Sitting of 5 February 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Orders of the Day

  Caravan Sites (Amendment) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.35 am
  Sir Cranley Onslow: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am glad to have the opportunity to invite the House to consider the Bill to amend the Caravan Sites Act 1968, and I am grateful to colleagues for coming to participate in the debate because I know that the subject is of wide interest.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), whose Privatisation of Gipsy Sites Bill many hon. Members will recognise re-embodied in the Bill that I seek to bring before the House. I am especially grateful to him and to the Minister for all their help during the preparation of my Bill.
  When I was fortunate enough to draw a place in the ballot for private Members' Bill, I did not find it difficult to choose the subject. The law relating to gipsy sites and the experiences of many people throughout the country need to be debated. The Conservative party recognised that at the last general election, when it included a commitment in its manifesto to reform the 1968 Act. That commitment was the result of discussion before the election.
  Last autumn, the Government published a consultation paper on the subject, which I am sure we shall discuss in detail and which I shall take the House through, if I may.
  I recognise that there may be difficulties in getting the Bill on to the statute book. When I chose the subject, I was conscious that, if I were to be successful, I should need the active endorsement of the Government and not merely of the House, because of the difficulties in getting private Members' Bills through, especially when the Standing Committees are already heavily loaded. Whether my Bill reaches the statute book or not, I hope that the House will value the chance to talk about the issues and to hear from the Government how matters are proceeding.
  I remember that, in the early 1960s, when I was a local councillor on Dartford rural district council, we faced problems in Kent which were not so different from the problems experienced in my constituency and other parts of the country today. It is a long-standing problem. We must recognise that the social changes that have taken place during the post-war years have made the problem more intense.
  This country has a long-established nomadic gipsy community, which has undergone great changes during the post-war years. The traditional and genuine gipsy,
  588
  whom many of us remember from our childhood, is much rarer nowadays. One does not often find ladies in straw hats and long black skirts offering to sell one clothes pegs or bunches of violets that they have just picked from one's hedgerow. The pattern has changed. There are not so many opportunistic gentlemen offering to do a job and saying, "I've got half a load of tarmac, squire, and would be glad to do up your drive." Even that traditional gipsy activity seems to have diminished.
  There are some genuine gipsies—I am glad to say that there are some in my constituency. But there are many other aspects of gipsy life that have brought the description of gipsy into greater conflict with the rest of society, which I regret. When we consider the matter today or on any other occasion, it should be our objective to harmonise and smooth the existence of gipsies in society, not to provoke confrontation. I certainly do not seek to do that today.
  As change has taken place, many members of the gipsy community and many groups or clans of gipsies have become much more affluent and able to provide for themselves. I believe that many are much more anxious to do so. I hope that, in considering change, we can shed any idea of a dependency culture for the gipsies that may still permeate some people's approach to the subject. We must recognise that everyone has rights in the matter. There are undoubtedly rights that gipsies should enjoy, but communities and local residents also have rights, which it is our function to protect when they are threatened or infringed.
  I shall interpolate one aim that my Bill does not have, and for lack of which it may be criticised. I do not set out to provide an answer to the problem of new age travellers, which has attracted so much attention and which causes so much concern in many parts of the country. My hon. Friends may suggest that my Bill should have covered that subject, and there may be an opportunity for them to make their views known on that important issue.
  However, I did not believe at the outset that it would be possible in the compass of a private Member's Bill to bring before the House the sort of measures needed to deal with the serious problem presented by new age travellers.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry)indicated assent.
  Sir Cranley Onslow: I see that my hon. Friend the Minister is indicating assent—he may recognise that it is a proper subject for the Home Office rather than for his Department. However, I hope that both Departments will get the message that there is a need for amending legislation, even if I am not seeking to bring that legislation before the House today.
  Mr John Marshall: An urgent need.
  Sir Cranley Onslow: Yes—as my hon. Friend says, there is an urgent need. Those of us who spend time in the west country or Wales know what a tremendous menace to rural life some aspects of the new age travellers can present.
  I shall set out the background to the problem and take the House through parts of the Government's consultation paper, with which hon. Members are probably familiar, but which needs to be placed on record today. The need to reform the Caravan Sites Act 1968 was recognised in the

  589
  Conservative manifesto, which contained an undertaking to review that Act, with the aim of reducing the nuisance of illegal encampments.
  In 1965, before the then Eric Lubbock introduced his Bill to the House, it was estimated that there were 3,400 gipsy families—about 4,750 caravans in England and Wales. Even then, they presented problems that needed to be dealt with, and the result was the 1968 Act. The Act places on local authorities a duty to accommodate all those whom the Act defines as
  "persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin",
  who were residing in or resorting to the local authority area.
  Once a local authority was deemed to have provided sufficient pitches, it could apply to become designated by the Secretary of State. The effect of designation was to make it a criminal offence for a gipsy to station a caravan within the designated area, and to enable the caravan to be removed. In that way, it was intended that there would be sufficient pitches for travellers across the country and that each local authority area would accept its fair share of travellers.
  When he introduced the Bill, Eric Lubbock, now Lord Avebury, said that he expected it to
  "help local authorities properly to control the unauthorised use of land. It will give relief to quiet neighbourhoods and beautiful countryside which have suffered from invasions of the travelling people while at the same time it will give those travelling people a recognised place in the community."—[Official Report, 1 March 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1930–31.]
  The House knows that, in the years since the 1968 Act, those hopes have not been fulfilled; the problem has become worse, not better. In 1965, there were 3,400 gipsy caravans; in January 1992, the Government's latest count when they published their consultation document, local authorities counted almost 13,500 such caravans, and there were an estimated 9,900 gipsy families in England and Wales. Of those, more than 4,500 were on unauthorised sites—only 1 per cent. fewer than in 1981.
  Only 38 per cent. of English local authorities have achieved designation under the Act in the 24 years that have elapsed, despite the fact that, since 1978, the Government have made available a 100 per cent. grant to meet the capital costs of gipsy sites and, so far, the cost to the Exchequer has been £56 million. That is an expensive and ineffective way of dealing with a problem that we cannot ignore.
  I am sure that there is no disputing the need for reforming legislation—I hope that there will be agreement on both sides of the House on that. The site provision is not keeping pace with the growth in the number of caravans. In their consultation paper, the Government state that there is no reason why the need should automatically be met by public provision. That is one part of the consultation paper which my Bill brings before the House.
  The Bill aims to open the way so that the provision of gipsy sites is no longer a local authority responsibility, but those who want to establish such sites—whether gipsies or operators seeking to provide sites for gipsies—are able to use the established planning process to obtain consent for what they want to do, like any other citizen. Equally, local residents and others who are affected by the planning
  590
  application have and can enjoy the full rights of objection and the full opportunities of appeal and public inquiry which the process gives.
  The Bill is not an attempt to deny gipsies their sites or to deprive them of the opportunity to establish themselves in permanent or semi-permanent encampments, but simply a recognition of the need to redress the balance by altering the answer to the problem.
  If people doubt whether gipsies or others are willing or able to respond to a new set of circumstances, I can tell them that there are private gipsy sites up and down the country which are operated perfectly successfully. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford will be able to say something about the willingness in the gipsy community to recognise that they can and should make provision for themselves. It would not be taking dignity away from them; it might be giving them more dignity, if we gave them the opportunity to do just that.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and neighbour. These are problems that we know about only too well in Surrey. Will he consider the difficulty in one part of my constituency, Elmbridge borough, where there is a private gipsy site? There are no planning problems, by and large, and no other local problems. The trouble is that the pitches on the private gipsy site, because of timing difficulties, were not counted in the borough's qualification for designation, and that has caused a great deal of local grievance.
  Sir Cranley Onslow: I can well understand that that may be—the more so when there is competition between districts and boroughs for designation under the Act. That leads to applications being handled rather hastily by local authorities in a county such as Surrey, where local authorities often seem anxious to pass the parcel from one to another by seeking designation and by unloading their problems on to their neigbours.
  Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, under the regime before the Caravan Sites Act 1968, it was quite difficult for gipsies to obtain planning permission? The ball was in their court to try to make provision for themselves. Does he think that, if the initiative were given back to them, there might have to be additional measures or guidance to ensure that we did not revert to the pre-1968 situation and that gipsies did not find it difficult, for all the reasons that we understand, to obtain planning permission?
  Sir Cranley Onslow: That is a perfectly fair point. I am sure that the Minister recognises, as did the consultation paper, the need for planning guidance to prevent just such a situation from coming back to plague us. It will be necessary to give all planning applications full, fair and proper consideration. I do not believe that that is impossible. Some aspects of the present regime operate unfairly against those whose interests are affected. I am sure that my hon. Friends will want to point that out, based on their own experience.
  Many of the sites that are chosen as official gipsy sites are not chosen because they are good sites, on planning grounds; they are merely chosen because they happen to be available. One hears people say, "There is an old tip over there; it would make a good gipsy site." People feel some sympathy for that argument. I do not advocate

  591
  taking any piece of wasteland, however unsuitable it may be, even if it is thought suitable for consent for planning a gipsy site. We must tackle the problem constructively. I hope that this meets the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst).
  We must also recognise that, in practice, enforcing the provisions of the 1968 Act against illegal encampments is difficult. That Act, too, needs reviewing. As matters stand, and as the consultation paper points out:
  "A landowner whose land is not in a designated area and who is aggrieved by unlawful camping can only seek redress by initiating a civil action at his own expense. Landowners can apply to the court for an order of possession if they believe their property is unlawfully occupied, and special procedures are available through both the high court and the county court to assist landowners to obtain relief as quickly as possible. But many landowners may find"—
  I think "may" is the wrong word; many landowners will find—
  "that these procedures consume time and money and, if the campers return later or simply camp again nearby, they may be ineffective."
  That is civil service talk for saying that the Act is not working.
  We all have experience of the difficulties and the distress that landowners may experience dealing with the problems with which they are suddenly confronted. They come under great pressure to protect not only their own interests but those of their neighbours by dealing with illegal camping. Such camping is a great nuisance in any given locality.
  The consultation paper also points out that other pieces of legislation are in place—the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990—and that they, in theory, strengthen powers to act against illegal encampments. Both Acts, however, are relatively new and correspondingly untested. I do not know what the courts will make of them, but I believe that there is no alternative to giving greater powers to local authorities, landowners and the police to act swiftly and effectively against illegal encampments.
  The Government set out in detail in the consultation paper their proposals to deal with illegal camping. I am glad to see that it notes:
  "The Government considers that the existing powers … provide insufficient means to respond effectively and speedily to unlawful on illegal occupation of land. A straightforward and speedy remedy is needed."
  We all endorse that. The proposals speak for themselves, but it would be interesting if the Minister told us what reaction his consultation process has produced on the part of local authorities and police forces.
  It was notable that, when setting out the alternatives, the Government invited views on whether local or highway authorities should be empowered by magistrates courts to seize caravans whose removal was obstructed or resisted, or which returned in breach of a prohibition order. The Minister may already have been told that that might cause more problems than it solved. If a caravan were seized and its owner were taken away, the other members of this family would remain, needing a roof over their heads, and the social problems of physical restraint applied to vehicles are not to be ignored—even if some of the vehicles are not particularly roadworthy. That is another feature of the problem with which many colleagues, I am sure, are familiar.
  The consultation paper also states:
  592
  "The number of caravans on private gipsy sites in England and Wales has increased by 114 per cent., from 1,400 in 1981 to nearly 3,000".
  That goes to show that the private sector solution is recognised, and that the gipsy community has responded to it. The privatisation of sites, would bring a solution nearer. I am happy to leave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford to outline that to the House. I hope that he will have an early opportunity to contribute to our debate. It is a new and constructive idea, but it does not appear in the Government's consultation paper. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend explain these worthy proposals in more detail.
  I do not speak for myself alone when I say that we look forward to seeing many of these ideas embodied in legislation as soon as may be. As the concluding paragraph of the paper states:
  "the present arrangements are satisfactory neither for local authorities, for local communities, for landowners, nor for gipsies and travellers. The public resents the unlawful or illegal occupation of land, however it arises."
  We must deal with that.
  I spoke about how the present handling of applications for gipsy sites makes matters worse rather than better. The consultation paper says that gipsies enjoy a privileged position, but I do not think that that is how they would see it. An application for a gipsy site does not follow the route of an ordinary planning application. The privilege—if that is the right word—is enjoyed by the local authority, not by the potential occupants of the site that the local authority is obliged to provide. It is no exaggeration to say that, under the present Act, local council powers are undemocratic and outdated. I shall illustrate that with two examples from my constituency.
  In my constituency, there are two local authorities—Woking borough council, the whole of which is covered by my constituency, and Guildford borough council, part of which is in my constituency. Neither of those authorities can yet apply for designation, because, in the view of those who settle these matters, they do not have the requisite number of pitches. Each has one 1968 site, and both sites are in my constituency.
  Both those councils are under pressure, as are other councils in Surrey, following the issue of a direction under section 9 of the Act by the Secretary of State which requires the local authority, in terms, to get on with it or suffer the consequences, whatever they may be. For some time, pressure has been building as neighbouring boroughs in Surrey have managed to become qualified for designation, and that pressure has increased on Woking and Guildford.
  To my knowledge, since their establishment, neither of the existing sites has caused any trouble. The occupants conduct themselves perfectly peaceably, and I get no complaints from their neighbours. The arrangement is perfectly satisfactory, probably because both sites are in fairly isolated areas, although that does not necessarily conform to the Department's current guidance.
  The search for new sites has caused the greatest concern among my constituents. There have been prolonged searches all over Guildford borough, which extends widely along the north downs, and there have been strong local objections to every identified site. Finally, about 18 months ago Surrey county council chose a piece of land that was to be left surplus by the construction of a major bypass in the Blackwater valley. That bypass was to go through an established mobile home settlement and would

  593
  leave a slice of land enclosed by the new road and the Aldershot gasworks, some industrial development, and its Rushmoor council boundary. It was about as far from Surrey as one could get without actually going into Hampshire.
  The mobile home owners had been perfectly happy to live on the site, and some of them wanted to return when the road was completed. However, I do not think that any hon. Member would be happy if he were consigned to live there. There are strong objections to it on social grounds, and certainly from the neighbouring borough council and residents of my parish of Ash. It is not an ideal site, but from the council's point of view it has the great merit of being available. The council did not need a public inquiry process and, because it owned the land, it did not need a compulsory purchase order, and the Act enabled it to apply to the Secretary of State for a grant.
  The local parish council and the mobile home residents were not consulted before the decision in a way that I or they would recognise as consultation, and the local community felt, with some justice, that over time they had played a full part in helping to assimilate a gipsy community into their area.
  When I first came to the constituency it had a large gipsy settlement called Surrey Borders which it has assimilated, mainly into council housing. That part of Surrey has had a gipsy community for a long time, but that factor in itself made matters worse, because many people said, "We have played our part. Why should we share a burden that could well be taken elsewhere in the Guildford borough? The other site in the borough is only two or three miles away. Why pick on us?" Whatever one's view of the argument, I firmly hold the opinion that people who object should be entitled to have their objections heard and fully considered. The matter should not be rushed through.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that far too many local authorities are looking for as many sites as possible in order to become designated so as to ensure that other people have to pass on? Does he also agree that there is little or no consultation with gipsies to find an area to which they would want to go? Some of the chosen sites are totally inappropriate for gipsy needs, and the site finally designated is the last place that they would want to go.
  Sir Cranley Onslow: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and my example is a perfect demonstration of what he identifies. The way in which the issue was handled made communal relations in the parish much worse, because it stimulated an antagonism between the settled gipsies and the rest of the community that had not been a feature of local life for many years.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend and I are neighbours and understand these problems only too well. Part of my constituency is also in the Guildford borough. and some of the alternative sites that he describes were in my constituency. The difficulty is that two communities in my constituency were concerned that they were on the list, and that sets one community in a borough against another. That is a matter of great local concern, which cannot properly be solved by the current legislation.
  Sir Cranley Onslow: I agree with my hon. Friend. Without going more deeply into the matter, I can say that politics also comes into it. Often, and with some justice, there is a feeling that decisions about the location of gipsy sites are taken to plant a problem in an area that is not necessarily represented by a member of the majority party on the borough council, if I may put it delicately. I think that my hon. Friend recognises what I am talking about.
  None of my constituents in Ash have any confidence in the workings of the 1968 Act, and I do not blame them. In the other part of my constituency in, the community of Knaphill in Woking borough, the situation is every bit as unsatisfactory. The pressures there have been similar, but there is one difference—whereas Guildford borough council ultimately agreed to go along with the chosen site at Ash bridge, Woking borough council vehemently disagreed and lodged a section 8 objection to the application, which has been forwarded by Surrey county council to the Secretary of State, for the establishment of a gipsy site on land at Barrs lane, Knaphill.
  I do not expect any hon. Member to know Barrs lane. It is a pleasant piece of open woodland which has been enjoyed by the local community as an extension to the adjoining recreation area for many years. That is one of many reasons why there is particular opposition to the establishment of a gipsy encampment.
  That site was first considered because it was thought to be available. It was in the ownership of a property development company that had failed to secure planning permission to build houses there—and quite right, too—and which thought that it could solve its problem by offering the land to Surrey county council on a free sale, so that it might then be able to buy it and use its ownership to establish a gipsy site. Again, that would have circumvented the public inquiry process that one would otherwise expect. That is another example of the privileged position enjoyed by a county council, which acts to the detriment of the communities that the local authority is supposed to represent.
  I am conscious that this is a long story, and that I will have to condense it. I pay tribute to the local community for its responsible attitude in getting together and making its objections. The Knaphill action group is lively, and is 100 per cent. representative of the local community. It has conducted a skilful, persistent and, so far, successful campaign to ensure that the processes for which the present law provides—inadequate though they are—are fully used.
  Thanks to the action group's representations, the site was eventually dropped from the short list. The local residents were so encouraged by that that they banded together to buy the land from the property company's receivers, so that they could dedicate it to the Woodland Trust and thus ensure that it would be enjoyed in perpetuity as a local amenity. That demonstrates the community's strength of feeling about the Barrs lane woodland.
  Unfortunately, in circumstances not wholly clear to me, the site was returned to Surrey county council's short list without much notice and with virtually no discussion, and chosen as the preferred second site in Woking borough. It would be hard to exaggerate the strength of local disquiet at those events.
  My hon. Friend the Minister knows of my strong belief that there should be a public inquiry, and the inspector ought to conclude that the site is wholly unsuitable for a

  595
  gipsy caravan encampment on general grounds of public amenity. The fact that the site is available has no bearing on its merits, but that is the way in which the 1968 Act works. I hope that those two examples show what is wrong with the Act, and that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that he is taking action in those cases that will in effect restore the balance of democratic decision-making.
  The present position is intolerable. Repeated incursions by parties of travelling gipsies on to roadside verges or other areas of accessible open land—car parks, sites earmarked for redevelopment, public parks, and so on—is intolerable and must not be allowed to continue. The theoretical rights of removal from public or private land should not blind us to the fact that they are ineffective, expensive, and cumbersome and that something more effective is needed. There is great public anger in areas where incursions occur about the damage they cause and the nuisance they provoke—not to mention the trouble and expense of securing eviction and restoring the land to its former condition.
  The 1968 Act, as it currently operates, leaves behind a mess. It is time that that mess was cleared up, and I am glad to give Parliament a opportunity to start doing so today.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I call Mr. Tony Baldry.
  10.14 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry):rose—
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is usual and customary for the House to hear speakers from both sides of the House, and then for the Minister to intervene later. It is unfortunate that the Minister, instead of listening to the various points that are to be made, is intervening at this early stage.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is for the Minister to choose when he wants to intervene, and it is for the occupant of the Chair to decide whether or not the Minister has caught their eye.
  Mr. Baldry: It may be helpful to the House for me to intervene at this stage to outline the Government's approach to the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow), and the reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 more generally. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) can be assured that I will listen to everything that every right hon. and hon. Member says. I hope that he, likewise, will be present throughout the debate to hear everything that my right hon. and hon. Friends have to say. It is noteworthy that, on such an important matter, the Opposition Benches are marked by the scarcity of occupants.
  I welcome also the involvement of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) in this issue. This Bill takes forward initiatives originally taken in my hon. Friend's ten-minute Bill of last November.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having brought forward this measure. The issues that it addresses are of concern not only to his constituents but to many others. The Government will not oppose the Bill, although clearly we shall need to examine closely in Committee the detail of its provisions.
  596
  The Caravan Sites Act 1968 was introduced 25 years ago with all-party support. It was a private Member's Bill introduced by the then Eric Lubbock, now Lord Avebury, with the support of the then Labour Government and the Conservative Opposition. It sought to respond to the need to provide sites for gipsies and to tackle the problem of illegal camping. The Act defines gipsies as
  "persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, but does not include members of an organised group of travelling showmen"—
  and so on. Not all gipsies are travellers, and not all travellers are gipsies.
  Parliament was concerned with the people who had and have a recognisable identity in the social history of this country, who were of a nomadic habit of life, and who either resided in a particular area as their more or less permanent residence or regularly resorted to an area during the year for a particular purpose—such as those who went hop-picking in Kent or strawberry-picking in Somerset in the appropriate season. Before 1968, their rights, other than when moving from place to place, were questionable, and provision for them was negligible.
  Lord Avebury's approach was straightforward. He estimated that there were 3,500 gipsy families in England and Wales. In the event, that figure appears to have been an underestimate, but it was clearly accepted by Lord Avebury and the Government as reliable at the time.
  The intention was that each local authority should make a fair provision of gipsy sites reflecting the number of gipsies resorting to that area. Once such provision had been made, the local authority concerned could apply for designation—and once it was designated, it could take action against unauthorised camping by gipsies in its area, which became an offence. A magistrate could, on the complaint of any designated local authority, authorise that authority to take necessary steps to remove caravans. If a local authority failed to make proper provision of sites for gipsies in its area, the Secretary of State could issue a direction to that authority requiring it to provide an appropriate number of sites.
  The Act was thus said to contain a carrot and a stick. The carrot was that authorities that made reasonable provision could become designated and thus have greater power to deal with unlawful camping, and the stick was that any authority that dragged its feed could have a direction issued to it by the Secretary of State.
  As will be gathered from a reading of the report of the Bill's Second Reading, it was introduced on the basis of at least three rather important premises. First, it was assumed that the travelling gipsy population was unlikely to grow, as more and more gipsies moved of their own accord into more settled accommodation. The Minister, Arthur Skeffington, said at the time:
  "with this legislation and the provision of permanent camps, the task of integration should become much easier, particularly for the children of gipsies."
  Secondly, it was assumed that local authorities would be keen to make suitable provision, because that would enable them to achieve designation and thus be able more easily to deal with unlawful camping in their areas. The third premise was that the exercise could all be achieved by authorities in a cost-neutral way, in that the money that they spent in providing pitches could be recouped in rate and rent receipts. Lord Avebury said:

  597
  "this will not constitute a new burden on the rates since a great deal will be recovered in the charges made for the use of facilities."—[Official Report, 1 March 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1980, 1929.]
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking has observed, all those premises have proved wrong. Since 1968, the gipsy population has grown: In January last year, there were some 13,000 gipsy caravans in England.
  Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of those so-called gipsies are not gipsies at all, but ne'er-do-wells who are anxious to move from one site to another, to avoid paying their community charge, to avoid sending their children to school and to live off social security? To call them gipsies is to misuse the term.
  Mr. Baldry: I was going on to say that the 13,000 figure excludes nearly all those who are more commonly known as new age travellers. They do not fall within the statutory definition set out in the Caravan Sites Act. My hon. Friend is right: many other people are causing concern, but are not included in the statutory definition of a gipsy.
  As for the second premise, depite the passage of a quarter of a century, only 38 per cent. of local authorities in England have made sufficient provision to enable them to become designated.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I agree with that figure of 38 per cent. Earlier, the Minister referred to the "carrot and stick" approach. How many times since the passage of the 1968 Act has the Department used the stick?
  Mr. Baldry: I shall come to that shortly.
  Many local authorities seem to have been incapable of identifying suitable sites in their areas, agreeing on acceptable sites or coping with local controversy over any proposed sites. My right hon. Friend's description of some of the difficulties that he has experienced in his constituency is evidence of that. The Secretary of State has now issued directions to three local authorities—Avon, Hertfordshire and Surrey. Indeed, so slow was the provision of sites by local authorities that the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 gave powers to the Secretary of State to make 100 per cent. grants to local authorities for the costs of site provision, thus confounding the third premise on which this legislation was based—that it would not result in greater public spending.
  So far, £56 million has been spent direct by the Exchequer on funding gipsy site provision, and as a result there are now around 6,000 caravans on public gipsy sites. I can think of no comparable 100 per cent. open-ended, demand-led grant made available by my Department, or indeed by any other Department. Despite all that, there are still some 4,300 gipsy caravans parked illegally in England, and the number is growing.
  The intention behind the original Caravan Sites Act was commendable. Introducing his Bill, Lord Avebury said that it would
  "help local authorities properly to control the unauthorised use of land.
  It will give relief to quiet neighbourhoods and beautiful countryside which have suffered from invasions of the travelling people while at the same time it will give those travelling people a recognised place in the community."—[Official Report, 1 March 1968; Vol 759, c. 1930–31.]
  598
  We have no quarrel with those aspirations, which had the support of the entire House at the time. Sadly, however, the Caravan Sites Act has failed to deliver as envisaged. Action is now needed, and my right hon. Friend's Bill is a useful step in the right direction.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The Minister mentioned the issue of an order against Surrey. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) and I are particularly interested in that. Does my hon. Friend recognise that, despite the availability of 100 per cent. grants, the difficulty lies in identifying the permanent site in a way that the local population can accept? That is a matter of grave concern. Although the Minister clearly has a duty to implement the terms of the 1968 Act, there is great local resentment at the insistence that such a requirement should be imposed local communities.
  Mr. Baldry: I understand my hon. Friend's point, which illustrates the concern felt about the identification of suitable sites. That has been part of the problem experienced by many local authorities over the past quarter of a century as they have tried to provide sites in the way envisaged in the 1968 Act. As I have said, the premises on which the Act was based have all clearly failed: that is why action is now needed.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: One of the principal problems of the 1968 Act was the fact that it diffused responsibility for site provision between district council, county council and, to a certain extent, central Government. It was also seen as unfair by many communities—particularly my community in Wyre Forest—because the more sites the council provided, the more it was expected to provide. A honey-pot effect was produced: as an area became known as a place where gipsies were accommodated, more came, and more was expected by both county and district councils in regard to determining designation by central Government.
  Mr. Baldry: I am sure that all hon. Members accept that the original Bill was presented with all-party support and the best of intentions. For reasons that I have given, which I expect to be reinforced repeatedly today, the premises on which it was based have all been found wanting and, given the experience of the past quarter of a century, the legislation needs to be reformed and action needs to be taken.
  We have made it clear that people who wish to adopt a nomadic existence should be free to do so, provided that they live within the law in the same way as their fellow citizens. We have no quarrel with people pursuing a nomadic life style, provided that they do not expect either a privileged position under the law or entitlement to more support from the taxpayer than is available to those who choose a more settled existence.
  We believe that gipsies and travellers, like other citizens, should seek to provide their own accommodation, seeking planning permission where necessary like everyone else. Of course, the vast majority of gipsies have already gone a considerable way towards making their own provision. They have almost always bought their own caravans and trailers and, in those circumstances, it does not seem unreasonable that more gipsies should make a provision for their pitches. Three thousand caravans were accommodated on private pitches in England in January 1992.

