and plastic, which is so difficult to break down through natural processes, need to be collected separately. The Scandinavians divide waste into metal cans, glass, paper and plastic. That is a good idea and I hope that it catches on throughout the western world so that those items can be reused.
The situation is quite different in the Indian sub-continent. When I go trekking, I find that everything is collected. Porters take home plastic bottles because they are valuable in villages. They are pleased to be able to reuse them.
We certainly have become a throw-away society and we must become more disciplined than in the past. When I was a boy, the majority of bottles had to be reused. I remember that immediately after the war if one did not have a bottle one could not buy a new bottle of whisky. One had to take an empty bottle to the off-licence to buy another one. In some respects, the container was more important than its contents. The situation has changed considerably, but we must train ourselves to be much more conscious of the environment.
There is a good argument for introducing a tax on packaging. Sometimes, the packaging is disgraceful. It is important to have packaging that presents goods to the best possible advantage, but there can be no excuse for having three or four different layers around a product. That aspect must be considered. If people have that much money to waste on packaging, perhaps they are not paying enough tax.
As I said, the way in which people behave in the environment needs to be considered. In recent experiments in the United States, the authorities tried to make the punishment fit the crime. I should very much like to see that in operation in parts of this country. People who paint graffiti should be made to spend a certain number of hours cleaning up the mess. I can think of no better way of ensuring that they stop committing that offence against society. Sometimes for example, people paint graffiti on the supports of the elevated sections of motorways. There is no earthly reason why that should be allowed to continue.
742
I wish to mention a local issue. The north circular road includes a section which now passes through my constituency known as the South Woodford to Barking relief road. That road was opened three or four years ago and trees were planted, but I am sad to see that a number of them have died. I hope that the Department of Transport will take an early opportunity to replant. As we now have a replanting system, I hope that, as the Department's contribution to improving the environment, it will replace the trees that have died. I hope also that strenuous efforts will be made to clean up the horrible rubbish which was thrown out of cars and has collected on the roadside. Both measures would bring a considerable environmental improvement locally.
As I said, we should pay much more attention to education. That responsibility lies not only with schools but with parents. Parents have a major role to play in showing their children how to behave, in telling them to collect rubbish in the countryside and not to throw rubbish out of the car window. Parents have a responsibility to show by good example how responsible citizens behave. There is no reason why the rest of us should pay enormous sums of money to have other people's litter picked up. If that approach does not work on a voluntary basis, we must introduce an effective system of fining and persuade the police to take this aspect of the environment seriously.
1.42 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: This has been an important debate. The two Front-Bench spokesmen talked about the environment in terms of this country and abroad. One morning recently, I listened to "Farming Today", as I do quite frequently. I am waiting for a general election to be called and I expect the announcement to be made on "Farming Today". The election was called off last time and not everyone was told.
While I was listening to "Farming Today", I heard some startling news about the environment and the ozone layer which should make us all feel startled about what is happening. Sheep in Patagonia in Chile, rabbits and fish had gone blind because of the enormous hole in the ozone layer. That aspect of the chain of life should concern us all. It makes us stop and think about what is happening and about what we in this country can do.
People tell me that socialism is off the agenda. When I think about the need to save the environment, I know that it cannot be saved by market forces, as I had to tell the former Prime Minister before she left office. I said, "You will not patch up that hole in the ozone layer with a man, a bike, a ladder and an enterprise allowance." The only way to save the planet is not through nation states but through states getting together.
I want to put on record a few problems on the micro level in my constituency because it is important that the Minister who replies to the debate should be fully aware of the problems emanating from north Derbyshire. Dioxin has contaminated milk on three farms. That is alarming, not merely because there is dioxin in the milk, which is bad enough, but because it is only in the past few days that any Department has even acknowledged that there was a problem.
There was an admission the other day with regard to Bolsover Coalite which claims not to have much to do with the dioxin, although most people do not believe that. Bolsover Coalite has to install a new incinerator at the end

743
of November which I hope will clear up the issue, but there is still a long way to go. The River Doe Lea, which is little more than a stream where it runs past that plant, several other chemical plants and industrial firms, has, according to a recent statement by Friends of the Earth, pollution levels more than 1,000 times the accepted safety level. Even if that figure has been embellished, it is still bad news.
There are also problems for the farmers. Since June, two of the farmers have lost their livelihood, which was to produce milk, but the Government refuse to pay compensation. If someone has a roof missing from his flat or house, the local authority can have the repairs done if the landlord will not do them and can then charge the landlord. However, when I question the Government, they say that the polluter must pay. It will take a long time to discover who the polluter is, although we all have ideas which are not a million miles away from Bolsover Coalite in Buttermill lane.
If a civil action to claim compensation is necessary, it could take years and in the meantime the farmers are losing their livelihood. In view of the Government's talk about "greenery" and citizens charters and everything else, they should adopt the system that operates in Holland whereby, if dioxin is found while the case is being contested to discovered who is the polluter and to force him to pay, the Government will ensure that payments are made and will then secure the money from the polluter. That means that in the meantime the people affected do not lose out.
In October, pollution was discovered in a third farm in Bolsover. It is apparently one of the worst recorded instances of dioxin, which is one of the most deadly toxins known to man, or to woman. The pollution is so bad that the farmer has had to stop operating his suckle herd, and he is clearly losing money as a result. Thousands of people in my area are very concerned.
The other day I heard it said on television that a cluster of breast cancers had been discovered in an area adjacent to the plant and close to the farms. The occurrence is 50 per cent. higher than in other parts of north Derbyshire. The programme made comparisons not with leafy Surrey, but with parts of north Derbyshire where there have long been industrial firms and pits. We need more action.
The other day the Secretary of State for the Environment went trotting off to the Confederation of British Industry. I am told that he made a better speech than the bloke whose name no one remembers—I think that he is from the Department of Trade and Industry. I do not remember his name, but apparently he went and was followed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, who made a great speech. He said that there was a correlation between the environment and British industry. Those of us who live in mining areas know that there has always been a need to strike a balance between producing coal—in this case producing coke from coal—and causing minimum damage to the environment and to the people who work and live in the vicinity. Coalite must be told to find that balance. I hope that the Government will press for that and will pay the compensation that is so badly needed in the area.
When the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food found that the milk in the area was contaminated, he decided to send it to the west midlands to be incinerated.
744
It is typical of the Government that they sent it to a firm that did not have the equipment to burn it. Dioxin must be burnt at no less than 1,200 deg. C. It could not be properly burnt at the incinerator to which it was sent and as a result goodness knows how many square miles of the west midlands were polluted with dioxin. Some of us found out about that and said to the Government, "Do you know what you are doing?" Apparently they have now sent it somewhere else to be incinerated.
Throughout this episode I have demanded compensation for the farmers and a public inquiry. That is not asking a great deal. Three farms have dioxin-contaminated milk and a river in the area is polluted 1,000 times more than it should be. There are other pieces of evidence, such as an incinerator that is not working properly and cases of breast cancer.
In the run-up to the general election, when the Government are scouring for votes anywhere, one would think that they would announce a public inquiry to enable the people of Bolsover to say exactly what they want and have it placed on record. It would also enable the people who work in the industrial plants, including Coalite, to present statements that are not influenced by people being victimised or witch-hunted. A public inquiry would allay many fears.
The Minister should discuss the matter with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and with anyone else in Departments that are affected. They should discuss paying compensation and announce a public inquiry so that we can get to the truth of the matter about how dioxin has found its way into the milk, who is responsible, and who should pay. That should be done quickly.
1.52 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: I hope that the House will forgive me for referring first to the speech and the impassioned plea by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He has tried to raise this issue many times in the past few months. If the Government have not acted by the time of the general election, a Labour Government will definitely hold a public inquiry, because my hon. Friend has made a most convincing case for one.
The debate has been wide-ranging and of a high standard. It has covered global issues, such as the depletion of the ozone layer, and has ranged down to the most micro of micro issues, street parking in one of my old haunts in Cardiff. We are debating extremely important issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) joined the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) in speaking about the issue of the dangers of hospital incineration. A short time ago the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs investigated hospital incineration in Wales and found that the old standards, let alone the new far higher standards, were invariably not being met. There is no doubt that we need higher and more stringent standards, and inspections not only of hospital incinerators but of all incinerators.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting referred to the need to help the emerging democracies and developing countries with the implementation of clean technologies. They definitely need our help, and I hope that the United Nations conference to be held in the not-too-distant future

745
will reach some positive agreement on such matters. I, too, should be interested to hear the Government's views on the EC's fourth action programme on the environment, backed by the Council of Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting told us from his own experience that that programme was being heavily criticised by Conservative members of the Council of Europe, and it would be interesting to know whether the Government uphold that criticism or whether they are wholehearted partners in the action programme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) spoke widely and with much knowledge about the deterioration of water quality, the dangers of incineration, the difficulties under which Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution operates and the fact that, although we have known for many years about the problems of acid rain, not one power station has yet been fitted with flue-gas desulphurisation equipment while other countries are moving further and further ahead of us
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and a number of other hon. Members referred to environmental impact assessments and the way in which the Government seem to be trying to traduce the whole legal process and divert it into an attack on the Commissioner for the Environment, for political purposes connected with the Maastricht summit. The fears about our failure to implement the directive properly are well founded, but we should not lay our criticisms entirely at the Government's feet, because we are talking about a new procedure with which other countries are also having difficulties. We ask that the operation of the directive should be properly reviewed. The Commission is obviously very unhappy about the matter and—as the Minister knows, because he and I both spoke at the conference organised by the Institute of Environmental Assessment—the expertise is now available to improve our environmental assessment procedures. In particular, we need to open those procedures to the public gaze.
The Minister sought to impress us with the Government's commitment to the environment. Unfortunately., however, as we cast around and seek the opinions of those who work in the field, we find a quite different hue of green from the bright green that the Government would wish us to believe they wear. The Government's green credentials are like the autumn leaves—yellowing at the edges. Let us take an example. The Council for the Protection of Rural England looked at "This Common Inheritance" and at the Government's record and drew up a list of credits and debits. It examined thoroughly a number of matters, including planning for the environment, environmental assessment, agriculture, transport, mineral extraction and coal, energy policy, water resources, protecting the countryside, forestry and institutions, and came up with 28 credits, some with caveats attached, and 48 debits. That sums up the way in which the Government operate. After all., the Conservatives are the party of free enterprise and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, free enterprise is not naturally concerned with protecting and enhancing the environment. Its natural concern is to make profits. Only if the Government regulate the environment in which businesses operate will we provide a framework in which business rises to the challenge.
The Government's green credentials are hesitant, half-hearted and, at the end oF the day, unconvincing. The
746
Government's brief sets a target of stabilising Britain's carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2005. However, they include the caveat that they will do that only if other countries play their part. We should not say that. The issue is so important that we should play our part and try to convince other countries to come in as well. To stand on the sidelines because other countries will not play ball demeans the fight to protect and enhance our environment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said that the Secretary of State for the Environment was at the CBI conference this week exhorting business and industry to accept the challenge of clean technologies and greenery. The Secretary of State said that a British Institute of Management survey showed that half the member companies did not have an environment policy statement: one third did not have someone responsible for environmental issues and fewer than one quarter carried out environmental audits. No wonder companies are not responding. The Government had an opportunity in the Companies Act 1989 to accept an Opposition amendment to introduce environmental audits, but they turned it down. The Government's failure to give a lead is critical in that area.
Let us consider what has happened in the United States. In 1986, a law was passed, overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency, under which companies had to publish the annual output of 307 hazardous chemicals. Monsanto decided to accept that challenge. It considered the legal requirement and decided that it would achieve a 90 per cent. reduction of its release of harmful chemical emissions into the atmosphere by 1992 and work for a goal of zero. It is on track to achieve that goal, but it has operated within a legal framework and it has been successful.
Early in December B and Q will be launching a green initiative in this country. It has stopped buying peat from sites of special scientific interest. It no longer buys tropical hardwoods where it can establish that they have been harvested in an unsustainable fashion. The company is asking its suppliers to tell it what they do in terms of environmental audit and I hope that B and Q succeeds. However, it could do much better if it were to operate within a legal framework.
Mr. Summerson: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman said that private enterprise was incompatible with environmental friendliness, but he is now giving examples of private enterprise being very environmentally sound.
Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman either misunderstood or misheard me. I said that private enterprise, left to its own devices, does not by and large place a premium on the protection of the environment. Only if a legal framework is provided will it respond well to the challenge. The challenge must be placed before private enterprise; exhortation is not enough.
I am glad that GATT has revived its working group on the environment. I hope that, as a result of that, further pressures will build up to force the Government to act. The story of this Government is that they have been reluctant to act. They have often ignored problems until the weight of evidence has been so overwhelming that they have had to act at last.
To see the way in which business can fail in that respect, we have only to look at the huge profits that the Tory party's treasurer, Lord Beaverbrook, made out of the

747
tropical rain forests of Guyana. One cannot say for certain, but it appears that there will be a profit of about £10 million a year for five years for no actual investment. It is quite likely that there will be unsustainable harvesting of tropical forests.
The Government are proud that they introduced integrated pollution control. They have made progress, but they are not prepared to accept the logic of their own position and provide real resources to enable it to work effectively. At the conference, the CBI environment committee chairman, Chris Hampson, said that companies still lacked important details about the Government's plans to introduce integrated pollution control covering more than 8,000 processes in the next five years. An environmental protection agency is wanted. The Government have promised one, but it would require a volte face to provide one. A year ago they totally opposed it.
Mr. Trippier: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman really means what he has just said. If he looks a little more carefully at the White Paper that was published last September, he will see that we made it clear that we have not ruled it out and that, in fact, we would look positively at it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remark.
Mr. Griffiths: Unfortunately, I cannot withdraw my remark, because the Government had the opportunity to vote for the creation of an environmental protection agency, but they refused. The fact that they have now accepted it shows a complete change of attitude from that of a year ago. Despite an environmental protection agency being promised in "This Common Inheritance", they still voted against it. They voted against our amendment to fulfil a promise that was made in "This Common Inheritance".
Many companies ignore green laws and are failing to register under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 processes which should be registered. Why is that? The director of pollution control has pointed out that more resources are desperately needed to monitor pollution. A National Audit Office report has pointed out that the pollution inspectorate is probably more than 100 inspectors understaffed. In 1990–91, the number of inspections fell from almost 8,000 to just under 4,000. A report published yesterday by the National Audit Office on chemical and oil pollution stated that inspections in the North sea and in the seas off this island are so infrequent that it is virtually impossible to catch the polluters.
Against that background of failure, we must say that the Government are simply not doing enough. We know the dangers that global warming presents, but still the Government are hesitant. At one time, they even reduced the amount of money available to the Energy Efficiency Office, although I am pleased to see that in the public spending round there will be a 40 per cent. increase in the coming year. The amount of money that the Government are providing—£59 million next year—is peanuts. The Dutch spend about 13 times as much as we do on energy efficiency and conservation.
Let us consider the profits. We do not need to talk about the need for carbon taxes. All we need to do is to look at the profits of companies such as British Gas. It
748
made £65 profit per customer this year—nearly £1 billion in profits. If we creamed off the super-profit aspect, which is far above the amounts that were set aside in the Bill before privatisation, and used it in respect of all the power producers, we would have four or five times the amount currently readily available for conservation measures to be introduced.
Our private utilities could follow American examples. The Americans provide low-cost or no-cost energy efficient bulbs and even pay customers $50 if they install an environmentally friendly fridge in their home. They do that to reduce energy consumption and because that, in turn, means that there is less need for new power stations and thus costs generally can be cut.
By reducing energy consumption, we can significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Government's year-on statement does not refer to any measures against transport polluters. I am, however, glad that the Secretary of State for Transport has suggested that the Government will introduce regulations governing the amount of pollution that cars are allowed to cause. That is all to the good.
However, the Government's record is one of hesitancy and halfheartedness and reveals their lack of commitment to the concept of planning or to regulations that would allow industry to get on with its job and to respond. Whenever the election is called next year and Labour comes to power, we will provide that lead and that framework. Many industrialists will breathe a sigh of relief, knowing that they will get a proper lead from a Labour Government.
2.10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): This has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate. We welcome the opportunity of a full day's debate on our environmental stewardship. It has provided us with the opportunity of trumpeting to the world all that we have achieved and of promoting the first-year report on our White Paper "This Common Inheritance".
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) was charitable enough to say that the first-year report and its approach are unprecedented—as they are. The report is thorough, open and accountable and demonstrates that of the 350 commitments that we made in last year's White Paper, 200 have already been fulfilled. Not only does the report list the measures that we have already taken, but it identifies those that we intend to take. It sets targets. We do not need great chunks in the Queen's Speech to demonstrate our commitment to environmental stewardship because it is clear to anyone who cares to look. Not only have we set out what we intend to do, but we have set out the date by which we intend to do it. We have continuing priorities for action and intend that our environmental stewardship should be accountable and open. That is why we have put green issues at the heart of the machinery of government, with ministerial committees that are chaired by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment.
We are seeking an environmental dialogue with the whole community—with businesses, local authorities and the voluntary sector. There is now a general recognition that everyone has an interest in enhancing the

749
environment. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said in his excellent speech to the Confederation of British Industry conference,
"the market is demanding. The market set by our own advanced environmental legislation; the market set by European Community legislation; above all, the market set by the consumer—increasingly the green consumer. The single market will be a green market."
I have absolutely no doubt that that will be the case and that is why we are determined to have higher environmental standards. I am therefore pleased that the United Kingdom is one of the top four European Community countries in complying with environmental directives.
It is our intention always to promote accountability and access to environmental information. The White Paper and the first-year report are part of that exercise, as is the report of the drinking water inspectorate. I am glad that it has shown that in 99 per cent. of the tests, our water is meeting European Community standards——
Mrs. Ann Taylor: What about prosecutions for drinking water failures?
Mr. Baldry: The hon. Lady is keen to have prosecutions—[Interruption.] Part of establishing high environmental standards is ensuring that those who do not meet the standards are prosecuted. She will be interested to know that in its second year—after September 1991—the NRA trebled its original number of successful prosecutions.
We wish to see not only high environmental standards but an increase in investment. We wish to see not only investment such as has been made possible by water privatization—£28 billion has been invested in enhancing water standards. That is some £5,000 for each and every minute between now and the end of the century. We also want to see increasing investment in the staff of HMIP for example. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside announced an increase in its staff today. We also wish to see organisations such as the NRA enhance their standards with water quality objectives.
There may have been a misunderstanding about what the National Audit Office said about HMIP. It said:
"it is not feasible to double a specialist professional organisation at a step.… the pool of people with the qualifications and experience to become pollution inspectors is relatively small and thus constrains the achievable pace of recruitment."
Thus HMIP is seeking to proceed by continuous expansion. My hon. Friend's announcement earlier today is the proof of that continuous expansion. Indeed, HMIP intends to continue to recruit more inspectors over the next four years to maintain higher standards.
The determination to maintain high standards is reinforced by clear public spending commitments, as was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn statement earlier this week. He announced investment in the environment, and more investment in public transport and environmentally friendly farming.
There was a misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Members for Dewsbury and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about the other environmental services line from the autumn statement. It included several headings which are not green in the accepted sense. I am not sure that the hon. Members appreciated that it
750
included such matters as property holdings. So when my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside next week announces the detailed breakdown of those figures and the figures are published, it will be seen that when one concentrates on what we would all perceive as the green environmental issues, that investment has done well. We are determined that there should be higher standards, more investment and a partnership between the Government and the people to ensure the highest possible environmental standards.
One or two themes have run through the debate. There has been much to-ing and fro-ing about the environmental agency. I make it clear that our aim is to create a powerful, independent agency which will provide consistent and coherent controls on discharges to air, Iand and water. It will be a fully integrated, multi-media approach to pollution control. If one intends to take that step, it is essential to have full consultation.
It was somewhat disingenuous of the hon. Member for Dewsbury to suggest that legislation for an environmental agency could have been passed during this parliamentary Session. She was challenged by my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on her party's attitude to the waste disposal regulatory functions. He response was that that would be a matter for a regional tier of local government. We do not have a regional tier of local government. A condition of creating an agency would be to legislate to introduce a regional tier of local government. It is disingenuous to say that we could have introduced a Bill to set up an environmental agency during the lifetime of this Parliament.
We want to ensure that there is a full opportunity for consultation on the proposal to set up an environmental protection agency. That consultation will continue until 31 January next year. We want to work with the NRA and local government in paving the way for the agency. Our timing is to reach final decisions early next year and introduce a Bill early in the new Parliament once we have won.
Of course, part of our achievement in enhancing standards is the concept of integrated pollution control. Chris Hampson, the chairman of the Confederation of British Industry's environment committee at the CBI conference last week, said:
"when it is fully up and running, Integrated Pollution Control will give Britain the highest standards in Europe."
Anxieties were expressed that some processes and factories had not yet applied for IPC under air quality regulations. Of course, that is a serious matter, but it must be a matter for the judgment of local authorities about individual firms. Local authorities have a wide range of options, including the opportunity to prosecute if companies do not comply. They have the statutory duty and the initiative for action must lie firmly with them and with the firms involved.
We heard a fair amount from the hon. Members for Dewsbury and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and others about river quality. It is well to remind the House that river quality is high in the United Kingdom in comparison with the quality in the European Community. In the 1985 survey figures 95 per cent. of United Kingdom rivers were of good or fair quality, compared with an average of 75 per cent. of river length in Europe.
To link leaked or reported changes in water quality in 1990 to privatisation is daft. Everyone knows that it can take years for changes in water industry investment to feed

751
through to river quality. What happened in the year before and after privatisation would have had no impact. What is certain is that privatisation has opened the door to an unprecedented scale of investment in improvements by the water industry. The industry is spending £28 billion in the 10 years to the turn of the century to meet higher standards and it plans to spend £3 billion in 1991–92—a 20 per cent. increase on last year, which was a 40 per cent. increase on the previous year.
The performance of sewage treatment works is steadily improving and information provided by the NRA shows that non-compliance with long-term conditions is substantially down. So, we are witnessing a substantial and continuing improvement in the water industry.
May I try to make clear, once and for all, the position with regard to a letter sent by Mr. Ripa di Meana. Despite the best efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to put everyone straight, the Opposition are determined to misunderstand. Our quarrel is not with the Commission's right to ask questions about the implementation of the directive. There is no argument about that. We are used to complaints being made and for the most part, on proper consideration, they are not found to be worth pursuing. We are among the top four European Community nations when it comes to compliance with Community directives and I am confident that that will be the case with this issue. A genuine disagreement about the interpretation of the directive lies at the heart of the matter, especially in regard to the transitional arrangements to cover the period when the directive is coming into force. That is the legal issue.
Our dispute with the Commission is not concerned with the legal issue, which I am sure can be resolved. Our dispute is simply a straightforward matter of good manners. Having sent what was purportedly a personal letter to the Secretary of State for Transport, the Commissioner leaked it to the press and to various environmental groups before the Secretary of State knew that it was coming. It is as if I wrote a letter to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and, before telling her to expect it, sent a copy to her local newspaper. I think that she would feel that that was simply bad manners. Our complaint is a simple one about bad manners.
There is an accepted convention that communications between the Commission and member states are confidential. The Commissioner breached that convention by issuing a press notice when he sent the letter, and by making public the contents of a private letter to the Secretary of State for Transport. That is what the row is about.
The Prime Minister was right to take the action that he did and the Government were right to be aggrieved at the manner in which Mr. Ripa di Meana handled the matter. I am glad to say that the Government have received a satisfactory reply from Mr. Delors.
As to the substance of the technical dispute on transitional arrangements to cover the directive, I have no doubt that it will be possible to come to a satisfactory arrangement and agreement with the Commission in due course.
A number of hon. Members mentioned detailed matters during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), who is an assiduous champion
752
of his constituents' interests, mentioned a number of environmental concerns in his area and he made it clear to the House that he had drawn them directly to the attention of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will take such action as he considers appropriate.
One of the worries of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North was similar to that of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and involved hospital incinerators. Tougher air quality controls must be a matter for local authorities to enforce. Under part III of the Environmental Protection Act, local authorities are under a duty to investigate complaints about statutory nuisance, and under part I of the Act hospital incinerator operators were required to apply for authorisation by 30 September or be liable to prosecution. Tougher standards should lead to cleaner emissions. If the hon. Member for Tooting wishes to pursue a specific point he should write to me and I shall be happy to look into it.
The hon. Member for Tooting rightly said that many people were worried about the quality of their local environment. That is why, under the Environmental Protection Act, we have taken action on litter, dogs and noise. The hon. Gentleman's concerns were echoed by my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) and for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne). Due to those fears we have substantially increased the penalties for actions such as littering—enhancing the quality of the local environment is important.
The issue of eastern Europe was also raised and many environmental concerns cross boundaries. That is why we have made available money for eastern Europe over a three-year period to encourage the transfer of all types of expertise. In addition to the money that central Government are making available, many British companies, including water companies, are seeking to make their expertise available to eastern Europe to help them with the challenge of cleaning up their environment after 40 years of state socialism.
Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is no longer here. It is a great pity that she did not hear the speech by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and that he did not hear hers. We must get those two Members together because they make interesting speeches.
We shall always promote best science. The United Kingdom hosted the second meeting of the parties to the Montreal protocol. I am glad that in March this year the European Community agreed to phase out supplies of CFCs within the European Community by July 1997—two and a half years earlier than required by the Montreal protocol. That is all good news and demonstrates our commitment to enhancing standards, and tackling global and environmental problems.
The hon. Members for Carmarthen and for Bolsover expressed concern about dioxins—the hon. Member for Carmarthen in a general way, the hon. Member for Bolsover more specifically. The Government have been taking tougher action to control potential sources of dioxins, including higher controls on the contamination of chemicals and waste, chemical incineration and the phasing out of leaded petrol. They are prompting the highest practical standards for incineration through integrated pollution control.
The hon. Member for Bolsover knows—because I made it clear to him on Wednesday—that a host of

753
agencies are carrying out expensive studies into the problem that he raised, which calls for a public inquiry. Those organisations include the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. It will be some time before the full results of those investigations are available, but they will be published. Once they are made available, they will assist the farmers in any action that they may wish to pursue.
The BBC "Close Up North" programme yesterday suggested that there had been an increase in the incidence of breast cancer locally. I understand that the advice from the North Derbyshire health authority is
"there is currently no reason to suppose that cancer in Bolsover is a bigger problem than cancer elsewhere".
I am not sure of the basis on which the BBC allegation was made, but medical advisers in the Department of Health will be looking into this further. The BBC said that it was difficult to draw any significant conclusions from the cancer incidence data. Therefore, it would be sensible to consider the nature of that evidence before seeking to extrapolate too much from it. The hon. Member for Carmarthen referred to acid rain. However, it is worth reminding the House that United Kingdom SO2 emissions have fallen by approximately 40 per cent. since 1970.
In a debate such as this I am always conscious that it is never possible within the time available to the Front Bench spokesmen who wind up to do justice to all the points that have been made. I am afraid that that is the position today. However, what we have demonstrated both in the debate and in the first year report is that the Government have made substantial progress. We believe, however, that the protection of the environment is a management task on a huge scale, comparable in long-term importance with the management of the economy and the defence of the realm. The Government's stewardship of the environment—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

FINANCE AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 125A (Finance and Services Committee), agreed to on 18th July in the last Session of Parliament, be amended, in paragraph (2), by leaving out the words 'eight Members' and inserting the words 'nine Members'.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Channel Tunnel Rail Link
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: This debate follows naturally on from the one that we have just had.
Today, in east London, the public are cheering the Environment Commissioner of the European Community, Carlo Ripa di Meana, for issuing a directive that no work should be undertaken on the channel tunnel rail link because the Government have not carried out an environmental assessment. Carlo believes, and rightly so, that the British Government should have carried out an environmental study before the route was chosen, not afterwards. He has exposed our Prime Minister as the leader of a Government of environmental law breakers whose leading environmental criminals are to be found at the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment.
The first misunderstanding that I should like to clear up is the assertion that the Government have chosen King's Cross as the terminal for the channel tunnel link and that Stratford will be merely a station along the route. That is far from the truth. Effectively, the Government have said that there will be two channel tunnel terminals—one at King's Cross for passengers using public transport, and the other at Stratford for those using cars. It is clear that Stratford will be a motorail terminal and a park-and-ride terminal. The likelihood must be that half the trains will terminate at Stratford.
British Rail has produced four excellent internal documents. I shall refer to each. They conclude that the easterly route does not give value for money and cannot be justified on any conceivable cost benefit analysis, or on any opportunity cost analysis, or on any orthodox accounting analysis.
The environmental report prepared for British Rail—I have a copy here—shows that the Ove Arup route chosen will cross and ruin more land than any other scheme in areas of special significance for agriculture, a designation identifying the most valued high grade agricultural land in Kent. In particular, millions of pounds of market garden produce will be destroyed by dust during the construction period. For a time it will be as though the locusts had invaded parts of the heart of the garden of England. The route chosen will cross a number of highly-prized marsh areas of high ecological value, some of which have been designated by the Nature Conservancy Council as sites of special scientific interest. It will destroy sites with a wide variety of habitats. The gault clay woodlands in mid-Kent are of particular concern.
The chosen route will pass through more high-risk contaminated land sites than any other scheme and it will pass through more areas currently in business or industrial use, including the Ford works at Dagenham. Amazingly, no one has yet worked out what the effect of that will be on Ford's operation.
Newham council says that its residents are in favour of the scheme, but will they still support it when they learn that 1,000 homes in Stratford will be at risk from settlement when the railway line goes into a shallow tunnel because of the geological conditions in the area? Although it should be possible to repair the external and internal

755
cracks in these 1,000 homes, they are bound to be blighted once they have been identified. Newham council has kept strangely silent about that.
We are told by the Government that we must be prepared to tolerate environmental devastation and a senseless waste of more than £1,000 million worth of extra public money because the Ove Arup route is necessary if prosperity is to come from the regeneration of east London and the east Thames corridor. Alas, British Rail's reports demolish this central plank of the Government's argument. The British Railways Board concludes:
"Regeneration of the East Thames Corridor may be better promoted by other measures, eg provision of domestic rail services, improved road access, site preparation at public cost."
The report of Planning, Industrial and Economic Development Advisers, which was prepared for British Rail, goes into more detail on that critical point:
"Stratford is not strongly placed to attract high quality uses, such as corporate headquarters or European Community institutions. The draw of central London is still very considerable, and it is doubtful that the pull of an international rail terminal itself is sufficient to significantly alter patterns of business location … The Rail Link would not be sufficient to achieve this change in the image of and prospects for the Lea Valley implied by the Gateways scenario: it may not even be necessary. It is certainly less important than central government commitment to investing in road and related infra-structure and dealing with the problems of land contamination and improving the environment."
If the Government disagree with the conclusions of the PIEDA analysis, will they tell us what reports they have carried out to suggest that British Rail and PIEDA are wrong, or are they preparing to spend £4·5 billion, not on the basis of sensible planning, but by hunch, guess and God?
The Government's problems have been compounded by the crazy suggestion of the Secretary of State for the Environment that the Ove Arup route via Stratford will act as a springboard for the creation of a new linear city from Stratford to Southend. This proposal is sheer fantasy and the product of a feverish mind. Already it is being dubbed by planners as "Tarzan's folly".
No one who is serious about urban planning believes that a linear city stretching for mile after mile on both sides of the Thames will ever be built. It is more likely that the Secretary of State for the Environment is preparing us for what used to be called ribbon development and pock-marked urban sprawl stretching from Stratford to Southend, with unfettered market forces destroying the flora and fauna and every living thing that gets in its way.
I understand that the Secretary of State for the Environment is to develop the concept of "Tarzan's folly" at a London Weekend Television seminar in a few weeks' time, but the right place to develop the concept is on the Floor of the House. Perhaps I could tempt the Minister to upstage his boss today and tell us exactly what the Secretary of State for the Environment has in mind.
Nor does British Rail enthuse over job prospects. Speaking of the maximum number of jobs of 21,000 that could be associated with the Ove Arup proposal, British Rail says that these jobs would largely represent a redistribution of economic activity in Kent and London rather than the creation of new economic activity. When Newham's councillors talk of 40,000 jobs coming to east
756
London, they are conning not only their own people but the rest of us, including, I regret to say, the people of Hackney. There will not be many jobs for the people of Hackney in any of these proposals.
We should take note of reports that the Ove Arup route chosen by the Government will wreck a £1 billion scheme for 7,000 jobs and 6,500 new homes, which apparently have already been approved in principle by the Department of the Environment, in the Barking reach area of the Thames.
Worries about the rape of Hackney led the London borough of Hackney to oppose the idea of the easterly route and a terminal at Stratford. First, the use of Stratford as a motorail and park-and-ride terminal will necessitate increased road capacity from the west. This probably means a motorway or fast-track dual carriageway to Stratford, running through the heart of Hackney from Highbury corner to the Lea interchange. That would mean the resumption of the heroic and successful anti-motorway battles of the past two decades.
Secondly, traffic levels in east Hackney, with more juggernauts and heavy goods vehicles, would rise considerably, bringing noise, fumes, dirt, accidents and nightmarish living conditions to a wide area.
Thirdly, the accompanying redevelopment of Stratford town centre could draw trade and investment away from Hackney and sap the vitality of our existing shopping centres in Mare street and Kingsland road.
Fourthly, a successful terminal at Stratford would inevitably and inexorably encroach on the Lea Valley regional park and reduce leisure facilities. I live on the banks of the Lea and I cannot properly tell the House what an amazing joy it is to wake up every morning and look over the marshes. The Lea valley is probably Hackney's most precious environmental assets, and there is a paramount need to keep it away from development-mad Newham at all costs.
As someone who once worked full time for two years in one of the most high-powered urban planning teams ever assembled in this country, I see those four points as virtually certain consequences of the Government's proposals. But I am a modest man and I would welcome a second opinion from the Minister: does he agree or does he disagree? In particular, can he tell us whether the continental gauge will finish at Stratford rather than King's Cross, and will there be a freight depot at Temple Mills in Stratford?
There are other problematic possibilities. Is the 8·5 mile tunnel from Barking to Stratford and then to King's Cross feasible? People in the City to whom I have spoken say that private enterprise will never finance it. If the line were to go overground from Stratford—presumably along the north London line—that line might have to be upgraded from two to four tracks, with a loss of hundreds of homes in Hackney. Can the Minister give us a categorical assurance that that will not happen?
In the past, too many tunnel schemes have ended up on the surface because of the cost implications. Are we about to witness that again? Can the Minister confirm that, in any event, and even if the tunnel is built, rail traffic on the north London line will increase significantly, thus bringing pressure to upgrade it from two to four tracks? We need this threat to homes in Hackney cleared up urgently and preferably cleared away today. I beg the Minister to respond positively on that point.

757
One point is bugging me and, I am sure, everyone who has read the four reports produced by British Rail which I am holding in my hand. I have been through them in every last detail. I must ask the Minister: how on earth have the Government got to where they are today, with a scheme with no money, engineering study or environmental assessment in place, which produces a net loss in financial terms, compared with the southerly option, of a staggering £1·2 billion and which, on that account, has been described as perverse and part of pantomime and parody?
Why do the Government propose to dump a significant proportion of passengers travelling to and from Europe in Stratford? Do they really believe that the people of Rome, Paris, Venice and Vienna want to spend long weekends in the bed-and-breakfast hostels of Stratford, or is it the case that the cast of "The Goon Show" has been resurrected and installed a t the Department of Transport?
The answer to all those questions, of course, lies in the fact that the route chosen represents the biggest bribe in British political history. The sum of £1·2 billion extra is being spent in an attempt to save the Tories in six marginal seats. Each Conservative candidate in the election will have to declare to the returning officer, first, that he has spent £7,000 on his campaign and, secondly, that he has had a direct grant from the Government of £200 million. In the rotten boroughs of yesteryear, bribes consisted of buying the electors a few pints of beer; now bribery, corruption and cheating involve hitherto unimaginable sums. In the unlikely event of any of the six Tories being elected, they will, of course, face disqualification.
In the coming weeks, months and years, I shall call on people in Hackney of all political views and of no political views to join in the campaign against the easterly route via Stratford. We shall link up with Members of Parliament and others from the north of England who may feel that the £1·2 billion of extra public money which is to be squandered on this scheme could be better spent on other transport projects, the environment, the national health service or perhaps on educating our children. We shall link up with all those who believe in exciting, rational urban planning which meets the needs of Britain and Europe in the 21st century. We shall combine with everyone and anyone who wants to support a channel tunnel rail link that gives real value for money.
In Hackney, working-class people are intelligent and sophisticated. They do not understand why the Government should set out to protect the environment of the middle classes in Kent and south London only to transfer the problems to the working classes of east London and Hackney. Too many people think that they can ride roughshod over the citizenry of Hackney, which is the poorest borough in the land. They will soon learn otherwise.
How much better it would have been if a Minister from the Department of Transport had come to the Dispatch Box today to tell us that he was concentrating on bringing us the Hackney-Chelsea tube line and the east London tube line. Then we could cheer him as we are now cheering Carlo Ripa di Meana, the European Commmunity Environment Commissioner. Surely that is an offer that the Minister cannot refuse.
2.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): It is not unusual for the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) to be a lone voice. He might be a lone voice on this occasion, although he might attract a few followers. Listening to his description of the way in which the decision was reached, it would seem that there was a party-political divide in the House, the Opposition favouring the hon. Gentleman's arguments and the Government taking another line.
I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who, I understand, still leads for the Labour party on transport issues. He said:
"I welcome what appears to be the endorsement of Labour's policy on an east London-Stratford-King's Cross route which was published 12 months ago, and which was outlined in 'Moving Britain into Europe'".—[Official Report, 14 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 26.]
He said that we should keep reading the documents because there was a lot to learn.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: He was fighting for his constituents.
Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that the hon. Gentleman was fighting for his constituents, and I appreciate that. I shall try to deal with the issue later.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch suggested that the decision had been taken solely on a party-political basis. I merely point out that it is the line of the official Opposition at the moment to support the route outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 14 October. We know what a great European the hon. Member for Bolsover is. He would like us to block the tunnel, but that idea would not find much favour with his colleagues. I wish to respond to the speech of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch rather than to the intervention of the hon. Member for Bolsover, who has a knack of getting his remarks on to the record.
The Government made it clear on 14 October why we prefer the easterly approach on the route to London for the channel tunnel rail link. He was critical of us for not choosing the cheapest route. The Opposition often criticise us by saying that we go for the cheapest option, but we are now being castigated for not doing so.
The route via Stratford to King's Cross satisfies our transport objectives for London and the rest of the country. A station at Stratford alone would not do that. At the same time, the easterly approach has the least possible environmental impact. Despite what the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said, there would be environmental consequences wherever we sited the route. We believe that the chosen route will have the least environmental impact and will spur development where it is wanted and needed in east London and in the lower Thames corridor.
To those concerned about the impact of the easterly approach on their constituents, it is worth saying that on the plans so far developed probably only two homes will need to be acquired over the entire length of line between Detling and King's Cross. There are also likely to be only about five homes within 100 m of the line. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and

759
Shoreditch the line is proposed to be in a tunnel. The line has been specifically designed to have the least possible impact on people and the environment.
Having made our decision, the preferred route now needs to be worked up in some detail as a basis for full public consultation. This will be done by British Rail in close co-operation with the Government—both Transport and Environmental Departments—and the private sector. The first task is to consider the objectives for the work in terms of benefits to international passengers, commuters and freight, costs, environmental impact and fostering development opportunities in the east Thames corridor. A detailed preferred alignment, based on Ove Arup's proposals, can then be engineered. Only after that will it be possible to make a sufficiently full assessment of the impact on individual properties that is essential for proper public consultation. That will take some months, and in the meantime it is fruitless to speculate on the precise alignment and the fine detail of the environmental impact. I appreciate the concerns that people will feel during that period.
As I have said, one of the objectives of working up the route in detail is how best to foster business and development opportunities in east London and the lower Thames corridor. The hon. Gentleman should have welcomed that and should not have dismissed it in the way that he did. This is fraught with uncertainty, as British Rail's consultants PIEDA concluded. The hon. Gentleman said that he had gone through all the reports. As the Secretary of State said, those reports were made widely available and there was no attempt to hide them.
Nobody should be under any illusion that the rail link on its own can transform the attractiveness of east London for development, not that adding a station here and making a connection there to the existing network is necessarily the answer to the problems. The rail link has to be seen as one item in a package of infrastructure improvements to road and rail. In terms of public transport, the extensions to the Jubilee line and the docklands light railway, the modernisation of the Central line, and the east-west crossrail will make Stratford a major transport hub. It is this concerted effort to transform communications that will over a period of years help to shift economic activity to this part of London. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the extensions that we have made, and plan to make, to the transport infrastructure in the area.
Environment and Transport Ministers will play a full part in the development issue, in particular as the route is being worked up in more detail. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already announced his intention to commission a study to consider the development potential of the lower Thames. He will shortly announce the name of the consultants who will undertake the study.
Local authorities and others concerned with the development issues will understandably be impatient to contribute to the selection of a precise route alignment, connections to the existing network, and stations. But, first, British Rail, the Government and the private sector must put our collective thoughts together if the consultation is to be productive.
760
The new line is needed primarily to cope with the growth of international passenger traffic, but the further work will also look at commuter and freight traffics. British Rail envisages the use of the rail link for express domestic services from Kent and perhaps Essex—up to 12 per hour in the peak period—as well as regular services during the rest of the day. Precisely what is provided needs to be considered hand in hand with the pattern of stations and connections on the new line.
We want to look again at whether it is desirable, feasible and viable to carry freight on the new line. This is a complex issue. For example, is there an advantage in carrying continental loading-gauge freight, bearing in mind that there might have to be a railhead in the Stratford area? I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point about the continental rail gauge. That needs to be fully considered and that will be done. We cannot give instantaneous answers, and I am a little surprised at the Commissioner's response. It is not surprising for the Government to announce their route and then carry out the necessary work on the environmental implications. There is not much to be gained by saying that the Environment Commissioner has saved us and stopped the project. That is to overstate the case, as was explained in the previous debate.
The alternative to such a railhead would possibly be the expensive upgrading of other lines. Whatever the decision, Stratford will still be an important rail freight hub. It already features in British Rail's plans as a regional centre for handling international freight once the channel tunnel opens.
Mr. Harry Cohen: The Minister said that he could not predict the implications for individuals, but what about the larger environment? I have in mind the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) about Hackney marshes. Will the Minister assure us that, in the studies, protection will be afforded to Hackney and Walthamstow marshes?
Mr. McLoughlin: I have tried to explain that there is not yet a precise alignment. A number of the points raised in this debate—which will no doubt also be raised in future debates, as I see this subject coming back to the House on many occassions before the final plans and the final alignment go out to public consultation—will be taken into consideration. There is a desire to ensure that we adopt the best approach in terms of transport infrastructure and transport needs while being aware of individual concerns about places that are highly regarded for environmental reasons. There is always a balance—and it is sometimes a difficult balance—to be struck. In our earlier debate, the hon. Member for Bolsover spoke about the balance between the interests of industry and those of the environment. We all accept that difficult decisions sometimes have to be made on development, infrastructure and environmental questions.
I repeat that no decision has yet been made and that we still have a long way to go before the precise alignment is produced. Understandably, concerns will be expressed while the discussions are taking place, but I hope that people will be grateful that at least the route is now known. Many people have been relieved that one route has been excluded because that has allowed them to get on with planning their areas, and it is now the hon. Member for

761
Hackney, South and Shoreditch who is faced with making suggestions and representations on behalf of his area. Of course, we shall want to listen to them and both we and BR will take them fully into account when the time comes for the precise alignment to be decided.
When the precise alignment comes, a number of the questions now being asked will be properly answered. It is early days yet, and it is difficult to say too much, but I hope that, by the flavour of my response, I have shown that we feel that the route that we have selected is the route that will have the least environmental impact. That is not to say
762
that the scheme will have no environmental impact, because no scheme could match that criterion. It is a matter of trying to get the balance right.
The potential is there for the rail link to be of enormous benefit to east London without there being an unacceptable impact on people and the environment. But more study and full public consultation are needed before the precise details are fully established. The project can then be taken forward by the private sector.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Motor Vehicles
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether he will publish the conformity of production exhaust emission standards for motor cars approved for use in the United Kingdom;

  (2) when he intends to introduce MOT test standards based on conformity of production emission limits; and if he intends to use these in roadside spotcheck programmes.