  599
  Indeed, the National Gypsy Council, in its response to the Government's proposals to reform the Caravan Sites Act 1968—I hope that hon. Members will read the response—made it clear that it welcomes the concept of private site initiatives for gipsies. It states that, in its
  "opinion, private sites are beneficial to all concerned: to gypsies because they offer them the security of a legal home and a base from which they can send their children to school, to local authorities and central government who are spared the expense of developing and managing sites, and to the local settled community by the reduction in numbers of unauthorised encampments".
  It also says:
  "private gipsy sites are in locations where the gipsies who live on them will want to be, they suffer none of the problems due to incompatibility which are sometimes found on local authority sites, and once private sites become established, families on it quickly prove themselves to be good neighbours".
  The latter point was tellingly made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking, and I am sure that it will be echoed many times in the debate.
  I appreciate, however, that many gipsies feel that the planning system is prejudiced against them and that when they make applications for planning permission, they are too often turned down by the local planning authorities as a result of local prejudice. I do not accept that the planning system is stacked against gipsies. I have to accept, however, that it is the gipsies' perception that it is.
  I am determined to remove the suspicion and tension which frequently arise in relation to gipsy applications for sites. The planning system must not only be fair but be seen to be fair for gipsies and their neighbours. We shall issue fresh planning guidance as soon as possible on the factors to be taken into account in determining planning applications for the establishment of gipsy sites.
  We shall require local authorities to include in their development plans policies for providing such sites. We shall seek to encourage authorities to look positively and impartially at planning applications. It is important that planning committees are not swayed by local opposition based on prejudice, which, of course, is not and must not be a planning consideration. I trust that, as a consequence, gipsies will have the confidence increasingly to make their own provision through the planning system.
  Sir Cranley Onslow: I am delighted that fresh planning guidance is to be issued, and I look forward to studying it, but will the Minister take the opportunity to say whether it will differ significantly from the present guidance?
  Mr. Baldry: As the consultation paper makes clear, we believe that the planning system should be fair to the gipsy population, but that it should offer them no privileges. My right hon. Friend referred to such a privilege, which gives gipsy sites preferential treatment in the green belt. Way back in 1968, that was thought to make sense, but we do not believe that it makes sense now. Therefore, the new planning guidance will be fair, but will put gipsies on an equal footing with everyone else who makes a planning application. That will be in the best interests of the gipsy population and the community as a whole. The gipsy population will know that they are being treated fairly and impartially, as can everyone else.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I welcome the Minister's statement that no preferential treatment is to be given to gipsies. Gipsies may feel that they are being prejudiced against in planning applications, but that
  600
  applies to almost everyone who makes a planning application these days. In my experience, when anyone applies for planning permission, the neighbours will almost automatically object, so gipsies should not believe that they are different from the general public in that respect.
  Mr. Baldry: As a Minister with responsibility for planning, I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, because many people who have had planning applications go against them feel that the system was stacked against them. However, the important point is that the system must operate fairly and impartially, and the gipsy community must have the confidence, through the planning system, increasingly to make their own provision. Incidentally, that is what the gipsy community has persistently asked for.
  As long ago as 1982, in a paper entitled "Gypsies and the Planning Laws", the National Gypsy Council drew attention to the fact that
  "there were and still are those families amongst us who are quite capable of finding, buying and developing their own sites. We said that, economically, this was more desirable than sites being provided for these families from Public funds"—
  but then expressed concern about the planning system. It is imperative that the community is confident that the system will act impartially.
  We also made clear last August our intention to adopt a fresh policy to guide the payment of Exchequer grants to cover the capital cost of providing gipsy caravan sites such that it should cease to be payable generally. In future, when considering applications from local authorities for Exchequer grant for the provision of gipsy caravan sites, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will take into account the policy that grant should cease to be payable generally and all other relevant factors to which he must have regard within the existing legislation.
  By seeking to encourage the maximum number of gipsies who are not at present on local authority or private sites to seek to make their own provision, we are, of course, hoping substantially to reduce the incidence of illegal camping. Illegal camping by gipsies or other travellers can affect the lives of whole communities, and we are determined to tackle the problem.
  Illegal camping can cover a wide range of situations, from a single caravan camping unlawfully without authorisation on someone else's land, without permission and perhaps for a period of weeks, to a very large number of people congregating and camping on land for a weekend as part of a rave.
  Clearly, reforms of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 will not cover every eventuality of illegal and unlawful camping. There is clearly a distinction between the unlawful occupation of land by gipsies who wish to remain there for some time and the problem of a sudden, large-scale but short-term incursion by new age travellers. The consultation paper issued by my Department last August set out some clear and coherent proposals to tackle illegal camping by gipsies.
  We have received nearly 1,000 formal responses to our consultation paper. I have made sure that a list of those who have responded is available in the Library. Generally, there is a clear recognition of the problems inherent in the existing legislation and an acknowledgment of the need to review and reform the Caravan Sites Act 1968.
  Reaction to individual proposals has been varied, some of it, I am bound to say, has verged on the hysterical. Some

  601
  respondents have managed to work themselves up into a sufficient state to make their response in particularly strong language, and I do not believe that such commentators can have read seriously what we have proposed. I do not believe that, in a mature democratic society, it is unreasonable for the Government to try to ensure that, as far as possible, unlawful camping does not take place.
  That, after all, was the firm intention of the legislation when it was first introduced with all-party support some 25 years ago. It would be surprising if, in the intervening period, there had been any waning of the commitment to the rule of law and to trying to ensure as far as possible that there should not be unauthorised use of land and that farmers, village communities and local neighbourhoods should not be afraid of, or have to experience, a sudden incursion into their community of gipsies camping illegally. Such action was not acceptable in 1968 and is not acceptable now. We are determined to take the necessary measures to ensure that communities are protected from unlawful camping.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend has kindly placed in the Library a list of all those who made representations, many of them somewhat excitable. Has he asked the Home Secretary whether he has placed in the Library a list of all the police authorities that have made representations? My hon. Friend will be aware that there is profound concern about the real powers of the police, both under the existing arrangements and under the proposed new arrangements.
  Mr. Baldry: If my hon. Friend goes to the Library, he will see that the document lists police authorities as well as all the parish and other authorities that have made representations.
  Given the range and number of responses that we have received from local authorities, county councils, police authorities, members of the public, farmers, landowners, parish councils and, not least, gipsies, travellers and travelling groups, it must be right for us to consider the responses carefully before introducing detailed proposals to bear down on unlawful camping.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking mentioned one proposal in our consultation paper that has clearly caused some concern. On the other hand, we need to consider how Parliament can make provision to prevent circumstances arising in which, if unlawful camping is prevented in place A, those who are moved do not simply go down the road to another field 200 yards away. Those are not easy issues.
  We shall act as speedily as we can to ensure that we can introduce legislation consistent with our manifesto commitments as soon as parliamentary time can be made available. As part of that exercise, I shall listen carefully today to the views of hon. Members from all parties.
  My right hon. Friend's Bill has provided the House with a first opportunity to debate these issues in detail since the general election and since the publication of our consultation paper. Given that the original Bill was introduced with all-party support back in 1968 and that this is the first opportunity that we have had to debate the present Bill, I find it particularly disappointing that not one representative of the Liberal Democrats is present. After all, it was a Liberal Member who introduced the
  602
  1968 private Member's Bill. I do not know whether we shall hear from an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman today. It would certainly be useful to know where Labour stands on these difficult issues.
  In any event, we have the responsibility of government, and we are determined to take forward and tackle these difficult problems. We are determined to pursue the objective of the 1968 Act, which is to ensure proper provision of sites for gipsies, while bearing down on unlawful camping.
  10.42 am
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The problem of illegal camping by gipsies will not in any way be solved by the Bill, which in my view will make the situation immeasurably worse.
  I have always been concerned about illegal camping sites, which undoubtedly cause difficulties. Gipsies are an amalgam of various kinds of people; like all people, they defy ready classification. The idea that at one stage gipsies were all people in nicely painted caravans singing folk songs with guitars while a horse pulled them gently round meandering country lanes has never been accurate, even if it is a nice image to conjure up.
  Gipsies do not fall into that category today. They sometimes cause a nuisance. They sometimes collect scrap and they sometimes burn scrap and tyres on sites. When they camp on illegal sites without any sanitation, they may cause offence and difficulties to those who live in the adjacent area. Concerns about those difficulties are properly communicated to local representatives—whether the local authority or the local Member of Parliament. Local people feel a sense of injustice when gipsies take over a bit of open land in a smoke-free zone and start burning rubbish. After all, if the rest of the community emitted smoke from their chimneys, the local environmental health officer would be round with the threat of prosecution. I fully recognise the sense of injustice and outrage that people feel about illegal camping.
  As I have explained, my judgment of the Bill is not based on the rosy romantic view that travellers are guitar-strumming Romanies. I am examining the realities, and it is on them that I base my judgment of the Bill. I want illegal camping to be reduced, not increased, and I believe that illegal camping will increase as a consequence of the Bill.
  Shortly before the general election of 1987—hon. Members will appreciate the sensitivity of the situation—a group of gipsies camped on a site in what was to become my constituency of Bradford, South. The site was a former railways goods yard which had been earmarked for a transport museum. All hell was let loose. Local people rightly objected very strongly when, in an area landscaped at a cost of £250,000, trees were torn up and vehicles driven over a recently reseeded and returfed area. Roses that had been planted by local people were picked by gipsy children, who had been allowed—indeed, encouraged, it was suspected—by a small group of councillors to do that. There were two sides: local residents and groups of gipsies encamped in the area. I suspect—I have no proof—that the gipsies were encouraged to camp on the site by councillors and officials. The designation of that area as a local transport museum was opposed because it had been promoted by West Yorkshire metropolitan county council, about which the local

  603
  authority in Bradford was less than enthusiastic. The gipsies were used as pawns and local residents were encouraged to react by saying, "Whatever you do with the land, get the gipsies off it: if you use it for industrial development, it will at least be occupied and our difficulties will not be repeated."
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in some instances local authorities designate and spend large sums of money on sites to which gipsies do not particularly want to go, and which they wreck simply because they are not interested in staying there?
  Mr. Cryer: I have no experience of that. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be able to elaborate on that view in his speech.
  In the case to which I refer, the gipsies were being used as pawns. Fortunately, the outcome was positive. The gipsies were removed and transferred to other sites and the land remained designated for use as a transport museum. Instead of saying, "Now that we have got rid of the gipsies we can forget about it," the local community association in Low Moor in my constituency organised a number of transport galas on the site to emphasise that it would have a good public use. I am happy to say that we have had a grant from the Government to develop the site, although not in quite the way that I had expected. I should have preferred a stronger emphasis on transport rather than on estate development; it appears that the grant was not given for wholly altruistic purposes. Nevertheless, after a very controversial start, the museum is going ahead with the support of the local community.
  Had the local authority not made strenuous efforts to clarify the position, the outcome of the election in 1987 might have been different. The House will no doubt be delighted to learn that the Labour majority in 1983 of 100 was tripled to 309 in 1987; the House will be even more gratified to learn that the majority is now just under 5,000.
  For some reason that I cannot fathom, Bradford was subsequently apparently targeted by gipsies and a fair amount of illegal camping took place. I received a number of complaints with which I sympathised. More recently, the local authority refurbished the two caravan sites in the Bradford metropolitan district area. As a result, all the caravans had to be moved off those sites, albeit temporarily. The refurbishment also caused camping problems.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the problems are far less in the north of England than in the south? Kent and East Anglia have a far higher proportion of unauthorised camping than any other part of the country.
  Mr. Cryer: I cannot make a judgment about that, but if the hon. Gentleman believes that illegal camping has not been a problem in the north, he is mistaken. There was a real problem in Bradford two years ago, which has been solved to some degree by the completion of the refurbishment of the two local authority sites.
  It may be argued that a metropolitan borough the size of Bradford could provide more sites, but there are always difficulties with providing sites because of the problems that arise from the activities of some gipsies. The local authority refurbished the sites and increased the number of
  604
  pitches from 32 to 47. As each pitch can accommodate two caravans, the sites at Mary street and Esholt provide a total of 94 caravan sites.
  I hope that this debate will follow a tenor of concern about the provision for gipsies and not the tenor of the Conservative-controlled Pickles administration in Bradford.
  Mr. Irvine Patnick (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): It was brilliant.
  Mr. Cryer: The Government Whip, who should not speak in any case, claims that that administration was very good. However, there were many disadvantages—that is why that administration was thrown out neck and crop in the local authority elections.
  Although the refurbishment had started, the Conservative administration to which I have referred stopped it. That was unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary, particularly when the refurbishment was not a call on local authority funds but part of a 100 per cent. grant from the Department of the Environment. Stopping the refurbishment was also dangerous. The builders were removed and jagged edges and holes three or four feet deep were left on the site. Children on the site could easily have fallen over and injured themselves. I hope that the concern of the House will be superior to that of that Conservative administration.
  As £1,241,953 has been spent on the refurbishment of the two sites to which I have referred, I am critical of the fact that the Bill proposes the repeal of obligations of local authorities. All local authority sites will be removed from local authority ownership. They will be sold with a 76 per cent. discount and, if they are not sold within 12 months, they will be sold without a reserve.
  It is outrageous that public investment should be placed in jeopardy and handed over to a private landlord for a paltry sum. It is true that the Bill also provides for recognised gipsy organisations to be considered as owners, but if the sites are not sold, even at a discount, or are sold at auction without a reserve, clearly the future of such sites might be in severe jeopardy. The sites do not even have to be sold to a recognised gipsy body at auction. That is a severe criticism of the legislation, particularly when such a great deal of taxpayers' money has been invested in those sites. I want taxpayers' money and the taxpayers' investment to be protected and not simply handed over to organisations that may or may not prove to be decent landlords. Those landlords may not provide proper facilities or ensure that the travellers who stay on the sites contribute to the community by paying a reasonable rent.
  The nomadic way of life of travellers has been criticised. Indeed, that criticism was encapsulated in an intervention from the Conservative Benches. It is said that travellers move around to avoid the poll tax and that they are living off the state. That criticism, which is frequently heard, can be refuted if sites are provided on which travellers have to pay rent and contribute to society at large. We must always bear in mind, too, that children are involved. Any criticisms of their parents are visited willy-nilly on the children. That is generally accepted to be extremely unfair. The greater the number of permanent sites, the better, as they provide an opportunity for children to participate in an unbroken educational process.
  I have heard many criticism and comments about illegal sites. I have always pointed out that Bradford takes its fair

  605
  share of the burden of site provision and that other local authorities should do the same. That was envisaged in the Caravan Sites Act 1968, but, as the Minister said, that provision is not being applied universally. As a result of that, three directions under section 9 of the 1968 Act are in operation requiring local authorities to make provision. I believe that there should be more directions.
  If the Bill is enacted, local authorities such as Bradford, which try to provide adequate sites, will still bear that burden while local authorities that have done nothing will escape scot-free. That is simply not fair and the burden on local authorities which have sites will almost certainly increase. If there is no possibility of a local authority providing a site, where will the magnet occur? It will occur in the local authorities that have already provided sites. Attention will focus on those authorities and gipsies will move to those local authorities rather than to local authorities that do not provide sites. The latter will be able to turn around and say, "The obligation to provide sites has been completely eradicated, so we are not going to provide sites, and the Department of the Environment is not going to issue a direction so you will have to go somewhere else—not here."
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if there are more directions, there will be more sites to which gipsies do not want to go in the first place? That will create problems. Would it not be better to follow the course described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow)? We would then have sites to which gipsies want to go. They will get together and submit planning applications and will not experience the resentment of local people. If the gipsies do that, they will have followed a proper consultation process and the situation will be much better than if they are directed to go to a site where they do not want to go in the first place and where the local people will resent them.
  Mr. Cryer: I am not opposed to private sites. Private sites provide a useful supplement to local authority sites, but there are not enough local authority sites. If we place a question mark over local authority sites, we do not necessarily gain more private sites. Private sites supplement local authority sites, and that is fine. It has been made clear today that the criticisms apply to any site. Few people want a gipsy site at the bottom of their garden or in their back street. Such criticisms will always exist.
  Shifting the matter to the planning process so that gipsies will be able to have the sites that they want will not work, because the planning process is subject to objections and controversy. I do not share the view of the right hon. Member for Woking about consultation. I have been able to cite some unhappy examples of a lack of consultation. When Bradford, Leeds and Kirklees sought sites, there was massive consultation. Consultation is always a dangerous process for local authorities to undertake. They undertake it, as a matter of fact, with the best of intentions and with an idealistic view, but the local authorities always come out of it badly. Wherever they propose a gipsy site, there is always controversy. They undertake some consultation, but, whatever the process, whether it involves a local authority or private planning, applications will be fraught with massive controversy.
  Mr. Pike: Was it not always possible to have private sites, which Opposition Members certainly do not oppose, long before the 1968 Act? The fact that the 1968 Act has not been able to deliver public sites, in conjunction with the ability to deal with private sites, shows that there has been a failure to solve the problem because we do not have adequate private or public sites.
  Mr. Cryer: I have outlined the massive controversy in Low Moor in my constituency. Gipsies invaded a former goods yard beside the transport museum. Curiously enough, while people were raging about that, within a couple of hundred yards of very angry meetings, there was a private site which everybody accepted and were perfectly comfortable with, so things worked perfectly well. Private sites can be acceptable. In that instance, there was planning permission and people got on well with the travellers who were living there. That is ideal, but the removal of any local authority participation and a dependence on private sites and planning processes will not be a solution: there will always be controversy.
  Mr. Gill: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument and I have some sympathy with it. One can speak only from one's own experience. There are two local authorities in my constituency, one of which has designation, the other does not. In the case of the local authority where there is no designation, a private operator would have provided a site, all things being equal, but I am afraid that all things were not equal. Under the Bill, there will be a greater prospect of that private operator and other private operators being able to make the provision which, for the past 25 years, has not materialised in one of the district councils in my constituency.
  Mr. Cryer: I do not think that private provision should be encouraged at the expense of local authority provision—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because private provision can only supplement local authority provision. I am all in favour of that, but I am not in favour of removing the obligation on local authorities to provide sites. It is too soft an option.
  I wrote to every local authority within the area of Bradford and nearby. I have written to Craven and Kirklees local authorities, for example, and I wrote to Leeds local authority long before it produced a site, amid much controversy. I wrote to Calderdale local authority asking it to provide sites because Bradford was taking the burden, and also asking why it was not prepared to share that burden. I am happy to say that some local authorities are seeking sites, but I do not want to remove that obligation, because too many local authorities will take the soft option and do absolutely nothing. The private solution does not guarantee that sites will become available.
  Mrs. Judith Chaplin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one problem is that local authority sites are often much larger than private sites? That is what upsets many of the people who object to them, because they have a large provision with many facilities while private sites can be much smaller and thus do not arouse the same animosity as large sites arouse.
  Mr. Cryer: I share that view, because it is prudent to have half a dozen smaller sites rather than one or two large ones. They can be made much more harmonious with the surroundings and the burden is shared more equally by the

  607
  community. A large site means that a certain area is taking the whole burden. In the case of Bradford, 500,000 people are taking the burden. A large number of small sites scattered throughout the area is a much more harmonious solution. That is a perfectly legitimate argument to advance, but I do not think that it is a sufficient ground to eradicate the obligation on local authorities. Certainly in Bradford, many people have criticised local authorities for not being prepared to share what they regard as a burden.
  Sometimes people live in harmony with one another, and that is a great achievement, but the correct perception of travellers is not one of guitar-strumming Romanies living in wondrous harmony. Such a perception is based on folk tales and folk lore. Sometimes people can be objectionable. Sometimes their children throw bricks at doors. Sometimes they burn scrap tyres, and so on, to the general horror and discomfort of the neighbours. Making provision is a sign of a tolerant and civilised society. It is easy to make provision when people are not awkward and slip easily into the surroundings. The difficulty is in making provision when it is a conscious effort and a burden. Of course, that burden must be shared by many people and must be reduced as much as possible when a decision is made.
  Mr. Heald: One of the points made by the National Gypsy Council is that local authorities do not always focus on what is required for a good gipsy site. The effect of clauses 2 and 6 would be that organisations such as the National Gypsy Council would be able to acquire sites currently in local authority control. If the discounts are allowed, about £40 million could be transferred to bodies that would then become powerful independent site associations tailored to gipsy needs and able to push forward the process of buying private land for gipsy sites. That is surely a laudable aim, giving people independence—I am approaching the point at which I am making my speech.
  Mr. Cryer: I am not opposed to people being independent, but I oppose handing over a total investment of £56 million to bodies that are given preference in the legislation, but which in some cases will not be able to raise the ante for all the money; I do not think that they should be given that opportunity, anyhow. If local authorities have made bad judgments about sites, either because they are too large or because they are on tips that happen to be available and convenient at the time, those difficulties will not be altered by handing over the money.
  Conservative Members argue that a private planning procedure will enable gipsies to seek sites that they feel are most suitable to their needs. That is a rosy view of what the planning process is likely to produce. There is no reason why that process cannot go on at the same time as local authorities make provision. I argue strenuously that the Bill will be the soft option for local authorities because there is no provision whatever to guarantee an increase in the number of pitches available to the gipsy community at large.
  Mr. Gill: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and I have different ideological bases, because he represents an urban area and I represent a rural area. From my experience, when a district council wants to find a site it says, "We will look here, there and somewhere else", and
  608
  automatically there is opposition. The community gangs up to oppose whichever site the local authority may have designated.
  Under the changes proposed in the Bill, landowners will volunteer sites. That will get over the first hurdle, because nobody is volunteering sites at present. In the changed circumstances envisaged by the Bill, and given the changed circumstances that affect the economy of rural areas, I am sure that the market will work and sites will become available. The fact that sites have been offered rather than—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is becoming a speech rather than an intervention.
  Mr. Cryer: I am sure that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) will make his own speech when the time comes. The idea that the volunteering of sites will provide a solution is not necessarily the answer, because people volunteer sites now. The hon. Member is right that I represent an urban area and he represents a rural area, so I cannot speak for rural areas and I do not attempt to do so.
  When sites have been volunteered, they have often been subject to the sort of controversy that the hon. Member suggests is allied only to the local authority process. All sites will be subject to controversy unless they are completely isolated from local inhabitants—by and large, that is the reality—or unless people have complete conformity with and acceptance and understanding of the way in which travellers live. That might happen, and it would be a splendid thing if it did, but on the basis of past human experience it is unlikely to happen.
  I wrote to the Calderdale local authority several years ago asking it to provide a site. When this argument was being hotly discussed at meetings in 1987, the Conservative candidate said that there was not a single area in Calderdale flat enough for a site. That was completely nonsensical. Since then, I have pressed Calderdale local authority to produce a site, but it has not done so. There have been one or two suggestions. Control of the Calderdale local authority has now switched to the Conservative party, and there is no prospect of a site being produced. Undoubtedly, the local authority is waiting for this legislation so that it can say, "We will not have a site." That is very unfair. The legislation will bring a sigh of relief from local authorities.
  Why on earth should Bradford provide sites? My constituency goes to the edge of the Halifax constituency. Why should my constituents bear the burden while other areas have the obligation removed? It is a mark of a civilised society that we collectively make such provision. On the other side of my constituency is Craven local authority, which stretches into the Yorkshire dales—an area with a romantic image that the gipsy traveller in a horse-drawn caravan would find absolutely perfect because it is rural; yet there is not one site.
  When I write to local authorities, I receive assurances that they will consider the matter and that it is under review. The obligation is on them to share the contribution to a group of people who cause difficulties from time to time but who, in the main—like everybody else—want to contribute to society and have a place in it. Gipsies have a particularly distinctive way of life. I am sure that the