  Mr. Chope
  The current United Kingdom conformity of production standard for CO emission from petrolengined vehicles is 4·5 per cent. which is 1 per cent. more than the type approval standard to allow for manufacturing tolerance. This is the same as in the EC. These are the standards to which we are testing.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to publish the criteria for accepting requests made under the new compensation provisions of the New Road and Street Works Act 1991 for the purchase of properties affected by road schemes.

  Mr. Chope
  I believe my hon. Friend has in mind section 62 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 which gives authorities discretion to acquire property seriously affected by public works. The criteria to be applied to the Department's road schemes are under consideration.

  Rail Service, Leicester
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has yet reached a decision on the proposed passenger rail service to run from Leicester through the South Derbyshire coalfield to Burton on Trent, Toyota and Derby.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I hope to make announcements about the allocation of resources for local public transport projects in 1992–93 shortly.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken to ensure that standards in the construction of the channel tunnel rail link meet the requirements for new railway construction laid down by the European Community.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no such EC requirements.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he expects to announce details of the arrangements for working up the new route for the new railway to the channel tunnel;
  262
  (2) if he will ensure that the study of the new rail link to be built to the channel tunnel includes full appraisal of the route needed for through running of international passenger and freight trains beyond London;

  (3) when the status of Ove Arup will be clarified to enable the company once again to enter into discussions with the citizens of Mid-Kent on the alignment, environmental protection measures and other causes of concern of the channel link.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend has asked British Rail to carry out the next phase of developing the route in close consultation with the Government and the private sector and take the lead in consulting the public. We shall announce more details of the arrangements as soon as we are able to. The work to be done will include examination of the implications of the route for international freight and passenger services to and from both London and beyond.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide additional funds to British Rail to enable it to fulfil its obligation to purchase properties rendered unsaleable by their safeguarded railway corridor between Detling and Cheriton and to act as a buyer of last resort in compassionate cases.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail's offer remains open to buy any domestic property within the safeguarded zone between Detling and Cheriton. There are no present plans to broaden the terms of, or area covered by, the voluntary purchase scheme for this route section.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of containers currently being carried on the European railway network could reach(a) London and (b) Liverpool (i) now and (ii) in 10 years' time on tracks currently operated by BR.

  Mr. Freeman
  BR's European container services to London and Liverpool can at present accept all standard ISO containers as well as 2·5m wide pallet containers and 12·2m long swap bodies. When the channel tunnel opens in 1993 BR will be able to accept between 90 and 95 per cent. of all containers in use on other European railways. In the longer term, the percentage will depend on future developments in the global container market.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss his invitation to anyone to take BR's freight operation off his hands; if he has any plans to assist towards that outcome; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend regularly meets the chairman of British Rail to discuss a variety of issues, including progress on his rail freight initiative. The Government intend to seek substantial privatisation of BR in the next Parliament. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend wrote to the chairman on 9 October asking BR to give positive and sympathetic consideration to reasonable proposals from the private sector to introduce new freight or passenger services. We look forward to BR's response.

  Queen Elizabeth II Bridge
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the procedures to be followed by householders who live near the Queen Elizabeth II bridge
  263
  at Dartford, and who wish to process a claim for compensation for enhanced noise levels due to a faster throughput of traffic; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish the compensation entitlement of householders who live near to the Queen Elizabeth II bridge at Dartford, or the approach/exit roads thereto, and who find themselves affected by enhanced noise levels due to a faster throughput of traffic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Notices will be published soon in the local press describing the procedures for claiming compensation under part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 for depreciation in value of property. Details of the procedure and conditions of eligibility are further described in a booklet "Your Home and Nuisance from Public Development", available from the Department's regional office at Federated house, Dorking. The claim period lasts six years commencing from a date 12 months after the new road was opened to traffic on 30 October 1991. Special provisions apply for those selling their houses within the first 12 months after completion of the works.

  Under part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973, there is a right to claim compensation for depreciation of more than £50 in the value of land (including buildings) caused by specified physical factors (noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke and artificial lighting and the discharge on to the land in respect of which the claim is made of any solid or liquid substance) arising from the use (but not its construction) of a new or altered highway. If compensation is payable, reasonable valuation or legal fees incurred by claimants in making claims will also be paid. Interest is payable from the date the claim is received or the first claim day, whichever is later, until the compensation is paid.

  Bus Passes
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to make a free bus pass available to all pensioners as of right; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We have no plans to change the present arrangements. Local authorities already have powers to provide pensioners with free or reduced price bus travel. The decision on what to provide is one for the local authority in the light of local demand and the resources that they can make available.

ENERGY

  Gas
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when reserves of British gas are likely to run out on current consumption levels.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The 1991 Brown Book (Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom; a report to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Energy) showed the estimated remaining gas reserves of the UKCS to lie in the range 963–3345 billion cubic metres (bcm). Total consumption in 1990 was estimated at approximately 59 bcm. Over the last decade additions to reserves have exceeded consumption: the 1981 Brown Book showed 264
  estimated reserves in the range 750–2150 bcm. The United Kingdom will remain a major producer of gas well into the next century.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will identify the consumption levels of British gas for the next century in 10-yearly periods.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department published a range of scenarios of United Kingdom energy consumption (up to 2020) based on oil price assumptions supplied by the intergovernmental group on climate change in Energy Paper number 58. A copy of this paper has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Coal-burning Schemes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the level of investment provided for research into and promotion of clean coal-burning schemes within the United Kingdom; and what proportion of the total energy budget this constitutes.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Both British Coal and my Department are supporting a wide range of research and development projects to develop cleaner coal technologies. The development of these technologies is a collaborative exercise and many of the projects also involve United Kingdom industry and overseas organisations such as the European Commission and the International Energy Agency. The value of contracts in the Department's current coal R and D programme are worth over £115 million with Department support of over £21 million. One of the most important of these projects is the development of British Coal's topping cycle technology which is taking place at Grimethorpe and its coal research establishment. Information on total spending by industry in the United Kingdom on energy-related research is not available to my Department.

  Transmission Link
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the Energy Minister of the Republic of Ireland and the chairman of the National Grid Company concerning the proposals for an undersea transmission link between Wales and the Republic of Ireland, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals there are to link the United Kingdom electricity grid with that of the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There have been no substantive discussions at ministerial level. However, I understand that the National Grid Company and the Electricity Board of Ireland are considering the matter; it is for them to assess the technical and commercial viability of the project.

  Energy Sources
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of national energy needs are met from(a) coal, (b) oil, (c) windmills, (d) gas and (e) other sources; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Figures for shares of primary energy consumption in 1990 are as follows:
  265

  Fuel

  Percentage share Per cent.

  Coal

  31·3

  Oil

  35·5

  Natural gas

  24·1

  Other1

  9·1

  1 Nuclear and natural-flow hydro electricity, and net imports of electricity from France.

  The amounts produced from wind power at present represent less than 0·05 per cent. of total primary energy consumption. However, following the 1990 and 1991 Renewables Orders under the non-fossil fuel obligation the regional electricity companies have been obliged to contract for wind power capacity, building up to the substantial level of 94·63 M W. This should considerably enhance the potential for bringing wind power into the electricity market on a competitive basis.

  Spent Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether any plutonium separated at Sellafield from the spent nuclear fuel discharged from the JAPCO TOKAI—1 Magnox nuclear plant has ever been co-processed with(a) spent fuel of similar irradiation from electricity board/nuclear board/Scottish Nuclear Magnox plants and (b) spent fuel of similar irradiation from BNFL's Magnox plants.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The policy of British Nuclear Fuels plc is to co-process civil spent fuel from its various home and overseas customers wherever it is operationally desirable to do so. In respect of material from BNFL's own reactors, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for South Worcestershire (Mr. Spicer) to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on 8 December 1988 at column 329.

  Windscale
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current arrangements for storage of the filters from the Windscale pile number one damaged in the 1957 fire.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This is a management matter for BNFL. However, I understand that the filters from Windscale pile number one which became contaminated as a result of the 1957 fire are stored along with other intermediate-level waste at Sellafield.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Private Bills
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to abolish or reform the private Bills procedure.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  Proposals will be published very shortly.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Residential Homes
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether residential homes are exempted from policies for exemption for competitive tendering for catering, cleaning and laundry services.

  Mr. Hanley
  This is a matter for HPSS boards to determine in accordance with my Department's instructions, which provide for exemption for residential homes"where these services are provided on site and clients are directly involved as an integral part of the therapeutic or rehabilitative process".

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many RIMNET sites for civil defence are in existence in Northern Ireland; how many are fully operational; and what is the maximum level of radiation in centrigrays which they can quantify.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Northern Ireland has one fully operational RIMNET site with a further four expected to be in operation by mid-1992. The maximum level of measurable radiation which such sites can quantify is 0·3 centigrays per hour.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new police officers will be recruited during the next 12 months for front-line duties in the fight against crime as a result of the announcement on 9 October 1991; how many will be deployed in the Metropolitan police area; and if he will publish the names of provincial police forces who will be authorised to recruit additional officers giving details of the number in respect of each force.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend will announce allocations of establishment increases to forces shortly.

  Overseas Electors
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons living abroad were registered as electors on the most recent electoral register; how many of them lived in Belgium, Cyprus, France, Spain and South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A total of 34,454 overseas electors are included on the electoral register for 1991–92. A breakdown of the total by parliamentary constituency is included in "Electoral Statistics 1991", published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, a copy of which is in the Library. Information on the number of overseas electors living in particular countries abroad is not held centrally.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will obtain a copy of "United Kingdom, Deficient Policy and Practice for the Protection of Asylum Seekers" published by Amnesty International for his departmental library.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Office library already has a copy.

  Belmarsh Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of inmates at Belmarsh prison on 1 November.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On 1 November there were 658 inmates in Belmarsh prison.

  Stress-related Illnesses
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to develop health attention services for staff at prisons in England and Wales to deal with stress-related illnesses.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The prison service has developed a stress management package for use by all its staff. Training in the use of this package is currently under way, and the aim is for the majority of staff to receive this training in 1992.

  A servicewide scheme of post-incident care was launched in July this year providing care, support and expert counselling for staff suffering stress reactions following traumatic incidents at work. In addition, a lifestyle screening programme has been introduced which covers stress levels as well as other aspects of health. Prison service staff also have access to the confidential counselling services of the civil service occupational health service and the Home Office staff welfare service.

  Category A Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of prison inmates who have been taken off category A classification in prisons in England and Wales during the last 12 months.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  During the 12 months up to the end of October 1991, 71 category A inmates were downgraded to category B following review by the category A committee.

  Prostitutes, Balham
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requests he has had from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for an increase in the number of police officers in the Tooting police division in the light of the presence of prostitutes in the Bedford hill area of Balham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is for the Commissioner to decide how to allocate resources between divisions from the overall pool of officers available to him.

  The Commissioner is aware of the problem of prostitution in Bedford hill and a local squad is dedicated to combating it. In addition, as a result of discussion with
  268
  the local police consultative group, the police and Wandsworth council have within the last few weeks set up a working party to explore multi-agency approaches to tackling the problem.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police stations and the numbers of remand prisoners being held at police stations in the Greater London area on 31 October.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On 31 October a total of 166 prisoners were held in the following police stations in the Greater London area:

  Number

  Albany Street

  10

  Bow Road

  12

  Brentford

  5

  Camberwell

  13

  Cannon Row

  15

  Croydon

  5

  Deptford

  11

  Earlsfield

  1

  Forest Gate

  3

  Gipsy Hill

  3

  Horseferry Road

  24

  Kennington

  5

  Lambeth

  11

  Lavender Hill

  5

  Mitcham

  1

  Muswell Hill

  2

  Ruislip

  4

  Snowhill

  2

  South Western

  10

  Teddington

  2

  Thames

  8

  Walthamstow

  4

  West End Central

  10

  I regret that it is not possible to identify separately remand and other classes of prisoner.

  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were being held in police cells in the Cardiff gaol catchment area in the week ending 26 October, how many were(a) sentenced and (b) remanded, and how many were aged 15, 16 or 17 years old.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  During the week ending 26 October the following number of prisoners who should have been held in Cardiff prison were held in police cells:

  Number

  21 October

  197

  22 October

  199

  23 October

  193

  24 October

  194

  25 October

  201

  Information on prisoners in police cells is not collected at weekends. It is not now possible to differentiate between remand and other classes of prisoner or to identify the ages of prisoners held on those days.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidelines he proposes to govern the use of police cells for overnight stays involving young children and babies accompanying their parents while being questioned;
  269
  (2) what discussions he has had with the chief constable of South Wales concerning the children under the age of 10 years kept with their parents in police cells at Fairwater police station, Cardiff, on the night of Sunday 27 October; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not proposed to issue guidelines. The police do not, in normal circumstances, allow children to remain with parents in cells. Every effort is made to place children with responsible adults relatives or friends, or to seek assistance from the social services department.

  I understand from the chief constable of South Wales constabulary that at 2.20 pm on 27 October a man and woman, of no fixed abode, were arrested and taken to Fairwater police station where it was decided not to grant bail. They were accompanied by seven children. Between 3.45 and 10.55 pm the police made numerous attempts to find accommodation via the social services, but were unsuccessful. The children were therefore housed overnight with the parents in a cell with integral sanitation.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are employed by the Commission for Racial Equality, and what is the cost per annum of running the board.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On 5 November 1991, the Commission for Racial Equality employed 199 staff. The budget for the financial year 1991–92 is £14,055,000.

THE ARTS

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many public libraries were open for 45 hours or more per week in 1980; and what is the corresponding figure for 1991.

  Mr. Renton
  Direct comparisons are not available. Statistics prepared by the Chartered Institute of Public

  Topic

  Commencement Date

  Duration

  Company

  (a) Her Majesty's Treasury:

  *British Telecom Share Flotation

  1 October 1991

  2 months

  J. Walter Thompson Dewe Rogerson Ltd.

  (b) Central Office of Information carried out no publicity campaigns on its own account. The following campaigns were organised for other Departments:

  RAF Recruitment

  May 1991

  Ongoing

  J. Walter Thompson

  *Soldier Recruitment

  24 June 1991

  12 weeks

  Delaney Fletcher Slaymaker Delaney & Bozell

  Officer Recruitment

  April 1991

  Ongoing

  Collett Dickenson Pearce

  *Territorial Army Recruitment

  19 September 1991

  10 weeks

  Delaney Fletcher Slaymaker Delaney & Bozell

  Citizens Charter

  23 July 1991

  4 weeks

  BMP DDB Needham Worldwide Ltd.

  Customs and Excise Staff Recruitment

  1 April 1991

  12 months

  Bernard Hodes

  *Road Tax Evasion

  1 April 1991

  12 months

  Waldron Allen Henry & Thompson/D'arcy Masius Benton & Bowles

  Northern Ireland Electricity Privatisation

  16 May 1991

  7 months

  Shandwick Consultants

  *Teacher Recruitment

  1 July 1991

  23 weeks

  Saatchi & Saatchi

  Assessment Tests

  7 April 1991

  12 weeks

  Bernard Hodes

  Parents Charter

  27 September 1991

  9 weeks

  BMP DDB Needham Worldwide Ltd.

  Teacher Recruitment—Graduates

  7 November 1991

  5 weeks

  Bernard Hodes

  270
  Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) show that 106 library authorities in England at 31 March 1981 had 761 service points (excluding mobile libraries) open for 45 hours or more per week. At 31 March 1990, the latest year for which statistics are available, 96 authorities reported 572 service points in the same category.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Company Directors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the increase since 1979 in the real earnings, including fringe benefits, of directors of public companies.

  Mr. Maude
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide an up-to-date list of each television advertising campaign carried out, or to be carried out. by(a) Her Majesty's Treasury (b) the Central Office of Information, (c) the Department of National Savings, (d) Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, (e) the Inland Revenue and (f) the HMSO during 1991–92, and of each other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000, giving for each (i) the topic, (ii) the commencement date, (iii) the duration and (iv) the advertising, promotional and public relations companies involved.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: Advertising campaigns costing more than £100,000 carried out this year are given in the table. Campaigns that used television in addition to other media are marked with an asterisk. Those without an asterisk did not use television.
  271

  Topic

  Commencement Date

  Duration

  Company

  Launch of 'Investors in People' Scheme

  17 October 1991

  1 week

  Gold Greenlees Trott

  *TECS

  1 April 1991

  12 weeks

  Gold Greenlees Trott

  Career Development Loans

  10 August 1991

  6 weeks

  Gold Greenlees Trott

  *'Just the Job' booklet for unemployed

  12 May 1991

  4 weeks

  D'arcy Masius Benton & Bowles

  *'Just the Job' booklet for unemployed

  12 September 1991

  5 weeks

  D'arcy Masius Benton & Bowles

  Employment Service Staff Recruitment

  1 April 1991

  12 months

  PA Advertising Ltd.

  Energy Efficiency to reduce emissions by industry

  October 1991

  6 months

  Laing Henry

  Energy Efficiency to reduce emissions in the home

  November 1991

  4 months

  Collett Dickenson Pearce & Partners

  ECGD Insurance Services

  April 1991

  2 months

  Leo Burnett Ltd.

  Blood Donors

  29 July 1991

  7 weeks

  FCO Ltd.

  Health of the Nation Leaflet

  5 June 1991

  2 weeks

  BMP DDB Needham Worldwide Ltd.

  *Nursing Recruitment

  26 September 1991

  2 months

  Laing Henry

  Health Services for Women

  30 June 1991

  3 months

  Laing Henry

  Children's Act

  14 October 1991

  10 months

  Laing Henry

  Police Recruitment—Specials

  April, August, October 1991

  1 week

  Riley Ltd.

  *Crime Prevention

  1 April 1991

  2 months

  Collett Dickenson Pearce & Partners

  Passport Renewal

  7 October 1991

  2 months

  BMP DDB Needham Worldwide Ltd.

  Dangerous Drugs Bill

  11 August 1991

  3 days

  FCO Ltd.

  Electoral Registration

  15 September 1991

  4 weeks

  FCO Ltd.

  Smoke Alarms

  19 October 1991

  4 days

  FCO Ltd.

  Police Recruitment Graduates

  June 1991

  5 months

  Riley Advertising

  *Family Credit

  2 September 1991

  6 weeks

  BMP DDB Needham Worldwide Ltd.

  Companies Registration Compliance

  October 1991

  6 months

  Golley Slater

  Queens Award for Export/ Technology

  April 1991

  4 months

  BMP DDB Needham Worldwide Ltd.

  *Navy Recruitment

  April 1991

  Ongoing

  Young & Rubicam

  *Census 1991

  4 April 91

  1 month

  D'arcy Masius Benton & Bowles

  *AIDS

  May 1991

  9 months

  BMP DDB Needham Worldwide Ltd.

  Ordnance Survey

  26 June 1991

  1 week

  Leagas Delaney

  Patent Registration move to Wales

  April 91

  12 months

  Ayer Barker Ltd.

  *Scottish Electricity Share Flotation

  26 March 1991

  11 weeks

  Citigate Advertising Faulds Advertising

  *Child Road Safety Helmets

  23 April 1991

  3 weeks

  Miller Leeves, Waldron Allen, Henry Thompson

  Motorway Litter

  19 April 1991

  9 days

  Miller Leeves, Waldron Allen, Henry Thompson

  Drink/Drive

  1 July 1991

  1 month

  Miller Leeves, Waldron Allen, Henry Thompson

  Rear Seatbelts

  1 June 1991

  1 month

  Miller Leeves, Waldron Allen, Henry Thompson

  *Child Pedestrian Safety

  21 October 1991

  3 weeks

  D'arcy Masius Benton & Bowles

  *British Telecom Share Flotation

  1 October 1991

  2 months

  J. Walter Thompson

  Details of future campaigns have not been finalised.

  (c) Department of National Savings

  5th Issue Index-linked savings certificates

  10 June 1991

  4 weeks

  McCann Erickson Advertising Ltd.

  *Children's Bonus Bonds

  8 July 1991

  4 weeks

  McCann Erickson Advertising Ltd.

  *Income Bonds

  5 August 1991

  4 weeks duration not finalised

  McCann Erickson Advertising Ltd.

  January 1992

  *Savings Certificates

  February 1992

  Duration not finalised

  McCann Erickson Advertising Ltd.

  Investment Account

  18 August 1991

  6 weeks

  McCann Erickson Advertising Ltd.

  Children's Bonus Bonds, Premium Bonds and Investment Account

  1 November 1991

  About 6 weeks

  McCann Erickson Advertising Ltd.

  272 273

  Topic

  Commencement Date

  Duration

  Company

  (d) Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

  Customs and Excise Staff Recruitment

  1 April 1991

  12 months

  Bernard Hodes

  (e) Inland Revenue—none

  (f) Her Majesty's Stationery Office—none

HEALTH

  Care Homes
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce measures further to safeguard the welfare of residents in residential care and nursing homes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have today laid before Parliament regulations made under the Registered Homes Act 1984 that will require applicants for registration in respect of residential care and nursing homes to declare any criminal convictions they may have; and to provide proof of their identity on request. The first of these measures reinforces the administrative arrangements already in place under which authorities are advised to ask applicants about criminal convictions, and the police can be asked to make confirmatory checks against their records. Requiring proof of identity should help ensure applicants do not evade these and other checks by giving a false name.

  These new requirements will strengthen the hand of registration authorities and help reduce the already small risk of unsuitable applicants becoming registered under the 1984 Act.

  Abortions
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the private clinics licensed to perform abortions which have used, or were planning to use, a macerator to dispose of the bodies of aborted unborn babies, together with the means and place of disposal that each clinic is currently using;

  (2) if he will list the private clinics licensed to perform abortions which are curretly using a macerator to dispose of the bodies of aborted unborn babies.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This method of disposal is not now considered appropriate. It is being phased out as soon as possible in the few places where it is used. The Department is writing urgently to proprietors of approved places requiring them to use incineration and, where appropriate, to confirm that they have ceased to use maceration as a means of disposal. Compliance will be further monitored through the regular, unannounced inspections by the Department's medical, nursing and investigative officers.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department issues to those places licensed to perform abortions regarding consultation with the mother concerning the disposal of her aborted unborn baby.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is a matter for the woman concerned to take up with the proprietors of the approved place if she wishes to do so. Where the possibility 274
  of research arises, advice has been given about the need to discuss this with the woman so that she can decide whether or not to give consent.

  General Practitioners (Overpayment)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he proposes to take on the overpayment to general practitioners in 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) on 7 November at columns 259–60.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to make his first report to Parliament on implementing the Children Act 1989; and if he will introduce regular quarterly reporting on residential child care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Children Act requires information received from local authorities and others to be laid before Parliament. We expect to lay a report before Parliament on the implementation of the Act by the end of 1992. The statistical return for the first year of operation of the Act should be available in 1993. There are no plans to introduce quarterly reporting on residential child care.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists within the Trent regional health authority provided dental treatment under the NHS in(a) 1989 and (b) 1990; and what is the number now.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is given in the table.

  1. General Dental Service Staff

  Number

  September 1989

  1,372

  September 1990

  1,395

  June 1991

  1,310

  2. Hospital and Community Health Service Dental Staff1

  Number

  Whole time equivalent

  September 1989

  211

  180·2

  September 19902

  211

  177·2

  1 Figures include permanent paid and honorary staff but exclude hospital practitioners and clinical assistants.

  2 Latest available figure.

  Legionnaire's Disease
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill, of 5 November, columns 317–18,
  275
  how many cases of legionnaire's disease have been reported in Liverpool; when they were first notified to the authorities; where they are thought to have originated; why the outbreak was not made public; what action was taken to warn other patients and staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Five cases have been reported in Liverpool so far in 1991, of which two appear to be related and associated with the Broadgreen cardiothoracic centre.

  Both these cases, reported in October, were brought to the attention of the local public health authorities and the Public Health Laboratory Service when the diagnoses were confirmed.

  As soon as the first case was confirmed at the cardiothoracic centre samples were taken from the water systems. The results indicated that the infection could have originated from that source. Measures were therefore taken to treat the water system immediately.

  Confirmation of one case of legionnaire's disease cannot definitely be associated with any particular source. By the time that the second case was confirmed at the cardiothoracic centre appropriate control measures had been taken. There was therefore no need to alert the public.

  Following confirmation of the second case letters were sent to the general practitioners of all patients treated at the centre since it opened in July and also to all other hospitals in the area, alerting them to the possibility of the diagnosis. All staff at the centre are being screened for any signs of infection so that prompt treatment can be provided if required. To date no further cases have been identified.

  Health Records (Confidentiality)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last discussed with the Data Protection Registrar the matter of health record confidentiality and the pros and cons of providing non-statutory guidance on the matter.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 15 October at column 137.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prosecutions have been initiated by his Department for the violation of health records confidentiality; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has not initiated any such prosecutions. The confidentiality of health records is protected by the law of confidence and not the criminal law. Any breach of the duty of confidence may be actionable by the patient or the relevant authority. Unauthorised use or disclosure of personal health information by health authority staff would also be regarded as a serious disciplinary matter.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reverse the decision to encourage project grants at the expense of core grants under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: We have no such plans. We are aiming to reduce the 80 per
  276
  cent. of the section 64 general scheme budget currently spent on core grants in order to increase the scope for pump-priming and innovative projects, but the greater part of the budget will continue to go on core funding subject to three yearly review. It is necessary to strike the right balance and this is consistent with the approach of the report "Scrutiny of Government Funding of the Voluntary Sector" published in April 1990.

  Income Generation
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the income generated by each regional and district health authority for the financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91 as recorded in the short-term programme/outturn and report process.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 7 November 1991]: The available information is given in the table.

  Figures for 1990–91 are not yet available.

  1989–90

  £ Thousand

  Northern

  837

  Yorkshire

  805

  Trent

  2,240

  East Anglian

  815

  North West Thames

  2,111

  North East Thames

  5,121

  South West Thames

  473

  Wessex

  1,382

  Oxford

  1,683

  South Western

  2,365

  West Midlands

  1,357

  Mersey

  1,875

  North Western

  2,075

  South East Thames

  2,147

  125,286

  1 A further £1·5 million came from special health authorities.

  Incontinence Pads
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the statutory provisions governing charges for incontinence pads by local health authorities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 7 November 1991]: The position on charging for NHS services is set out in section 1(2) of the National Health Service Act 1977 which states that such services must be
  "free of charge except in so far as the making or recovery of harges is expressly provided for by or under any enactment, whenever passed".
  The provision of incontinence pads by NHS community services to people who are not NHS in-patients is a matter for the discretion of health authorities.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what medical assessment is used to decide how many incontinence pads are supplied free daily.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 7 November 1991]: This is a matter to be determined by individual health authorities. The Department has issued general guidance to health authorities on this matter following a national review of incontinence services, earlier this year.

EMPLOYMENT

  Pay Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the percentage increase since 1979 for the median, average, upper and lower deciles of full-time adult rates as(a) female hospital ward orderlies, (b) female welfare workers, (c) local authority male manual workers, (d) male and female non-manual workers in banking and finance, (e) male and female non-manual workers in legal services and (f) male and female manual workers in manufacturing.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available information is published in parts B, C and D of the "New Earnings Survey" reports for 1979 and 1991, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the percentage increase since 1979 for the median, average, upper and lower deciles of full-time adult rates as(a) male hospital porters, (b) male and female primary school teachers. (c) male locomotive drivers and motormen, (d) footplate staff, (e) NHS male ancillary staff and (f) NHS male maintenance staff.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available information is published in parts B and D of the "New Earnings Survey" reports for 1979 and 1991, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will publish the percentage increase in real earnings in(a) manufacturing and (b) non-manufacturing of (i) manual and (ii) non-manual males arid females respectively in the lowest decile, the lower quartile, the higher quartile and the highest decile, with the median and average figures for 1970 to 1979 and 1979 to the most recent available date;

  (2) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table in the same form as that contained in his reply dated 15 November 1989, Official Report, column 279, bringing that information up to date and in each case distinguishing between manufacturing and non-manufacturing; and if he will provide corresponding figures for (a) the periods 1970 to 1973 and 1974 to 1983 and (b) females over each period.

  Under (weeks)

  6

  8

  10

  12

  16

  20

  26

  1 April 1991 to 6 November 1991

  1

  3

  14

  38

  72

  82

  91

  1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

  3

  15

  33

  50

  75

  89

  96

  1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  5

  26

  49

  66

  87

  94

  97

  1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989

  2

  11

  32

  64

  80

  88

  94

  1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988

  4

  22

  41

  58

  79

  86

  90

  1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987

  9

  20

  39

  54

  72

  83

  89

  Mining Accidents
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list, for each coal mine in England and Wales, and for each year since 1985, the number of recorded accidents which have taken place in the course of the employment of coal miners.

  Mr. Forth
  The information in the following tables is for the years 1987–88 to 1990–91. Statistics for earlier years
  278
  Mr. Jackson
  The available information on average gross weekly earnings is published in the "New Earnings Survey" reports for the years concerned (in tables 10,11,18 and 21 for 1970, in tables 29, 32, 49 and 52 for 1973, and in tables 54, 57, 74 and 77 for 1974, 1979, 1983 and 1991), apart from figures for employees in non-manufacturing for 1991 which are given in the following table. Estimates of decile, quartile and median earnings for those in non-manufacturing are not available for 1991.

  Information on the retail prices index (all items) to convert 1979 figures to 1991 prices is published in table 6.4 of the latest "Employment Gazette" for April 1991, and in table 26 of the annual supplement to "Economic Trends" for April of earlier years.

  Copies of the publications are available in the Library.

  Average gross weekly earnings of full-lime employees on adult rates, whose pay was not affected by absence, who do not work in manufacturing industries

  April 1991

  £

  Manual men

  246·7

  Manual women

  156·4

  Non-manual men

  374·6

  Non-manual women

  238·8

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current waiting time for cases to reach a hearing by industrial tribunals within(a) the Barnsley, East constituency and (b) South Yorkshire; and what were the comparable waiting times in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Forth
  I reget that the information is not in the form requested. The following table shows the percentage of cases coming to first hearing at the industrial tribunals in the Leeds region, which includes Barnsley and the South Yorkshire area, within six, eight, 10, 12, 20 and 26 weeks respectively of receipt of the application. The figures for the period 1 April to 6 November 1991 are provisional. The figures for the period 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987 are for the Sheffield regional office which served the South Yorkshire area until its amalgamation with Leeds in 1987.

  could be provided only by incurring disproportionate cost. The tables list injuries notified to HSE in respect of all persons employed within the curtilage of the coal mine.
  279

  Name

  Type

  Fatal

  +3 day

  Major injury

  Total

  1990–91

  Agecroft

  CM

  0

  4

  1

  5

  Allerton Bywater

  CM

  0

  68

  3

  71

  Annesley/Bentinck

  CM

  0

  53

  6

  59

  Apedale

  LM

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Asfordby

  CM

  0

  14

  2

  16

  Askern

  CM

  0

  37

  8

  45

  Bagworth

  CM

  0

  25

  1

  26

  Barnburgh

  CM

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Barnsley Main

  CM

  0

  27

  7

  34

  Barnsley Main

  CM

  0

  27

  0

  27

  Bentley

  CM

  0

  58

  7

  65

  Betws

  CM

  0

  11

  3

  14

  Bevercotes

  CM

  0

  69

  5

  74

  Bickershaw Complex

  CM

  0

  15

  6

  21

  Bilsthorpe

  CM

  0

  80

  8

  88

  Blaenant

  CM

  0

  4

  2

  6

  Blenkinsop

  LM

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Bolsover

  CM

  0

  56

  10

  66

  Brawds Level

  LM

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Brodsworth

  CM

  0

  7

  5

  12

  Brynglas

  LM

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Calverton

  CM

  1

  56

  7

  64

  Clipstone

  CM

  0

  40

  10

  50

  Cotgrave

  CM

  0

  33

  5

  38

  Coventry

  CM

  0

  179

  11

  190

  Creswell

  CM

  0

  91

  5

  96

  Darrell

  LM

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Daw Mill

  CM

  0

  129

  13

  142

  Dawdon

  CM

  0

  53

  7

  60

  Dearne Valley

  CM

  0

  11

  3

  44

  Deep Navigation

  CM

  0

  27

  4

  31

  Denby Grange

  CM

  0

  11

  8

  19

  Dinnington

  CM

  0

  2

  6

  8

  DOE LEA

  LM

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Donisthorpe/Rawdon

  CM

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Draycott Cross

  LM

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Easington

  CM

  1

  118

  15

  134

  Ellington Combine

  CM

  1

  142

  9

  152

  Frickley/SE

  CM

  0

  34

  6

  40

  Gascoigne Wood

  CM

  0

  99

  3

  102

  Gedling

  CM

  0

  37

  10

  47

  Goldthorpe

  CM

  0

  25

  5

  30

  Graig-y-Llyn

  LM

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Green Clough

  LM

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Grimethorpe

  CM

  0

  16

  10

  26

  Harworth

  CM

  1

  85

  9

  95

  Hatfield/Thorne

  CM

  0

  37

  3

  40

  Houghton Main

  CM

  0

  34

  8

  42

  Kellingley

  CM

  0

  144

  6

  150

  Kiveton

  CM

  0

  47

  7

  54

  LEA Hall

  CM

  0

  73

  6

  79

  Little Sheriff

  LM

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Littleton

  CM

  0

  89

  6

  95

  Lonnen Drift

  LM

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Mainband

  LM

  0

  2

  1

  3

  Maltby

  CM

  0

  73

  10

  83

  Manton

  CM

  0

  36

  8

  44

  March Hywell No. 2

  LM

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Markham Main

  CM

  1

  35

  3

  39

  Markham

  CM

  0

  87

  8

  95

  Moorside

  LM

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Murton

  CM

  0

  60

  12

  72

  North Selby

  CM

  1

  111

  13

  125

  Oak

  CM

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Ollerton

  CM

  0

  82

  5

  87

  Parklands No. 5

  LM

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Parkside

  CM

  0

  8

  9

  17

  Penallta

  CM

  0

  36

  7

  43

  Pentwyn No. 3

  LM

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Podmore Hall

  LM

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Point of Ayr

  CM

  0

  22

  6

  28

  Prince of Wales

  CM

  0

  71

  9

  80

  Quaker House

  LM

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Quaker House

  LM

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Renishaw Park Mine

  CM

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Riccall

  CM

  0

  35

  6

  41

  280 281

  Name

  Type

  Fatal

  + 3 day

  Major injury

  Total

  Rossington

  CM

  0

  23

  0

  23

  Rufford

  CM

  0

  76

  6

  82

  Scranton

  LM

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Sharlston

  CM

  0

  74

  3

  77

  Sherwood

  CM

  0

  48

  1

  49

  Shirebrook

  CM

  0

  100

  5

  105

  Shireoaks/Steetly

  CM

  0

  4

  0

  4

  Silverdale

  CM

  0

  47

  11

  58

  Silverhill

  CM

  1

  46

  7

  54

  Silverwood

  CM

  0

  29

  7

  36

  Stillingflcet

  CM

  1

  72

  11

  84

  Sutton Manor

  CM

  0

  19

  5

  24

  Taff Manor

  CM

  0

  23

  1

  24

  Thoresby

  CM

  0

  86

  12

  98

  Thurcroft

  CM

  0

  53

  2

  55

  Tower

  CM

  1

  44

  5

  50

  Treeton

  CM

  0

  15

  0

  15

  Trentham

  CM

  0

  69

  19

  88

  Tyn Wern

  CM

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Tyn-Y-Craig

  CM

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Vane Tempest/Seaham

  CM

  0

  54

  2

  56

  Venallt

  LM

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Warsop Main

  CM

  0

  7

  3

  10

  Waunhir No. 2

  LM

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Waunhir No. 2

  LM

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Wearmouth

  CM

  0

  71

  11

  82

  Welbeck

  CM

  0

  50

  12

  62

  Westoe

  CM

  1

  62

  11

  74

  Whitemoor

  CM

  0

  37

  8

  45

  Whittle

  LM

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Wistow

  CM

  1

  27

  5

  33

  Woodside Drift

  LM

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Woody Close Drift

  LM

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Wrytree Farm Drift

  LM

  0

  3

  0

  3

  Ystrad Anthracite

  LM

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Name

  Type

  Fatal

  + 3 Day

  Major

  Total

  1989–90

  Acres Nook

  —

  —

  3

  —

  3

  Agecroft

  CM

  0

  36

  4

  40

  Allerton Bywater Mine

  CM

  0

  51

  5

  5

  Amber Valley Mine

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Annesley/Bentinck

  CM

  1

  82

  4

  5

  Apedale 1–4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Apedale 5–6

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Asfordby

  CM

  0

  19

  6

  25

  Askern Mine

  CM

  0

  36

  3

  39

  Baddesley

  CM

  0

  2

  1

  3

  Bagworth/Ellistown

  CM

  0

  54

  5

  59

  Bank Top 2

  —

  —

  3

  —

  3

  Barnburgh Mine

  CM

  0

  4

  1

  5

  Barnsley Main Mine

  CM

  0

  34

  4

  38

  Barras Hill Mine

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Bentley Mine

  CM

  0

  45

  12

  57

  Betteshanger

  CM

  1

  6

  2

  9

  Betws Mine

  CM

  0

  18

  6

  6

  Bevercotes

  CM

  1

  86

  6

  92

  Bickershaw Complex

  CM

  1

  25

  3

  29

  Bilsthorpe

  CM

  0

  69

  13

  82

  Bilston Glen Collier

  CM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Blaenant Mine

  CM

  0

  46

  10

  10

  Blenkinsopp Caste Mine

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Blidworth

  CM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Bolsover Mine

  CM

  0

  71

  8

  79

  Brodsworth

  CM

  0

  17

  5

  22

  Brynglas Mine

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Calverton

  CM

  0

  70

  9

  79

  Castle

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Cefn Mawr No. 2 Mine

  LM

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Clipstone

  CM

  0

  53

  9

  62

  Clrghyll Drift Mine

  LM

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Cotgrave

  CM

  1

  43

  2

  46

  Coventry

  CM

  0

  162

  10

  172

  Craugau Mine

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Cresswell

  CM

  1

  125

  7

  133

  282 283

  Name

  Type

  Fatal

  + 3 Day

  Major

  Total

  Cwmgwili New Drift Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Darrell Mine

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Daw Mill

  CM

  0

  119

  9

  128

  Dawdon Mine

  CM

  1

  94

  0

  1

  Dearne Valley Mine

  CM

  0

  11

  3

  14

  Deep Navigation Mine

  CM

  0

  35

  10

  10

  Denby Grange Mine

  CM

  0

  13

  13

  13

  Dinnington Mine

  CM

  0

  15

  2

  17

  Doe Lea Mine

  —

  15

  —

  15

  Donisthorpe/Rawdon

  CM

  0

  46

  7

  53

  Draycott Cross

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Drovers Drift Mine

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Easington Mine

  CM

  0

  128

  13

  13

  Ellington Combine Mine

  CM

  0

  161

  10

  10

  Florence

  CM

  0

  10

  6

  16

  Frickley/SE Mine

  CM

  0

  13

  6

  19

  Gascoigne Wood Mine

  CM

  0

  122

  7

  7

  Gedling

  CM

  0

  47

  8

  55

  Glo Mynydd Mine

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Goldthorpe Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  3