  609
  House recognises that obligation, so we have make provision. The provision must be nationwide, not on an arbitrary basis, as it will become if the legislation is passed.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I accept that the provision must be nationwide, but it must be where the gipsies want to go. The report from the National Gypsy Council refers time and again to local authorities that do not understand the culture of gipsies. Local authorities come up with hare-brained ideas and spend many thousands of pounds on the gipsies, but, because they do not properly understand the culture of the gipsies, it is money which the gipsies say is absolutely wasted. It would be much better if the gipsies were allowed to select where they want to go, apply for planning permission and go through the proper consultation process. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) seems to think that the state or the local authorities must be the font of all knowledge, but they are not.
  Mr. Cryer: I am not saying that at all. I have made it clear that private provision can happily supplement local authority provision in some cases. Let us suppose that a local authority provides a pitch with 20 sites. The pitch is taken over and the landlord says, "I don't think it is very comfortable; we will reduce it by 15". That sort of thing can happen. Such cases will place a question mark over the provisions of the Bill.
  There is no reason to suppose that travellers especially want not to go to Halifax, Skipton or other parts of the Craven area. Indeed, I should have thought that they would like to do so. Those local authorities should have the obligation that has existed since 1968 and which they have failed to honour in the provision of sites.
  The Secretary of State should have the power to make a direction. It is rarely used; it is not some sort of centralised Marxist state direction, but simply an attempt to provide for a group of people who have a perfect right to their way of life, which, by and large, is different from that of the vast majority of people who like a stable, house-based existence. It is a mark of our society that we are prepared to make that sort of provision.
  In addition, I argue that local authorities are accountable to some degree. Councillors are elected from all the political parties in the House. When Conservative councillors express their views at local authority elections, they do so because they are accountable and they are subsequently held to account, as are Labour and Liberal councillors. The idea that local authorities are some sort of Soviet imposing unyielding and unheeding decisions is simply not true.
  It might be argued that, by and large, gipsies do not have votes because they have not registered to vote and that their views might be ignored, but that is not so. In many local authorities where gipsies have sites, there is not much electoral advantage in providing them; it is an example of altruism at work. It should be heart-warming to learn that people are prepared to make decisions and to make an effort without consequent electoral advantages being sought at the same time. It is a good thing that people should be altruistic, that they have ideals and apply them. Local authorities are accountable.
  The idea that local authorities are completely divorced from the needs and aspirations of the gipsies is not true.
  610
  Only local authorities can afford to employ, for example, gipsy liaison officers—as Bradford does—in an attempt to build up a relationship between the local authority and the gipsies. We should surely want that. Do we want people to remain for ever outside the system of democratic administration that we have built up over the years? Do we want them to remain an alienated, isolated group?
  Mrs. Chaplin rose—
  Mr. Cryer: I shall just finish this point. The fact that the local authority provides education for gipsy children inevitably means that the local authority is brought into contact with the gipsy community. That is a strong means of maintaining a link with gipsies and understanding their wishes and aspirations.
  Sir Cranley Onslow: There is nothing in my Bill or in my approach to the problem that seeks in any way to put an end to the gipsy liaison officer system. Those posts will be just as necessary after my Bill, or something like it, reaches the statute book. However, the system under which we are obliged to live due to an outdated Act promotes confrontation and creates communal tensions which ought to be avoided.
  Mr. Cryer: I was not criticising the promoter of the Bill. I was replying to an intervention by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and was making the point that the operation of local authority services perforce brings local authorities into contact with gipsy communities. They therefore understand the hopes, aspirations and needs of travelling people, even though they may not always deal with them adequately. What human institution deals adequately with all the people all the time? We do not, because of inadequacies of structure and humanity and because of the way we live, work and breathe. Nevertheless, the democratic structure of local authorities leads to some accountability.
  Conservative Members cannot complain about the controversy created when local authorities propose sites and yet argue that local authorities impose their wishes on the community. The community often acts so strenuously against such a proposal that the local authority has to withdraw it amid a storm of protest. That is part of the democratic process. People should have the right to object to proposals. I do not believe that planning system will be devoid of the right to object to proposals, as implied by Conservative Members. Planning procedures nearly always lead to controversy—whether they relate to gipsies or to other issues: a factory, a tannery, or whatever. Objections will not go away, because such proposals are controversial.
  I understand perfectly the anxiety and concern that are caused by the creation of illegal gipsy sites. My aim is to reduce illegal camping, but we shall not achieve that aim by removing the obligation on local authorities. I call on authorities such as Craven and Calderdale to select sites and to demonstrate that they want to fulfil their obligation to provide sites for a range of travelling people.
  I should make it clear that my remarks, like those of every other hon. Member today, are not directed towards the new age travellers, who create different problems; we are concentrating our remarks on the traditional travellers, provision for whom has been made under the 1968 Act. It is unfair if local authorities do not fulfil their obligations. The provisions of the Bill will fritter away a

  611
  great deal of public investment that was made in the best of spirits and with the best of intentions. I am not prepared to accept that. I believe that private sites should supplement local authority provision; I am not opposed to them. According to the figures provided by the Minister and the promoter of the Bill, we are short of sites. The January 1992 count showed that there were 13,500 caravans and about 4,500 unauthorised sites. My criterion is whether the Bill will increase or reduce the number of authorised sites. I believe that it is likely to reduce it and that it will encourage illegal camping. I therefore oppose the Bill.
  11.24 am
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I very much welcome—as, I believe, does the House as a whole—the initiative shown by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) in selecting this subject for his private Member's Bill. As the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, it is a serious subject. This is a difficult question to solve and it must be tackled in a sensible, deliberate and logical manner.
  It is common ground, I believe, that a civilised society should show tolerance and a capacity to accommodate the nomadic way of life that traditionally has been led by the gipsy people, but we should not let tolerance descend into licence and into threatening, disruptive and violent behaviour against the settled community and other property owners. That is entirely wrong, and something which the House should set its face against.
  It seems to be that for 25 years we have had the solution that the hon. Member for Bradford, South advocates and supports—a compulsory obligation on local authorities to provide sites. However, that has not worked. Faced with the fact that it has not worked, and faced also with the growing number of so-called gipsies—nomadic or itinerant people, anyway—we have to seek a different solution. It has to be a solution similar to that to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) referred. It has to be acceptable both to the gipsies and to the communities through which they pass or in which they encamp for the winter.
  I want to draw the attention of the House to the difficult situation in my constituency. I know that communities throughout the home counties, including Surrey, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking referred, face similar problems. We have been seeking a gipsy site. It may surprise the hon. Member for Bradford, South to hear that sites throughout east Hertfordshire have been sought for the last 25 years, and that we have not yet found an acceptable one.
  I have, for a variety of reasons, vigorously opposed every site that has been proposed. My objection has usually been connected with the inappropriateness of the site and the very disruptive effect on the environment that gipsy sites would have. I very much welcome the Minister's proposal that gipsy sites should not be allowed on green belt land if settled communities cannot also settle there. The rules on green belt land should apply to gipsies, just as they do to any other members of the community.
  The Minister's proposal today will remove a great deal of the anger and frustration and the sense of unfairness and injustice that many members of the settled
  612
  communities would feel if they were not allowed to live on green belt land while gipsies were allowed to place their caravans there.
  That brings me to the serious incident that occurred outside Hertford last year. East Hertfordshire district council has been unable to provide a site. As the Minister said, his Department had imposed a direction upon Hertfordshire, as on Surrey, to provide gipsy sites, on pain of being taken to court if they failed to meet their obligations. Therefore, Hertfordshire renewed its search for a site.
  I thoroughly deprecate the decision of the county council on where to place this site. The only site suggested by county council officers that was acceptable to the Conservative-ruled county council happened to be in the only district represented by a Labour member. As an example of an objective way to seek a proper gipsy site, what could be more cynical or wrong? It was on green belt land immediately outside the town of Hertford, alongside a combined council and private housing estate, which had enjoyed—and still enjoys—beautiful views of countryside, green belt and woods which also provide recreational facilities for the people of Hertford and the Sele Farm estate.
  After that land was proposed for a gipsy site, what happened? Like keeping poultry—it is the same with gipsies—once a site on which gipsies may be entitled to camp is designated, it attracts all sorts of other nomadic vagabonds. And so they came—in large shiny caravans pulled by Land-Rovers and Jaguars of recent vintage.
  Sir Cranley Onslow: And Mercedes.
  Mr. Wells: Yes—accompanied by Mercedes, and the odd Shogun.
  They first arrived about 18 months ago and arrived for the fourth time during the election campaign. They came in large numbers on a bright summer's day—they are not to be found in Hertfordshire in the winter. They began to terrorise the town of Hertford. They vandalised public places and destroyed local areas amenities, and their children invaded the local school swimming pool. They swam in the pool, unguarded and at night, and they wrecked facilities.
  Mothers did not dare let their children play in the play areas on the housing estates because of the so-called gipsies' children. I would not call them gipsies—I am not quite certain what to call them. They are travellers of some kind, but they are certainly not gipsies of the kind that the hon. Member for Bradford, South so romantically described—the gipsy with his horse-drawn caraven—and they were serious operators.
  They proceeded to offer their services making drives, gardening and clearing areas of wrecked cars and lorries, which they brought to that beautiful field to deconstruct, burning the tyres and wiring. Plumes of black smoke arose from that beautiful site, day in and day out. People in Hertford stopped taking holidays, as they dared not go away. They had to stay in their properties to protect them from vandalism and burglaries, which shot up at that time.
  No one can tell me or the House that we should permit the settled population to be terrorised and vandalised and to be deprived of the amenities of their homes and property in such an appalling manner. We cannot stand by and let that happen.

  613
  Another consequence of the invasion needs to be considered separately in another Bill. The Commission for Racial Equality became involved. As the candidate for Hertford and Stortford, I was appalled by the desecration and lack of respect for property, and the inability, or unwillingness, of the police to do anything about it. I was also concerned about how difficult it was to remove those people.
  I held a public meeting during the election campaign, and I introduced a Bill under the ten-minute rule, which excited the Commission for Racial Equality to make a complaint. It seemed to have the capacity to command police resources to investigate whether, as a candidate, I had committed an offence against the racial equality laws. One afternoon, soon after the general election, I was solemnly interrogated by a senior superintendent, a sergeant and two constables in Hertford police station for two hours. The police then reported to the commission on whether it should take out a prosecution against me for committing such an offence.
  What a waste of police time, and what an outrage. As a candidate and a representative, am I not entitled to put forward the views of the people of Hertford and to speak out against the outrages committed by people who had invaded the land near to their property? If we are denied that opportunity because of the Race Relations Act 1976, it must be one of the most undemocratic laws ever to be passed by the House.
  I condemn the Commission for Racial Equality for even beginning to take up the case. The National Gypsy Council subsequently sent me some interesting evidence about the people who had denounced me to the commission, and told me that they were not gipsies, never have been and could not claim to be. The commission took up their case and condemned all of us who objected to the sort of behaviour that I outlined. In a letter to me dated 6 January 1993, the National Gypsy Council told me that those people had nothing to do with gipsies, and should not be thought of in the same way.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that if he had been found guilty of inciting racial hatred because of his remarks about the antics of those people, the whole country would be guilty, because they, too, would have deplored such actions if they had taken place in their area?
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. The Commission for Racial Equality needs to think through what it is doing.
  I objected, on obvious and sensible domestic grounds of common law and practice, to behaviour that is unacceptable, whether or not it is the behaviour of gipsies. The Commission should be careful about the way in which it uses its powers. I am not an admirer of its activities, although I am a passionate adversary of racial hatred and prejudice.
  We must consider how to find a solution to the problem. First, we must not forget that there are many different types of travelling people in this country. I do not believe that there has been a major increase in the numbers of those I would call gipsies, whom I would describe in the way that the National Gypsy Council would like them to
  614
  be defined in a new Bill—someone who has links with families of traditionally nomadic habit. That is as good a definition as any that I can find.
  We should make provision for people of traditionally nomadic habit to carry on their way of life, tolerantly and sensibly. I do not think that there is any disagreement in the House about that. Many people, however, seek to live in that way. Some are genuinely homeless and find the way of life more congenial than living in hostels provided by local authorities or living in appalling housing conditions in some of our towns. They find that it is better to be out in the open air in a ramshackle truck than with the sort of people with whom they would have to share accommodation in those circumstances. I have much sympathy for them, but I do not believe that they can be allowed to do that at the expense of the settled community.
  Those living on caravan sites, whether gipsies or not, should be entitled to all the social benefits available to anyone who is without work or, for some reason, needs housing benefit or income support. The nomadic community living on caravan sites should be entitled to social security benefits just like the settled population. In that way, we should be able to take care of the homeless people, who can also move to recognised sites with water, electricity, sanitation and waste disposal. All those who camp on and invade the countryside have none of those facilities and create a serious health hazard for the settled community and themselves, apart from leaving someone else to clean up the mess that they leave behind.
  We can deal with the homeless, provided that they can find places on legitimate sites and pay what they can for those sites through housing benefit. As such benefits are, or should be, available in every case, we shall be able to provide for those people on private sites, as the private site owner will be able to pay back the costs, and possibly make a modest profit. My right hon. Friend's Bill proposes selling sites to gipsies, to whom I have just given a narrow definition.
  However, there are a number of different gipsy organisations. When the Minister considers legislation, he may wish to find a broader definition of "gipsy". I believe that the term should be narrowly defined, as those who are not traditional nomads must live like the rest of us. They can live as they like, but they must live on legitimate, licensed gipsy caravan sites and pay for them. Those sites must be hard standing, with proper sanitation, waste disposal facilities and running water. Those who live on them must have the ability to educate their children—an important issue which we should all support. It is an offence not to send one's children to school, so we must make provision to enable those people to do so.
  We should use the money that we have made available to provide sites for gipsies—many of whom are not rich, unlike the shiny caravan owners in Hertford, but of modest means. But their organisations are not insignificant. They can organise themselves and have the ability to manage sites. They are currently managing a site in Leeds. Through their management of the sites, they can make them acceptable.
  They will begin to find the sites acceptable, as they will not have to share them with many other people whom they do not know, and with whom they have nothing in common and often fight vigorously before moving on. Many such people live in the countryside because they do not want to live on the council sites, which are open to a wide range of people as defined in the 1968 Act.

  615
  In the Act, gipsies are defined as
  "persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, but does not include members of an organised group of travelling showmen, or of persons engaged in travelling circuses, travelling together as such".
  That is as wide definition. Who is a "person of nomadic habit"? I would say that it could be anyone who decides to go to live in a caravan for a week, which is far too broad a definition.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertforshire, North (Mr. Heald) said, we can provide resources. Gipsies can sell sites to raise money if those sites are in the wrong place and use the money to establish separate sites, which they can manage, own and keep clean. As a result, they will become acceptable. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking gave an example of a gipsy site that had been perfectly acceptable for many years. Gipsies can have such sites, provided that they are administered and managed by those who want them—not by a remote official or someone established in a hut and employed by the local council simply to monitor what is going on. That is the way forward.
  We may have to introduce provisions to help some of the groups to borrow money initially. They will not have property against which they can provide security, but they will be acquiring a property. We may have to think of a way in which we can give some assurance to lending institutions, or possibly establish a fund from which gipsies can borrow in order to finance the purchase of sites. Representations have been made to me by people who say that would love to purchase sites but they do not have the money. We could make the money available through the discounting system envisaged in the Bill.
  We must sell the rest of the sites or we shall be leaving the local authority in charge of a site that it will have to continue to administer. Gipsies or organisations that do not purchase sites using the 76 per cent. discount clearly do not want to do so, and in such cases the sites must be disposed of. The sensible way to do so is to auction them, despite what the hon. Member for Bradford, South said. Those sites may than be used for caravans or for other purposes, but they will certainly have a value, even if the itinerant community does not want them.
  Mr. Cryer: The legislation does not seem to contain a safeguard to prevent an attractive gipsy site in an attractive district from being purchased at auction by a developer and turned into development land, which would reduce the number of sites and hamper the provision. If all sites are simply auctioned to the highest bidder without any protection, that might be the outcome.
  Mr. Wells: That scenario is unlikely. If the site is attractive, the gipsy community will want to purchase it using the 76 per cent. discount. Even if they do not do that, if the site is so attractive, I am sure that the gipsies will bid for it at auction, and I do not believe that there is a problem. Those sites that are clearly not wanted by the nomadic community and which they do not buy at the 76 per cent. discount rate should be sold and put to other uses.
  There are many other sorts of travelling people. I have spoken of the homeless and the traditional gipsy or nomadic person, but there are many others. Where are the Irish at this time of year? They inhabit our land, coming to this country in droves from Ireland and living in large caravans. The gipsy liaison officer in Hertfordshire tells me
  616
  that they come only in the summer and go home to Ireland in the winter. There is no reason why we should provide gipsy caravan sites, or even settled homes, for Irish itinerants and tinkers who harass our communities during the summer.
  Mr. John Sykes: Is my hon. Friend aware that they are able not only to come here to live at the taxpayers' expense, but to vote here?
  Mr. Wells: I am well aware of that, and have long resented it.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am appalled by the remarks that have just been made about Irish people. Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, under the 1949 treaty, there is absolute freedom of movement of people between Britain and Ireland? People from this country can go to live and work in Ireland and, in just the same way, people from Ireland can come to live and work in this country, and can vote in both countries. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the 1949 treaty and subsequent legislation should be amended?
  Mr. Wells: Yes, I certainly am—and the sooner the better. I would not like the Irish people to think that I am condemning them all, but there are some itinerant people from Ireland who come here and behave badly, and I do not think that we should be compelled to provide sites for them to live on.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman seems to be heading off in a curious direction. Precisely what legal means does he propose to adopt to stop certain Irish people coming to this country? Apart from the prevention of terrorism legislation, which applies to people from any country, there is no legal provision to stop Irish people coming here. Is he seriously proposing that the relationship between the people of this country and the people of Ireland be fundamentally changed—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.Before the hon. Gentleman resumes his speech, may I point out the nature of the Bill we are discussing? It seems to me that we are rapidly heading towards wider issues that are not germane to it.
  Mr.Wells: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker: I was about to say the same. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was about to open up a different debate, but I do not propose to join him.
  There are undoubtedly problems with itinerant people from Ireland, and they need to be dealt with. We should not be required to make permanent provision for them in either caravan sites or settled homes.
  The Bill deliberately excludes new age travellers, but they do come under the 1968 Act, so they are not entirely a separate problem. To be sure, this is a public order matter and a social security matter. It is shameful that the nation has to bribe these people with social security money to stop them breaking the laws of the land. What disgusting behaviour we have driven ourselves to.
  We have to protect ourselves from this problem and I urge the Minister to press the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister to bring in legislation implementing the provisions of this Bill, the ideas in the consultation document and the views of the Home Office. A comprehensive Bill must be brought before Parliament

  617
  so that we can properly provide for traditionally nomadic people and stop the vandalism perpetrated by all sorts of other people who take to the roads in the summer months.
  We must provide for those who wish to live in caravans by giving them sites in the private sector and by giving them social security benefits to pay for those sites if they are impecunious or unemployed. That is the sensible way forward to ensure equality for all our communities throughout the land.
  11.52 pm
  Mrs. Judith Chaplin: The Minister will know from the huge number of responses to the consultation document how much interest there is in this subject. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) on introducing this Bill.
  One reason why the problem gives rise to such interest is that it concerns not just real travellers but new age travellers, not to mention all who fall between the two categories. All the measures in the Bill and in the consultation document, although plainly directed at genuine travellers, also affect new age travellers, who cause so much anxiety in most parts of the country.
  It is important to remember the differences between these various groups, because there are different solutions to be sought for different types of traveller.
  I have been slightly worried during the debate by the fact that hon. Members talked exclusively of putting these people on sites, as if they will stay there permanently. But the definition of a traveller is that he wants to travel. It is like getting on one's bike; these people travel in caravans and work in different parts of the country.
  In many areas, such people come and do seasonal work from time to time. Huge numbers go to certain rural areas to pick fruit, for instance, and then move back to more urban areas in the winter. Then there are others who have moved into occupations such as collecting scrap. They, too, move around collecting it. It is, therefore, wrong to view the solution to the problem as merely finding places where these people can become permanent residents.
  Some travellers come from Ireland and move around doing various jobs. They need temporary accommodation, which can often be provided by the farmer or other person temporarily employing them. Many of our roads are built by such people, so the person involved in road construction has a duty to provide a site where travellers can go without offending other people. He has a duty to provide the right site and facilities for them for as long as the work lasts.
  Few people criticise any of this or are worried by it, but many people strongly criticise the huge numbers of people moving around the country who are known as new age travellers. In my constituency, we are fortunate enough to have a large number of attractive commons, and for hundreds of years the sort of itinerant workers whom I have described have moved around in small groups on the commons without greatly offending the local population. It is only since the war that their numbers have increased and that they have begun to cause distress to local people.
  On beautiful commons such as Bucklebury or Burden Heath, people used to expect to see just a few travellers in the summer months; they would then move on. Not any
  618
  longer. People are very worried, because larger numbers are arriving, settling for longer periods and doing immense damage.
  The beautiful Hungerford common, just outside the town of that name, has been the scene of great difficulties in recent years. Three years ago, a large convoy of travellers stopped on the common and caused great distress to the inhabitants of the town. They then went into the town, many of them strangely dressed, and into shops, where they offended the local people. Indeed, they drove them away from the centre of town altogether, to the disadvantage of the shopkeepers there. All this took place on the May bank holiday, and it was most upsetting for the people of the town. The next year, exactly the same happened again, only there were far more travellers.
  One factor that annoys many people is that the camps in which the travelling people live become virtually no-go areas for the police. It is intolerable that there should be such areas in parts of this country. Local people say that these people often do not even obey the law. Their vehicles are frequently unlicensed or uninsured. That should not be allowed, yet the police cannot deal with the problem.
  One of the local farmers tried to prevent more people going on to his land by parking a tractor across his gateway to a field. The police came and did him for not having a licence for it. He had not used the tractor for a long time. That merely served further to ignite passions in the local community.
  Many people believe that such congregations deal in drugs, and that is often true. That, of course, is illegal and many believe that it will spin off into their families and affect their children. It is unsatisfactory that we have still not grasped that problem and done something about it.
  Such was the feeling about the Hungerford common invasion that local people rose up and demanded a solution. The police moved in the third year. They watched to see where the congregations of people were coming from, and cut off the approach roads with huge tree trunks. That enormous police presence stopped the congregation, but it is wrong that residents trying to enjoy a bank holiday should have to live in a state of police siege, which was the impression given by the number of police vehicles and personnel. I pay tribute to the amazing efficiency of the police who prevented the gathering, but the travellers simple moved to another area.
  Mr. Pike: I understand the problem to which the hon. Lady refers, but how will the Bill help to deal with it?
  Mrs. Chaplin: I shall deal with the link later in my speech.
  My constituency has another large common, and for many years it has not been available for people to walk upon. It is, of course, Greenham common, which is known throughout the country as one of the key sites in the cold war which led to the banning of many nuclear weapons and movement towards peace.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Lady describes the problems in Newbury, Hungerford and Greenham common. I know the area well. Does she agree that the presence of nuclear weapons at Greenham common posed a far greater danger to the whole country than any number of new age travellers, tinkers, gipsies or anybody else?
  Mrs. Chaplin: Most hon. Members, and most people in the country, believe that the presence of those weapons

  619
  prevented the escalation of nuclear capabilities. Most of us maintain that there is still a need for an independent nuclear deterrent as an aid to agreed negotiation and a reduction in such weapons.
  Greenham common is no longer used by the United States air force, which has returned to the States. Everybody would like to see parts of the common opened up again so that people can use it as they did in the past. Many people have visited the common's perimeter fence. Local people are worried that, when it comes down, hordes of people—new age travellers and others—may move onto the common and cause distress to the inhabitants of the area.
  One of the problems with the Government's consultation paper is its narrow definition. It specifically mentions "caravans". It may surprise hon. Members to know that, although the cruise weapons and the USAF have gone from Greenharn, the Greenham women have not. I hope that the Government will look again at the consultation document to try to ensure that it deals not just with caravans but with illegal camping in tents and sheds and all sorts of temporary buildings. That problem must be dealt with, as well as the problem of caravans moving around the country. As well as large congregations of people, small numbers also upset those who wish to see an end to illegal camping.
  As hon. Members have said, some travellers will no longer wish to travel. It is important to provide sites on which such people can make permanent homes, and they should be enabled to provide such sites for themselves. Some of them will wish to move into council houses, and I welcome the consultative document's proposals that that will be examined and encouraged. However, some people will wish not to move into permanent housing but to stay in their caravans on more permanent sites.
  Some hon. Members have said that, although the number of sites has been increased, that has not solved the problem in the way that was envisaged when the Act was passed. The implication is that, because more sites have been provided, more people have taken up travelling, but I rather doubt whether that is the whole truth.
  Nowadays, it is a great deal more comfortable to travel than it used to be. Caravan standards have been greatly improved, and some are infinitely preferable to some of our smaller houses. There has been an increase in the number of travellers, because many people prefer a caravan to a permanent home. Another factor in the increase is that some people have been unable to get houses or have to move around the country.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: A gipsy in Surrey with whom I discussed the problem there said that gipsies resent many of the later definitions of gipsies and that the best definition in law should be that a gipsy is someone who, when travelling, uses the old-fashioned horse-drawn carriage. Does my hon. Friend agree?
  Mrs. Chaplin: That would limit the definition to a very small number of people, who could probably be accommodated on about two sites. I am not sure that it is a realistic definition. There is a huge variety of reasons for travelling.
  Given the rise in the number of travellers, it is important to increase the number of places to which they can go without upsetting other inhabitants. We need to look more carefully to see whether people want to
  620
  continue to move around the country or whether they want to stay in one area and live in caravans. The Bill addresses the latter point rather more than the former.
  It will always be incredibly difficult to find caravan sites that are acceptable, let alone popular with local inhabitants. Many counties still do not have designated sites. Even when it is possible that a private site will be opened, very often the local population feel instinctively that they do not want a site nearby.
  In my constituency recently, a site was proposed on derelict land, well away from other houses, that had not been used for farming for a long time. From many points of view, it might have been a good site, but instantly, all those who lived within any distance of the area got together and said that they did not want a gipsy site there because they were worried about the effect on the value of their properties and the mess, the damage to the environment, the risk of burglaries, additional vandalism, and so on.
  It may be unfair that people usually view travellers in that light, but the experience of many leads them to that conclusion—and travellers will have to overcome that prejudice when they look for sites.
  The Bill embraces the privatisation or sale of all local authority sites, but perhaps that would be too restrictive. It should be possible, as in the case of council housing, for occupants or those coming to the sites collectively to purchase the sites from the local authority at a considerable discount. That is in line with many of our other policies—particularly for council housing—and would be a worthwhile way forward.
  Nevertheless, local authorities should still be allowed —as the consultation paper suggests—to provide sites if they considered that appropriate. They provide a mix of housing for others, and there is no reason why the same should not apply to sites.
  Local authorities should more carefully consider the sites that they provide. We can all give examples of sites comprising a relatively small number of pitches, provided at apparently enormous cost. Given that expense, one wonders why the local authority did not provided proper permanent housing rather than pitches.
  Local authorities should not be compelled to provide sites of a very high standard—not because those occupying them should be denied good facilities, but because they may not be necessary in the light of the standards of the caravans themselves. Sites with relatively few facilities could be provided that nevertheless accommodated their occupants adequately.
  Local authorities should also carefully consider the size of the sites they provide. One reason for antipathy to sites is their large size and their impact on an area. Perhaps fewer, smaller sites could be made available. That should be a discretionary power, with local authorities—if they attach a priority to providing such accommodation in their areas—being allowed as much autonomy as possible.
  A larger number of private sites should also be available, but if that is to be done, planning regulations and rules will have to be re-examined. We are endlessly urging farmers, for example, to use their land in different ways and find alternative ways of improving their incomes. Farmers may have small sites that could accommodate a few caravans located near farm buildings equipped with a water supply and other facilities. They should be permitted to open them to caravans, and not be told that it is against council policy and prohibited.