  3

  Goldthorpe Mine

  —

  —

  35

  —

  35

  Graig-Y-Fforest No. 2

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Grimethorpe Mine

  CM

  0

  32

  8

  40

  Hall of Auchincross

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Harworth

  CM

  0

  65

  13

  13

  Hatfield/Thorne Mine

  CM

  1

  60

  5

  66

  Hem Heath

  CM

  0

  42

  11

  53

  High Street

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  High Moor Mine

  CM

  0

  16

  4

  20

  Holditch

  CM

  0

  3

  1

  4

  Houghton Main Mine

  CM

  1

  56

  2

  59

  Kellingley Mine

  CM

  0

  98

  10

  10

  Kiveton Park Mine

  CM

  0

  25

  3

  28

  Kiveton Mine

  CM

  0

  22

  2

  24

  Lea Hall

  CM

  0

  91

  12

  103

  Letty Phillip

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Little Sheriff

  —

  —

  4

  —

  4

  Littleton

  CM

  0

  65

  11

  76

  Longannet

  CM

  0

  —

  15

  15

  Lyn

  —

  —

  3

  —

  3

  Mainband Mine

  LM

  0

  5

  3

  8

  Maltby Mine

  CM

  0

  90

  9

  99

  Maltby Parkgate Mine

  CM

  0

  3

  1

  4

  Mansfield

  —

  —

  5

  —

  5

  Manton Mine

  CM

  0

  37

  12

  49

  Markham Main Mine

  CM

  0

  51

  10

  61

  Markham Mine

  CM

  0

  15

  15

  Merthyr Vale Mine

  CM

  0

  16

  3

  3

  Monktonhall Colliery

  CM

  0

  1

  1

  Moorside Mine

  2

  2

  Murton Mine

  CM

  1

  13

  14

  Murton Mine

  CM

  1

  80

  13

  14

  North Selby Mine

  CM

  0

  38

  10

  10

  Oak Mine

  LM

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Oakdale Mine

  CM

  0

  11

  2

  2

  Ollerton

  CM

  1

  87

  2

  3

  Pantygasseg

  1

  1

  Parklands No. 5

  LM

  0

  4

  1

  5

  Parkside

  CM

  2

  3

  5

  10

  Penallta Mine

  CM

  0

  28

  5

  5

  Podmore Hall

  2

  2

  Point of Ayr

  CM

  0

  11

  3

  14

  Prince of Wales Mine

  CM

  1

  56

  10

  11

  Riccall Mine

  CM

  0

  24

  6

  6

  Rossington Mine

  CM

  1

  32

  10

  43

  Royston Drift Mine

  CM

  0

  2

  1

  3

  Rufford

  CM

  0

  127

  4

  4

  Scranton Mine

  1

  1

  Shadfen Park Drift Mine

  LM

  0

  3

  1

  1

  Sharlston Mine

  CM

  0

  54

  4

  4

  Sherwood

  CM

  0

  68

  10

  10

  Shirebrook Mine

  CM

  1

  115

  7

  123

  Shireoaks/Steetley Mine

  CM

  0

  10

  2

  12

  Silverdale

  CM

  0

  37

  7

  44

  Silverhill

  CM

  0

  48

  1

  1

  Silverwood Mine

  CM

  1

  58

  7

  66

  Stillingfleet Mine

  CM

  0

  93

  16

  16

  Sutton

  CM

  0

  8

  2

  2

  284 285

  Name

  Type

  Fatal

  + 3 Day

  Major

  Total

  Sutton Manor M7

  CM

  0

  17

  1

  18

  Taff Merthyr Mine

  CM

  0

  36

  6

  6

  Thoresby

  CM

  0

  111

  7

  7

  Thurcroft Mine

  CM

  0

  66

  6

  72

  Tower Mine

  CM

  1

  52

  6

  7

  Treeton Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  4

  4

  Vane Tempest/Seaham

  CM

  0

  99

  12

  12

  Viaduct "A" LM

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Warsop Main Mine

  CM

  0

  20

  2

  22

  Waunhir No. 2 Mine

  LM

  0

  1

  2

  2

  Wearmouth Mine

  CM

  0

  144

  10

  10

  Welbeck

  CM

  0

  65

  4

  4

  Westoe Mine

  CM

  0

  94

  8

  8

  Whitemoor Mine

  CM

  0

  28

  5

  5

  Whittle Mine

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Wistow Mine

  CM

  0

  29

  5

  5

  Ystrad Anthracite Mine

  LM

  0

  2

  1

  3

  Name

  Type

  Fatal

  + 3 day

  Major

  Total

  1988–89

  Annesley/Bentinck

  CM

  0

  60

  11

  71

  Asfordby

  CM

  1

  23

  8

  32

  Betteshanger

  CM

  0

  34

  5

  39

  Bevercotes

  CM

  0

  133

  9

  142

  Bagworth/Ellistown

  CM

  1

  96

  4

  101

  Bilsthorpe

  CM

  0

  84

  5

  89

  Blidworth

  CM

  0

  35

  4

  39

  Calverton

  CM

  0

  78

  8

  86

  Clipstone

  CM

  1

  82

  7

  90

  Cotgrave

  CM

  0

  70

  6

  76

  Creswell

  CM

  0

  110

  5

  115

  Donisthorpe/Rawdon

  CM

  0

  93

  9

  102

  Gedling

  CM

  0

  84

  13

  97

  Hawroth

  CM

  1

  89

  13

  103

  Linby

  CM

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Mansfield

  CM

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Ollerton

  CM

  0

  127

  11

  138

  Rufford

  CM

  0

  95

  8

  103

  Sherwood

  CM

  0

  57

  5

  62

  Silverhill

  CM

  0

  57

  4

  61

  Sutton

  CM

  0

  28

  2

  30

  Thoresby

  CM

  0

  127

  5

  132

  Welbeck

  CM

  0

  73

  8

  81

  Allerton Bywater

  CM

  0

  54

  10

  64

  Denby Grange

  CM

  0

  37

  4

  41

  Gascoigne Wood

  CM

  1

  91

  2

  94

  Kellingley

  CM

  1

  143

  9

  153

  North Selby

  CM

  0

  51

  5

  56

  Park Mill

  CM

  0

  11

  3

  14

  Prince of Wales

  CM

  0

  83

  11

  94

  Riccall

  CM

  0

  8

  4

  12

  Sharlston

  CM

  0

  53

  1

  54

  Stillingfleet

  CM

  1

  45

  10

  56

  Whitemoor

  CM

  0

  23

  5

  28

  Wistow

  CM

  0

  8

  3

  11

  Woolley/Redbrook

  CM

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Dawdon

  CM

  0

  53

  13

  66

  Easington

  CM

  0

  35

  12

  47

  Ellington Combine

  CM

  0

  30

  12

  42

  Murton

  CM

  0

  40

  8

  48

  Vane Tempest

  CM

  0

  16

  7

  23

  Wearmouth

  CM

  0

  49

  12

  61

  Westoe

  CM

  0

  29

  12

  41

  Osmond Croft

  LM

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Abernant

  CM

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Betws Mine

  CM

  0

  16

  7

  23

  Blaenant

  CM

  2

  38

  5

  45

  Britannia

  CM

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Carway Fawr

  CM

  0

  2

  2

  4

  Cwmgwili New Drift

  CM

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Cynheidre

  CM

  0

  18

  7

  25

  Deep Navigation

  CM

  0

  39

  8

  47

  Merthyr Vale

  CM

  0

  75

  5

  80

  Oakdale

  CM

  0

  26

  9

  35

  Penallta

  CM

  0

  30

  5

  35

  286 287

  Name

  Type

  Fatal

  + 3 day injury

  Major

  Total

  Taff Merthyr

  CM

  1

  53

  8

  62

  Tower Mine

  CM

  0

  50

  5

  55

  Marine

  CM

  0

  60

  3

  63

  Blaengrennig No. 2

  LM

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Brynglas

  LM

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Darrell

  LM

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Dynant Fach No. 2

  LM

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Ffynonau Duon No. 3

  LM

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Letty Phillip

  LM

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Oak

  LM

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Ystrad Anthracite

  LM

  0

  2

  1

  3

  Askern

  CM

  0

  34

  4

  38

  Barnburgh

  CM

  0

  36

  1

  37

  Bentley

  CM

  0

  20

  7

  27

  Brodsworth

  CM

  0

  30

  10

  40

  Dinnington

  CM

  0

  16

  3

  19

  Frickley/SE

  CM

  0

  18

  7

  25

  Goldthorpe

  CM

  0

  38

  7

  45

  Hatfield/Thorne

  CM

  0

  40

  6

  46

  High Moor

  CM

  0

  28

  4

  32

  Kiveton Park

  CM

  0

  31

  3

  24

  Maltby

  CM

  0

  88

  8

  96

  Maltby Parkgate

  CM

  0

  8

  3

  11

  Manton

  CM

  0

  40

  7

  47

  Manvers Complex

  CM

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Markham Main

  CM

  0

  67

  5

  72

  Shireoaks/Steetley

  CM

  1

  48

  6

  55

  Silverwood

  CM

  0

  73

  6

  79

  Thurcroft

  CM

  0

  39

  4

  43

  Treeton

  CM

  0

  42

  7

  49

  Barnsley Main

  CM

  0

  43

  1

  44

  Bolsover

  CM

  0

  58

  4

  62

  Dearne Valley

  CM

  0

  10

  6

  16

  Grimethorpe

  CM

  0

  55

  12

  67

  Houghton Main

  CM

  0

  81

  11

  92

  Markham

  CM

  0

  130

  15

  145

  Royston Drift

  CM

  0

  27

  2

  29

  Shirebrook

  CM

  0

  153

  9

  162

  Warsop Main

  CM

  0

  65

  8

  73

  South Kirby/Ferrymo

  CM

  0

  1

  2

  3

  Doe Lea

  LM

  0

  5

  2

  7

  Strathfield

  LM

  0

  1

  2

  3

  Baddesley

  CM

  0

  54

  4

  58

  Bickershaw

  CM

  0

  30

  15

  45

  Coventry

  CM

  0

  140

  13

  153

  Daw Mill

  CM

  0

  107

  4

  111

  Florence

  CM

  1

  15

  12

  28

  Hem Heath

  CM

  3

  81

  6

  90

  Holditch

  CM

  0

  16

  5

  21

  Lea Hall

  CM

  0

  54

  5

  59

  Littleton

  CM

  0

  17

  7

  24

  Parkside

  CM

  0

  20

  7

  27

  Point of Ayr

  CM

  0

  19

  6

  25

  Silverdale

  CM

  1

  34

  3

  38

  Sutton Manor M7

  CM

  0

  5

  6

  11

  Acres Nook

  LM

  0

  2

  1

  3

  Bank Top No. 2

  LM

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Castle

  LM

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Ashington

  CM

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Woody Close Drift

  LM

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Wrytree Farm Drift

  LM

  0

  3

  1

  4

  Name

  Type

  Fatal

  + 3 Day

  Major

  Total

  1987–88

  Abernant Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  6

  6

  Acres Nook

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Agecroft

  CM

  0

  —

  3

  3

  Allerton Bywater Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  6

  6

  Annesley

  CM

  0

  15

  6

  21

  Annesley/Bentinck

  CM

  0

  99

  1

  100

  Arkwright Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  3

  3

  Asfordby

  CM

  0

  7

  2

  9

  Ashington Mine

  CM

  0

  24

  3

  27

  Askern Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  10

  10

  Baddesley

  CM

  0

  35

  9

  44

  288 289

  Name

  Type

  Fatal

  +3 Day

  Major

  Total

  Bagworth/Ellistown

  CM

  1

  107

  11

  119

  Bank Top No 2

  LM

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Barnburgh Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  3

  3

  Barnsley Main Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  7

  7

  Barrashill Drift

  LM

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Bentinck

  CM

  0

  16

  1

  17

  Bentley mine

  CM

  0

  —

  6

  6

  Betteshanger

  CM

  0

  126

  5

  131

  Betws Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  8

  8

  Bevercotes

  CM

  0

  —

  12

  12

  Bickershaw Complex

  CM

  0

  —

  9

  9

  Bilsthorpe

  CM

  0

  —

  6

  6

  Birch Coppice

  CM

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Blaenant Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  8

  8

  Blenkinsopp Drift

  LM

  —

  7

  —

  7

  Blidworth

  CM

  0

  —

  5

  5

  Bodyst Uchaf Mine

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Bolsover Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  10

  10

  Brodsworth

  CM

  0

  —

  3

  3

  Brynglas Mine

  LM

  0

  —

  2

  2

  Bwlch Ton Mine

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Cadley Hill

  CM

  —

  42

  4

  46

  Calverton

  CM

  0

  89

  10

  99

  Carway Fawr Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  6

  6

  Clipstone

  CM

  0

  —

  15

  15

  Cotgrave

  CM

  0

  98

  7

  105

  Coventry

  CM

  0

  108

  7

  115

  Coventry

  CM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Creswell

  CM

  0

  —

  10

  10

  Cynheidre Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  7

  7

  Darran Mine

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Daw Mill

  CM

  0

  104

  8

  112

  Dawdon Mine

  CM

  0

  136

  7

  143

  Dawdon Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  13

  13

  Dearne Valley Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  2

  2

  Deep Navigation Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  11

  11

  Denby Grange Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  7

  7

  Dinnington Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  7

  7

  Drovers Drift Mine

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Dynant Fach No. 1 Mine

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Dynant Fach No. 2 Mine

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Easington

  —

  —

  121

  13

  134

  Ellington Combine Mine

  CM

  0

  130

  11

  141

  Farmwood Mine

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Fforch-y-garran Mine

  LM

  1

  —

  0

  1

  Florence

  CM

  0

  —

  6

  6

  Frickley/SE Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  6

  6

  Gascoigne Wood Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  4

  4

  Gedling

  CM

  0

  95

  9

  104

  Goldthorpe Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  6

  6

  Greenland Drift

  LM

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Grimethorpe Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  5

  5

  Harworth

  CM

  0

  —

  2

  2

  Hatfield/Thorne Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  9

  9

  Hem Heath

  CM

  0

  —

  10

  10

  High Street

  LM

  0

  —

  2

  2

  High Moor Mine

  CM

  1

  —

  7

  8

  Holditch

  CM

  0

  —

  2

  2

  Houghton Main Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  5

  5

  Kellingley Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  2

  2

  Kiveton Park Mine

  CM

  1

  —

  2

  3

  Lady Windsor/Abercyn

  CM

  0

  —

  2

  2

  Lea Hall

  CM

  0

  —

  7

  7

  Letty Philip

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Linby

  —

  —

  77

  —

  77

  Littleton

  CM

  0

  —

  12

  12

  Maltby Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  7

  7

  Maltby Parkgate Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  2

  2

  Mansfield

  CM

  0

  —

  5

  5

  Manton Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  6

  6

  Manvers Complex Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  3

  3

  Marine Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Markham Main Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  8

  8

  Markham Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  19

  19

  Merthyr Vale Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  6

  6

  Murton Mine

  CM

  0

  167

  10

  177

  Murton Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  10

  10

  Newstead

  CM

  0

  —

  4

  4

  290 291

  Name

  Type

  Fatal

  + 3 Day

  Major

  Total

  North Selby Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  3

  3

  Nostell Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Oakdale Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  4

  4

  Ollerton

  CM

  1

  —

  9

  10

  Parc Level

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Park Mill Mine

  CM

  1

  —

  2

  3

  Parklands No. 5

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Parkside

  CM

  0

  —

  9

  9

  Penallta Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  3

  3

  Point of Ayr

  CM

  0

  —

  6

  6

  Prince of Wales Mine

  CM

  1

  —

  7

  8

  Quaker House

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Rawdon Complex

  CM

  1

  41

  5

  47

  Redbrook Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  2

  2

  Renishaw Park Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  2

  2

  Rhaeadr No. 2 Mine

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Rheola

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Riccall Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  4

  4

  Rossington Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  10

  10

  Royston Drift Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  2

  2

  Rufford

  CM

  0

  —

  6

  6

  Shadfen Park

  LM

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Sharlston Mine

  CM

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Sherwood

  CM

  0

  —

  9

  9

  Shirebrook Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  15

  15

  Shireoaks/Steetley Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  6

  6

  Silverdale

  CM

  0

  —

  7

  7

  Silverdale

  CM

  0

  —

  7

  7

  Silverhill

  CM

  0

  —

  3

  3

  Silverwood Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  3

  3

  Six Bells Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  2

  2

  Snowdon

  CM

  0

  —

  2

  2

  Snowdon

  CM

  0

  5

  2

  7

  South Kirkby/Ferrymoor

  CM

  0

  —

  4

  4

  Stillingfleet

  CM

  0

  —

  5

  5

  Sutton

  CM

  0

  —

  5

  5

  Sutton Manor M7

  CM

  0

  —

  6

  6

  Sutton Manor M7

  CM

  0

  —

  6

  6

  Taff Merthyr Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  8

  8

  Thoresby

  CM

  0

  —

  12

  12

  Thurcroft Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Tower Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  10

  10

  Treeton Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  6

  6

  Vane Tempest/Seaham

  CM

  0

  83

  5

  88

  Warsop Main Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  4

  4

  Waunhir No.2 Mine

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Wearmouth Mine

  CM

  0

  197

  9

  206

  Welbeck

  CM

  0

  —

  11

  11

  Westoe Mine

  CM

  0

  121

  14

  135

  Wheldale Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  4

  4

  Whitemoor Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Wistow Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  6

  6

  Woodside Drift

  LM

  —

  1

  2

  3

  Woody Close Drift Mine

  LM

  0

  —

  1

  1

  Woolley/Redbridge Mine

  CM

  0

  —

  11

  11

  Wrytree Farm Drift Mine

  LM

  1

  5

  0

  6

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list(a) the number of training places available to the young unemployed and (b) the range of opportunities available to the young unemployed in the Barnsley, East constituency.

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

  In 1991–92 Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council (TEC) has contracted with local training providers on a training week basis. In the Barnsley local authority district the number of training weeks available will allow for an average in training level of 2,550 places for the remainder of this year.
  292
  The TEC has confirmed that it is confident of meeting the Government's guarantee to young people and in doing so is providing a wide range of training opportunities which they believe will meet known local needs.

  The Government have guaranteed that all young people who are under 18 and not in full-time education or a job and are seeking training are offered and, if necessary, re-offered a suitable youth training (YT) place. The Government remain committed to ensuring that the YT guarantee is met.

  In the Barnsley, East constituency the employment service offers opportunities to take a job, join a jobclub, or attend jobsearch seminar, restart course, job review workshop, or a job preparation course. There are varying eligibility criteria for these opportunities.

WALES

  BA Engine Maintenance Plant
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Director General of Fair Trading and others concerning the reference to the Office of Fair Trading of the sale of British Airways aero-engine maintenance plant at Nantgarw to assess its effect on competition on the market for servicing and supply of aero-engines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  As is normal practice when proposed mergers have implications for Wales, the Welsh Office has been consulted by the Office of Fair Trading.

  Industrial and Maritime Museum
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the chairman of the court of governors of the National Museum of Wales concerning the future expansion of the Wales Industrial and Maritime museum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Initial discussions about the National Museum of Wales' plans for the Welsh Industrial and Maritime museum have taken place between officials. The proposals are being considered along with other plans for developments in Cardiff bay.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales concerning the exclusion of the Cardiff bay site of special scientific interest from the special protection area under the European Community wild birds directive for the lower Severn estuary.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I reached our decision following careful consideration of a proposal submitted by the then Nature Conservancy Council, one of the predecessor bodies to the Countryside Council for Wales. The council has been fully consulted about the future of Cardiff bay in the context of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many written representations he has received concerning the groundwater effects of the proposed Cardiff bay barrage as part of the public consultation exercise running from 25 September to 25 December.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None, but we are not yet half way through the three-month consultation period which ends on 31 December.

  Children in Hospital
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to issue a new circular on the welfare of children in hospital; and what factors have led to this timetable for its issue.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  We expect to issue new guidance on the welfare of children in hospital by the end of the year. This timetable arises from the need to revise existing guidance.

SCOTLAND

  Parents Charter
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the rights given to parents under the parents charter if they consider that performance of the Scottish Office in education is inadequate.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The parents charter relates to parents' rights in respect of the direct provision of education for their children, which in large part is the responsibility of education authorities. Parents will have new rights, through school boards, to have their interests taken into account when a school is inspected by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how frequently Her Majesty's inspectorate will inspect(a) nursery, (b) primary and (c) secondary schools under the parents charter proposals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Under the parents charter all schools will be required to produce a document setting out their educational plans and targets for two years ahead, and to report on progress over the previous two years.

  Future levels of inspection will be set in the context of this enhanced system for quality assurance. Inspections will be undertaken more frequently where that is necessary and a greater emphasis will be placed on follow-up inspections. For next year, I anticipate that the number of schools inspected is likely to be about 25 to 30 per cent. higher than in the current Session.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what rights the parents charter gives in nursery education.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The provision of nursery education is not a statutory requirement: it is a matter for individual education authorities to consider in the light of the needs and priorities of their areas. I expect, however, that education authorities will wish to apply the principles of the parents charter, wherever appropriate, for the benefit of parents of pupils at nursery schools.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will indicate the level of financial provision he intends to make for new environmentally sensitive area designations between now and the end of the 1992–93 financial year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend proposes to make available £1·5 million for the designation, subject to parliamentary approval, of new environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland in the financial year 1992–93. Provision will also be made for further development of existing first round areas and for continuing payments in existing and new areas after 1992–93.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many environmentally sensitive areas he expects to designate between now and 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government believe that environmentally sensitive areas offer significant benefits to farming and conservation. My right hon. Friend therefore
  295
  intends to designate further areas in Scotland in 1992 and 1993 and has sought advice from his statutory advisers. He will announce the areas in due course.

  Health Records (Confidentiality)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what actions he is taking for the protection of health records confidentiality in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of Tuesday 15 October at column 146.

DEFENCE

  MV Polar Circle
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by which date a decision has to be made about the future lease or purchase arrangements for MV Polar Circle after the 1991–92 season.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Under the terms of the charter contract, an option to purchase Polar Circle or to extend the charter can be taken by the Government at any time before 24 January 1992.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what modifications he expects to be required on MV Polar Circle prior to her departure for Antarctica.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Polar Circle requires modifications to add military communications equipment, to embark hydrographic equipment, and to provide suitable aviation facilities.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the charter for MV Polar Circle is(a) a bareboat charter or (b) a time charter.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Polar Circle has been leased on a bareboat charter.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long is the lease taken out on the MV Polar Circle; if it remains his policy to retain a naval vessel in Falklands waters beyond April 1992; and if he will consider renaming MV Polar Circle, HMS Endurance for the duration of its lease.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Polar Circle is currently under charter to the Royal Navy for a minimum of seven and a maximum of eight months to replace HMS Endurance for this season's deployment to the Antarctic. For the period of her present charter she will be commissioned as HMS Polar Circle. If she were to be accepted into the Royal Navy on a permanent basis, we would then consider the name she could carry through her service life. The Government have made clear their commitment to carry out for the foreseeable future the tasks formerly undertaken by HMS Endurance. Other naval vessels will continue to be deployed in support of our defence commitments in the Falklands Islands.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy in respect of the maintenance of a long-term naval presence in Antarctica.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government are committed to maintaining for the foreseeable future the programme of work previously carried out by HMS Endurance.

  Post-service Training
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information is made available to service personnel regarding access to training after leaving the services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 22 November 1990 at columns 207–8. The employment service booklets are currently being revised, and we are also working with the employment service on the production of a guide detailing services available to personnel after they have left the armed forces. This will be issued to all personnel prior to discharge.

  Redundancies
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Army service personnel, (b) Royal Air Force service personnel and (c) Royal Navy personnel have applied for voluntary redundancy; and whether he has any plans to make further offers of voluntary redundancy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Applications for selection for redundancy in 1992–93 have been received from over 5,000 Army personnel. We also expect to invite Army personnel to apply for redundancy in both 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  The RN expects shortly to invite applications for redundancy in 1992–93.

  It is not yet clear whether any redundancies will be needed in the RAF.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of those Army personnel who have applied for voluntary redundancy are(a) private soldiers, (b) NCOs and (c) officers; and what proportion of those Army personnel who have applied for voluntary redundancy come from (i) the Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, (ii) the Royal Corps of Signals and (iii) the Corps of Royal Engineers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Some 85 per cent. of the applicants for voluntary redundancy are NCOs and 15 per cent. are officers.

  Ten per cent. of applicants are from the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, 5 per cent. are from the Royal Signals and 7 per cent. are from the Corps of Royal Engineers.

  Private soldiers in the Army are not invited to apply for redundancy.

  Defence Estate (Repairs)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total maintenance backlog of(a) unavoidable and essential repairs and (b) urgent repairs on the defence estate as of 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The total maintenance backlog on the defence estate at 1 April 1991 is estimated to be:

  £ million

  (a) Unavoidable and essential

  494

  (b) Urgent

  150

  Total

  644

  Armoured Divisions
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the percentage change in the capability of British armoured divisions in(a) the last four years and (b) the last nine years, respectively.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information is not held in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Towers
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the masts or towers over 500 ft tall owned by his Department which have been fitted with white strobe lights to conform to the recommendations of the Civil Aviation Authority, and the similar installations without such strobe lights.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The only mast owned by the MOD and over 500 ft tall to have been fitted with this type of hazard beacon is that at Aird Uig on the Isle of Lewis. The small number of remaining masts will be fitted as and when the existing obstacle lights become due for replacement.

  Greenham Common
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether compensation has yet been paid to the commoners of Greenham common for their rights.

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  Television advertising

  Radio advertising

  Newspaper advertising

  Other promotional material

  Total

  1979–80

  2·28

  0·04

  5·75

  0·14

  8·21

  1980–81

  0·54

  0·17

  6·10

  0·85

  7·66

  1981–82

  0·01

  0·04

  4·20

  1·04

  5·29

  1982–83

  0·01

  0·07

  3·90

  1·03

  5·01

  1983–84

  Nil

  0·07

  5·30

  1·90

  7·27

  1984–85

  0·49

  0·02

  6·86

  1·50

  8·87

  1985–86

  1·82

  0·02

  6·82

  1·03

  9·69

  1986–87

  0·73

  0·22

  8·07

  1·17

  10·19

  1987–88

  0·55

  0·03

  7·68

  2·52

  10·78

  1988–89

  2·86

  0·18

  9·56

  4·44

  17·04

  1989–90

  4·18

  0·26

  13·36

  6·21

  24·01

  1990–91

  2·88

  0·22

  9·21

  8·62

  20·93

  1991–92

  3·10

  0·55

  6·82

  2·59

  13·06

  1992–93

  Budgets not yet finalised

  Notes:

  1. All figures are expressed in £(pounds) million.

  2. 1991–92 figures are the latest estimates available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide an up-to-date list of each television advertising campaign carried out, or to be carried out, by his Department during 1991–92, and of each other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000, giving for

  Royal Navy

  Production of a television recruiting advertisement and television advertising campaign.

  16 September to 17 November 1991

  Young and Rubican Ltd. advertising agency responsible for television advertising campaign, advertisement produced by Paul Weiland Films.

  Production of a radio recruting advertisement and radio advertising campaign.

  14 October to 30 November 1991

  Young and Rubican Ltd. advertising agency responsible for radio advertising campaign, advertisement produced by Central Office of Information.

  Production of a cinema recruiting advertisement and cinema advertising campaign.

  Spring 1992 (actual dates not yet known)

  Young and Rubican Ltd. advertising agency to be responsible for cinema advertising campaign, advertisement produced by Paul Weiland Films.

  298
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since 11 July 1991.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: The information requested is as follows:

  Royal Navy—

  Creative Development Research

  To monitor the effectiveness of advertising material.

  Royal Navy—

  Advertising Monitor

  RAF—

  Creative Development

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: The information requested is as follows:

  each (a) the topic, (b) the commencement date, (c) the duration and (d) the advertising, promotional and public relations companies involved.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: The information requested is as follows:

  299

  Army

  Production of a television/cinema recruiting advertisement and television/cinema advertising campaign.

  24 June to 14 July 1991

  Advertisement produced by Sid Roberson Films. Delaney, Fletcher, Slaymaker, Delaney & Bozell advertising agency responsible for advertising campaign.

  3 August to 15 October 1991

  Press campaign in support of the above.

  8 July to 2 September 1991

  Press recruitment campaign.

  3 November to 8 November 1991

  Delaney Fletcher Slaymaker Delaney & Bozell advertising agency responsible for advertising campaign.

  Territorial Army

  1. A combined television/press

  7 October to 4 November 1991

  Advertisement produced by Ridley Scott Associates.

  recruitment campaign highlighting the range of weekend activities in the Territorial Army.

  February 1992 (actual dates not yet known)

  Delaney Fletcher Slaymaker Delaney & Bozell advertising agency responsible for advertising campaign.

  2. A press campaign to recruit specialist personnel.

  16 September to 14 October 1991 February 1992 (actual dates not yet known)

  Delaney Fletcher Slaymaker Delaney & Bozell advertising agency.

  Purcell Miller Tritton responsible for production of posters in support of 1 and 2 above.

  Tri-Service

  1. Press campaign to thank employers for releasing Volunteer Reserve Forces personnel for service during the Gulf crisis.

  18 June to 23 June 1991

  Young and Rubican Ltd. advertising agency

  2. Campaign to increase public awareness of Volunteer Researve Forces and employers' support for them.

  4 weeks in December 1991 and January 1992 (actual dates not yet known)

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Burma
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans exist to challenge at the credential meeting the right to a seat for the current regime in Burma in the United Nations General Assembly.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the involvement of the security forces of the Burmese Government with the trade in narcotics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No such representations have been made. We vigorously condemn all drugs trafficking and any groups in Burma involved in this pernicious trade.

  Thailand
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the human rights implications of evictions by the Thai Government of people from their homes in the Dong Yai forest, Buriram Province in Northern Thailand, to facilitate logging operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received no such representations.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council on 4 November.

  Mr. Hurd
  A meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council took place in Brussels on 4 November. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council issued a statement reconfirming its commitment to a substantial, balanced and global conclusion of the Uruguay round this year. It urged the Commission to make effective use of every opportunity to achieve progress in the negotiations. In particular the Council drew attention to the need to make good use of the forthcoming EC/US summit on 9 November to narrow differences between the EC and United States in the interests of a successful completion of the round.

  The Council reviewed the situation in Yugoslavia and agreed a package of measures subject to a political decision by EC Ministers today. The measures comprise suspension of the EC/Yugoslavia trade and co-operation agreement and of Yugoslavia's inclusion in the EC's PHARE programme, and exclusion of Yugoslavia from the generalised system of preferences and from participation in ministerial meetings of the Group of 24. The Council also agreed in principle that any restrictive measures toward Yugoslavia as a whole should be accompanied by positive measures towards those republics co-operating with the peace process. There was agreement in principle that the United Nations Security Council should be invited to examine measures to tighten the arms embargo and to consider an oil embargo.
  301
  The Council discussed Cambodia in the light of the successful outcome of the Paris conference and invited the Commission to make proposals on future Community relations.

  The Council reviewed the draft European coal and steel community protocol in the association agreement negotiations with Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland and decided to remit the question to the Committee of Permanent Representatives for further examination.

  An EC/Jordan Co-operation Council took place after the Foreign Affairs Council. A lunch between EC and Arab Maghreb Union Foreign Ministers was held in the margins of the Foreign Affairs Council. There was no agreement to any change to existing EC measures against Libya.

  Political Union
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a statement on the outcome of the ministerial meeting of the intergovernmental conference on political union on 4 November.

  Mr. Hurd
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I attended a ministerial meeting of the intergovernmental conference on political union on 4 November. The meeting discussed the presidency's proposals for increased co-operation on interior and justice matters. A number of member states, in particular Germany, wish the Community to take responsibility for all co-operation in this area. That includes police co-operation, immigration and asylum policy. I agreed that the countries of Europe must work more closely together to combat illegal immigration and asylum and organised crime. Valuable work already goes on, and must be strengthened. But I made clear that we do not believe that bringing these areas into Community competence was necessary or desirable.

  There was also a discussion of the presidency's proposed amendments to the social chapter of the treaty of Rome. I said that the Community needed a social dimension, but did not need any treaty change to achieve it. I again pointed to the undesirability of trying to introduce measures in the social area, especially in industrial relations, which might cut across national practices and which could lead to unsustainable costs across the Community.

  These and other issues relating to the intergovernmental conference on political union will be discussed further at a meeting of Foreign Ministers to be held in Noordwijk in the Netherlands on 12 to 14 November.

  An inter-institutional meeting between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament was held on 5 November, following the 4 November ministerial meeting. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs represented the Government.

ENVIRONMENT

  Noise (Working Party Report)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the action he proposes to take arising from the noise review working party report published in October 1990.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government's policy on noise was set out in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" and 302
  reflects much of the thinking of the noise review working party. My speech to the Noise Council seminar on 15 May and that of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to the Institution of Environmental Health Officers on 10 September summarised progress.

  A number of the working party's recommendations have already been implemented and the Government are actively working on others. Some of the main noise measures that have been taken are as follows.

  The Environmental Protection Act 1990 has clarified local authority responsibilities for noise control and increased the maximum fine for statutory noise nuisance from business premises to £20,000. The Government are funding a pilot neighbourhood noise awareness scheme at Forest Hill, and are grant-aiding a neighbour mediation scheme in Bristol and a noise awareness project for school children in Nottingham. One of the eligible categories for grant under this year's environmental grant fund is for the formation of schemes to develop noise awareness/mediation. The Government are in contact with audio manufacturers to discuss good practice for audio users.

  We have issued for comment guidance for environmental health officers and the police on existing powers to control noisy parties. In addition the Government have set up a working party to consider whether there is a need for further measures to control noisy parties. A draft code of practice on pop concerts has been published.

  The Building Regulations governing noise within buildings are to be amended to include for the first time in England and Wales noise insulation for flat conversions which will be as close as possible to standards for new buildings. Comments on our proposals have been received and it is planned that regulations will be laid by early December with a view to their coming into force next June.

  The Government have published a consultation document on tighter noise requirements for car alarms fitted to motor vehicles first used from August 1992. The main proposal is that the length of alarm be reduced from five minutes to 30 seconds and audible arming signals be banned. Responses to the consultation exercise are being considered. Also we shall be reviewing the new powers to control burglar alarms taken by London local authorities to determine whether there is a case for extending them nationwide.

  The Government have recently issued draft guidance for consultation on control of noise at surface mineral workings and we shall shortly be issuing draft planning policy guidance for consultation on noise and new development, to update and expand existing advice. This will include noise from roads, aircraft, railways and industry. It will also take forward the working party's several recommendations about the need to establish action levels or exposure bands for controlling new development.

  The Government plan to carry out research in 1992–93 to assess whether the current noise standard for noise insulation for new roads is still appropriate. We hope shortly to announce our conclusions on the report of the committee set up under the chairmanship of Dr. Mitchell to consider a noise insulation standard for new railway lines. The Government will consult on a draft of the regulations before they are made. A proposed revised planning procedure for new railway lines has been announced.
  303
  The Government have issued a consultation paper on control of noise at aerodromes. The main proposal is a new power to designate aerodromes—where informal consultation proves inadequate—to introduce formal consultative arrangements with the local authority. The extension of abatement orders to helicopters take-off and aerodrome ground running has been canvassed. The consultation period runs until end of the year. Also the Government recently announced that the amount of low flying by military jet aircraft is to decrease by about 30 per cent. over the next three years. The index for measurement of aircraft noise has been replaced by a more satisfactory measure.

  Government policy on noise is underpinned with appropriate research and our programme has been re-aligned with priorities identified by the noise review working party. Forthcoming research includes a national noise attitude study, a model for human response to transportation noise, assessment and prediction of industrial noise, and low frequency noise.

  Listed Buildings (Fittings)
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether a painting on an overmantel which rests on a mantelpiece in a listed building forms part of the fittings and fixtures for which his Department has control over their destination.

  Mr. Yeo
  Section 1(5)(a) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in defining the term "listed building", provides that for the purposes of the Act any object or structure fixed to the building shall be treated as part of the building, and therefore are subject to listed building controls.

  Whether a particular item is regarded as a fixture or a chattel will depend on the individual facts of each case; the test to be applied to listed buildings is the same as for other property. The courts have held that the issues to be considered are the degree to which an object is physically attached to a building, and the purpose for which it was attached.

  Private Tenancies
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many private sector tenancies were available annually, within the United Kingdom, for each year since 1979;

  (2) what number of private sector tenancies were available annually within (a) England and (b) Yorkshire and Humberside, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Yeo
  The available information relates to the number of private sector tenants who had been living in their accommodation for less than a year, as estimated from annual labour force surveys (LFS). Since some households will have moved more than once in the previous year, the total number of tenancies that became available each year will have been higher than the numbers shown in the table.

  Private renters resident under one year

  thousands

  Great Britain

  England

  Yorks and Humberside

  1981

  440

  390

  30

  1983

  500

  430

  40

  304

  Great Britain

  England

  Yorks and Humberside

  1984

  540

  470

  30

  1985

  490

  420

  50

  1986

  490

  420

  40

  1987

  560

  490

  50

  1988

  580

  520

  60

  1989

  510

  480

  40

  1990

  580

  540

  50

  Notes:

  1. The table shows moves in the 12 months before the time of interview, which was at some point between March and April each year.

  2. The LFS is a sample survey so the estimates are subject to sampling errors. For Great Britain and England the estimates are probably accurate to about 20,00 households either way up to 1983 and 30,000 either way from 1984 on. For Yorkshire and Humberside they are probably accurate to between 5,000 and 10,000 either way.

  3. The LFS was biennial until 1983 and there was no survey in 1980 or 1982.

  Grant-aided Work
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring his Department has done with regard to the quality of grant-aided work in relation to paragraph 109 of DoE circular 12/90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  As paragraph 109 of circular 12/90 explains, the quality of grant-aided work is ultimately a matter between the applicant and the building contractor. That paragraph also makes clear that payment of grant is conditional upon the works being executed to the satisfaction of the local housing authority, and that authorities should not certify as satisfactorily completed any works displaying an unacceptable quality of workmanship, or where the objectives of the grant are not met. Monitoring of the quality of grant-aided work is therefore already undertaken by local authorities and there is no need for the Department to be involved.

  Development
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received from the Association of District Councils on the effectiveness of current legislation in enabling the control of development with particular reference to development which constitutes a departure from the structure plan;

  (2) what advice he gives to local planning authorities when they are considering applications which involve development which constitutes a departure from the structure plan.

  Mr. Yeo
  No such representations have been received. A local planning authority which is considering a planning application that involves development constituting a departure from the structure plan should follow the procedures in the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans) (England) Direction 1981. Advice is given to authorities in Department of the Environment circular 2/81.

  Environmental Protection Act (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many successful prosecutions have been brought against duty bodies under part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on the number of litter abatement orders obtained and litter abatement notices served on duty bodies is not held centrally. However, the Tidy Britain Group, with the encouragement of my Department, undertook a survey of all local authorities in July this year to monitor the implementation of part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. None of the 331 respondents reported that prosecutions had been brought against them, although 13 authorities said that they had been notified of an intention to bring a prosecution under part IV.

  Information on the number of duty bodies prosecuted in 1991 for failing to comply with a litter abatement order or a litter abatement notice under sections 91 and 92 of the Act will be available along with the publication of the annual series of criminal statistics in late 1992.

  The number of prosecutions is not a reflection of the success of the measures in the Act, which are designed primarily as deterrents.

  Phipps Bridge Estate
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will assist the London borough of Merton to rebuild the Phipps Bridge estate following the proposals submitted to his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  I understand that Merton is preparing new proposals for tackling the problems of this estate. My Department will do whatever it can to assist a satisfactory outcome.

  Control of Pollution Act
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions to make regulations under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 have not been implemented.

  Mr. Baldry
  Sections 6, 11, 18, 21, 23, 29, 45, 73, 94, 102 and 103. The reasons for non-implementation vary, but they include provisions being superseded by the Water Act 1989 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and the fact that some of the provisions related to reserve powers.

  Parliamentary Properties
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the office properties in the Westminster area for which he is currently negotiating leases for parliamentary use.

  Mr. Yeo
  It would be inappropriate to provide this information while negotiations are still taking place.

  Stop Notices
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the appropriate ministerial order will be made to implement section 9 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 dealing with stop notices.
  306
  Sir George Young
  Shortly.

  Severn Estuary Protection Areas
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he expects to submit the lower Severn estuary special protection area to the European Commission under the wild birds directive;

  (2) when he expects to submit the middle Severn estuary special protection area application to the European Commission environment directorate.

  Mr. Baldry
  The former Nature Conservancy Council's proposal for the designation of the lower Severn estuary as a special protection area for birds is under consideration within Government. The case for designation will be decided jointly by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales. The European Commission will be notified of the decision in due course.

  Noxious Waste
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he intends to announce his decision on the proposed byelaws submitted to him by Bassetlaw district council regarding the transport of noxious waste; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when his Department expects to reply to the last five letters from Bassetlaw district council from 4 June 1990 to 19 September 1991 concerning the adoption of byelaws under section 82 of the Public Health Act 1936 relating to the transportation of noxious substances arid removal through streets of offensive matter or liquid.

  Mr. Baldry
  The council was informed on 3 October that as much priority as possible was being given to its application given the present very high workload on the part of my Department which is responsible for local environmental issues.

  Falmouth School of Art and Design
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue an article 14 direction in the matter of the planning application by Falmouth school of art and design.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is not necessary for my right hon. Friend to do so. There will be sufficient time for him to decide whether issues of more than local importance are involve which would justify calling in the applications, since I understand that they will not be decided by Carrick district council until 11 December.

  "Cheshire 2001"
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to set up an inquiry at an early date into the proposals entitled "Cheshire 2001: A Strategy for the Future", submitted by Cheshire county council and Chester district council.

  Sir George Young
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has already held an examination in public on the Cheshire replacement structure plan—"Cheshire 2001", and there has been a full public consultation on his proposed modifications to the plan. He is considering all representations including those by Cheshire county council and the City of Chester before reaching his final decision.

  Pollution Inspectorate
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the manpower resources of the pollution inspectorate.

  Mr. Trippier
  I gave details of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP) staffing to the House earlier today.

  In January I announced that HMIP had been allocated over 80 new posts, to enable it to expand to 313 staff by 1 April 1992. I indicated that HMIP's resources would be kept under review in the light of its responsibilities for implementing the new system of integrated pollution control (IPC) under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  I have now authorised a further increase of around 50 staff, raising HMIP's 1992–93 complement to over 360 staff, effective from April 1992. This compares with a total of 133 staff in post when HMIP set up in April 1987, and underlines the Government's commitment to the highest standards of environmental protection.

  Recruitment of the additional pollution inspectors is in progress, with over 1,600 applications for the posts. This shows a high level of interest in HMIP and its responsibilities for protecting the environment.

  HMIP's manpower requirements for later years will be kept under review as IPC is progressively implemented and the inspectorate's workload increases further.

  The following table gives details of HMIP's complement and staff-in-post figures since its formation in April 1987.

  There are currently (1 November 1991) 270 staff in post.

  HMIP staffing 1987–19921

  Complement

  Staff in post

  April 19872

  199

  133

  April 1988

  3183

  157

  April 1989

  194

  165

  April 1990

  212

  172

  April 1991

  248

  232

  April 1992 previously

  313

  —

  now increased to: over

  4360

  —

  November 1991

  270

  Notes:

  1All figures exclude the former Radioactive Waste Policy and Administration Division, which transferred from HMIP to the DOE Directorate of Pollution Control and Waste in November 1990 (28 staff).

  2Date of formation of HMIP.

  Government capital expenditure on housing—England

  Cash

  1990–91 prices

  Percentage of GDP

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  gross1

  net2

  gross1

  net2

  gross1

  net2

  1984–85

  26,23·0

  2,576·0

  3,732·1

  3,665·2

  0·8

  0·8

  1985–86

  2,564·8

  2,460·1

  3,458·4

  3,317·2

  0·7

  0·7

  1986–87

  2,422·4

  2,290·3

  3,162·4

  2,989·9

  0·6

  0·6

  1987–88

  2,446·0

  2,322·4

  3,028·5

  2,875·5

  0·6

  0·5

  1988–89

  2,389·1

  2,246·8

  2,759·9

  2,595·5

  0·5

  0·5

  1989–90

  2,451·6

  2,324·5

  2,659·6

  2,521·7

  0·5

  0·5

  1990–91

  3,121·4

  3,042·9

  3,121·4

  3,042·9

  0·6

  0·5

  1991–92 estimate

  3,707·1

  3,614·1

  3,464·6

  3,377·7

  0·6

  0·6

  1 Housing Corporation gross capital expenditure (including use of receipts), local authority capital (excluding authorities' self-financed expenditure), and other capital expenditure (including, in 1991–92 only, Housing Action Trusts).