  621
  Temporary planning permission should also be considered. Local people may feel concerned that a long-term site to accommodate a large number of travellers will destroy their environment. If temporary planning permission is granted for a small site, that consent could be revoked if it caused difficulties. Then local people might be more likely to give their approval.
  The suggestion that travellers have a right to occupy a site for all time understandably worries local people, who do not know what may happen to their villages. Qualifications and standards that the site owner must observe could form part of temporary planning permission. If they were not met, consent could be revoked and the site closed. But unless temporary sites are made available, the problem of accommodating travellers will not be solved.
  It has been said that travellers should not have privileges not enjoyed by ordinary people applying for planning permission. By and large, that is right. There may be an argument for more temporary arrangements in respect of sites than apply in other cases. If, as the Bill suggests, more small sites are provided, both by local authorities and private interests, there will be more accommodation throughout the country for people who want to pursue that way of life.
  Once there is greater availability, it will be possible to clamp down on the illegal parking that so upsets and distresses those who live in the countryside. I welcome the consultation paper's proposal that a tougher regime should operate against those who park illegally. I hope that it will quickly be made law for local and highway authorities to act more speedily in moving on those who offend in that way.
  Sometimes, local authorities do not act effectively. Many of us have experience of cases in which the authorities could have acted in moving on those who parked illegally but did not do so. Landowners often spend much time and incur considerable costs having people moved on from their land. When landowners start a legal action, they frequently find that the case cannot be heard for a long time because of the court's work load and they, therefore, experience difficulty in obtaining a possession order that will enable the caravans to be moved on.
  There should be a means for landowners to take faster action, at lower cost, than now. The consultation paper makes no mention of action that landowners themselves could take to have people moved on more quickly.
  There are many good things in the consultation paper, and the Bill adds to it in providing well for those who want to travel around the country or become more permanent dwellers. However, other ways of increasing the number of sites and of stopping illegal parking should be considered.
  Last summer, we were all appalled by the huge groups of people who were moving around and causing terrible distress and disruption—acting in a way that was intolerable to law-abiding citizens. I think that even more important than the matters that we have discussed this morning is discussion of how that can be prevented, so that it does not happen again this summer,
  12.19 pm
  Mr. John Sykes: I am pleased to have been called, and especially pleased to follow the interesting speech of my distinguished colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mrs. Chaplin). I am also pleased to speak in a week during which my constituency has had to suffer a small but unwelcome invasion by new age travellers for the first time.
  My constituency has a unique history. Scarborough was originally a Roman signalling station, and then a Viking town. The people who settled there were led by a Viking called Scarli, which is how Scarborough got its name. Those who settled in the north of East Anglia became known as the north folk, which turned into Norfolk, while those who settled in the south were known as the south folk, which became Suffolk. The east Saxons settled in Essex and the south Saxons settled in what is now known as Sussex. Those who settled under King Hakon on Hakon's island became Hakonsea, now Hackney, and the island of Shells became Chelsea.
  My excuse for that historical tour of England is my wish to draw the House's attention to the settled nature of our communities. The community in which I live with my wife and three children, and which I have the honour to represent, will be known to hon. Members as Scarborough and Whitby. It is so beautiful that 270 people applied for interviews in an attempt to succeed my distinguished predecessor, Sir Michael Shaw. Every summer, it attracts about 250,000 visitors and the number is growing every year; but it also attracts gipsies and, as I have said, it has already attracted an unwelcome invasion of so-called new age travellers and people who travel around in caravans generally. Fortunately, no one from Greenham common has turned up to date.[Interruption.] In comparison, even the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) would be welome in my constituency.
  Mr. John Marshall:What—him?
  Mr. Skyes: Yes, even him.
  In August 1990, the Seamer road—the main road into my constituency—was invaded by so-called gipsies and travelling people, who parked in a field. There were about a dozen caravans and they stayed for about five days. They left an atrocious amount of rubbish and filth—a disgusting mess—and Scarborough's ratepayers had to pay to have it cleared up. It was said at the time that the council would have to find a permanent caravan park for so-called itinerant travellers at Weaponess. I objected in the strongest possible terms to the intrusion.
  A large percentage of my constituents are old-age pensioners, many of whom live alone. It is difficult to express the fear, distress and profound anxiety caused to those people by the prospect of a nearby gipsy encampment. I raised several objections and, fortunately, the proposal was turned down, though one Labour councillor was moved to write to the newspaper complaining that gipsies had rights, too.
  I am not talking about the old romantic show people —the old Romanies. I am not talking about fortune tellers. The plain, unvarnished truth about new age travellers and people like them is that, in many cases, they are dirty, lazy drop-outs, whose dedication to their way of life extends no further than the nearest benefit office, followed closely by the nearest pub.

  623
  I am in no mood to take lectures from Opposition Members about the rights of politically correct new age travellers. Opposition Members would soon change their tune if they woke up one morning to find their back gardens invested by new age travellers. Let us not listen to the likes of Andrew Puddephatt of Liberty, who attacks views such as mine—and those of elderly people—on the grounds that they are intolerant, distrustful and prejudicial. Let us dismiss out of hand politically correct editorials in The Guardian such as that entitled, "A home to go to". The Guardian's response to Government proposals was as follows:
  "All nomadic people who travel through settled tribes are an easy target. They make easy scapegoats, particularly for politicians facing difficult elections … The document"—
  a document produced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning—
  "is a deep disappointment given that Sir George Young, one of the Government's most progressive ministers, was in charge of its drafting."
  According to the newspaper, the document makes
  "no attempt to put the increase in perspective … Seizing caravans from offending gypsy families might sound sensible, but what about the cost of placing the subsequent homeless families in bed and breakfast accommodation?"
  That is a question that the newspaper should address to its bosom chums in Labour-controlled local authorities, where so many council houses are empty that we have lost count of them.
  The Guardian goes on to say that
  "none of the fundamental causes is even addressed in the consultative document."
  That is no more than the jargon of the left—a script straight out of the television programme "LA Law". As usual, its authors have managed to distance themselves from the facts. Conservative Members know the facts: the people who stand up for travellers are standing up for loafers and spongers, hiding their position behind a veil of wishing to preserve the gipsies' way of life at all costs. I believe that it is right to stand up for the taxpayer.
  Why, for example, should the little man working behind a lathe in a factory pay out of his hard-earned wages to subsidise such a way of life? Why should the young husband and wife with a small child, who are just starting out in life, pay one penny of their tax to subsidise the way of life that the hon. Member for Islington, North is trying so desperately to preserve?
  The Bill responds to the majority view in the country, and Opposition Members should do the same. They should listen to people such as the Mr. Gibson who wrote to The Independent of 2 September:
  "Your article refers to the desire of the gypsies to preserve their way of life. I wonder if this desire includes events that have occurred here over the last few days. A couple of weeks ago, a solitary gypsy family, complete with lorry and caravan, parked behind a nearby empty warehouse unit. Within days they were joined by a dozen more families and since then our normally peaceful industrial estate has been overrun.
  Break-ins and damages are rife. Anyone silly enough to have a diesel tank has found the tank drained. In our case the culprit simply had to open a valve. More diligent companies who keep their diesel under lock and key suffered even more. Their valves and locks were smashed and the diesel then drained. To make matters worse our local police claim to have neither the manpower nor resources to nip the problem in the bud.
  No doubt the gypsies will claim that our problems are coincidental. In the meantime perhaps they could preserve their way of life elsewhere and their leaders could consider allowing the rest of us to preserve ours."
  624
  Even the National Gypsy Council, whose last known address was Grengage street, Oldham, fully supports the Bill. It said:
  "A further progressive move would be for Local Authorities to encourage the provision of private sites by Gypsies."
  The Bill tackles the problem exactly where it should he tackled. It allows for further consultation and powers of removal and removes the duty of local authorities to find sites for these people. On behalf of the people of Scarborough, I am delighted to support the principle that underpins the Bill.
  12.28 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I begin by offering my apologies to the House for not being here for the beginning of the debate. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It's nice to be among friends. I had to undertake a hospital appointment on behalf of my son.
  Mr. John Marshall:Where are they?
  Mr. Corbyn: My friends are all around me, but not opposite.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can the Chair clarify exactly where the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends are?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Corbyn: In an existentialist maner, my friends are all about me, so let that not worry anyone.
  I was fascinated by the early part of the speech of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) and I wish that he had stayed in the same vein. However, he went on to display the most appalling series of prejudices, no doubt for the benefit of the front page of Scarborough's weekly paper next Friday. It is a great shame that he did not follow the traditions of some far more illustrious people from his constitutency, such as the Brontë sisters who wrote such wonderful works—I wonder how they would have described his speech—or Captain Cook from Whitby who displayed great humanity towards people throughout the world.
  Mr. Sykes rose—
  Mr. Corbyn: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will recount some of the prejudices that he displayed earlier or perhaps tell us which other prejudices he did not have time to display.
  Mr. Sykes: The hon. Gentleman displays a remarkable knowledge of my constituency. He is extremely welcome to visit at any time. If he spoke to the people there, he would find that my views are those of the majority.
  Mr. Corbyn: I have been to Scarborough and Whitby many times. They are both delightful places and I like them very much. The north Yorkshire moors are also very pleasant. They are spoilt only by the Fylingdales early warning system, but when that is removed the moors can be returned to their pristine beauty. I hope that that will happen one day, but one never knows.
  Mr. Sykes: Fylingdales is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).
  Mr. Corbyn:I am sorry. I did not know where the frontier lay between the hon. Gentleman's constituency and his neighbour's.
  This issue is very important because it is extremely easy for anyone to whip up prejudice against people whose life style is different from that of the majority. I am not condoning criminal acts or break-ins; I am talking about the way in which prejudice is whipped up against people who have a different life style.
  The history of this century in Europe is one of appalling prejudice against people with a different life style. Whom did the Nazis go after first in 1933? It was not the Jews but the gay, or homosexual, community and the gipsies, followed by the Jewish community, trade unionists and many others. The Nazis rounded up the gipsies first and put them in concentration camps to die. They murdered them in very large numbers, but they were able to get away with it because of the prejudice that they had earlier succeeded in whipping up against those people throughout Germany.
  Another example of such prejudice is the way in which some of the former eastern European regimes whipped up prejudice against the Romany community from Romania and incarcerated those people in camps. Conservative Members used to protest against such things. They should remember that human rights is an international issue which knows no boundaries. If we are concerned about human rights in other countries, we should also be concerned about them in this country.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the problem is a matter of perception? It has already been said that "gipsy" is far too loose a term and is used to cover all sorts of people. Last summer there were many problems with new age travellers, and some people grouped them together with gipsies. The new age travellers displayed some dreadful antics: they invaded peaceful countryside, decimated peaceful villages, went on the rampage and had raves lasting two or three days, showing a total disregard for the area. Part of the problem is that some people perceive those travellers to be gipsies.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech later, but he should consider the fact that if large numbers of young people wish to congregate for festivals or other events, which I accept can sometimes cause a nuisance, there is perhaps a need to deal with that wish instead of merely driving away the problem. Driving the problem from one area to another does not solve it, but merely moves it down the road to another place. Unfortunately, the Bill does nothing to tackle the problems. It merely heaps greed on prejudice with the idea of selling off sites so that people can make a fast buck out of what was originally a public investment.
  Norman Dodds, a former Member for Erith and Crayford, fought a long and lonely campaign to gain rights for travelling people in this country. He took part in the defensive actions of people threatened with eviction from sites all over Kent and the south-east of England. It is interesting to note that the farming community in Kent were happy to use the labour of travelling people to pick hops and fruit at certain times of year, while at other times they were more than happy to evict them from the sites. That happens in many places; it is a two-way process. We should recognise the great work that Norman Dodds did in that campaign, which was to culminate in the enactment
  626
  of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. He will be remembered when those who can only display their naked prejudice have long since passed on.
  As a former chair of the planning committee of the London borough of Haringey, I have some experience of dealing with the problem of travellers sites. From time to time, travelling people came to that borough, as they come to all London boroughs. They came mainly but not exclusively in the winter, and would look around for places to put their caravans. Usually, an enormous outcry followed, and the traditional response of the local authority was to seek a court order for possession of the land if it was council owned, an order under the environmental health legislation if it was owned by someone else, or an order under the Highways Acts if it was on a highway. Seldom was a successful court case brought against the travellers because they usually moved on in advance of the action.
  I was never happy with the process because it seemed to me that we were avoiding dealing with the problem. When I was asked to sign an eviction order in respect of a group of travellers, I refused to do so. I thought it completely hypocritical of the council to keep evicting travellers without having made any attempt whatever to provide them with permanent sites. After a long campaign, permanent sites were eventually provided by Haringey under the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant).
  Haringey now has a number of permanent sites for travellers and, so far as I am aware, they are fairly well run and fairly well used. Water and toilet facilities are provided and a sense of order prevails. That is surely the way to address the problem and far preferable to saying blandly, "We will move the problem on and, while we are at it, let us see whether we can sell off this land."
  The operation of the 1968 Act has had its ups and downs. It has had a good side, in the sense that the Department of the Environment gives 100 per cent. grants for the provision of sites. The argument that they are paid for by local taxpayers is fallacious, as the hon. Member for Scarborough knows: all the money is provided by central Government. Obviously, taxpayers' money generally is involved in the provision of sites—and I hope that the hon. Member for Scarborough will consider the problems of tax evasion and abuse, especially the levels of taxation paid in the City of London and the record of Virgin Atlantic Airways and Richard Branson, who has registered most of his companies in the Channel Islands to avoid paying tax in this country. I understand that Richard Branson has managed to evade payments of £94 million in the process.
  Mr. Sykes: I was merely standing up for the ordinary taxpayer—someone who may work seven days a week to make money to bring home to his wife and family—and it is about time that the Opposition did the same.
  Mr. Corbyn: It is precisely those people for whom the Opposition speak. That is why I am drawing the attention of the House, and of the hon. Member for Scarborough in particular, to the problem of taxation as it applies to Virgin Atlantic Airways and Richard Branson and their tax haven registration. All the other companies in the City of London that operate from tax havens to avoid paying tax in this country are also selling people short. They are evading tax. The hon. Member for Scarborough should

  627
  address his concerns about non-payment of tax to those companies. He would find a far greater source of revenue among those companies than anywhere else.
  The 1968 Act gave local authorities the opportunity to provide permanent caravan sites and to claim 100 per cent. of the cost of that provision from the Department of the Environment. The difficulty is that there is no mandatory requirement on local authorities to do that until they are challenged for not making that provision. That is a weakness in the 1968 Act. There should have been a time limit on the requirement. It obviously takes time to provide sites, but some 25 years after the passage of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 many local authorities have yet to provide permanent sites for travellers.
  Mr. Pike: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the Select Committee on the Environment considered the DOE's estimates, it criticised the Department for not using the stick in the 1968 Act, to which the Minister referred earlier, more frequently to ensure that more local authorities complied with the Act and provided sites?
  Mr. Corbyn: Since the 1968 Act was passed, I feel that the Department of the Environment has not really wanted it. It has not done much to pursue its provisions and officials at the Department have not taken much interest in its operation. It is an Act of Parliament intended to provide permanent sites for travellers, but the Department of the Environment has done little to ensure that its provisions are carried out.
  Little pressure has been brought to bear on local authorities to force them to implement the Act's provisions. Indeed, many local authorities, not all of which are in densely built-up urban areas, have achieved designation in respect of the 1968 Act. There are obviously problems about that legislation.
  We must also consider the needs, problems and the contribution to society of the travelling community. For the most part, Conservative Members equate the travelling community with new age travellers, with Stonehenge and with problems. They should recognise that the traditional Romanies, who have travelled as itinerant labourers throughout Europe for many centuries, have a deep and respected culture. The general level of prejudice exhibited by so many Conservative Members reveals a deep ignorance of history and a deeply unfortunate streak of populism on their part.
  When we consider the problems facing travellers in this country at the present time, if politicians whip up prejudices against individuals, that multiplies the effect of prejudice on other people. For example, the children of travellers are often not admitted to certain schools. The travellers also have problems obtaining health care and in some respects the level of chronic illness among travellers is far higher than among other people. We must do something about that.
  The response of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to the Government's document about the reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 is far more responsible than the approach taken by many Conservative Members. The AMA response refers to the problems facing local authorities if there is insufficient provision for travellers in terms of sites, education and welfare. Therefore, illegal parking and camping are primarily due to the fact that the number of designated sites has failed to keep pace with the increased number of
  628
  travellers. If we are to deal with that problem, we surely need more and not fewer sites. According to the AMA, if sites are not being used, they are probably in the wrong place or badly managed. There is no excuse for that. Sites should be fully used if they are properly administered and in the proper place.
  The other aspect of the Government's proposals, and the thinking behind the view expressed by so many Conservative Members, is to criminalise travellers. What possible purpose can that serve? What does criminalising people who have a different way of life achieve? We need a far more sensible approach than is revealed in the Bill or in many of the ideas expressed by Conservative Members today.
  The Bill is fundamentally wrong on several counts. It fails to recognise that if there is a problem, it has to be addressed. It fails also to recognise that people have different ways of life and different styles of life. Surely different ways of life and life styles are perfectly acceptable in a pluralistic society. I do not believe that Conservative Members agree with that; they may say it, but I do not think that they believe it for one moment. They do not want people to have different life styles and different ways of life.
  It is quite beyond me why we have the annual media obsession with problems at Stonehenge. May festivals have been held at Stonehenge for centuries, but we now have grotesque barbed wire all around one of the most significant ancient monuments in Europe if not in the world. It is an absolutely beautiful place. I remember being taken there as a child by my father, who has a great interest in such matters, to watch the sun rise at midsummer. Nobody can go near the place now—one cannot get within miles of it. There are police marksmen, police vehicles all over the place, closed roads, and closed this, that and the other. It is absolutely obscene what goes on there each summer. It is about time we started to consider people's rights to visit that ancient monument, albeit in a controlled way if there are large numbers of people, to prevent damage to the stones or whatever, but it is bizarre that we should surround it with a military-style operation to keep people away. It is about time we changed a few attitudes.
  At the bottom of the Bill is what one finds at the bottom of most Bills from Tory Members of Parliament—a bit of asset stripping and a bit of greed. The Bill is about selling off sites which have been paid for by public money. As the hon. Member for Scarborough keeps reminding us, taxpayers bought the land. Yet the right hon. Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) proposes that sites be sold off for 75 per cent. below their real purchase price. Where is the value for money for the taxpayer in that? Why cannot sites remain in public ownership and public administration, with local authorities being encouraged to provide a sufficient number of necessary sites?
  If we go down the road of attack, prejudice, and so on—there is much in what Andrew Puddephatt of Liberty has said—it will be extremely dangerous. I hope that the House will not support the Bill and that it will listen very carefully to all the submissions in respect of the Government's consultation paper on the operation of the 1968 Act. I hope, too, that hon. Members will recognise that we live in a pluralistic society, that there are different ways of life, that adults and children have rights and that we need more and better run sites, rather than a diminution in the number of sites, which can lead only to

  629
  an exacerbation of the problems of illegal camping, illegal parking and criminalising people. That is a daft way to deal with the issue.
  Too many Conservative Members spent too much time last summer reading the editorial columns of the Daily Mail rather than thinking through the issue and the problems which arise.
  Mr. Heald: Has not one of the problems over the years been that London boroughs have been particularly poor in their provision for gipsies?
  Mr. Corbyn: There is some truth in that remark. When I was a member of Haringey council, I was aware of that problem, and I raised it with the then London Boroughs Association, now the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association. We tried to persuade boroughs to provide sites in a wider area across London. Some achieved designation, but some did not. I am not particularly happy about that mix, because there is a need for urban sites as well as rural sites. It should not be just a rural problem. Coming from Shropshire myself, I recognise what the hon. Gentleman who represents the Ludlow constituency says. We need to understand that there is a requirement for urban and rural sites.
  Mr. Heald: My constituency is Hertfordshire, North.
  Mr. Corbyn: I apologise if I mentioned the wrong constituency. I understand that there is great competition among Conservative Members with the boundary changes and so on. I would not want to intrude on private grief. If I have caused a problem for the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) I am deeply sorry, but long may it continue.
  Those are the main points that I wanted to make about the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will not see fit to pass the Bill, but, instead, will listen to the responses to the consultation paper and come up with a more sensible and civilised solution. In the past, too many people have ridden on cheap prejudices against travellers. They should remember what happened in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, and what has happened in so many other places in Europe since then. We deny human rights to people at our peril: once we start to deny human rights to a specific community, it extends to every other community. We should remember that with great care.
  12.50 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this debate. Like my hon. Friends, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) on the excellent way in which he presented his Bill. He seeks to achieve a balance between the rights of travellers and gipsies—by providing them with adequate sites so that they can properly pursue their nomadic way of life—and the interests of people such as the residents in my constituency, who are entitled to live peaceably and sensibly alongside gipsies within their communities.
  I have some sympathy with the arguments of the hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I am the secretary of the parliamentary rights group. As a result, I recognise that human rights do not begin and end at Dover. People in the
  630
  United Kingdom have the right to live according to their wishes. Equally, I recognise that the problem with gipsies has got completely out of hand in the past few years.
  It is 25 years since the Caravan Sites Act was introduced. Plainly, it does not work. Not only do we have 4,500 caravans on non-authorised sites, but, for example, in my constituency we do not have a designation, despite the fact that 60 caravans are presently on council or authorised sites. Hereford and Worcester county council has the most sites in the west midlands.
  As has rightly been said, since 1965 there has been a huge increase in the number of gipsy caravans. In 1965, there were 4,750. For some reason, the number has now reached 13,500. We have been told of the increase in the number of Irish itinerants. In the past 10 years, the number has grown by some 2,800.
  In a brief intervention on an earlier speech, I said that the Caravan Sites Act means that the more a county or district council provides, the more they have a reputation for providing caravan sites for the itinerant community and, therefore, the greater the number of people who come to those councils. If councils do not have the power to move them on—as my own council does not at present—the sort of problems they cause can be legion, and not only in terms of cost.
  It is estimated that the capital cost per pitch of a properly provided site is some£28,000, with annual maintenance per site of about £30,000, which goes on the bills of the local community charge payers. A number of hon. Members have referred to the mess and the appalling disruption which is caused by some—I emphasise some, not all—of the itinerant community.
  I shall quote from two letters that I have received from constituents about the problems caused when itinerants occupied a site on the Birmingham road in Kidderminster. It was a couple of years ago, but, nevertheless it illustrates the point. One lady wrote:
  "Last month there were at least 15 caravans parked there, and we had to suffer all sorts of abuse, stone throwing and noise. The mess they have left behind is appalling and is still there if you have time to view."
  I viewed the site and was able to verify what my constituent said.
  Another constituent, a pensioner, wrote to me about the same site. He and his wife live next door to this site. They say:
  "There are no toilet facilities on the ground, and the adults and children are using the bushes and backs of caravans as toilets. There is no water on the site, but the itinerants bring milk churns filled with water daily. There are cars and lorries, and an amount of old furniture around, and several dogs also."
  That illustrates some of the problems caused by itinerants who are less than responsive to the needs and wishes of their neighbours. There are no adequate facilities for the itinerants, a point which I wish to emphasise.
  The Caravan Sites Act has proved grossly inadequate. Although 25 years have passed since its enactment, only 38 per cent. of local authorities have powers under it. Too often, it has been the cause of a ping-pong effect, under which individual districts within a designated county argue against having to provide additional sites. The result is delay in providing sites, or they are not provided at all.
  Hereford and Worcester is aware of the inadequacies of the Act and of the fact that central Government, district councils and county councils have been playing off against one another in terms of their responsibilities under the Act

  631
  after the judgment in 1988 involving Hereford and Worcester county council. In his judgment, Mr. Justice Mann decided that 18 years was sufficient for the county council to come up to designated standards, and that it was not sufficient to argue that it had not been instructed to do so by central Government.
  Equally, the Caravan Sites Act is inadequate, in that it does not provide a sufficient incentive for the provision of private caravan sites, which is one of the aims of the Bill. The Act is far too reactive. What often happens, as I have seen at the Sandy lane industrial estate at Stourport in my constituency, is that a piece of land comes on to the market and is automatically grabbed by the county council as a potential site for gipsies, irrespective of its suitability.
  Although no hon. Member has referred to this subject so far in the debate. I want to deal with some of the other remedies that are available to local communities who find themselves invaded by the anti-social activities of some gipsies.
  The Public Order Act 1986 covers illegal acts of trespass, but the police tell me that that Act has a number of significant defects. First, unless there are 12 caravans on a site, it is difficult for the police to prove nuisance and use their powers under the Public Order Act. Secondly—even worse, particularly in terms of the problems that I have experienced on a site in Lickhill road in Stourport—if a landowner appears to give his consent by not himself taking any action, it is difficult for the police to prove trespass and therefore to take action under the Public Order Act. Thirdly, a circular was issued in 1991 by the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), which hedged around the capabilities of the police to deal with trespass under the Act.
  One of the points in the circular relates to the availability of other areas for itinerants who are to be moved away from a site. That condition frequently cannot be met. Far too often, therefore, police officers have to take a fairly circumspect line when invoking the powers of the Public Order Act.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: May I add to my hon. Friend's list of problems? Surrey police have informed me that section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 is effective only if there is public disorder. The problem is that often there is not public disorder but merely public dismay.
  Mr. Coombs: That is a good point. The Public Order Act requires that there should be aggravated trespass. If people are just sitting around, although they may be acting in a messy and probably an environmentally distasteful way, it is difficult to use the provisions of the Act against them.
  The Environmental Protection Act 1990 can be used against itinerants on the ground of nuisance, but, unfortunately, it takes far too long. One has to prove the nuisance and give an opportunity for remedy, but all the while, the nuisance continues, to the detriment of local residents.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just returned from outside the offices of the Department of Trade and Industry, where five women from "Women Against Pit Closures" are demonstrating. They are burning coal in a brazier and there is some danger that the police may take excessive action against them. Do you know whether the
  632
  President of the Board of Trade is going to make a statement about the matter, either to show that there will not be excessive action—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have had no request for a statement on anything.
  Mr. Coombs: Hon. Members have already said that civil action, under the Town and Country Planning (Compensation) Act 1985, can be taken to remove a nuisance caused by unreasonable and irresponsible travellers on a site. However, that is an ineffective means for local residents to get quick action.
  I know an example of the sort of problems that can be caused. About a week ago, I visited a site with three caravans in Lickhill road, near the centre of Stourport, opposite a number of residential properties. The police are having great difficulty invoking the Public Order Act. The authority is not designated, so the Caravan Sites Act 1968 cannot be used—principally because there seems to be some complicity between the owner of the site and the people on it. Too often, owners of private sites who have been denied planning permission decide to put pressure on the district council by "inviting" possibly unwelcome elements on to the site, which makes it difficult to deal with them under present legislation.
  The law should be tightened up. I should be happy to do away with designation, although I am told that we are likely to have it in Wyre Forest during the next few months. It should be illegal for someone to trespass and set themselves up in a caravan or whatever else on someone's property, and we should be able to move them on. I hope that the legislation will also cover road verges, because a number of itinerants parked on verges are causing great problems in Chaddesley Corbett in my constituency.
  As for privatisation, obviously I want as many authorised sites as possible for gipsies, because that will mean that we can avoid the problems that too often arise on unauthorised sites today. However, I am worried about clause 7 of the Bill, which makes it compulsory for all sites to go to the private sector. Wherever sites are—whether in public or private control—we want to ensure that they are properly managed. I agree with Opposition Members' comments on the subject.
  I cannot understand how buying a site at a knockdown price—even at more than 76 per cent. discount—at public auction will encourage the owner to manage the site properly and will benefit local residents.
  I agree with what the hon. Member for Bradford, South said about making the sale of sites compulsory. The interests of the taxpayer will not necessarily be looked after. If a 100 per cent. grant has been given to buy and equip the site, I do not see why all the benefits—including the 76 per cent. discount—should accrue to the National Gypsy Council, when it cannot necessarily be proved that the new manager will act more efficiently than the council has done.
  The Bill is good as far as it goes, but it does not cover a number of important issues. At present, there are 4,500 caravans on unauthorised sites throughout the nation. In addition to the greater powers of compulsion inherent in the Bill, we should consider, as a matter of priority, the problem of unauthorised sites.
  I was delighted to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister said about the Government's proposals on the planning implications of providing more gipsy sites. I also

  633
  agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mrs. Chaplin) that it seems illogical for the Government to argue for diversification in the farming sector, while not ensuring that local planning officers and authorities reflect that change by giving permission for small gipsy encampments and authorised sites on farm land.
  Will the Government look at the recommendations of the Carnworth report? Recommendations 10 and 11 stated that, on planning grounds, stop notices should be capable of immediate effect—I understand that they are not at present. The report also recommended that district councils should be given the opportunity to apply to the courts for an injunction against threatened breaches of planning policy rather than breaches that have already occurred.
  If the Government are to tackle the problem in the round, they should be maintaining grants, not abolishing them as the Bill does. It is unlikely that local councils, if it is their responsibility, or landowners, if it is theirs, will make large capital investments in the provision and improvement of gipsy facilities—which is what we want—given the rates of return that one of those groups is likely to face and the political opposition that the other is likely to encounter. The 100 per cent. grant regime should remain and I urge the Government to maintain it when they implement their consultation paper.
  We must remember, as was said earlier, that gipsy communities have children, who are too often the unwitting victims of a policy that concentrates solely on enforcement, thereby shoving the gipsy communities around the country more effectively. The services available for gipsies and their children must be kept continually under review.
  The Government should look at the police guidance in the Public Order Act 1986. They should clear up the apparent confusion on invoking the Act over the availability of other sites. They should also clarify whether the existence of 12 caravans on a site makes it virtually impossible to implement the Public Order Act.
  When I read the Government's consultation paper, I was slightly concerned that they wanted to encourage nomadic people or those with a nomadic tradition into permanent housing. That would be grossly unrealistic. People are nomads because they like moving around. It would not be wise to spend a lot of taxpayers' money or time trying to encourage nomads to do otherwise.
  That is my principal objection to the proposal, but I also believe that it would cause great resentment among indigenous communities where there are waiting lists for council houses—such as my district—were communities to see that the policy resulted in nomadic people, for environmental and public order reasons, being given priority on housing lists.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is making a valuable point. Those who lead the nomadic life do so because they want to. Romania tried to make it illegal to lead this way of life—the Ceausescu regime tried to force those people into permanent accommodation, which led to a great deal of misery and destroyed their culture.
  Mr. Coombs: That is to distort what the Government are trying to do. They want to encourage people into permanent accommodation. I say that that is unlikely to be successful.
  In some parts of my community, particularly Jubilee drive in Kidderminster, large numbers of gipsies live in council accommodation. I do not want to tar all of them with the same brush, but they do give rise to a large number of complaints—right or wrong—from my constituents. That ought to be borne in mind when consideration is given to housing permanently those whose habits are nomadic. They are scrap metal dealers by trade, and they do not want to live in such housing.
  Mr. Heald: One problem that the National Gypsy Council has identified is that these days a great many people who are not really from the travelling tradition call themselves gipsies. They have taken up this way of life in recent years because of the benefits system, and for other reasons. If we are arguing for the retention of some element of council provision, does my hon. Friend agree that we should distinguish between traditional gipsies and people who have just taken up the way of life recently because they think it is a good idea?
  Mr. Coombs: It is very difficult to make the distinction in practice—and we must be practical. It is difficult to stop a particular family entering an authorised site purely on the ground that the family's pedigree is not thought to be good enough. We are left with the problem that a man, his wife, his caravan, his three children and his dog need accommodation. The council is interested in this matter, but in practice it is virtually impossible to make these distinctions.
  I welcome the Bill in part—especially its enforcement provisions. They need to be much more rigorous and must lead to the ending of the designated regime under the 1968 Act. The Bill does not go far enough, however, to implement measures to improve the situation. After all, we are already 4,500 sites short of proper authorised provision for people of an itinerant way of life.
  I agree that the best way of solving the problem is to allow gipsies to provide for gipsies, using many of the methods that the National Gypsy Council has suggested. I hope that the Government will bear those ideas in mind when they release their plans following publication of the consultation paper.
  1.12 pm
  Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I had better start with the necessary disclaimer: when I refer to gipsies I do recognise the distinctions between them and tinkers and travellers and other itinerants. We have all been using the term gipsy in the widest sense, meaning no prejudice thereby to genuine Romany people.
  I suppose that it is inevitable, however, that a debate of this kind will reflect some prejudices. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was no exception in that respect—he paraded some of his own prejudices before us. Perhaps some of the prejudices expressed in the debate reflect those of many of the people whom we represent. We cannot avoid the fact that difficulties have arisen and have caused strong feelings.
  It is also inevitable that we should draw on constituency examples quite heavily in such a debate. The point agreed by most of us, nevertheless, is that the present law is

  635
  unsatisfactory. I was surprised by the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, North, who seemed reasonably content with the state of the law. If anything, he merely wanted to build on and reinforce the 1968 legislation. The starting point for this debate and the background to it is an attempt to change that law to bring about some improvements.
  Mr. Corbyn: My point, which I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman understood, was that the 1968 legislation was a significant step at the time. We should pay tribute to Norman Dodds for his part in that. The principle of site provision is important. I want to see it maintained and the number of sites increased.
  Mr. Haselhurst: The hon. Gentleman took more than 20 minutes to try to explain what he meant. Perhaps I should not have given him an extra minute to repeat himself. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) is concerned about making effective provision. The argument from most, if not all, of my hon. Friends is that the present legislation is not helping to make the provision that we all accept is necessary. Hon. Members have struggled in the debate to find a better method of trying to meet an undoubted need.
  The present law is unsatisfactory. It is bad for landowners and members of the public. An illustration of that has conveniently come to hand in a letter from a constituent who lives in Greenstead Green. He wrote to me a few days ago telling me that he had written to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning in December and had not yet had a reply. I am sure that that will be noted. I have also followed it up in correspondence. My constituent's experiences have been brought to my attention only because of the delay in replying to a letter which was sent directly to a Minster. In the letter he gives an example of what has been happening in his area. He states:
  "May I give you an example of what has happened particularly these past 2 years in this farming area of Essex.
  In 1991 gipsies with 12 top of the range caravans"—
  there has been an echo of that in the debate—
  "arrived here almost in front of our cottage and parked on the grass verge of the road.
  They said they had come from camps around London Airport.
  The results of this were my brother-in-law's field of wheat was used as a toilet, standing grain was trampled on, trees were stripped for fire wood and shooting went on in the woods.
  The grass verge became a sorting ground for old car bodies, fridges, and bits of metal.
  Items went missing from people's garden sheds, my wife's handbag with a lot of cash in it was stolen from our kitchen.
  The local district and county gipsy liaison officials have not enough authority to give real assistance.
  This year gipsies arrived to do pea picking for another farmer, he would not let them park in his fields.
  They camped in our 'set aside fields' which is not allowed under 'set aside' rules and we could not get them out.
  The district council foolishly served a notice on us to remove them as we had no 'Caravan Parking Licence'. This was a ruse on their part to save themselves paying for a court order to remove the caravans and pass the buck on to us.
  When the gipsies were told we would block the entrance to the fields unless they went, they became very nasty. We had to have a court order prepared which was going to cost £600 for one day for just one field.
  Fortunately the gipsies went the day before the court order was to be put into force, but they could come back a few days later and we would have had to repeat the routine.
  636
  Small farmers cannot stand these costs. It took 8 men 2 hours to clear up the mess left by the gipsies. They had even used milk cartons as toilets and thrown them around the fields.
  We also found 5 tons of brick rubble have been dumped in a corner of a field."
  Those people are not exercising a right that should be respected. I acknowledge that everybody, including itinerants, has rights, but itinerants also have duties and reponsibilities under the law in the same way as every other citizen. The situation revealed by my constituent is a further example of how the present law is not working at all. It is also bad for gipsies themselves, because the demand for sites is accelerating away from the ability of local authorities to meet it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mrs. Chaplin) doubted whether the legislation was the sole reason for increased numbers, but I suggest that there is at least a coincidence. If a district council makes progress with providing sites, more caravans or travellers may arrive in that area—so the problem is never satisfactorily resolved. Genuine gipsies suffer under the 1968 legislation because others cram in to benefit from it.
  The 1968 Act is also bad for local authorities. I know of the grief and difficulty caused to my local authority whenever it tries, as honestly and reasonably as it can, to implement that legislation. Whenever it alights upon a particular site, it is confronted by enormous difficulties because the local people do not have an image of the traditional gipsy but of car breakers and itinerants of the kind described in this debate. The district council finds itself involved in enormous expense, and great ill will is created between parish councils and district councils. We know how few local authorities have achieved designation as a result.
  Against that background, I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking for seeking to get things moving, which will be the effect of his Bill if it is accepted by the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) who played a great part in adding to the momentum. Having heard about his experience at the hands of the Commission for Racial Equality and the police, we must all be glad that he was let out on bail to be with us today!
  A dominant theme in today's debate is the Government's consultation paper and their indication that they intend to legislate. A common feature of the consultation paper and of my right hon. Friend's Bill is a desire to put the initiative back in the hands of gipsies—to place the onus on them to make an application which will be subject to normal planning laws, so that residents in the locality will have the right to raise any objections that they may have.
  There are, however, certain differences of approach, notably in respect of existing sites. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) doubts about whether it would be completely satisfactory to have them sold—particularly if it is done by auction, when it is unlikely that they could be acquired by gipsies. That would serve to diminish the number of available sites. As a great deal of public money was spent on providing those sites, it would be a pity if that happened. Legislation of the kind proposed by the Government and the Bill might have the effect of reducing demand. Some of us suspect that in the

  637
  same way that the 1968 Act served to increase demand, so its repeal may reduce demand—to the benefit of the genuine Romany.
  Another difference between the Government's approach and that of my right hon. Friend concerns enforcement. My right hon. Friend's Bill has an absence of enforcement measures. What action is to be taken? Is it to be a matter of seizing caravans whose owners offend against the law? I imagine that that would be difficult. If a caravan is towed away and kept in a pound, its usual occupants might simply follow it and squat in the caravan at its new site, just as they did before. Neither do we want to add to the difficulties of housing authorities in respect of their obligations under legislation for the homeless. If our legislation makes more people technically homeless, we shall be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
  Although it is absolutely right to proceed in the direction in which my right hon. Friend and the Government appear to be heading, we should not delude ourselves about the considerable difficulties that remain. Reference has already been made to the difficulty of fitting genuine nomads into a more settled way of life. After all, people want to travel; although it is interesting to speculate on the possibilities of securing permanent settlement for some people, that may prove very difficult in practice.
  In an intervention on my right hon. Friend I wondered whether, under a new dispensation, gipsies would obtain planning permission. The prejudice that we know exists is bound to be raised if an application is made. I am glad to learn that my hon. Friend the Minister intends to issue guidance.
  Sir Cranley Onslow: May I deal with a point that I did not raise, but which has emerged during the debate? In the case of a private application, it would be perfectly possible for a number of smaller sites to be submitted for consent, and it is conceivable that a small site would attract less objection than a large one. At present, local authorities tend to go for large sites, and there is always the fear that they will enlarge them later. The private regime might encourage the development of small sites, which might ease the problem.
  Mr. Haselhurst: My right hon. Friend has made a valuable point. We must try to ensure that gipsies are given a fair chance. We must tighten the definition of a gipsy, and deliberately seek to help those in the genuine gipsy tradition, rather than simply providing an easy life for those who have come in on the back of the old Romany tradition, causing great offence to the rest of the community.
  My final point relates to the current interim position. The Bill would help to change that position. The Government have said, and all Conservative Members acknowledge, that the Caravan Site Act 1968 contains grave defects, but at present it is still in force. Meanwhile, various developments are taking place. Some instances have been mentioned. I shall mention another. Essex county council and Braintree district council propose to establish a gipsy site outside the village of Ridgewell, in my constituency—a proposal which is vigorously opposed by the whole village and by some neighbouring villages.
  My constituents will find it difficult to understand the Minister's action if he gives approval, and a grant, to allow
  638
  the site to go ahead, when there is no evidence that gipsies are clamouring to occupy that site in the northern part of Braintree district. People know that the Minister and the Government no longer believe in the existing legislation and want to change it at the first opportunity, and there will be tremendous bad feeling if such sites are commissioned with the use of public money.
  I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to bear that in mind; a bad situation will only be made worse if, in its dying days, the Act is exploited to the full—or worse, if designation is not achieved. We could end up with the worst of all worlds: another site could be created at public expense, there could still be no designation and, as a result, it might be impossible to shift those who are still parking illegally, to the distress of many other citizens.
  We have moved into a curious period. My right hon. Friend's speech, and my hon. Friend the Minister's response, underlined that. We are nearing the end of a certain era and a certain legislative regime. It would therefore be wrong for the Government to implement existing legislation too rigorously. They should show some restraint, until the imminent time when either my right hon. Friend's Bill becomes law, or their own legislation is presented to the House.
  1.29 pm
  Mr. David Nicholson: I shall be brief because I know that some of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) on introducing a Bill which has enabled us to have an extremely useful debate on the problem and on the Government's consultation document.
  I especially appreciated some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), who emphasised the fact that whatever legislation we introduce, prejudice will still exist. I was pleased to hear from the Minister that the Government are soon to issue planning guidance. Whether or not the Bill is passed, it will be some time before the Government will be able to introduce the legislation which will presumably flow from their consultation document. Therefore, for at least a year—probably more—we shall have to cope with the present system.
  As I listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking, I thought that it was excellent that the Bill would ban illegal camping, which is also the Government's intention. We can all support that. The Bill would also remove the prejudice that favours gipsies in the planning system—that is also the Government's intention—so that they can no longer locate a caravan site where a member of the public who is not a gipsy could not. That notion causes great irritation in my constituency and elsewhere.
  However, the Bill would also remove the pressure on local authorities to accommodate the gipsy population and the potential gipsy population. Where will that admitted pressure fall? The planning guidance will be very important, and I hope that it will pay due regard to what local authorities have already done to accommodate gipsies. There would be considerable ill feeling if a new planning system allowed an expansion of gipsy encampments. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) mentioned the honey pot effect. It

  639
  would be very controversial in hosts of communities if the "the more you have, the more you get" principle were to become established through loopholes in the guidance.
  I think that the Minister is aware that we have had one or two difficulties in Somerset. It is not a party political matter. It clearly arouses great feelings in the immediate communities, but it should not be used for party political purposes in Somerset or anywhere else. I must tell my constituents and county councillors in Somerset that one community's nimbyism—"we don't want it here"—does not operate in a vacuum and is not without consequences for other communities. It can, and often does, leave neighbouring communities open to further development and planning pressures.
  There is strong feeling in my constituency about recent developments in Somerset and about the long delay of almost two years before the inspector's report on the Middlezoy gipsy site was published. The reason for the strong feeling was that my constituents in North Curry, Wrantage, Stoke St. Gregory and Stoke St. Mary were worried that if the necessary action were not taken in the neighbouring authority, they would be open to further development. They have already suffered considerable development, so I await my hon. Friend's proposals with interest.
  The Minister and his officials will be aware of Somerset county council's reservations about the consultation paper. For example, it points out that the Government have apparently been reluctant to use their powers of direction under section 9 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. In that connection, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking indicated that the action in Surrey will create difficulties.
  Up to the end of 1987, the Secretary of State had issued only one section 9 direction—to West Glamorgan county council, which had failed to provide any sites at all. On 30 October 1990, the Secretary of State served a section 9 direction on Avon. The total of official sites provided by Avon, which is next door to Somerset and whose actions have implications for Somerset, was one—one gipsy site in the whole of Avon. As Somerset county council said in its comments to the Department:
  "It is no accident that our most serious problems with unauthorised encampments occur in the northern part of the County, along the border with Avon."
  It goes on to state:
  "The number of traditional gypsies … has remained substantially unchanged since the passing of the Act. Although this perception might not always be shared by people living in the vicinity of official sites, it is import ant to bear in mind that most gipsy families now own at least two caravans; an increase in the number of caravans does not necessarily entail an increase in the number of caravan-dwellers."
  The big problem in Somerset has resulted from the emergence of new age travellers, who account for the increase in the numbers—although I recall my hon. Friend the Minister saying that his statistics excluded them, and that is an important point. The House should take into account the great difficulty of defining a gipsy. Section 16 of the Act refers to
  "persons of nomadic habit of life".
  That definition includes travellers of any background who may recently have taken to the road, and may be interpreted by the courts as including people who travel only seasonally and have permanent winter quarters to which they return, as happened in the 1989 court case, Greenwich LBC v. Powell. New age travellers are usually
  640
  fairly well aware of their rights in law. Armed with the knowledge that they are or may be gipsies within the meaning of the Act, some new age travellers are becoming adept at exploiting their status as a means of resisting eviction from the highway, from other county council-owned land in non-designated areas and from privately owned land. The law should be amended in that respect. In its response to a previous consultation paper issued in 1986, the National Gypsy Council suggested that the definition should be amended by the inclusion of a reference to the traditional gipsy trades and occupations. That might help matters.
  I wish to refer to two more of the concerns expressed by Somerset county council. As we have heard, paragraph 24 of the consultation paper suggests that gipsies who become settled in an area should be encouraged to move into houses. I strongly agree with those of my hon. Friends who have said that that appears unrealistic. I hope that it will not be regarded as a way to solve the problem.
  Mr. Baldry: I think that there has been some misunderstanding over the word "encouraged". Hon. Members appear to think that direction will be involved. The consultation paper states:
  he Government believes that it may be necessary to provide advice on education, health and housing which encourages gypsies and other travellers to settle and, in time, transfer into traditional housing."
  We are concerned to ensure that there are no barriers; it will not be a question of direction or compulsion. The proposal should be seen in that context.
  Mr.Nicholson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for that clarification.
  Somerset county council says in its paper:
  "The repeal of our duty to provide sites will not take a single travelling family off the road. All our experience of New Age Travellers suggests that they took to the road for a wide variety of reasons".
  The council also suggests that the Public Order Act should be extended to deal with raves, which have become a frequent and much-resented activity of new age travellers, especially in my constituency and neighbouring areas.
  I appreciate the need for us to consider carefully the way in which we handle the traditional gipsy problem and the planning and resource problems involved. As hon. Members have said, the problems have been made worse through the advent of new age travellers. We saw outrageous activities by the new age travellers in the west country last summer after the summer solstice.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden explained, new age travellers cause considerable damage. More importantly, they instil great fear. Hon. Members may recall from their history books the "great fear" which existed just before the French revolution. That kind of fear began to occur in our rural settlements in Somerset, Devon and elsewhere.
  Law-abiding people who pay their taxes and community charges resented the fact that the new age travellers often do not pay vehicle tax and that their vehicles are not properly insured. Those new age travellers obtained social security, and in Somerset it seemed that they obtained a drug substitute. Indeed, many new age travellers suffer from drug conditions. The massive police effort that was necessary last summer was also largely paid for by the community charge payers in Somerset and the other counties in the west country.

  641
  From the end of last July, we had a rather bad summer. There was quite a lot of rain. As a result, the number of new age travellers on the roads and the rave parties diminished. If we have a good summer in 1993, as I hope that we shall, the House can imagine what that might produce in terms of problems with new age travellers.
  I implore my hon. Friend the Minister to urge the Home Office—there should be clear instructions from the Home Office to police authorities in respect of the co-ordination of their activities—the Department of Social Security, the Department of Transport, which polices the way in which road vehicles are managed, and the Department of Employment, to use their powers and, if necessary, to come to the House and obtain administrative powers to enable them to act. We cannot wait for the legislation that my hon. Friend the Minister envisages. We must have action this summer to prevent the problems that occurred last year with new age travellers.
  1.41 pm
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I shall endeavour to tackle the problem as succinctly as possible, although it is not a problem which easily reduces itself to brevity. However, we have had a useful debate and I compliment my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Woking (Sir C. Onslow), on raising the matter for consideration.
  The issue of gipsies raises great emotion. At the outset, I must state that genuine gipsies should not feel that Conservative Members are endeavouring to attack them or to cause further provocations. I have visited the official gipsy sites in Surrey and I am satisfied that they are well run. Very little damage is caused in the local communities as a result of those official sites. Some of the gipsy families are trying to integrate as much as possible and their children attend local schools.
  The problems do not arise with the official gipsy sites once they are established. The problem is one of persuading people to accept a new official site in a community. The difficulties arise largely through a lack of understanding on both sides and they are exacerbated by travellers who camp illegally and cause the maximum damage. Many hon. Members have described such damage in this debate.
  The problem is difficult because we need official sites. We must find a way to accommodate people who are basically itinerant. We must build bridges so that they do not feel more isolated from the community. However, we must do that in a way that does not appear to threaten existing communities.
  My constituency, like many others, has suffered the kind of problems that have beset our countryside over the past few years. That clearly shows that the current legislation is simply not effective. I received a letter from a constituent within the past few days in which he points out that 21 caravans and a large number of lorries and other vehicles have appeared on land adjacent to him. The site has become polluted and there is general anxiety for the landowner, who is neither well nor young. The landowner has already spent more than £1,000 in legal fees, but he has been warned that, even if the gipsies were evicted, they could return to his land or to the adjacent land at any time in future and he would have to go through the whole process again.
  642
  There are many other cases in which itinerants arrive, make an awful mess and then disappear, leaving the local community to clear up. How can we move them on in the current circumstances of the law? Without designation under the Act, it is very difficult to do so. Hon. Members, local councils, county councils and the police receive much criticism. In other words, the Act is not only wrong but it is causing great public dismay with established institutions, which is unlikely to create any improvement in their standing.
  I am delighted that the Government have brought forward a consultation document. There is no doubt that it is an overdue but, therefore, extremely welcome contribution to the debate. I am not entirely happy with every aspect of it, but I am not surprised about that because it is, as it states, a consultation document; there are opportunities for us to put our opinions. There is no doubt that the consultation document tallies considerably with some of the views that have been expressed by our county councils. In my case, Surrey county council has highlighted the fact that the proposals overlap its own ideas, for example the ability to reduce the length of time illegal encampments remain on a site, the ability to pursue a remedy via the magistrates court rather than the county court or the High Court, the ability of local authorities to act on all illegal encampments in their areas, and the prohibition of illegal encampment offenders from returning within a given area.
  Those points are important in Surrey in particular. As I have remarked, Surrey county council is subject to a direction order under section 9 of the Act, which was made by the Secretary of State in 1989. It therefore needs to oblige local councils to find official pitches in order to bring them up to a state at which they can be designated under the Act. That is causing enormous difficulty, but, paradoxically, the difficulty is being made much worse by the consultation document.
  A very controversial site in Cobham in my constituency has been chosen, slightly perversely by the Elmbridge borough council, and taken up by the county council. That case has created great local opposition. The Cobham action group for old common sense is determined to take the matter right through to the High Court. The problem that is now emerging is the status of the proposition. Should the county be pushing ahead? Will the borough benefit even if the site is approved? In other words, will there eventually be designated status that is worth achieving? I do not have time, because I wish to curtail my remarks, to answer my questions, but my hon. Friend the Minister should understand that local confusion and irritation are gaining apace. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking mentioned the problem that we have in another part of my constituency in the Guildford borough in which a pitch in my right hon. Friend's constituency is subject to similar controversy.
  If we are to delay legislation for a while, there is no doubt that we should meanwhile attempt to clarify the issues. I take up some of the points that Guildford borough council has made. In some ways, it is not a matter of new legislation; it is a matter of tightening up existing legislation. Perhaps we could do that much more quickly. In the circumstances, perhaps we could make it much clearer that if the boroughs obtain designated status, if they make the effort to do it, they will be given even tighter powers.