  2 As 1 less Housing Corporation receipts.

  Gross Government capital expenditure on housing does not include local authorities' self-financed expenditure and net expenditure does not take account of
  308
  3Drop in complement due to transfer of waste policy functions and 11 staff to DOE Waste Management Division in 1987–88.

  4Provisional figure.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–92 and budgets for 1992–93.

  (2) what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1991–92 and budget for 1992–93.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: The information in respect of paid publicity and associated staff costs for my Department (including agencies) is:

  £ million

  1985–86

  3·5

  1986–87

  4·2

  1987–88

  4·8

  1988–89

  6·9

  1989–90

  31·5

  1990–91

  7·5

  1991–92

  18·6

  1 Estimate.

  Expenditure is not broken down between different publicity media and information relating to financial years 1979–80 to 1984–85 inclusive is not readily available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost. Budgets for 1992–93 have not yet been set.

  Housing Expenditure
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a series in(a) cash prices, (b) 1990–91 prices and (c) as a proportion of gross domestic product, Government capital spending on housing both net and gross of receipts.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: The available information, consistent with the new public expenditure planning total introduced in 1990, is as follows.

  authorities' receipts which increased from £1,630 million in 1984–85 to £3,300 million in 1988–89 and in 1990–91 were an estimated £2,450 million.
  309
  Information on a comparable basis for years before 1984–85 can be derived only at disproportionate cost. However, figures for earlier years on the old planning total basis are contained in public expenditure White Papers published prior to 1990.

  PSA Services
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to make any changes to the running costs cash limit on PSA services vote in 1991–92.

  Sir George Young
  [pursuant to his answer, 6 November c.159–60]: I will be making a further £8,844,000 available in 1991–92 for cash incentive schemes, to help council tenants buy their own homes in the private sector, and at the same time release permanent housing for homeless families, who might otherwise be in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

  This will involve an increase in the DOE/LACAP non-voted cash limit from £3,007,648,000 to £3,016,492,000.

  Cash incentive schemes have been successful both in freeing family-sized local authority properties for use by homeless families and in helping local authority tenants who want to buy to realise their ambition. They offer excellent value for money for local authorities and their tenants.

  These extra funds must be used in the present financial year. The demand from tenants has been high and this extra money will ensure even greater benefit for them and for homeless families needing a permanent home.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will publish a table showing for each year since 1961 and the current year to date the ration of United Kingdom exports of manufactures to the United States of America to imports of manufactures from the United States of America, the comparable figures for United Kingdom trade with Germany and Japan, and the figures for German and Japanese trade with the United States of America; and if he will give the real exchange rate in each case based on relative export prices, in terms of a common currency.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  This information can be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Industrial Competitiveness
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent the cost competitiveness of British industry has correlated with the export performance of British industry in manufactured goods since 1983; and what information he has on price elasticities for France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States of America over the same period.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Export performance depends not only on cost competitiveness but on non price factors such as quality, reliability and delivery. Between 1983 and 1990, United Kingdom cost competitiveness in the manufacturing sector (measured by relative unit labour costs) improved by 1·3 per cent. and the volume of United Kingdom manufactured exports rose by 63·1 per cent.
  310
  Information on price elasticities is available from a variety of sources.

  New Cars Report
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to publish the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the prices of new cars and the distribution system.

  Mr. Redwood
  The MMC's report on the supply of new cars is currently being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The report will be published as soon as is practicable.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a table of crude balances of visible trade in sterling terms at current prices and exchange rates since 1988 for Belgium and Luxembourg, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United States of America and the United Kingdom; and if he will provide similar information for invisible trade for each year since 1974.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan on 18 October at col.286 and on 15 October at cols. 129–32.

  Latin America
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list the British manufactured goods exported to the top 10 Latin American countries importers for each year since 1975, expressing the value of such exports in 1991 moneys;

  (2) if he will give a list of the top 10 Latin American countries exporters to Britain for each year since 1975, indicating the type of products imported by Britain and their value in 1991 moneys.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan on 16 October at columns 169–73.

  Nord-Pas de Calais
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on the number and types of British companies establishing themselves in Nord-Pas de Calais, in order to avail themselves of continental loading gauge freight facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have no information on the number of types of British companies which are locating in the Nord-Pas de Calais.

  I cannot say whether the continental loading gauge facilities would play any part in such companies' decisions. It is for companies themselves to establish what opportunities offer them the most attractive prospects and where to establish.

  British Telecom
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will take steps to ensure that prior to the sale of further shares in British Telecom the
  311
  management of the company honours commitments given at the time of privatisation to continue to discuss changes to staff terms and conditions with its trade union representatives.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government made clear at the time of privatisation that the commercial management of BT was for the company and that the Government would not use their shareholding to intervene in such matters. This remains the position.

  Internal Market 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 Internal Market Council held in Brussels on Thursday 7 November.

  Mr. Redwood
  I attended the Internal Market Council on 7 November. The Council reviewed progress towards completion of the single market measures. The United Kingdom asked for faster progress on measures relating to the food industry and was promised by the Commissioner that 10 draft directives and amendments to directives covering issues like colorants, additives and food hygiene would be brought before the council over the next six months. The Council noted the Commission's review of implementation which praised the United Kingdom, Denmark and some other countries for their good implementation record, but which asked Italy to speed up implementation of a large number of outstanding measures.

  The Council failed to agree on the three outstanding vehicle type approval draft directives which would complete the set of 44 directives needed to allow whole vehicle type approval under Community rules. There was a majority around the table in favour of the directives, but France, Italy and Spain blocked progress at the meeting because they are unhappy with the arrangements related to implementation of the agreement on Japanese car imports into the Community. The Commission, the United Kingdom and other countries in the majority urged the manufacturers' case for these type approvals. It was hoped that the problem could be resolved by the December Internal Market Council.

  The Council expressed interest in a presidency/United Kingdom suggestion of a means of making progress on the draft irradiation directive and remitted the suggested outline compromise position from the presidency and the United Kingdom to a working party.

  The Council confirmed a common position on the Impact 2 technology programme following its substantial amendment in recent months. The United Kingdom made a statement saying that it was very important that moneys in this programme were not used in a way which damaged competitive technologies and companies operating commercially in the marketplace.

  Much of the time of the Council was given over to the draft sweeteners directive. A common position was finally agreed using a Commission compromise which allows Germany to ban the use of sweeteners in domestically brewed traditional beers while creating common rules for other food and drink products in the Community regulating the proportion of sweetener that can be included in their production. The United Kingdom had to defend the position of the low and no alcohol beer industry in the United Kingdom which uses sweeteners as the
  312
  French proposed an amendment which would have banned the use of sweeteners in all such beers. Support for the presidency compromise eventually materialised which protected the United Kingdom interest as well as the German.

  There was no substantial discussion on a draft proposal for a pension funds directive which is broadly satisfactory from a United Kingdom point of view, and there was agreement that the European Parliament was behaving unreasonably in withholding its opinion on the insurance directive in protest against the lack of progress on social legislation in the Council.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Burma
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had about aid to Burma with other Governments; and what information he has about changes in aid provided to Burma by other Governments.

  Mrs. Chalker
  After the repression of the democracy movement in 1988, Britain participated actively in consultations among EC partners, which resulted in agreement to suspend all bilateral aid to Burma except for humanitarian and emergency aid. Other major donors took similar action although some continued to implement existing commitments.

  We continue to liaise with other major donors on a regular basis, both through diplomatic missions in Rangoon, and through consultations in international as well as EC fora.

  A comparison of official development assistance to Burma for 1988 and 1989 (the latest year for which figures for all countries are available) is given in the following table.

  In 1990 the United Kingdom figure was £89,000.

  Net official development assistance to Burma (Myanmar)

  £ millions

  Amount

  Donor

  1988

  1989

  Australia

  4·6

  2·6

  Austria

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Belgium

  0·0

  0·0

  Canada

  1·4

  0·4

  Denmark

  0·2

  0·1

  Finland

  1·4

  2·9

  France

  3·5

  0·5

  Germany

  20·8

  2·8

  Ireland

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Italy

  0·2

  0·1

  Japan

  145·7

  44·0

  Netherlands

  0·6

  0·0

  New Zealand

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Norway

  0·0

  0·1

  Sweden

  n.a.

  0·1

  Switzerland

  0·4

  0·2

  United Kingdom

  2·2

  0·7

  United States

  5·6

  1·2

  186·6

  55·7

  Source: Geographical Distribution of Finacial Flows to Developing Countries 1986–89. (OECD Publications).

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the percentage increase in state retirement pension for each year since 1979; and what was the percentage increase in(a) prices and (b) average earnings in each of those years.

  (A)

  (B)

  (C)

  (D)

  Uprating date

  Rate of Retirement Pension

  Percentage increase in rate of Retirement Pension

  Percentage increase in Retail Prices Index

  Percentage increase in average earnings

  November 1979

  23·30

  —

  —

  —

  November 1980

  27·15

  16·5

  15·3

  17·9

  November 1981

  29·60

  9·0

  12·0

  11·5

  November 1982

  32·85

  11·0

  6·3

  8·3

  November 1983

  34·05

  3·7

  4·8

  7·3

  November 1984

  35·80

  5·1

  4·9

  6·5

  November 1985

  38·30

  7·0

  5·5

  8·6

  July 1986

  38·70

  1·0

  1·7

  5·7

  April 1987

  39·50

  2·1

  4·4

  5·4

  April 1988

  41·15

  4·2

  3·9

  8·4

  April 1989

  43·60

  6·0

  8·0

  9·7

  April 1990

  46·90

  7·6

  9·4

  9·3

  April 1991

  52·00

  10·9

  6·4

  8·6

  Notes:

  (1) Column C gives the percentage increase in the Retail Prices Index (all items) between uprating dates. These figures cannot be used as uprating factors—an earlier period of price movements must be used as a proxy so that sufficient time is available, for administrative purposes. to ensure timeous payment of the new rates. For example, the increase in April 1991, 10·9 per cent., represents the percentage change in the RPI from September 1989 to September 1990.

  (2) Column B gives the percentage increase in the Retirement Pension between uprating dates (the uprating factor).

  (3) Column A gives the rate of Category A Retirement Pension for a single person.

  (4) Column D gives the percentage increase in Average Earnings—New Series Index (whole economy) seasonally adjusted.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average annual rate of turnover of staff in his Department's offices dealing directly with the public for each of the last five years; and what were the different rates between clerical and executive grades.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information is not readily available in the form requested. The table shows (1) the resignation rate for all DSS staff for the three years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91; earlier years are not available for DSS alone; and (2) the turnover rate for 1990–91 for the units now comprising the Benefits and Contributions Agency field operations.

  (1) Resignations, all DSS

  (2) Turnover field operations

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1990–91

  Percentage

  All grades

  8·1

  7·8

  5·2

  19·1

  EO/LOI

  3·0

  2·7

  1·4

  2·7

  A0/LOII

  8·8

  7·8

  4·8

  6·9

  AA

  18·0

  20·1

  14·9

  25·8

  1 up to and including UG6

  Notes.

  1. Turnover is defined as resignations, retirements, deaths, dismissals, transfers to other government departments and the termination of fixed-term contracts.

  2. There are technical difficulties in deriving accurate turnover figures for 1990–91 because of the effect of restructuring in preparation for Agency status. These figures are the best available at present.
  314
  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Pensions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of current gross average earnings is represented, in the United Kingdom and in each European Community country, by the(a) basic pension, (b) earnings-related supplement, and (c) total state pension for (i) a single pensioner and (ii) a pensioner with a dependent spouse of pension age.

  Mr. Jack
  It is not possible to compare pension arrangements between EC member states in the manner requested by the hon. Member. Only four countries within the EC—the United Kingdom, Denmark, Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland—pay a flat-rate state pension. Other countries operate earnings-related schemes whereby each person's pension is directly related to his own earnings level during his working life and accordingly has a different and individual relationship to national average earnings.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will allow those state pensioners in receipt of small occupational pensions to relinquish those pensions so that they can claim income support and the passported benefits;

  (2) what measures his Department is taking to ensure that those state pensioners who have a small occupational pension are not penalised by the benefit rules such that they are worse off than those without an occupational pension.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Many pensioners who have both a state retirement pension and an occupational pension are entitled to income support. They, like all income support
  315
  recipients, automatically qualify for maximum housing benefit and community charge benefit which are the passported benefits for which this Department is responsible.

  A pensioner whose occupational pension takes his total income above the level at which income support would be payable should still be better off than a person in similar circumstances who qualifies for income support. This is due to the effect of the tapers in housing benefit and community charge benefit which enable the pensioner to keep some of that extra income. The tapers are applied to any income above the applicable amount appropriate to a particular case and the resulting figure is offset against the maximum benefit payable. In housing benefit the taper is 65 per cent. and in community charge benefit it is 15 per cent.

  It would not be permissible, however, for any claimant to give up an income in order to claim public money to which he or she is not properly entitled.

  Income Support
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the likely impact of SI, 1991, No. 1559 on reducing future entitlement to income support and the numbers eligible; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 7 November.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what savings on income support payments are expected from reduced mortgage interest repayments arising from SI 1991 No. 1520.

  Total number of people dependant on income support 7,022,222

  Ranges of deductions

  Fuel

  Rent arrears

  Water

  Social fund

  Other

  £0·01 to £0·99

  Number

  100

  —

  201

  2,099

  2,000

  Percentage

  0·001

  —

  0·003

  0·030

  0·028

  £1·00 to £1·99

  Number

  701

  46,636

  5,989

  24,168

  13,477

  Percentage

  0·010

  0·664

  0·085

  0·344

  0·192

  £2·00 to £2·99

  Number

  1,796

  100

  5,792

  48,027

  24,071

  Percentage

  0·026

  0·001

  0·082

  0·684

  0·343

  £3·00 to £3·99

  Number

  5,295

  —

  12,373

  72,609

  10,376

  Percentage

  0·075

  —

  0·176

  1·034

  0·148

  £4·00 to £4·99

  Number

  6,095

  —

  14,093

  62,563

  4,094

  Percentage

  0·087

  —

  0·201

  0·891

  0·058

  £5·00 to £6·99

  Number

  20,086

  —

  4,002

  82,164

  25,960

  Percentage

  0·286

  —

  0·057

  1·170

  0·370

  £7·00 to £9·99

  Number

  49,848

  —

  200

  56,919

  6,792

  Percentage

  0·710

  —

  0·003

  0·811

  0·097

  £10·00 and over

  Number

  98,590

  —

  100

  34,454

  11,889

  Percentage

  1·404

  —

  0·001

  0·490

  0·169

  Source: Income Support Annual Statistical Inquiry 1990.

  Notes:

  1. A person may appear in more than one deduction group.

  2. A person may have more than one deduction in either the fuel or others deduction groups but will be counted only once in that group.

  3. The figures represent the number of people in each of the deduction groups.

  4. Percentages shown are the number in each category as a percentage of the total number of people dependant on income support.

  5. Information on Community Charge arrears was not collected at the time of the inquiry.

  316
  Miss Widdecombe
  SI 1991 No. 1520 amends the Family Credit (General) Regulations 1987 and will make it easier for working parents to claim family credit by reducing the number of hours they need to work from 24 to 16 hours a week from April 1992.

  We estimate that up to 5,000 parents with a mortgage, who are receiving income support and working 16 or more hours a week in April 1992, will become eligible for family credit and be better off. In addition, up to 10,000 working families with children are likely to continue to receive help with their mortgage in income support under special protection arrangements, on top of any family credit they receive.

  As these families will be either better off or no worse off, there is expected to be a benefit cost, rather than a saving, as a result of this amendment.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the total number of persons, including dependants, in receipt of income support; how many are currently subject to deductions in their income support on grounds of fuel, rent, water, poll tax, social fund, or other reasons amounting to(a) less than £1 a week, (b) £1 to £2 a week, (c) £2 to £3 a week, (d) £3 to £4 a week, (e) £4 to £5 a week, (f) £5 to £7 a week, (g) £7 to £10 a week and (h) over £10 a week; and what percentage each of these totals represents as a proportion of the total number dependent on income support.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information available is shown in the table.

  Fraud
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Secuurity if he will consider introducing a system for prosecuting social security fraud involving civil penalties along the lines of those provided for in the Taxes Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  In 1989 an efficiency scrutiny into social security fraud recommended the continued use of prosecution powers in the Social Security Act 1986, or the Theft Act 1968 in more serious cases. We have no plans to change these arrangements. Civil proceedings may also be taken to recover an overpayment of benefit from a fraudulent claim.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to collect information at district office level on(a) the number of applications made for the various components of the social fund, (b) the number refused and accepted, (c) the grounds for refusal and (d) the numbers of loans recovered.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of the social fund 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.

  Open-plan Offices
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals his Department has to study the effects of a system of open-plan offices and facilities along the lines of those introduced by the Employment Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Office facilities for the reception of customers 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.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many housing benefit claimants(a) in Nottingham and (b) in the United Kingdom are awaiting payment of outstanding housing benefit; what is the total sum involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what form his Department holds information on projected numbers of individuals likely to draw a state earnings-related pension in future years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department does not hold this information in any form because it is not required in order to estimate the future total cost of the additional pension.

  Severe Disability Premium
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will now take steps to implement the recommendations of the Social Security Advisory 318
  Committee to provide transitional protection for those people who will no longer qualify for severe disability premium after 11 November; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Steps have already been taken. Regulations which came into force on 11 November provide preserved rights for those who secured the premium, or took steps to secure it, through joint tenancies or co-ownerships before 21 October 1991.

  Benefit Rates
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will publish in the Official Report a schedule of social security benefit rates for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table.

  Schedule of main proposed Social Security Benefit Rates from April 1992

  (weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Attendance Allowance

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Higher rate

  41·65

  43·35

  Lower rate

  27·80

  28·95

  Child Benefit

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Only, elder or eldest for whom child benefit is payable1

  9·25

  9·65

  Each subsequent child1

  7·50

  7·80

  1 October 1991 rate

  Child's Special Allowance

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  See note on Child Dependency Increase

  10·70

  10·85

  Community charge benefit

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Personal allowances

  single

  18 to 241

  31·40

  33·60

  25 or over

  39·65

  42·45

  lone parent—18 or over

  39·65

  42·45

  couple—one or both over 18

  62·25

  66·60

  dependent children

  under 111

  13·60

  14·55

  11 to 151

  20·00

  21·40

  16 to 171

  23·90

  25·55

  181

  31·40

  33·60

  Premiums

  family1

  8·70

  9·30

  lone parent

  10·05

  10·60

  pensioner

  single

  13·75

  14·70

  couple

  20·90

  22·35

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  15·55

  16·65

  couple

  23·35

  25·00

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  18·45

  20·75

  couple

  26·20

  29·55

  319

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  disability

  single

  16·65

  17·80

  couple

  23·90

  25·55

  severe disability

  single

  31·25

  32·55

  couple (one qualifies)

  31·25

  32·55

  couple (both qualify)

  62·50

  65·10

  disabled child

  16·65

  17·80

  carer

  10·80

  11·55

  Allowance for personal expenses for claimants in hospital

  higher rate

  13·00

  13·55

  lower rate

  10·40

  10·85

  Capital

  upper limit

  16,000·00

  16,000·00

  amount disregarded

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  child's limit

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Earnings disregards

  where disability premium awarded

  15·00

  15·00

  various specified employments

  15·00

  15·00

  lone parent—not in receipt of IS

  25·00

  25·00

  where the claimant has a partner

  10·00

  10·00

  single claimant

  5·00

  5·00

  Other income disregards

  maintenance disregard

  —

  15·00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10·00

  10·00

  voluntary and charitable payments

  10·00

  10·00

  student loan

  10·00

  10·00

  student's covenanted income

  5·00

  5·00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50 per cent, of the balance of the charge

  20·00

  20·00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4·00

  4·00

  where heating is included, additional

  8·05

  8·60

  1 October 1991 Rate.

  Dependency increases

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Adult Dependency Increases

  For spouse or person looking after children, with:

  retirement pension on own insurance, invalidity pension, unemployability supplement and, if beneficiary over pension age, unemployment benefit

  31·25

  32·55

  non-contributory retirement pension, invalid care allowance and severe disablement allowance

  18·70

  19·45

  sickness benefit if beneficiary over pension age

  29·95

  31·20

  unemployment benefit

  25·55

  26·60

  maternity allowance/sickness benefit

  24·50

  25·50

  320

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Child Dependency Increases

  For each child, with:

  retirement pension, widows benefit, invalidity benefit, invalid care allowance, severe disablement allowance, higher rate industrial death benefit, unemployability supplement and sickness/ unemployment benefit if beneficiary over pension age

  10·70

  10·85

  Note: The Overlapping Benefits Regulations provide for the rate of child dependency increases, guardian's allowance and child special allowance to be adjusted where the increase or allowance is payable for the eldest eligible child for whom child benefit is also payable. The weekly rate of the increase or allowance is reduced by the differential (less the 75p derived from the October increase in child benefit) between the rate of child benefit payable for the oldest eligible child and that payable for a subsequent child.