  643
  I have asked before why the powers in the Epsom and Walton Downs Regulation Act 1984 have not been widened to make designation easier. Why should the Department for Education delay the approval of applications for new sites? Despite risks, would not it be possible to give limited self-approval to some local authorities? Such matters need to be thought out locally, where the controversy is.
  I am concerned that, even under the new proposals, the ability of councils to act on illegally parked caravans and the ability of the magistrates courts to intervene might not be sufficiently effective. We need to examine carefully what sort of powers should be given to impose fines or whether seizure of assets—the caravans—will be made possible. The cost of clearing up after illegally parked travellers have moved on often needs to be found from somewhere. I see no reason why the travellers should not be obliged to make a contribution.
  I am aware of the need for a debate as wide and as broad geographically as possible among colleagues so I shall cease my remarks. My final point is that people are concerned about the issue. We have delayed action for many years because the problem is complex. People will not forgive us unless we deal with the problem as rapidly as possible. Parliamentary time is difficult to find, but if we delay new legislation we should do our best to use whatever tactics we can to tighten existing legislation.
  We should use all the Government's resources to deal with the problem because it affects the Department of the Environment, the Department of Social Security and the Home Office. Those Departments should concentrate on the best way to solve the issue so that further outbreaks of community anger do not occur.
  1.52 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: One of the reasons why we are debating this matter is the failure of the 1968 Act to address the problem of the provision of sites for gipsies. The fact that only 38 per cent. of our areas have been designated shows the great shortfall of provision.
  Much has been said in the debate about the problems of gipsies. Much of the perception of, and prejudices about, gipsies are ill founded. Part of the problem has been the scenes that people have increasingly seen on television recently and the perception of the grouping of new age travellers and various other people—pseudo-gipsies, who are not the sort of gipsies to whom the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Cryer) referred: the sort of romantic Romany-style gipsies with a caravan and a guitar in the back. Unfortunately they are few and far between.
  We have instances of Romany-style gipsies in my constituency, although I cannot vouch for the guitar. In my constituency, pseudo-gipsies have moved in alongside commercial properties in an area where there are no ,gipsy sites. Such areas are totally inappropriate for gipsy sites and there has been great hostility from the public about that.
  Apart from the various stories that people read in newspapers and saw on television about the atrocious activities of some of those people during the rise of the new age traveller last year, there was a danger that some of the travellers would come into the Ribble Valley and mass encamp in my constituency. Obviously, there was a great debate about what the locals would do to get the new age travellers to move on.
  644
  One must remember that the farmers' workplace was involved. The farmers were extremely concerned about what action they could take, especially after they saw the scenes in which it seemed that the police were almost powerless to move the travellers on. The farmers' wives had a word with some of the new age travellers. I do not know what they said, but I can say that the travellers moved on. The moral of the story is that one should not mess with farmers' wives in the Ribble Valley or probably anywhere else. It had the desired effect.
  There is a fear that throughout the United Kingdom the same thing will happen again this summer. Action must be taken to ensure that it is not allowed to happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) said that the problem does not involve just one Department—it involves the Home Office, the Department of Social Security and the Department of the Environment. Few things could be more distressing than seeing Department of Social Security officers chasing new age travellers to give them giros so that they could move on. We saw last year the giro circus that paraded itself around Britain. We must put a stop to that. The taxpayers of Britain have had enough of it. Action must be taken.
  The intention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking in introducing his Bill is to ensure that gipsy sites can be provided privately. The state and local authorities have signally failed to provide them. I was a member of the West Glamorgan county council, which miserably failed to find sites for gipsies so that it could become a designated area. Part of the problem, as has been said time and again, is that councillors look at areas which are totally inappropriate for gipsies. They do not want to go to those sites. The last thing that county councillors wanted to do was to send gipsies to places where they might wish to settle.
  We want gipsies to be encouraged to get together and look for their own sites and to seek planning permission. There could then be full consultation with the people who live in those areas. If they had objections, as happens with any planning permission application, their objections could, rightly, be heard. If that happened, gipsies would not be directed into areas, thus creating hostility. As the hon. Member for Bradford, South said, the burden ought to be spread so that we can reach a solution that is acceptable both to the people who live in the area and to the gipsies.
  I pay tribute to Lancashire county council's education department. It is rare for me to do this, so I ought to do it now. Last summer I visited its education department to find out what it was doing about ensuring that the children of gipsy families are getting the education that the law dictates that they ought to have. I was impressed by the dedication of the staff and the provision of books. I was also impressed by the department's commitment to ensuring that the children of gipsy families have placements in local schools. That is absolutely right. Those children ought to be given exactly the same opportunity as every other child in this country to benefit from a full and proper education.
  We want equality under the law for gipsies and their children, but that means that they must keep within the law and make sure that their vehicles are taxed and properly maintained. It also means that they must pay their council tax or their poll tax, as well as income tax. If

  645
  the Government were to take action, the animosity and prejudice that some people feel towards gipsies would soon evaporate. The Bill is definitely a step in the right direction.
  1.58 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) on introducing his Bill. Members from places as far apart as Scarborough, Somerset, Surrey and Essex have demonstrated the widespread public concern about the present state of the law. I listened, too, with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I must congratulate him on part of it, if that is not the kiss of death for him. I thought that his comments about illegal encampments were remarkably level-headed. He then spoilt the effect by praising local authority provision.
  If we look at what has happened over the past 25 years, we see that two local authorities out of three have not done a thing. If we were to leave it to local authorities to solve the problem, it might be solved in the year 2040, but I suspect that the problem will never be solved if we leave it to local authorities.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) made an interesting speech and complained that Conservatives are whipping up prejudices against certain people. I shall remember his words when he next speaks about Americans, about our fellow members of the European Community, or about people from the City. He attacked the City, but forgot to say that it makes a major contribution to the balance of payments and employs many hundreds of thousands of people.
  I support the Bill because the London borough of Barnet has searched for a site for years and has not been able to find one. Earlier in the Session—last summer—I and my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), for Finchley (Mr. Booth) and for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) went with a deputation to the Minister to discuss that pressing issue. We believe that there is no suitable site in Barnet. I am glad to say that the Minister listened to what we said and we may have influenced the thoughts in the consultative document published shortly afterwards.
  A built-up borough such as Barnet does not have a suitable site and I am therefore not surprised that the authority has been unable to find one. The Caravan Sites Act 1968 suffers because local authorities are told to find the site and to judge the planning application for it. People say that if private enterprise take over, there will be problems with obtaining planning permission, but the private applicant can appeal against any refusal of planning permission. When a local authority department applies to the self-same authority—perhaps as a sham or a charade—and its planning application is turned down, it does not appeal against the refusal because it is also the refuser. Recalcitrant local authorities will never give themselves planning permission and will never appeal against refusals. So long as one allows sites to be provided mainly by local authorities, one will always have that problem, as is demonstrated by the fact that many authorities have failed to provide sites. I warn the
  646
  inspectors who will hear future planning appeals that it is unwise to impose sites against the wishes of local residents, because the ill will generated can last for many years.
  Hendon, South has many main roads, such as the north circular and the M1 nearby, which creates wonderful opportunities for illegal campers to come to the constituency and cause a great deal of mayhem. My constituents have often been appalled to hear the inhabitants of such illegal sites described as gipsies—they are no more gipsies than anything else; they are people who have sought a particular way of life and in many ways have tried to opt out of society. They make a limited contribution. One of the great tragedies is that frequently their children are not encouraged to go to school, so they play all day and miss out on that great escalator of opportunity—state education. If they miss out on that, the next generation are condemned to a similar way of life. That is one cause of great offence to my constituents, who are also offended by the suspicion that the people living in illegal encampments pay no taxes but claim social security benefits.
  The encampments arouse fear among law-abiding citizens—fear about what the people on them will do—and that is the real problem. I spoke to some local residents the first time there was an illegal encampent after the 1987 election. I was shown into one house where a man told me, "I'm afraid I'm parking my motorbike in the front hall in case it gets stolen." I did not like to tell him that there was a risk that other things might happen, too. That seemed to be a sign of how the law-abiding members of the community regarded such encampments. Many things happen on those encampments; there are always consequent health risks, and sometimes they are not cleared up with the enthusiasm that should be shown. There was one such site in my constituency on land owned by the London borough of Camden but situated in the London borough of Barnet. It was only after Barnet threatened to take Camden to court under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that the site was cleared up. The encampments are always messy, and always cause health problems and difficulties with neighbours.
  I plead with my hon. Friend the Minister to urge the police to make greater use of their powers. They should not plead lack of manpower when police resources are greater than they have ever been. The illegal encampments are a major social problem with which I expect the Government to deal swiftly.
  2.6 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) on his fortune in being successful in the ballot for private Members Bills. When I saw the subject that he had chosen I did not intend to congratulate him on his Bill, which I shall not support. However, we have had an extremely good debate on a number of issues. Anyone analysing the Official Report of today's proceedings will find a number of issues on which there has been clear agreement across the Floor of the House. That does not mean that we have agreed on the solution to the problem or that the Bill is the right way forward and should make progress.
  Unusually, I heard the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) say nice words about Lancashire county

  647
  council. If he were to study more of the actions of that council he would find more to praise it for and would criticise it less than he usually does.
  The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) referred to planning, as did the right hon. Member for Woking. I accept that there are problems with planning, but they are different, depending on whether they relate to private sites or public sites developed under the 1968 Act. We need to tackle those problems in the longer term.
  I served for a long time on a local authority—and was leader of a local authority—and I have always held the view that, when dealing with planning applications, the local authority should have no more advantage when making an application of its own than anyone else. The test should be whether the local authority development application would fail if it were a private sector development. If so, the local authority application should be rejected on the same ground.
  Only one speech has been made where I could not agree with the main argument. The hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) made the sort of speech that I feared would be the general theme developed by Conservative Members. While I disagreed with many other parts of Conservative Members' speeches, they all contained some aspects with which I did not totally disagree, but I could not accept the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  In the early part of his speech, the right hon. Member for Woking said that local authorities often tried to develop a site that was totally unsuitable, such as a former tip. I share his views on that issue, and believe that they were expressed in many of today's speeches. To pick a site because it happens to be an unused piece of land, without regard for its suitability, is nonsense and is, of course, a flaw in the existing legislation. So far, we are agreed.
  The Opposition do not oppose the idea of developing private sites, but that does not mean that we think that the 1968 Act should be repealed. We have always believed that the right to develop such sites existed anyway. It should remain.
  Several hon. Members have suggested that there is a case for developing smaller sites, which might avoid some of the problems created by larger ones. We support that view. We also support the view that besides public consultation in areas where a site might be created, there should also be consultation with the people expected to go and live on the site subsequently. It is ridiculous to develop a site in an area that is not acceptable to those who will be expected to use it.
  The Labour party opposes the Bill because we do not believe that it will solve the problems. On the contrary, it will create difficulties—increasingly so as sites are sold off. We are also concerned about the problems of unofficial sites—in Surrey, the county of the right hon. Member for Woking, where I went to school, or Hertfordshire, the county of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), in which 1 was born, or the county in which I live, Lancashire. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) explained his view of the problem of unofficial sites and the associated nuisance—the burning of rubbish and the lack of sanitation. The Labour party shares his concern and believes that the public should not have to suffer from these problems. We are not divided on these matters, either.
  The division between the Opposition and the Government sterns from the fact that we do not believe
  648
  that the Bill does anything to tackle the problem or solve the difficulties. We all agree that it does not deal with new age travellers. I do not want to get involved in arguments about them. We all know about the difficulties, but both the Minister and the right hon. Member for Woking recognised that the Bill does not cover them. The subject needs dealing with, however, even though it is not relevant today.
  Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill is not an answer to the problem. Would he care to outline what he thinks the answer is?
  Mr. Pike: I shall say that if the 1968 Act is enforced and local authorities are given the powers to enforce it, we believe that it will offer a better solution—
  Mr. Wells: It will not.
  Mr. Pike: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech I shall be able to explain. I am not alone in thinking that the 1968 Act can work. The Select Committee on the Environment, which studied the issue at great length while I served on it, decided that, if used properly, the 1968 Act could tackle the problem.
  The Bill had its First Reading on 10 June last, but was not printed until recently. It clearly follows on from the principles established in the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, covering the privatisation of gipsy sites—a Bill dealt with under the ten-minute Bill procedure. The Bill only partly deals with the issues covered by the Department of the Environment's consultation document entitled, "Gypsy sites policies and illegal camping: Exchequer grant to local authorities for gypsy sites" which was published on 18 August. The Department sent hon. Members a copy of that document, and it was accompanied by a press notice and a covering letter from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), setting out the procedures for the consultation.
  We felt that to some extent that exercise was completed in haste and was not well thought out. We thought that it was a response to the problem of new age travellers, which the Bill does not address. Paragraph 24 of the consultation document states:
  "The Government expects existing caravan sites to continue in being not least because, where grant has been paid towards the capital costs of a site, local authorities would have both to repay grant if the site closes and to provide alternative accommodation for any people from the site whom they accept as statutorily homeless."
  Following the publication of that document, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) asked about cost and was told that £56.2 million had been spent to date on site development. The Minister repeated that figure in the debate. The maximum discount available is 76 per cent. However, one would expect an upward valuation, which means that a substantial amount would be wiped off the current value of sites. The Bill contains no guarantee of what sites would be used for. In theory, it would allow bodies representing gipsies to buy them and, in the short term, such sites could continue to be used as sites. However, the Bill does not protect such usage. That means that the asset could be misused in a short time. Clause 7 provides that if sites are not disposed of within 12 months they should be sold at public auction without

  649
  reserve and with no qualification on the disposal. Land sold in that way would be lost as a private sector or public sector site.
  In a letter to hon. Members this week, the Save the Children Fund rightly says that there were more than 1,200 responses to the consultation document. On 9 December in reply to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) the Minister said:
  "We are considering the responses carefully, and will make an announcement in due course about implementing the reforms."
  I asked the Minister to give an assurance that his Department was not working to a rigid timetable and would consider responses and complexities of the issues before taking action. The Minister replied:
  "We will consider all the responses very carefully,"—[Official Report, 9 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 834,]
  In an intervention the Minister said today that the Government intend to introduce legislation "when time permits." What does that mean? A couple of weeks ago we debated Sunday trading and hon. Members thought that the Government would introduce a Bill this year. However, they suddenly found out that that was unlikely. In its letter the Save the Children Fund also said that the issues involved in the reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 were complex and required careful consideration and balance. We share that view. I have grave doubts whether the Government's consultation document proposals will solve the problems, and I fear that they will create more. In going further and making the sale of sites compulsory, the Bill will make the problems worse still.
  Clause 7 causes great concern. Although it may be the intention of gipsies occupying a site or of residents to acquire it, there may be many possibly technical reasons why they cannot not do so and will suddenly find that it is being disposed of compulsorily. Disposal and privatisation of sites will lead to a worse situation than exists today.
  Mr. Cryer: Would not a more sensible solution than the compulsory, mass sale of local authority sites be to encourage private sites? In that way, at some stage in the future—if all the problems, and the difficulties confronting gipsies in purchasing sites, were overcome—we would see the phasing out of local authority sites. It is extremely unlikely that selling local authority sites would have the effect of destroying them.
  Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. If the Bill positively encouraged the development of private sites to deal with existing problems and prevent future difficulties, we could support it—but that is not the proposal before us.
  Last July, the right hon. Member for Woking asked the Secretary of State to
  "suspend further approval of local authority applications for the funding of pitches"
  and the Minister who is replying to today's debate replied:
  "I do not think that it would be appropriate to do so."—[Official Report, 13 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 399.]
  A number of points raised by the Environment Select Committee, on which I served for a number of years, are relevant to the Bill and indicate that the members of that Committee, as well as two former Secretaries of State for the Environment, unanimously took a different view from that reflected in the Bill.
  650
  A former Chairman of that Committee, Sir Hugh Rossi, vigorously pursued that issue—and departmental estimates—on four or five occasions. As a former Conservative Minister, Sir Hugh was well regarded on both sides of the House.
  The question was asked today: what is a gipsy? Leaving aside new age travellers, the question is one which the Select Committee raised on several occasions. The Department considered it and Professor Wibberley, who studied that and other aspects, tried to redefine the 1968 interpretation. The new definition was:
  "A nomadic family who, by reason of their lifestyle, habitually travel to pick up casual and seasonal work or to sell the products of their self-employment and whose only or main residence is a caravan or tent for which they have no authorised site."
  There are many even wider definitions.
  We know that many of the problems that confront local authorities are caused not by traditional gipsy families of the kind to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South referred, but by those who travel around, occupy unofficial sites, and are moved on from one place to another.
  The Select Committee's third report of 1989–90 records that the then director of finance at the Department of the Environment, Mr. Fletcher, was asked a question about designation. He said that
  "to offer advice on how political will will be generated was not for a civil servant. In saying this he put his finger on the nub of the matter. If some local authorities given a regime of 100 per cent. grant do not have the political will to carry out their duties under the Act, then the time may have come to supersede their discretion in the matter. We would recommend that the Department monitor the situation with a view to seeking default powers to enforce designation should this prove necessary."
  I mention that, because of the Minister's reference to the carrot and the stick. I pay tribute to the work done by Norman Dodds in fighting the gipsies' case for many years before the introduction of Lord Avebury's Bill, but we have heard that the Department has used the stick only three times since it was enacted in 1968. Perhaps it should have done so more often.
  According to the Select Committee's fourth special report, on 21 July 1989 Nicholas Ridley said:
  "I note the Committee's reports, and my Department should monitor the progress in the provision of sites … At this stage I am not persuaded of the need for change in the legislation such as the Committee suggests, but I regard speedy progress in site provision as important, and I can assure the Committee that we will continue to keep a close eye on developments."
  I do not often quote the words of that particular Secretary of State—as he then was—but on that occasion Nicholas Ridley expressed a view which I share.
  The following year, the Select Committee again spent considerable time on the issue. It concluded:
  "There are three major deficiencies in the way the Act has worked. The first is the growth of unauthorised pitches"—
  a problem which has been identified again today.
  "The second is the reluctance of some local authorities to seek designation as having made adequate provision under the Act."
  Clearly, no party politics are involved: some Labour authorities have been just as slow in providing sites as Conservative authorities.
  "The third deficiency",
  said the Committee,
  "is the slowness of provision of authorised sites as a result of inaction by local authorities in fulfilling their obligations under the Act … progress towards adequate provision is still

  651
  painfully slow. Our own conclusions lead us to the view that new provision would take 25 years to solve the problem. The Department did not demur from our estimate."
  At that stage, the Secretary of State had only just used his power for the second time in issuing the order to Surrey to which the right hon. Member for Woking referred. The Select Committee said:
  "We are heartened to see the Department taking a more robust line with defaulting local authorities and a new system of capital grant may have the desired effect. Nevertheless, we feel the time has come to set a realistic timetable for site provision with the threat of much more vigorous use of the Secretary of State's powers of direction against laggard authorities."
  We want Government action to ensure that the 1968 Act is enforced, but we do not want the privatisation proposed in the Bill.
  On 26 July 1990, in the Committee's second special report, the former Secretary of State—Chris Patten, now Governor of Hong Kong—said:
  "I welcome the Committee's support for the more vigorous policy we are pursuing towards those local authorities that are failing to provide an adequate number of gipsy sites. The Government is considering the options available."
  He went on to quote what Christopher Chope had said on 10 July—that the Government were
  "considering a further incentive to local authorities and the possibility of time limits."
  Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman argues for the continuation of the provisions of the 1968 Act, but a county such as Hertfordshire, which has had an order placed on it, finds it extremely difficult to provide sites. We have been searching for sites in the North Hertfordshire district council area, but none of those that we have found has been satisfactory. How would the hon. Gentleman solve that difficult problem?
  Mr. Pike: The issue must be considered in each local area. I accept that the problems may vary from area to area. I agree with the right hon. Member for Woking, who said that at times there was a lack of political will or that it was for political reasons that decisions were not made. I do not know whether that is the case in Hertfordshire, but we believe that if a local authority adopts a positive attitude the solution could perhaps be cheap. That is because we believe in the principle of local government—
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

  PENSIONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 March.

  CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 February.

  MISUSE OF DRUGS (ANABOLIC STEROIDS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 February.

  RACIAL VIOLENCE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.

  TELEPHONE ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES (SUPERVISION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Second Reading what day? No day named.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (FREEDOM OF SPEECH) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  COMMONWEALTH OF BRITAIN BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 February.

  WELFARE OF ANIMALS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PERSONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [29 January].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate further adjourned till Friday 12 February.

  REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  Hon. Members: Object,
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  HUMAN RIGHTS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  COMMONWEALTH OF EUROPE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 February.

  UNADOPTED ROADS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  ADOPTION OF ROADS (COMPULSORY PROCEDURES) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  PRIVATE SECURITY (REGISTRATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  IMMUNITY CERTIFICATES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  EMPLOYMENT (AGE LIMITS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  FUEL COST CREDITS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  HOSPITAL SECURITY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  ENERGY (FAIR COMPETITION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  EUROPEAN UNION (PUBLIC INFORMATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 February.

  OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point or order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the Commonwealth of Britain Bill, the Reform of the House of Lords Bill and the Commonwealth of Europe Bill all require that the Queen's consent be notified to the House. Have we received such a letter to tell us whether or not she is happy with them?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I regret to say that we did not reach that stage.
  Mr. Corbyn: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had understood that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office would be telling us whether Her Majesty had agreed to the Bills in question. I am surprised that we have not heard anything about that today.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As we did not reach that stage, the right hon. Gentleman was not asked to do so.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I rise on a point of order which I believe to be a valid and important one. Are we not, now that the proceedings of the House are televised, in an entirely new situation as far as individual and anonymous objections to Bills are concerned? It is possible for my constituents to see the hon. Member who objects but not to see the report of the objection in Hansard. It strikes me that we have not updated our procedures. I am naturally very concerned, as the author of the parent legislation, about the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry)—the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made his views known, and they will be recorded in Hansard. The Bill to which he refers has not yet been printed, so it is perhaps not surprising that an objection was voiced.
  Mr. Morris: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible for the Select Committee on Procedure to look at what I think hon. Members on both sides of the House consider a very important issue?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Select Committee on Procedure can consider what it wishes to consider, and I am sure that its members and Chairman will read today's proceedings. I repeat, however, that, in the case to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the Bill has not yet been printed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  2.35 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the four motions on business of the House.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to object to motion 26.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I shall put the Question on each motion in turn.
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Wednesday 10th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Lilley relating to Pensions. Social Security and Terms and Conditions of Employment not later than three hours after the first of them has been entered upon; and the said Motions may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That, at the sitting on Wednesday 10th February, the Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Stephen Dorrell relating to Supplementary Estimates 1992–93; and that Question may be decided after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Thursday 11th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall put the question necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motion in the name of Mrs. Secretary Bottomley relating to Local Government Finance not later than three hours after the Motion has been entered upon; and the said Motion may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Thursday 11th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall—

  (1) put the question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. John M. Taylor relating to the Supreme Court of England and Wales not later than one and a half hours after the Motion has been entered upon; and

  (2) put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. John M. Taylor relating to Judgments not later than one and a half hours after the Motion has been entered upon;

  and the said Motions may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
2.36 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I am very pleased to have secured this debate. First, I congratulate the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection on its campaigning and lobbying work and thank it for the help that it has given me in preparing for this debate, which is the first on animal experiments since the passage of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. I served on the Committee that considered that Bill, and I must say that the claim made for it by Ministers at the time—that it would stop many unnecessary tests—has sadly proved unfounded.
Let me explain the background. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, something like 5 million tests were carried out on animals. By 1986, that figure had fallen to about 3.5 million per annum. Unfortunately, the Act has significantly slowed that downward trend. The figure still stands at 3.25 million tests per annum, and last year the number of experiments actually went up for the first time in 15 years. The 1991 figure was 3,242,449. That means that during the half hour of the debate, 185 animals will be killed.
The use of dogs and primates fell, although' there were some horrendous cases of primate abuse, to which I shall refer later in my speech and which the Minister has had to acknowledge in correspondence. There has been a 31 per cent. increase in the use of cats, and the figures for other mammals and amphibians are also substantially up. Two thirds of all the procedures were carried out without any form of anaesthetic.
On Second Reading of the Act in February 1986 I said that many unnecessary experiments would go on and that
"the regulations seem designed to protect the experimenter than the animal."—[Official Report, 17 February 1986; Vol. 92, c.111.]
Sadly, that seems to have been borne out. There has been no comprehensive review of the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. I believe that, at the very least, there should be an annual debate in the House about the continuation of animal experiments and the operation of the 1986 Act.
Animal welfare and animal rights groups have undertaken a series of investigations and they have amassed a considerable amount of evidence of the ineffectiveness of the 1986 Act. Even the Minister has acknowledged that. Those investigations are not isolated examples of abuses of the 1986 Act. Every investigation has uncovered serious problems and I want to refer to recent examples of those problems.
In 1989, an investigation by BUAV into the Huntingdon research centre, one of the largest contract research laboratories in the United Kingdom, revealed experiments for trivial products such as food additives and "me-too" products, for products about which human data were already available and for products for which tests on other species had already been carried out.
Cage sizes in the dog unit at the Huntingdon research centre did not meet the minimum Home Office code of practice standards. Other aspects of the code, such as the handling of animals, exercising and dosing, were also not met.

657
In respect of the London Hospital medical school, BUAV showed in 1991 that sick animals were used in procedures. Veterinary cover was inadequate; under the 1986 Act there should be 24-hour veterinary cover. However, on two occasions dogs died following unsuccessful attempts to contact a vet. Painful experiments were carried out on dogs even though the technique had already been tried on people. In an experiment in relation to anal muscles, the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England records:
"we do not envisage this technique ever being the first choice operation for patients with faecal incontinence; there are other cheaper, less complicated manoeuvres which should be tried first."
However, those tests were carried out on animals.
Eighty-nine-year-old Professor Feldberg was videoed by Advocates for Animals carrying out unlicensed procedures and using an inadequate anaesthetic. In one disturbing moment, a rabbit screamed and struggled to get up while it was being cut into. Despite 14 visits in one year by the inspectorate, no action was taken by the Home Office until after campaigners released the video. That shows a serious inadequacy—the inspectorate's refusal to act in such cases unless it is pushed.
I want now to consider the trade in and use of primates. Many problems with the 1986 Act are best highlighted by BUAV's investigation into the use of man's closest relative in the animal world. Indeed, primates are supposed to enjoy a special protection under the 1986 Act.
Appalling care and handling, sometimes even leading to injury, was recorded on video at Shamrock (GB) Ltd. Quarantine was shown being breached; large numbers of primates died or had to be put down within weeks of arriving at Shamrock; cage sizes and conditions—as was the case in all the investigations—did not meet the Home Office code of practice standards.
The investigation into Hazleton UK revealed inadequate caging and conditions. Monkeys were slapped, punched and taunted by staff. Project licence conditions appeared to have been broken. For example, the laboratory did not give proper information to the Home Office on its project licence application. A vet opposed an operation which he thought would involve too much pain, so the company simply used another vet. The metabolism department was caught carrying out unlicensed procedures three times, but no action was taken. Technicians were operating who were not licensed to perform incisions.
I am pleased that the Minister recognised those problems at Hazleton in a welcome statement that he made in December. However, simply moving the day-to-day care person who is still employed there and implementing retraining is hardly likely to be enough. The malaise goes much deeper than that. I hope that the Minister will give further information. In his letter on Hazleton, he said:
"I hope that the time may not be too far away when it will no longer be necessary to use such animals … We are therefore considering setting a target date, not too far ahead, after which we would expect all primates to have been purpose bred".
When does the Minister propose to phase out the import of wild-caught primates? Many of them die in the process of coming to this country for experiments.
Some problems do not need any investigation to be revealed. Trivial tests, such as those for cosmetics and
658
discredited tests such as the LD50 and the Draize test, continue. The section requiring animal pain to be weighed against potential benefit appears not to be applied. Certainly, the value of a product does not seem to be questioned by the Home Office; it goes ahead and authorises project licences. On cosmetics, 8,000 substances are already known to be safe, and about 89 per cent. of the population want a ban on them. I hope that the Minister will not refer to the EC target date of 1998 as realistic, because the all-party animal welfare group, for example, has said that it welcomes it in principle, but the Council of Ministers amended text may result in little change in the current situation. There is an attempt to seek an agreement with the United States and Japan, which have even worse records in this matter. I do not think that the EC report on the banning of certain cosmetics will come about by 1998.
The Draize eye test involves irritants being administered without pain relief until the animal dies, and the LD50 involves the painful poisoning of animals until 50 per cent. of them die. On Second Reading, the then Home Office Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) said:
"The Draize test will not be necessary for very much longer … There will come a time, and it is not far removed, when full alternatives will be possible for the Draize test … the same is true of LD50."—[Official Report, 17 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 159.]
Use of the Draize test has increased considerably. In 1991, the last year for which figures are available, there were 3,500 Draize tests. That is not a successful record for the Government.
The Government have increased funding for alternatives during 1991–92, but £250,000 for the year is serious underfunding. Government funding was criticised by the Animal Procedures Committee in its 1990 report, and last year it made it clear that funds would need to be increased in future if Government funding is to be effective and appropriate.
There are double standards in the validation of non-animal tests as distinct from animal tests. The eyetex replacement for Draize has not been accepted, despite evaluation of more than 10,000 substances in many laboratories. United Kingdom representatives have been promoting two new animal tests, including penile irritation and rectal irritation, which "Frame" has described as unvalidated, yet those animal tests have been placed on the suggested lists.
Other problems are highlighted by the evidence from animal welfare and animal rights groups. The code of practice standards are not being met at virtually every laboratory that was investigated. Standards are inadequate. Primates are allowed to be kept in cages the size of small filing cabinets. Paragraph 3.54 of the code of practice states:
"Cages should include wooden perches, a swing, a wooden nest box, a shelf for feeding and sufficient wood shavings to allow foraging.
The animals should have space to jump horizontally from one perch to another."
If there were perches in the cages of the size set out in the code of practice, there would not be enough room to put in the animals, yet laboratories have cages which are even smaller.
The code of practice is not being implemented properly and the inspectorate has been unable to monitor the Act

659
effectively. The Animal Procedures Committee is dominated by pro-animal research interests and is not monitoring effectively.
The Animal Procedures Committee visited Huntingdon and Shamrock shortly before the BUAV investigation and found nothing wrong. I ask the Minister how that can be so in the light of the subsequent evidence. A review is needed to examine how such faults can be picked up in the future and why faults such as too small cages, lack of exercise and no bedding are being missed.
The project licensing system is failing. It is not preventing repetitive experiments or those where alternatives are available. At the time that the Act was passed, promises were made but they have not been kept. In 1986, the then Minister of State, Home Office assured us that obviously no one would be given permission to use a primate if a rat could be used. However, BUAV's report reveals that a licence was issued for the use of primates, even though the researchers involved admitted that they had no reason to believe that primates would give any more accurate results than those from experiments which they were carrying out on rats. That is a damning indictment of the Act.
It is impossible to list all the problems with the Act, but there are things that are needed. For example, there should be an independent and comprehensive review of the effectiveness of the 1986 Act. I urge the Minister to set up such a review. Other steps could be taken immediately. Trivial and discredited experiments for cosmetics, tobacco and alcohol, the LD50 and the Draize test could be banned. Funding for the planned development and use of non-animal alternatives could be increased.
The inspectorate could be strengthened and the Animal Procedures Committee could be restructured to eliminate its pro-animal research bias. An annual target could be set up to reduce the number of animals used by at least 10 per cent. That would give impetus to the trend away from animal experiments and encourage the use of alternatives. In the fifth environmental programme approved by the Council of Ministers, the European Commission proposed a 50 per cent. reduction in the use of animals by the year 2000. Animal targets are essential if the United Kingdom is to come close to meeting that proposal. I urge the Minister to take action to achieve some of those targets.
2.52 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): At the outset, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his success in obtaining the debate and on the constructive form which it has taken and which I shall certainly follow. The hon. Gentleman always argues passionately on behalf of whatever case he raises with my office. I sometimes see him as a latter-day David fighting the Goliath of officialdom, not with a slingshot but by David barnstorming the ramparts of Whitehall, sometimes with great success on behalf of his constitutents.
Animal research is a subject which arouses much emotion, as hon. Members will know from their postbags. Some people believe that animals should never be used for scientific research, and they are entitled to their opinion. That is not, however, a view which the Government hold. We believe that essential medical research must be allowed to continue.
660
Over the years, there have been great advances in the development of alternative methods and techniques, enabling many aspects of scientific work to be undertaken without the use of animals. Experimentation on tissue, or by the use of computer models, can help enormously, yet it cannot take us all the way. For the foreseeable future, therefore, we are likely to need some animal experimentation if medical research into animal as well as human conditions is not to be weakened immeasurably. For example, there are no acceptable validated alternatives to animal testing for acute and repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity or teratogenicity.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I make some general points. I shall refer to Shamrock and also to Draize and the other cases, where he referred to what may be anecdotal evidence. I shall go through his speech and seek to reply to all the points on which I can give him a reply.
I am not prepared to say to new parents who are worried about cot deaths, or to those caring for an elderly relation whose personality and quality of life has been destroyed by Alzheimers, or to sufferers from cancer, AIDS, Parkinson's disease or a host of other serious conditions, that the medical research that gives them hope must now come to an end. I am not prepared to say to those who have been saved from life-threatening or disabling illnesses by earlier research using animals that they should have been allowed to die or to continue to suffer. That is the implication of arguing that animal experimentation is wrong and should not be allowed, or should not ever have been allowed in any circumstances.
I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for controls and I shall seek to expand upon that subject.
Some of those who argue for a total ban accept the logic of their beliefs, and it is their right to do so. Presumably they refuse any medical assistance which may have derived benefit from such experiements, if it is ever offered. Many others, I am afraid, have been misled by arguments that animal experimentation achieves nothing, or that research can always be taken forward by other means. I fear that that is a delusion. We can have medical advance, or a total ban on animal experimentation, but we cannot have both.
What the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act gives us is the best of both worlds, I believe. The choice is not between a-free-for-all in animal experimentation, or no animal experimentation at all. The solution that the 1986 Act provides is a system for judging the justification of animal use against the likely suffering to the animals concerned. The Act provides a triple licensing system—an arrangement, incidentally, which goes further than any of our European partners in ensuring rigorous scrutiny of animal research.
Let me describe some of the elements of the control system that the 1986 Act provides. In the first place, every establishment in which research is carried out must be "designated" by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in advance. The holder of a certificate of designation is thus made personally responsible for ensuring that all the animal work carried out in his or her establishment complies with legal and administrative controls. The certificate will also designate named persons responsible for the day-to-day care of the animals and a veterinary surgeon or other suitably qualified person who can provide advice on the animals' health and welfare. Central to the Act, therefore, is the notion of individuals

661
being personally identified as responsible for what goes on. They know that they are going to be held accountable if standards are ever allowed to slip.
Separately from this, we license the individuals who will carry out research, usually under supervision when they start working with animals. This is essential to ensure that such persons have the appropriate education, skills and training so that the animals they are using do not suffer any unnecessary harm. The training of personal licence holders is obviously crucial. I believe that it has been good in the past, but it has relied heavily on supervision by an experienced licence holder. We are about to make it even stronger through the introduction of formal training courses for those who wish to apply for a personal licence. The Home Office has recently been reviewing in detail the areas of expertise and understanding that must be covered. New guidance on the content and form of training, and on the validation of training schemes, is about to be issued.
Perhaps most significantly of all, we have the project licence. This is where the judgment is taken on the justification for the research. Some propaganda in circulation suggests that researchers undertake animal work for the sheer sake of causing cruelty—that is not the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but it is put about in some quarters—and with no clear objective in view. That is simply not true of this country and can serve only to spread false alarm and unfounded concern. In this country there are no grounds whatsoever for the accusation, since the law expressly lays down the scientific objectives that the research must be intended to address before it can be considered for licensing at all. Nor is it sufficient that the research should have one or more of the intended benefits in some degree. My right hon. and learned Friend must specifically weigh the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned against the benefit that is intended, and he must not grant a licence unless he is satisfied that adequate consideration has been given to the feasibility of using non-animal means to obtain the same objectives. Further protection exists in respect of cats, dogs, primates or equidae, which must not be used unless it is not practicable to obtain animals of any other species suitable for the purpose.
The Home Office inspectorate is obviously an essential part of the system, and the hon. Gentleman referred to the inspectors and their role. I believe that we are unique in having an inspectorate of this kind, made up of individuals, each with a medical or veterinary background, who have direct expertise in the field of biomedical research. They perform a dual function under the Act. Their first function is to consider all applications for licences and certificates, and to advise, in the light of their expertise, on whether the places, persons or projects in question can appropriately be approved under the legislation. I have talked of the detailed negotiation in which they are often engaged over the terms of individual project licences.
The inspectors see that as their best opportunity to ensure, before work starts, that proposals are refined as far as possible to minimise the impact on animals. I acknowledge that measuring success is difficult. Indeed, it is sometimes necessary to use more animals in order to reduce the impact on the individual animal. None the less, there is an increasing perception that the detailed
662
discussions over project licence applications have done much to mould attitudes in the scientific community since the introduction of the 1986 Act. Scientists accept the need to justify their proposals and are becoming adept at predicting the likely adverse effects of their procedures on animals and are increasingly enthusiastic in putting forward strategies to minimise these. By definition, inspectors are individuals whose scientific standing is of a kind to enable them to engage as equals with the scientists wanting to carry out the research.
Secondly, inspectors have an important role in inspecting establishments themselves, and in ensuring that animals are properly housed and treated, and that the terms of individual project licences are being observed. It has been suggested that the inspectorate should be made up exclusively of veterinary surgeons. I believe that we should lose significantly if that were the case. Most laboratory animal use is directed towards human health or safety. The strength of the inspectorate lies in the range of disciplines and experience that its members can bring to bear, and in the fact that the same individuals are responsible for inspecting the research in progress as have previously negotiated the terms of the project licence. It is from their knowledge of the licence, and of the factors that led to its being in the form it is, that they derive their particular authority and strength in the course of inspections. Inspections, of course, are spot checks. The onus for day-to-day observance of the statutory and administrative controls and standards rests with the holder of the certificate of designation.
I have mentioned the Animal Procedures Committee, and I should like to stress its role as an independent watchdog of the system, which I know concerns the hon. Gentleman. It is nonsense to suggest, as some people outside the House have done, that the committee is made up of persons with a vested interest in scientific work on animals and that it will always take the side of the scientists. By statute, the committee is a balance of those who have a direct involvement in animal experimentation, of those whose principal interest is in animal welfare, and others who fall on neither side—including, at present, a professor of law and a former professor of philosophy. All that I have learnt of the committee convinces me that it performs a very valuable role in scrutinising the working of the legislation, in following up individual issues which have given rise to public concern, such as Shamrock farms, and in providing a rigorous analysis of individual issues concerned with animal research. In that context, I pay tribute to the wise leadership that the committee has received under the chairmanship of Lord Nathan, whose retirement from that post has recently been made public.
Mr. Cohen: I, too, congratulate Lord Nathan on his retirement, but was he not also on the board of the Cancer Research Campaign? While I have a lot of time for that organisation, it carries out more experiments than any other charity. Does that not mean, at the very least, that his position is not neutral?
Mr. Wardle: The committee is not one-sided or made up of people whose sole interest is animal experimentation. It has a balance and, although I do not have time to list them, it has some members whose sole concern—to counterbalance those represented by Lord Nathan, for

663
example—is to represent the interests of animal welfare. I believe that there is a balance. If the hon. Gentleman will allow, I will make progress, as time is running out.
The committee is engaged on wide-ranging reviews of two vital issues: the use of primates in research, and toxicity testing. The hon. Gentleman asked about the former. Any announcement from the Home Office will be based on our consideration of the committee's findings. The Government look forward with much interest to hearing the the committee's conclusions on both issues.
One area of the committee's activity calls for special mention. That is the part that it plays in the development of alternatives to animal research. Its research subcommittee—currently under the chairmanship of Sir Andrew Huxley—administers a research budget, funded by the Home Office, into means of replacing, refining or reducing the use of animals in research.
The research sub-committee's work is an important element in the Government's efforts to encourage alternatives to animal research, but it is not the only measure we take. We have been active in Europe, for example, in encouraging the search for alternatives to animal testing. We were prominent in encouraging an international collaborative study to assess the scope for reducing the need for the LD50 toxicity test, and the validation and acceptance of alternative fixed dose methods. Very recently the United Kingdom and the EC Commission jointly initiated an international study into
664
means of validating alternatives to the Draize eye irritancy tests. Those are practical ways in which we give force to our expressed desire to see the use of alternatives to animals wherever possible.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Shamrock farms, and I refer the House to the answer that I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) on 2 December stating the action that we had taken as a result of considering the findings of the inspectorate and the Animal Procedures Committee.
The Government share the view of those who believe in the value of animal experimentation, but believe that such work should take place only where there are strictly identifiable potential benefits, and where there are no other practicable alternatives. We have the most rigorous and extensive of systems for ensuring that only justifiable research takes place, and for policing the operation of approved work. There is no system that is not capable of further improvement and that is why I look forward with much interest to the advice of the Animal Procedures Committee on its current areas of study, and to the further reviews that it will no doubt undertake in future. But I am confident that we have a system in the United Kingdom which provides the best possible guarantee of animal welfare, set alongside the justifiable needs of scientific research.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Three o'clock.

EDUCATION

  Primary Schools
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidelines the Government issue on the optimum size of primary schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government have issued no guidelines on the optimum size of primary schools.

  Universities, Wales
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what formula will be used in determining the proportion granted to the Wales higher education funding council of the Department for Education budget for universities.

  Mr. Boswell
  The expenditure programmes of the Department and the Welsh Office were adjusted at the time of the 1992 autumn statement to take account of the changed responsibilities for the funding of universities.

  Key stage 1: Testing 7 year olds in 1992

  England

  Percentages of pupils who have reached level 4

  English Level 4 Per cent.

  Mathematics Level 4 Per cent.

  Science Level 4 Per cent.

  Technology Level 4 Per cent.

  Camden

  0.7

  0.1

  0.1

  0.0

  Greenwich

  0.4

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Hackney

  0.8

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  Hammersmith

  0.6

  0.2

  0.0

  0.0

  Islington

  0.4

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0.4

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  Lambeth

  1.1

  0.1

  0.3

  0.4

  Lewisham

  0.5

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Southwark

  0.6

  0.0

  0.2

  0.0

  Tower Hamlets

  0.7

  0.0

  0.1

  0.5

  Wandsworth

  0.1

  0.0

  0.3

  0.0

  Westminster

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  Barking

  0.2

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Barnet

  0.6

  0.1

  0.1

  0.0

  Bexley

  0.2

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Brent

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Bromley

  0.2

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Croydon

  0.5

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  Ealing

  1.3

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Enfield

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Haringey

  0.4

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Harrow

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Havering

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Hillingdon

  0.3

  0.0

  0.2

  0.0

  Hounslow

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Kingston upon Thames

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  Merton

  1.4

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Newham

  0.2

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Redbridge

  0.3

  0.0

  0.1

  0.1

  Richmond upon Thames

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Sutton

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Waltham Forest

  0.2

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Birmingham

  0.1

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  Coventry

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Dudley

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Sandwell

  0.2

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  Solihull

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  342
  Adjustments of this kind are only one component of the public expenditure survey process leading to a decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about the funds available for the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales.

  Schools Inspectors
  Sir Thomas ArnoldM
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what progress Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools is making towards maintaining a register of those competent to lead inspection teams.

  Mr. Forth
  This is a matter for Ofsted; I have asked Professor Sutherland to write to my hon. Friend.

  Key Stage 1
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children aged seven years in each local education authority area are allowed to proceed beyond key stage 1, level 3.

  Mr. Forth
  Every child at the end of key stage 1 who has demonstrated through the statutory assessments that he or she has reached the targets for level 3 should be taken on by his or her teachers to the targets appropriate for the next level. The following table indicates by LEA the percentage of pupils at the end of key stage 1 in 1992 who reached level 4.
  343

  English Level 4 Per cent.

  Mathematics Level 4 Per cent.

  Science Level 4 Per cent.

  Technology Level 4 Per cent.

  Walsall

  0·1

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  Wolverhampton

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Knowsley

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Liverpool

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  St. Helens

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Sefton

  0·2

  0·1

  0·1

  0·0

  Wirral

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Bolton

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Bury

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Manchester

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Oldham

  0·3

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Rochdale

  0·3

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Salford

  0·0

  0·0

  0·1

  0·0

  Stockport

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Tameside

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Trafford

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Wigan

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Barnsley

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Doncaster

  0·2

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Rotherham

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Sheffield

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Bradford

  0·5

  0·1

  0·1

  0·0

  Calderdale

  0·2

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Kirklees

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·1

  Leeds

  0·4

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Wakefield

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Gateshead

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  0·4

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  North Tyneside

  0·1

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  South Tyneside

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Sunderland

  0·1

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  Avon

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Bedfordshire

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Berkshire

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Buckinghamshire

  0·4

  0·1

  0·1

  0·0

  Cambridgeshire

  0·1

  0·0

  0·1

  0·0

  Cheshire

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Cleveland

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Cornwall and Isles Scilly

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Cumbria

  0·3

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Derbyshire

  0·3

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Devon

  0·5

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Dorset

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Durham

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  East Sussex

  0·5

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Essex

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Gloucestershire

  0·2

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  Hampshire

  0·3

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Hereford and Worcester

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Hertfordshire

  0·2

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Humberside

  0·2

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Isle of Wight

  0·5

  0·3

  0·5

  2·5

  Kent

  0·3

  0·0

  0·1

  0·0

  Lancashire

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Leicestershire

  0·2

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Lincolnshire

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Norfolk

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  North Yorkshire

  0·2

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Northamptonshire

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Northumberland

  0·0

  0·0

  0·1

  0·0

  Nottinghamshire

  0·2

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Oxfordshire

  0·4

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  Shropshire

  0·2

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Somerset

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Staffordshire

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Suffolk

  0·3

  0·0

  0·2

  0·0

  Surrey

  0·3

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Warwickshire

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  West Sussex

  0·5

  0·0

  0·1

  0·0

  Wiltshire

  0·2

  0·0

  0·0

  0·2

  Special Educational Needs
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will bring in legislation to give parents of children with special needs the right to state a preference for their child's school from amongst local education authority special or ordinary schools, grant-maintained schools and schools run by a recognised charity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education Bill, currently before Parliament, significantly extends the rights of parents of children with special educational needs over the school their child should attend. It enables parents of children with special educational needs to express a preference for the maintained school which should be named in a statement or to make representations in favour of a non-maintained or independent school. In all cases, if the local education authority does not comply with the parents' wishes, parents may appeal to the special educational needs tribunal, whose rulings will be binding.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish for each local education authority the number of appeals made against statements of special educational need; and what is the estimated cost of running the appeals system in each local education authority in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will provide information on the staffing and other costs which go to making up his estimate of setting up the tribunal system for hearing appeals about statements of special educational needs.

  Mr. Forth
  We shall be consulting on the details of the tribunal's establishment and procedures. Initial estimates are based on the Department's own experience of staffing and administrative costs in handling appeals and reflect consultation with other Departments which sponsor tribunals.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Smoking
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if consideration will be given to reviewing the policy on smoking within the Palace of Westminster, following the recent case involving Stockport council; and if he will make a statement.

  Table A: Parliamentary Constituences

  Constituency

  Column 1: estimated population aged 17 and over plus 63 per cent of 16 year olds (as at 30 June 1991)

  Column 2: registered electors (1992–93 Register,qualifying date 15 September 1991)

  Column 2 as a percentage of Column 1

  Belfast East

  54,655

  53,375

  97·7

  Belfast North

  54,931

  55,587

  101·2

  Belfast South

  55,368

  52,556

  94·9

  Belfast West

  54,960

  55,280

  100·6

  East Antrim

  64,621

  63,739

  98·6

  East Londonderry

  78,930

  76,912

  97·4

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  70,489

  71,472

  101·4

  Foyle

  77,264

  75,970

  98·8

  Lagan Valley

  76,053

  73,688

  96·9

  346
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Ms. Walley) on 1 February at column 64.

  Abbreviated Automatic Dialling
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee on what date abbreviated automatic dialling to the European Commission ceased; and when it will be restored.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The only disruption of the abbreviated dialling system for the European Commission occurred recently when its telephone number was changed without notice. The new number was encoded as soon as it was known. Extra numbers have now been added; and a revised list of European institution exchanges accessible by abbreviated dialling will be circulated as soon as possible.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Radiation Emergencies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken in his Department to implement the Public Information for Radiation Emergencies Regulations 1993.

  Mr. Atkins
  None. The enactment cited is not extant in Northern Ireland.

  Population
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the latest estimates by the Registrar General of Populations of those aged 17 years and over, plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years, for each district council area and parliamentary constituency, together in each case with the equivalent year's electoral registration figures expressed in numbers and as a percentage of relevant population.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is set out in the tables. It is the same as that which I provided to the hon. Gentleman in my letter of 18 November 1992, a copy of which was placed in the Library. Electoral registration figures for 1993–94 will not be available until the new register is published on 15 February. Mid-year population estimates for 1992 will not be available until the summer.
  347

  Constituency

  Column 1: estimated population aged 17 and over plus 63 per cent of 16 year olds (as at 30 June 1991)

  Column 2: registered electors (1992–93 Register, qualifying date 15 September 1991)

  Column 2 as a percentage of Column 1

  Mid Ulster

  71,186

  70,410

  98·9

  Newry and Armagh

  68,837

  68,716

  99·8

  North Antrim

  71,096

  70,217

  98·8

  North Down

  70,201

  69,604

  99·1

  Strangford

  71,468

  69,855

  97·7

  South Antrim

  71,334

  68,292

  95·7

  South Down

  78,592

  77,371

  98·4

  Upper Bann

  68,675

  68,422

  99·6

  Total

  1,158,660

  1,141,466

  98·5

  Table B: District Council Areas

  District Council

  Column 1: estimated population aged 17 and over plus 63 per cent of 16 year olds (as at 30 June 1991)

  Column 2: registered electors (1992–93 Register, qualifying date 15 September 1991)

  Column 2 as a percentage of Column 1

  Antrim

  32,678

  30,227

  92·5

  Ards

  49,086

  49,089

  100·0

  Armagh

  37,019

  36,222

  97·8

  Ballymena

  42,671

  42,091

  98·6

  Ballymoney

  17,725

  17,610

  99·4

  Banbridge

  24,704

  24,891

  100·8

  Belfast

  212,332

  209,126

  98·5

  Carrickfergus

  24,683

  24,527

  99·4

  Castlereagh

  48,405

  47,505

  98·1

  Coleraine

  38,000

  37,138

  97·7

  Cookstown

  21,581

  21,637

  100·3

  Craigavon

  54,855

  54,520

  99·4

  Derry

  64,643

  63,309

  97·9

  Down

  41,656

  40,656

  97·6

  Dungannon

  31,854

  32,354

  101·6

  Fermanagh

  38,636

  39,112

  101·2

  Larne

  22,536

  22,318

  99·0

  Limavady

  20,608

  19,282

  93·6

  Lisburn

  72,538

  69,472

  95·8

  Magherafelt

  25,391

  25,611

  100·9

  Moyle

  10,700

  10,509

  98·2

  Newry and Mourne

  57,870

  58,207

  100·6

  Newtownabbey

  56,057

  55,155

  98·4

  North Down

  55,272

  54,464

  98·5

  Omagh

  31,889

  30,973

  97·1

  Strabane

  25,271

  25,319

  100·2

  Total

  1,158,660

  1,141,324

  98·5

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Satellite Television
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints he has received from those members of the public who have paid for de-coders which enable them to receive a satellite programme called "Red Hot Dutch."