  Disability Living Allowance

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Care component

  Higher

  —

  43·35

  Middle

  —

  28·95

  Lower

  —

  11·55

  Mobility component

  Higher

  —

  30·30

  Lower

  —

  11·55

  Disability Working Allowance

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Adult credit

  Single people

  —

  42·40

  Couples/Lone parents

  —

  58·80

  Child credit

  Under 11

  —

  10·40

  11 to 15

  —

  17·25

  16 to 17

  —

  21·45

  18

  —

  29·90

  Applicable amount (ie taper threshold)

  Single people

  —

  39·95

  Couples/Lone parents

  —

  66·60

  Capital

  Upper limit

  —

  16,000·00

  Amount disregarded

  —

  3,000·00

  Child's limit

  —

  3,000·00

  Tariff income

  £ 1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Disregards

  Maintenance disregard

  —

  15·00

  War disablement pension and war widow's pension

  —

  10·00

  Voluntary and charitable payments

  —

  10·00

  Student loan

  —

  10·00

  Student's covenanted income

  —

  5·00

  Income from boarders:

  Disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50 per cent, of the balance of the charge

  Expenses for subtenants

  Furnished or unfurnished

  —

  4·00

  Where heating is included, additional

  —

  8·60

  321

  Earnings Rules

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Invalid Care Allowance

  30·00

  40·00

  Unemployment Benefit (daily rate)

  2·00

  2·00

  Unemployment Benefit (maximum weekly amount)

  52·00

  54·00

  Therapeutic earnings limit

  39·00

  40·50

  Industrial injuries unemployability

  supplement permitted earnings level (annual amount)

  2,028·00

  2,106·00

  War pensioners' unemployability

  supplement permitted earnings level (annual amount)

  2,028·00

  2,106·00

  Adult dependency increases with sickness benefit where claimant is

  (a) under pension age

  24·50

  25·50

  (b) over pension age

  29·95

  31·20

  maternity allowance

  24·50

  25·50

  unemployment benefit where claimant is

  (a) under pension age

  25·55

  26·60

  (b) over pension age

  31·25

  32·55

  retirement pension, invalidity pension, severe disablement allowance, unemployability supplement where dependant

  (a) is living with claimant

  41·40

  43·10

  (b) still qualifies for the tapered earnings rule

  45·09

  45·09

  retirement pension, invalidity pension and unemployability supplement where dependant not living with claimant

  31·25

  32·55

  severe disablement allowance where dependant not living with claimant

  18·70

  19·45

  invalid care allowance

  18·70

  19·45

  Child dependency increases level at which CDIs payable with long-term benefits are affected by earnings of claimant's spouse or partner

  for first child

  110·00

  115·00

  for each subsequent child

  14·00

  15·00

  Family credit

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Adult credit

  38·30

  41·00

  Child credit

  9·70

  10·40

  11 to 15

  16·10

  17·25

  16 to 17

  20·05

  21·45

  18

  27·95

  29·90

  Applicable amount (ie taper threshold)

  62·25

  66·60

  Capital

  upper limit

  8,000·00

  8,000·00

  amount disregarded

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  child's limit

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit Disregards

  maintenance disregard

  —

  15·00

  war disablement and war widow's pension

  10·00

  10·00

  322

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  voluntary and charitable payments

  10·00

  10·00

  student loan

  10·00

  10·00

  student's covenanted income

  5·00

  5·00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50 per cent, of the balance of the charge

  20·00

  20·00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4·00

  4·00

  where heating is included, additional

  8·05

  8·60

  Guardian's allowance

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  See note on Child Dependency Increase

  10·70

  10·85

  Hospital downrating

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  20 per cent, rate

  10·40

  10·85

  40 per cent, rate

  20·80

  21·70

  Housing Benefit

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Personal allowances

  single

  16 to 241

  31·40

  33·60

  25 or over

  39·65

  42·45

  lone parent

  under 181

  31·40

  33·60

  18 or over

  39·65

  42·45

  couple

  both under 18

  47·30

  50·60

  one or both over 18

  62·25

  66·60

  dependent children

  under 111

  13·60

  14·55

  11 to 151

  20·00

  21·40

  16 to171

  23·90

  25·55

  181

  31·40

  33·60

  Premiums

  family1

  8·70

  9·30

  lone parent

  10·05

  10·60

  pensioner

  single

  13·75

  14·70

  couple

  20·90

  22·35

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  15·55

  16·65

  couple

  23·35

  25·00

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  18·45

  20·75

  couple

  26·20

  29·55

  disability

  single

  16·65

  17·80

  couple

  23·90

  25·55

  severe disability

  single

  31·25

  32·55

  couple (one qualifies)

  31·25

  32·55

  couple (both qualify)

  62·50

  65·10

  323

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  disabled child

  16·65

  17·80

  carer

  10·80

  11·55

  Allowance for personal expenses for claimants in hospital

  higher rate

  13·00

  13·55

  lower rate

  10·40

  10·85

  Non-dependant deductions rent rebates and allowances aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

  gross income: low inc threshold to £99.99

  13·50

  8·00

  gross income: £100 to £129.99

  13·50

  12·00

  gross income: £130 or more

  13·50

  18·00

  others, aged 18 or over or on Income Support and over 25

  5·70

  4·00

  Low earnings threshold

  62·15

  65·00

  Service charges for fuel

  heatinig

  18·05

  8·60

  hot water

  1·00

  1·05

  lighting

  ·65

  ·70

  cooking

  1·00

  1·05

  all fuel

  10·70

  11·40

  Amount ineligible for meals three or more meals a day

  single claimant

  14·20

  15·20

  each person in family aged 16 or over

  14·20

  15·20

  each child under 16

  7·15

  7·65

  less than three meals a day

  single claimant

  9·45

  10·10

  each person in family aged 16 or over

  9·45

  10·10

  each child under 16

  4·70

  5·05

  breakfast only—claimant and each member of family

  1·75

  1·85

  Capital

  upper limit

  16,000·00

  16,000·00

  amount disregarded

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  child's limit

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Earnings disregards

  where disability premium awarded

  15·00

  15·00

  various specified employments

  15·00

  15·00

  lone parent—not in receipt of IS

  25·00

  25·00

  where the claimant has a partner

  10·00

  10·00

  single claimant

  5·00

  5·00

  Other income disregards

  maintenance disregard

  —

  15·00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10·00

  10·00

  voluntary and charitable payments

  10·00

  10·00

  student loan

  10·00

  10·00

  student's convenanted income

  5·00

  5·00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50 per cent, of the balance of the charge

  20·00

  20·00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4·00

  4·00

  where heating is included, additional

  8·05

  8·60

  1 October 1991 Rate.

  324

  Income support

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Personal allowances

  single

  under 18—usual rate1

  23·90

  25·55

  under 18—higher rate payable in specific circumstances

  31·40

  33·60

  18 to 241

  31·40

  33·60

  25 or over

  39·65

  42·45

  lone parent

  under 18—usual rate1

  23·90

  25·55

  under 18—higher rate payable in specific circumstances1

  31·40

  33·60

  18 or over

  39·65

  42·45

  couple

  both under 18

  47·30

  50·60

  one or both over 18

  62·25

  66·60

  dependent children

  under 111

  13·60

  14·55

  11 to 151

  20·00

  21·40

  16 to 171

  23·90

  25·55

  181

  31·40

  33·60

  Premiums

  family1

  8·70

  9·30

  lone parent

  4·45

  4·75

  pensioner

  single

  13·75

  14·70

  couple

  20·90

  22·35

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  15·55

  16·65

  couple

  23·35

  25·00

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  18·45

  20·75

  couple

  26·20

  29·55

  disability

  single

  16·65

  17·80

  couple

  23·90

  25·55

  severe disability

  single

  31·25

  32·55

  couple (one qualifies)

  31·25

  32·55

  couple (both qualify)

  62·50

  65·10

  disabled child

  16·65

  17·80

  carer

  10·80

  11·55

  Maximum amounts for accommodation and meals in residential care homes

  old age

  160·00

  175·00

  very dependent elderly

  185·00

  205·00

  mental disorder (not handicap)

  170·00

  185·00

  drug/alcohol dependence

  170·00

  185·00

  mental handicap

  195·00

  215·00

  physical disablement

  (a) (under pension age)

  230·00

  245·00

  (b) (over pension age)

  160·00

  175·00

  others

  160·00

  175·00

  maximum Greater London increase

  23·00

  25·00

  nursing homes

  mental disorder (not handicap)

  255·00

  270·00

  drug/alcohol dependence

  255·00

  270·00

  mental handicap

  260·00

  275·00

  terminal illness

  275·00

  280·00

  physical disablement

  (a) (under pension age)

  290·00

  305·00

  325

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  (b) (over pension age)

  255·00

  270·00

  others (including elderly)

  255·00

  270·00

  maximum Greater London increase

  33·00

  35·00

  Amounts for meals where these cannot be purchased within the accommodation (Daily Rate)

  breakfast

  1·10

  1·10

  midday meal

  1·55

  1·55

  evening meal

  1·55

  1·55

  Allowances for personal expenses for claimants in

  private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes personal expenses

  11·40

  12·20

  dependent children

  (a) under 11

  4·65

  5·00

  (b) 11 to 15

  6·85

  7·35

  (c) 16 to 17

  7·95

  8·50

  (d) age 18

  11·40

  12·20

  hospital

  higher rate

  13·00

  13·55

  lower rate

  10·40

  10·85

  local authority (Pt III)

  accommodation

  10·40

  10·85

  the Polish home Ilford Park

  max amount for accommodation and meals

  160·00

  175·00

  personal expenses for claimant

  15·10

  16·15

  personal expenses for partner

  15·10

  16·15

  personal expenses for dep children

  (a) under 11

  4·65

  5·00

  (b) 11 to 15

  6·85

  7·35

  (c) 16 to 17

  7·95

  8·50

  (d) 18

  13·55

  14·50

  Housing costs

  Deduction for non-dependants aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

  gross income: low inclusive threshold to £99·99

  13·50

  8·00

  gross income: £100 to £129·99

  13·50

  12·00

  gross income: £130 or more

  13·50

  18·00

  others, aged 18 or over, or on Income Support and over 25

  5·70

  4·00

  Low earnings threshold

  62·15

  65·00

  Deduction for direct payments

  arrears of housing, fuel and water costs

  2·00

  2·15

  deductions for recovery of fines (introduced for first time from April 1992

  —

  2·15

  Deductions for arrears of Community Charge

  single claimant or claimant's partner

  2·00

  2·15

  joint couple debtors both on IS

  3·15

  3·35

  Maximum rates for recovery of overpayments

  ordinary overpayments

  6·00

  6·45

  where claimant convicted of fraud

  8·00

  8·60

  Reduction in benefit for strikers

  21·00

  22·50

  Capital

  upper limit

  8,000·00

  8,000·00

  amount disregarded

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  child's limit

  3,000·00

  3,000·00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  326

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Disregards

  standard earnings

  5·00

  5·00

  higher earnings

  15·00

  15·00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10·00

  10·00

  voluntary and charitable payments

  10·00

  10·00

  student loan

  10·00

  10·00

  student's covenanted income

  5·00

  5·00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50 per cent, of the balance of the charge

  20·00

  20·00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4·00

  4·00

  where heating is included, additional

  8·05

  8·60

  Industrial death benefit

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Widow's pension

  higher rate

  52·00

  54·15

  lower rate

  15·60

  16·25

  Industrial disablement pension

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  18 and over, or under 18 with dependants

  100 per cent.

  84·90

  88·40

  90 per cent.

  76·41

  79·56

  80 per cent.

  67·92

  70·72

  70 per cent.

  59·43

  61·88

  60 per cent.

  50·94

  53·04

  50 per cent.

  42·45

  44·20

  40 per cent.

  33·96

  35·36

  30 per cent.

  25·47

  26·52

  20 per cent.

  16·98

  17·68

  Under 18

  100 per cent.

  52·00

  54·15

  90 per cent.

  46·80

  48·74

  80 per cent.

  41·60

  43·32

  70 per cent.

  36·40

  37·91

  60 per cent.

  31·20

  32·49

  50 per cent.

  26·00

  27·08

  40 per cent.

  20·80

  21·66

  30 per cent.

  15·60

  16·25

  20 per cent.

  10·40

  10·83

  Maximum life gratuity (lump sum)

  5,640·00

  5,870·00

  Unemployability Supplement

  52·00

  54·15

  plus where appropriate an increase for early incapacity

  higher rate

  11·10

  11·55

  middle rate

  6·90

  7·20

  lower rate

  3·45

  3·60

  Maximum reduced earnings allowance

  33·96

  35·36

  Maximum retirement allowance

  8·49

  8·84

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  68·00

  70·80

  intermediate rate

  51·00

  53·10

  normal maximum rate

  34·00

  35·40

  part-time rate

  17·00

  17·70

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  34·00

  35·40

  327

  Invalidity allowances and benefits

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Invalid Care Allowance

  31·25

  32·55

  Invalidity Benefit

  Invalidity pension

  52·00

  54·15

  Invalidity allowance

  higher rate

  11·10

  11·55

  middle rate

  6·90

  7·20

  lower rate

  3·45

  3·60

  Maternity and one parent benefits

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Maternity Allowance

  40·60

  42·25

  One parent benefit

  5·60

  5·85

  Pneumoconiosis, byssinosis, workmen's compensation (supplementation) and other schemes

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Total disablement allowance and major incapacity allowance (maximum)

  84·90

  88·40

  Partial disablement allowance

  31·25

  32·55

  Unemployability supplement

  52·00

  54·15

  plus where appropriate increases for early incapacity

  higher rate

  11·10

  11·55

  middle rate

  6·90

  7·20

  lower rate

  3·45

  3·60

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  68·00

  70·80

  intermediate rate

  51·00

  53·10

  normal maximum rate

  34·00

  35·40

  part-time rate

  17·00

  17·70

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  34·00

  35·40

  Lesser incapacity allowance

  maximum rate of allowance

  31·25

  32·55

  based on loss of earnings over

  41·65

  43·35

  Retirement Pension

  Old Rates

  New Rates

  1991

  1992

  Category A or B

  52·00

  54·15

  Category B (lower)—husband's insurance

  31·25

  32·55

  Category C or D—non-contributory

  31·25

  32·55

  Category C (lower)—non-contributory

  18·70

  19·45

  Additional pension (Increased by 4·1 per cent.)

  —

  —

  Increments to basic and additional pension contracted out deductions (from pre April 1988 earnings) and graduated retirement benefit (Increased by 4·1 per cent.)

  —

  —

  Contracted out deductions (CODS) and increments to CODS (from post April 1988 earnings) (3 per cent, paid by scheme, 1·1 per cent, by state)

  —

  —

  Graduated retirement benefit (unit) (pence)

  6·81

  7·09

  Addition at age 80

  0·25

  0·25

  328

  Severe disablement allowance

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Basic rate

  31·25

  32·55

  Age-related addition (from December 1990)

  Higher rate

  11·10

  11·55

  Middle rate

  6·90

  7·20

  Lower rate

  3·45

  3·60

  Sickness benefit

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Over pension age

  49·90

  51·95

  Under pension age

  39·60

  41·20

  Social fund

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Maternity payment

  100·00

  100·00

  Capital limit

  aged under 60

  500·00

  500·00

  aged 60 and over

  1,000·00

  1,000·00

  Statutory maternity pay

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Earnings threshold

  52·00

  54·00

  Lower rate

  44·50

  46·30

  Statutory sick pay

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Earnings threshold

  52·00

  54·00

  Lower rate

  43·50

  45·30

  Standard rate

  52·50

  52·50

  Unemployment Benefit

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Over pension age

  52·00

  54·15

  Under pension age

  41·40

  43·10

  Occupational pension abatement

  35·00

  35·00

  War pensions

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  Disablement pension (100 per cent, rates)

  private or equivalent

  84·90

  89·00

  officer (£ per annum)

  4,427·00

  4,650·00

  Age allowances

  40–50 per cent.

  6·00

  6·25

  over 50 but not over 70 per cent.

  9·25

  9·65

  over 70 but not over 90 per cent.

  13·25

  13·80

  over 90 per cent.

  18·50

  19·30

  Disablement gratuity (base figures for calculation purposes only)

  specified minor injury

  5,640·00

  5,870·00

  unspecified minor injury

  3,102·00

  3,228·50

  Unemployability allowance

  329

  Old rates

  New rates

  1991

  1992

  personal

  55·25

  57·50

  adult dependency increase

  31·25

  32·55

  a. increase for first child

  9·70

  9·75

  b. increase for subsequent children

  10·70

  10·85

  Invalidity allowance

  higher rate

  11·10

  11·55

  middle rate

  6·90

  7·20

  lower rate

  3·45

  3·60

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  68·00

  70·80

  intermediate rate

  51·00

  53·10

  normal maximum rate

  34·00

  35·40

  part-time rate

  17·00

  17·70

  Comforts allowance

  higher rate

  14·60

  15·20

  lower rate

  7·30

  7·60

  Mobility supplement

  32·35

  33·70

  Allowance for lowered standard of occupation (maximum)

  33·96

  35·36

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  34·00

  35·40

  Severe disablement occupational allowance

  17·00

  17·70

  Clothing allowance (£ per annum)

  higher rate

  115·00

  120·00

  lower rate

  73·00

  76·00

  Education allowance (£ per annum) (maximum)

  120·00

  120·00

  War widow's pension (private)

  widow

  67·60

  70·35

  childless widow under 40

  15·60

  16·25

  age allowance

  (a) age 65 to 69

  7·75

  8·05

  (b) age 70 to 79

  14·95

  15·55

  (c) age 80 and over

  22·20

  23·10

  children's allowance

  (a) increase for first child (adjusted for child benefit increase)

  13·65

  13·75

  (b) increase for subsequent children

  14·65

  14·85

  Orphan' pension

  (a) increase for first child (adjusted for child benefit increase)

  15·10

  15·30

  (b) increase for subsequent children

  16·10

  16·40

  Unmarried dependant living as spouse (maximum)

  65·55

  68·30

  Rent allowance (maximum)

  25·75

  26·80

  Adult orphan's pension (maximum)

  52·00

  54·15

  Widower's pension (maximum)

  67·60

  70·35

  Widow's Benefit

  Old Rates

  New Rates

  1991

  1992

  Widow's payment (lump sum)

  1,000·00

  1,000·00

  Widowed mother's allowance

  52·00

  54·15

  Widow's pension

  330

  Old Rates

  New Rates

  1991

  1992

  standard rate

  52·00

  54·15

  age-related

  age 54 (49)

  48·36

  50·36

  age 53 (48)

  44·72

  46·57

  age 52 (47)

  41·08

  42·78

  age 51 (46)

  37·44

  38·99

  age 50 (45)

  33·80

  35·20

  age 49 (44)

  30·16

  31·41

  age 48 (43)

  26·52

  27·62

  age 47 (42)

  22·88

  23·83

  age 46 (41)

  19·24

  20·04

  age 45 (40)

  15·60

  16·25

  Note: For deaths occurring before 11 April 1988 refer to age-points shown in brackets.

  Rossi Index
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will publish a table showing the annual increases in prices measured by the Rossi index in each year since September 1987(a) on the basis of calculation used hitherto and (b) on the new basis announced in his uprating statement on 21 October.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table.

  "Rossi" calculation

  September

  Former

  New

  1987

  3·2

  3·2

  1988

  4·7

  5·0

  1989

  5·2

  5·6

  1990

  8·1

  8·4

  1991

  7·2

  7·0

  Source: Central Statistical Office.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional increases in child benefit would be required to restore it to the level it would have reached if it had been uprated in line with prices and average earnings, respectively, in each year from 1985 on, including the uprating announced on 21 October 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  The additional increases would be £0·75 for the eldest eligible child and £2·60 for other children on the basis of movements in the index of retail prices applicable to the general uprating of benefits from November 1985 to April 1992. Information which would enable a similar calculation to be made on the basis of movements in average earnings over the same period will not be available until 21 November, and I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much the real value of benefit for each child of a widow, invalidity pensioner or retirement pensioner—child benefit and dependency addition combined—will be increased or reduced by the uprating announced on 21 October 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  It is proposed that the combined rates of child benefit and child dependency increase payable for each child of a widow, invalidity pensioner or retirement pensioner be increased in cash terms by £0·45 with effect from week commencing 6 April 1992. It is not possible to
  331
  calculate what such a cash increase would represent in terms of the real value of either the existing or previous rates of the benefits concerned until the retail prices index figures for April 1992 are available.

  St. Francis Hospital, Haywards Heath
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the consequences of the benefit decision regarding St. Francis hospital, Haywards Heath.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The income support eligibility of people discharged from hospital is considered on an individual basis by independent adjudication officers in the local social security office and Ministers cannot intervene.

  Date

  Average earnings1

  Statutory sick pay2 as a percentage of earnings at

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  £

  100 per cent.

  75 per cent.

  50 per cent.

  April 1983

  147·40

  27·3

  36·4

  54·6

  April 1984

  159·30

  26·5

  35·4

  53·0

  April 1985

  171·00

  25·9

  34·6

  51·9

  April 1986

  184·70

  25·3

  33·7

  50·6

  April 1987

  198·90

  23·7

  31·6

  47·5

  April 1988

  218·40

  22·5

  30·0

  45·1

  April 1989

  239·70

  21·7

  29·0

  43·5

  April 1990

  263·10

  20·0

  26·6

  39·9

  April 1991

  284·70

  18·4

  24·6

  30·6

  Notes:

  1 Earnings shown are the average for all full-time adult employees.

  2 The majority of SSP recipients get occupational sick pay on top of SSP when they are sick. In many cases this brings the total payment received up to full pay.

  332
  The cases of former long-term patients of St. Francis hospital, Haywards Heath are currently the subject of an appeal and it would not be appropriate for me to comment.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of earnings was replaced by statutory sick pay for employees on 100 per cent., 75 per cent. and 50 per cent. of average earnings in each year since statutory sick pay commenced.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table.