  Mr. Jack
  None have so far been addressed to the Home Office.

  Obscene Publications Act
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with groups representing women, parents, children, the police, the legal profession, the churches and the retail trade about reform of the Obscene Publications Act 1959; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We receive frequent representations both from groups and from individuals on the subject of obscenity and are aware of the concern which is felt in many quarters. The application of the Obscene Publications Act is kept under constant review and we are currently considering, in consultation with the police, the Crown prosecution service and other Government Departments, whether any changes in practice might be made to improve the enforcement of the law.

  Sri Lankan Refugees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of Sri Lankan refugees seeking political asylum in the United Kingdom on 25 January.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On 31 December 1992, around 4,450 applications by Sri Lankan citizens, excluding dependants, for asylum in the United Kingdom were awaiting a decision. Specific information for 25 January 1993 is not available.

  Police, Greenwich
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis indicating the change in the number of police officers available for service in the London borough of Greenwich in each of the last two years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On 29 December 1992 the policing strength within the London borough of Greenwich was recorded as 261 and for the same date in 1991 it was 281. Between these dates the method of manpower recording changed. There has, in fact, been no reduction in the number of police officers available for operational duty.

  Customs Barriers
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take action to ensure that the removal of customs barriers between Great Britain and continental EC countries does not lead to a flood of automatic weapons being brought into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  All European Community states are bound by the EC weapons directive, which came into effect on 1 January 1993. Under the directive the possession of automatic firearms is prohibited throughout the Community.

  Also under the directive, movements of other firearms are subject to a new licensing system. As before, anyone purchasing a firearm in another EC state must have prior permission from the police to bring it into the United Kingdom. But in addition to this, notice of each transfer of a firearm to this country will now be sent to my Department via a new Community-wide information system. The information will be passed to police and customs officers who will investigate any apparent irregularities.

  Mr. Salman Rushdie
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is Her Majesty's Government's current policy on the protection of Mr. Salman Rushdie from terrorism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It remains the policy that protection should be provided where it appears appropriate in the operational judgment of the chief officer of police. In Mr. Rushdie's case decisions on the level of police protection to be provided are a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Female Prison Officers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many female prison officers are employed in prisons in the United Kingdom; and how they are deployed throughout the service.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At the end of December 1992, there were 1,967 female prison officers employed in prison service establishments in England and Wales—41 principal officers, 126 senior officers and 1,800 officers. A total of 682 were employed in female establishments, 1,124 in male establishments and 161 in dual-sex establishments.

  Beckard Pollitzer Ltd.
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his decision to contract out the warehouse and distribution function of the supply and transport branch of his Department to Beck and Pollitzer Ltd.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend to her question on 4 February.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision has been made for compensation to be payable to Beck and Pollitzer should his Department withdraw from the contracting out of supply and transport functions of the Home Office.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No provision has been made for compensation to be paid to Beck and Pollitzer.

  Prison Service Dog Section
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to market-test the prison service dog section; what consideration he has given to the applicability of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The prison dog service is one of the candidates in my Department's current market testing programme. Work on this project is due to commence on 8 March. As part of it we will be considering the applicability of the TUPE regulations.

  Mr. Bashir Uddin
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider compensation to Mr. Bashir Uddin following his acquittal of assault at the Inner London Crown court; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  If Mr. Bashir Uddin applies to the Home Office, his application will be carefully considered in accordance with the current relevant arrangements for the payment of ex-gratia compensation which were described by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) on 29 November 1985 at column 691–92.

  Safer Cities Programme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what grant aid budget those safer cities projects due to close in March 1994 have for the financial
  351
  year 1993–94; how much of this each project has already committed; and what money is available within each project for new initiatives.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: Each of the 16 projects due to close in March 1994 has £100,000 available in grant funding in 1993–94 to support local crime prevention schemes. The records of approved schemes held at the Home Office show the following amounts already committed and still available for initiatives. Plans to use uncommitted expenditure may already be at a fairly advanced stage locally.

  Project

  Amount committed (£ thousand)

  Amount available from £ 100,000 (£ thousand)

  Birmingham

  42·1

  57·9

  Bradford

  32·1

  67·9

  Bristol

  0·0

  100·0

  Coventry

  92·9

  7·1

  Hartlepool

  108·6

  0·0

  Hull

  96·9

  3·1

  Islington

  0·0

  100·0

  Lewisham

  54·6

  45·4

  Nottingham

  76·4

  23·6

  Rochdale

  21·4

  78·6

  Salford

  80·7

  19·3

  Sunderland

  12·5

  87·5

  Tower Hamlets

  35·0

  65·0

  Wandsworth

  31·5

  68·5

  Wirral

  56·0

  44·0

  Wolverhampton

  50·3

  49·7

  In addition, each of these projects has access to further funds in 1993–94 from a central pool of £500,000 which has been set aside to assist the development locally of continuing structures for the maintenance of multi-agency crime prevention work.

  Immigration
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of individuals who are given work permits are eventually given leave to remain indefinitely.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 2 February 1993]: In recent years, the number of acceptances for settlement after four years employment with a work permit has represented around 12 to 14 per cent. of the total number of non-trainee work permits (both for long and short-term employment), issued four years previously.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the Benefits Agency's decision not to pay income support to the Woolwich constituent national insurance No. PW130335D following the decision by the social security appeal tribunal on 28 October 1992.

  Mr. Burt
  I understand that Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency has already replied directly to the hon. Member, advising that the independent adjudication officer intends to appeal to the commissioner about his constituent's case.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures estimating, on the same basis as estimates made in "Options for Equality in State Pension Age", the cost of a split retirement scheme in which the basic pension is payable at age 60 years and SERPS at age 65 years assuming an alignment of contracting-out terms with the new pension ages, giving figures for(a) 2015, (b) 20205, (c) 2035 and (d)

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is in the table.

  Year

  Cost (£ million)

  2015

  600

  2025

  600

  2035

  400

  Notes:

  1. Figures given at 1990–91 prices.

  2. Information for 2045 not available.

  3. Figures refer to net public sector borrowing requirement cost.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost in(a) 1993–94, (b) 2015,
  (c) 2025, (d) 2035 and (e) 2045 of abolishing national insurance contributions for men aged 60 to 65 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The cost in income foregone to the national insurance fund of abolishing the employee national insurance contributions for men aged 60 to 65 would be as follows:

  Year

  Cost £ million

  1993–94

  600

  2015

  800

  2025

  900

  2035

  900

  2045

  800

  Notes:

  1. Figures given in 1993–94 prices.

  2. 1.5 per cent real earnings growth assumed.

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide details of the training provided to(a) benefits inquiry line staff and (b) adjudication officers working on disability living allowances and attendance allowance, including the dates and duration of training courses provided on these benefits; what percentage of the annual training budget for these benefits has already been spent; and what plans he has to increae this budget in real terms in the financial year 1993–94 and in subsequent years.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 January, col. 218–19]: The chief executive has written further to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 4 February 1993.
  I wrote to you on 18 January in reply to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social

  353
  Security concerning the training provided to Benefits Enquiry Line (BEL) staff and adjudication officers working on Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance. In that letter I said that I would write to you again with details of the dates of the training for BEL staff.
  Training courses for the BEL operators were held for the whole of April 1991 to June 1991, when BEL was initially set up. Courses were subsequently held on the following dates:

  1 October 1991 to 31 October 1991 (condensed course)

  11 November 1991 to 31 December 1991

  1 July 1992 to 31 July 1992 (condensed course)

  10 August 1992 to 18 September 1992

  12 October 1992 to 20 November 1992

  7 December 1992 to 8 January 1993 (condensed course)

  Courses will continue to be held as new operators are taken on.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful. A copy of this will appear in the Official Report. A copy is also being placed in the Library.

  Successful prosecution action taken by HSE Inspectorates in the Crown Court, 1 January 1992 to 31 March 1992

  Company

  Crown Court

  Date of hearing

  Sentence £

  Ashby Demolition

  Knightsbridge

  2 January 1992

  7,500

  Sansoms (Newport) Ltd.

  Newport

  6 February 1992

  2,500

  Caird Environmental Ltd.

  Birmingham

  23 March 1992

  50,000

  Fletchers Bakeries Ltd.

  Sheffield

  25 March 1992

  10,000

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her estimate of the costs of redundancy payments to those who are likely to lose their jobs in related industries as a result of the intended pit closures announced on 13 October 1992.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It has not yet been determined which pits are to close, and it is therefore quite impossible to attribute consequential job losses to particular closures. It cannot be estimated what redundancy entitlements, if any, affected employees might have.

  Overseas Qualifications
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will publish the conclusions of her Department's investigation into the recognition of overseas qualifications held by adults; when the conclusion will be implemented; and how they will be funded.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The first diploma directive, 89/48/EEC, was implemented in the United Kingdom in April 1991, covers degree qualifications and is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry. The second diploma directive, 92/51/EEC will cover those qualifications awarded on completion of higher education courses of up to three years duration and equivalents including national and Scottish vocational qualifications. Both directives will allow individuals to have their qualifications recognised when seeking employment in another member state, in an occupation regulated according to the directives.

  The Employment Department has responsibility for the second diploma directive and represented the United Kingdom interest in negotiations towards its adoption by the European Council in June 1992. The directive is due to be implemented in member states' law by June 1994.

EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the successful prosecutions undertaken at the Crown court for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 during 1992 and in 1993 to the most recent practicable date together with the sentences imposed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is presently only available for the period 1 January 1992 to 31 March 1992 and this is given in the following table. I will arrange for the information covering the period 1 April 1992 to 31 January 1993 to be made available once it has been checked for accuracy.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if she will list for the last five years the number of applications for work permits that are(a) categorised as tier 1 applications and (b) categorised as tier 2 applications;

  (2) if she will list for the last five years (a) the number of tier 1 applicants for work permits and (b) the number of tier 2 applicants for work permits and the outcomes of these applications;

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 2 February 1993]:The information is not available in the form requested. The two-tier procedure for making work permit applications was introduced in October 1991, together with changes in the way applications are recorded. The following table shows for the last five years the number of applications received for categories of permit now dealt with under the two-tier procedure.

  Number

  1988

  28,295

  1989

  34,784

  1990

  40,065

  19911

  37,086

  1992

  32,789

  1 Changes made to the arrangements for recording applications.

  Note: Over this period on-average approximately 50 per cent. of these applications were approved.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Right to Silence
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received about the law on the right to silence and the implications in child cruelty cases; and if he will make a statement.
  355
  The Attorney-General
  I have received three letters from Members of Parliament and one from a member of the public regarding the right to silence and its implications in child cruelty cases.

  As regards my views on the general issue, I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on 18 January 1993, Official Report, column 4. I do not advocate creating special arrangements for specific categories of offences.

  R. v. Uddin
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will set up a full inquiry into the accuracy of information that the Crown prosecution service gave to defence lawyers in the recent case of R.v. Uddin in the Inner London crown court.

  The Solicitor-General
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on the 27 January 1993 at column 708. A full explanation has been provided by the branch Crown prosecutor in a letter to solicitors acting on behalf of Mr. Uddin and I do not consider that any further inquiry is necessary. As I stated in my answer to the hon. Member for Leyton, a copy of the letter containing this explanation has been placed in the Library.

WALES

  Education
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what meetings he or his departmental officials had recently with representatives of county councils in Wales to discuss the current and projected levels of educational provision managed by councils in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance (WCCLGF) and its settlement working group (SWG) are the appropriate fora for discussions with local authorities on local government finance issues. I chaired meetings of WCCLGF on 26 November and 12 January. My officials met officers from local authorities at a meeting of SWG on 21 December.

  Disability (Schools)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of schools in each area in Wales have been adapted for the use of disabled pupils and teachers.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not held centrally. Local education authorities are responsible for providing facilities for disabled pupils and teachers at their schools.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the number of people made homeless in Wales in each of 1990, 1991 and 1992; and what estimate has been made of the percentage in each case made homeless as a result of mortgage repossessions.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is available for those persons accepted as homeless by local authorities and is provided in the following table:
  356

  Persons accepted as homeless

  Total

  From action by mortgagee Per cent.

  1990

  19,675

  16

  1991

  24,025

  23

  11992

  18,021

  17

  1 January to September only

  Source: Welsh Office local authority returns

  Education Funding
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received from and what meetings he has held with the parent-teacher associations of Wales about the levels of financial provision for education in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received one representation from a parent-teacher association about levels of financial provision for education in Wales. I have received no request for meetings.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish further planning guidelines to authorities on the subject of wind farms in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Following public consultation, the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment issued a planning policy guidance note on renewable energy on 3 February 1993.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received on the level of the hill livestock compensatory allowances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received representations from Welsh Members of Parliament, the Welsh farming organisations and individual farmers in respect of hill livestock compensatory allowance payments in Wales. I have also recently met representatives from the Welsh farming unions to discuss the matter.

  Housing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with the chairman of Tai Cymru regarding its decision on the designation of development status housing associations operating in(a) neighbourhood renewal areas and (b) the west of Cardiff;

  (2) what consultations he has had with the chairman of Tai Cymru regarding guidelines for the minimum size and number of housing associations with a development role operating in inner city neighbourhood renewal areas.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  These are matters for the board of Housing for Wales.

  Dolgellau to Bala Road
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the improvements to the Drws-y-Nant section of the Dolgellau to Bala road are to be commenced; and if he will make a statement.
  357
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Design work on this scheme is progressing with the intention of commencing the work in 1994 subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures and the availability of finance.

  Radiation Emergencies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he has made in his Department to implement the Public Information for Radiation Emergencies Regulations 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Within Wales, these regulations apply to the small number of employers whose business undertakings might conceivably come within their scope, and to the county councils as part of their emergency planning responsibilities. The Welsh Office has no direct responsibility for their implementation but the Department will be one of the organisations consulted by the county councils under section 4(3) of the regulations.

  (a) Full time1

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Colleges of further education2

  Aberdare college

  312

  302

  487

  Afan college

  627

  719

  814

  Barry college of further education

  712

  850

  1,130

  Bridgend college

  807

  814

  1,120

  Carmarthen college of technology

  1,515

  1,510

  1,682

  Ceredigion college of further education

  508

  483

  576

  Coleg Glan Hafren

  1,138

  1,443

  1,790

  Coleg Glynllifon

  38

  48

  52

  Coleg Meirionnydd

  303

  326

  355

  Coleg Pencraig

  289

  384

  369

  Coleg Powys

  812

  897

  1,033

  Crosskeys college

  1,550

  1,712

  2,046

  Ebbw Vale college of further education

  304

  273

  307

  Gorseinon college

  885

  1,010

  1,169

  Gwynedd technical college

  1,016

  1,102

  1,199

  Llandrillo technical college

  1,487

  1,532

  1,783

  Llysfasi college of agriculture

  29

  88

  226

  Merthyr Tydfil college

  395

  370

  437

  Neath college

  1,323

  1,337

  1,451

  Newport college of further education

  827

  786

  1,098

  Pembrokeshire college of further education

  655

  942

  1,105

  Pencoed college

  31

  52

  129

  Pontypool college

  1,072

  1,130

  1,515

  Usk agricultural college3

  67

  52

  Pontypridd college

  907

  1,027

  1,301

  Rhondda college

  213

  216

  339

  Swansea college

  1,486

  1,892

  2,056

  Welsh college of horticulture

  175

  154

  189

  Ystrad Mynach college

  754

  742

  880

  Colleges of higher education4

  Cardiff institute of higher education

  3,246

  3,415

  3,887

  Gwent college of higher education

  1,601

  1,636

  1,925

  Normal college Bangor of higher education

  528

  628

  760

  North East Wales institute

  3,217

  3,580

  4,159

  Swansea institute of higher education

  1,879

  2,031

  2,428

  Trinity college

  691

  849

  1,071

  University of Glamorgan

  4,774

  5,031

  5,948

  University of Wales

  Aberystwyth

  3,617

  3,712

  4,171

  Bangor

  3,328

  3,523

  4,002

  Cardiff

  8,279

  8,866

  9,887

  St. David's Lampeter

  854

  961

  1,057

  Swansea

  5,272

  5,639

  6,556

  College of medicine

  950

  1,001

  1,137

  Welsh agriculture college

  173

  207

  323

  Welsh college of music and drama

  293

  312

  369

  Goosanders and Cormorants
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy not to issue any licences for the culling of goosanders and cormorants in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 licences may be granted by the Department to kill these birds in order to prevent serious damage to fisheries.

  Further Education
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the colleges of further and higher education in Wales indicating the capacity limit figures for each college and actual numbers of(a) full-time and (b) part-time students during each of the last three academic years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information is not held centrally on the student capacity of colleges. The number of students at colleges of further and higher education is shown in the table.
  359
  1 Includes sandwich students.

  2 Includes students following courses of higher education at colleges of further education.

  3 Usk agricultural college merged with Pontypool college in 1991–92.

  4 Includes students following courses of further education at colleges of higher education.

  (b) Part time1

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Colleges of further education2

  Aberdare college

  1,209

  1,130

  1,098

  Afan college

  1,317

  1,402

  1,385

  Barry college of further education

  2,251

  2,016

  2,136

  Bridgend college

  3,383

  3,299

  3,148

  Carmarthen college of technology

  2,540

  2,509

  3,368

  Ceredigion college of further education

  1,204

  1,265

  1,268

  Coleg Glan Hafren

  3,470

  3,345

  3,270

  Coleg Glynllifon

  75

  61

  43

  Coleg Meirionnydd

  520

  719

  761

  Coleg Pencraig

  759

  654

  582

  Coleg Powys

  4,096

  3,313

  3,229

  Crosskeys college

  1,791

  2,052

  1,745

  Ebbw Vale college of further education

  2,172

  1,516

  1,589

  Gorseinon college

  1,047

  1,233

  1,097

  Gwynedd technical college

  2,378

  2,141

  1,963

  Llandrillo technical college

  3,927

  3,858

  4,033

  Llysfasi college of agriculture

  434

  340

  319

  Merthyr Tydfil college

  1,643

  1,845

  2,060

  Neath college

  2,839

  2,816

  3,104

  Newport college of further education

  3,812

  3,820

  4,383

  Pembrokeshire college of further education

  1,386

  1,492

  1,253

  Pencoed college

  569

  574

  523

  Pontypool college

  2,069

  2,071

  1,920

  Usk agricultural college3

  394

  345

  Pontypridd college

  2,880

  2,925

  2,721

  Rhondda college

  1,337

  1,425

  1,317

  Swansea college

  4,004

  3,926

  3,841

  Welsh college of horticulture

  153

  134

  150

  Ystrad Mynach college

  1,444

  1,718

  1,809

  Colleges of higher education4

  Cardiff institute of higher education

  2,877

  2,523

  2,391

  Gwent college of higher education

  2,788

  2,664

  2,834

  Normal college Bangor of higher education

  115

  99

  73

  North East Wales institute

  5,839

  5,362

  5,113

  Swansea institute of higher education

  2,060

  1,830

  1,736

  Trinity college

  —

  —

  —

  University of Glamorgan

  1,485

  1,760

  2,150

  University of Wales

  Aberystwyth

  312

  301

  331

  Bangor

  278

  296

  289

  Cardiff

  1,021

  1,203

  1,178

  St. David's Lampeter

  43

  51

  93

  Swansea

  453

  417

  568

  College of medicine

  170

  200

  218

  Welsh agriculture college

  22

  —

  —

  Welsh college of music and drama

  213

  218

  242

  1 Includes evening only, open/distance learning and linked students at colleges of further and higher education but excludes students on continuing education courses at the University of Wales.

  2 Includes students following courses of higher education at colleges of further education.

  3 Usk agricultural college merged with Pontypool college in 1991–92.

  4 Includes students following courses of further education at colleges of higher education.

  Milk (Sulphur-35)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how often his Department conducts sampling of the sulphur-35 radioactive content of bulk milk samples near the Trawsfynydd and Wylfa nuclear plants.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The food science division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food co-ordinates the monitoring for sulphur-35 activity in milk samples from around Trawsfynydd and Wylfa nuclear power 360
  stations on behalf of my Department. Milk samples are collected weekly from certain local farms and are bulk tested every quarter.

  Monitoring results show that levels found as a result of discharges from Trawsfynydd and Wylfa nuclear power stations are well within international and national guidelines.

  This particular monitoring forms part of a comprehensive programme for monitoring radioactivity levels in food and agricultural products in England and Wales. The results are published annually in the "Terrestrial Radioactivity Monitoring Programme" (TRAMP) reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  One-stop Shops
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, c.99, if he will give the names of the members of the enterprise and business support working group; when they started work; and when he estimates they will produce an interim report on one-stop shops for business and technology information.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The names of the members are:

  Mr. B. Adcock, Council of Welsh Districts

  Mr. J. Driscoll, Coopers, Lybrand Deloitte

  Mr. P. Fortune, Wales Enterprise

  Mr. A. Fretter, Assembly of Welsh Counties

  Mr. R. Geldard, Federation of Welsh Chambers of Commerce

  Mr. G. Jackson, Development Board for Rural Wales

  Ms. B. Pold, Computer Advisory Services

  Mr. E. Roberts, Assembly of Welsh Counties

  Mr. M. Robinson, National Westminster Bank Plc

  Mr. P. Sheldon, South Glamorgan TEC

  Mr. M. Thomas, Welsh Development Agency

  Mr. J. Troth, North East Wales TEC

  Mr. A. Williams, Mid Glamorgan TEC

  Mr. T. Withnall, Dependable Packs Ltd.

  The Group is chaired by Mr. J. F. Craig, a deputy secretary at the Welsh Office. In addition the following officials of my Department attended the meetings: Mr. C. L. Jones, Mr. M. J. Clancy, Mr. D. T. Richards, Dr. R. J. Loveland.

  The group has been asked to produce its report by May 1993.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report,
  c. 99, when the Welsh Office received the request for financial assistance from the Welsh Economic Research Unit.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A request from the South East Wales Economic Forum was first received on 15 May 1992.

  Business and Technology Information
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report,
  c. 99, on business and technology information, if he will specify which are the five colleges for which technology audits are being carried out, and which are the three colleges being assisted via the EC STRIDE programme.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Technology audits are being carried out in the University of Wales colleges of Aberystwyth, Cardiff, Swansea and North Wales, and also in the University of Glamorgan.

  The Carmarthenshire college of technology and art; the North East Wales institute of higher education; and the University of Glamorgan have been offered assistance via the EC STRIDE programme.

  Health Line Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 2 February how many calls there have been since 30 November 1992 on Health Line Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Between 30 November 1992 and 29 January 1993 a total of 211 telephone calls were received by Health Line Wales.

  Wilprint Group
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of his departmental printing budget was awarded to the Wilprint Group in the years 1990 to 1992.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The proportion of the departmental printing budget awarded to the Wilprint Group was:

  1. Central Printing Budget:

  1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991: All work placed via HMSO

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992: 1.2 per cent. of work placed with Wilprint

  2. Publicity Budgets (including design and delivery)

  1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991: 10.8 per cent. of work placed with Wilprint

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992: 2.3 per cent. of work placed with Wilprint

  3. Programme Budgets
  The information requested could not be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to issue departmental press releases by electronic mail.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None, but the matter is kept under review.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each local education authority for each of the last three years the number of appeals made against statements of special educational needs; and what is the estimated cost of running the system in each local education authority.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information is not held centrally on the number of appeals against the provision in a statement of special educational needs which went before a local appeals committee nor of the costs of running the system in each local education authority. However, the number of appeals against statements to my right hon. Friend are shown as follows:

  LEA

  Appeals made

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Gwynedd

  12

  1

  —

  —

  Clwyd

  1

  —

  2

  —

  South Glamorgan

  24

  —

  —

  —

  Powys

  11

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  —

  1

  —

  West Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 One withdrawn.

  2 Three withdrawn.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Armenia
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's response to the recent appeal by the President of Armenia for international emergency aid.
  363
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom gave £450,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees at the end of 1992 for their emergency relief work in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. We also contribute through the European Community; Armenia's 38 mecu (£26.4 million) share of the EC's 1.25 becu loan to the FSU for humanitarian needs is currently being drawn down.

  The major problem at the moment is getting supplies into Armenia, and we have been working with our partners to overcome these difficulties. Following the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 1 February, an urgent assessment is being undertaken and we have expressed the view that it should concentrate particularly on the political and logistical problems of delivering supplies. The Commission also confirmed its readiness to use part of its emergency humanitarian aid reserve (circa 10 mecu (£7 million) in 1993) for Armenia if needed. Officials of the EC's technical assistance programme, who are in Armenia, are assessing food needs.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the supply of food and medical aid from the European Community to Armenia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: Last winter Armenia received a share of the Community's 250 mecu (£175 million) humanitarian aid grant for the whole of the former Soviet Union. Additionally, an EC loan facility to the value of 38 mecu (£26.4 million) is available to Armenia as a whole, of which the Armenian Government have allocated 36 mecu (£25 million) for food

  Project aid

  £ thousand

  Financial aid (excluding ATP)

  Technical co-operation (excluding ATP)

  Aid and trade provision

  Programme aid

  Other technical co-operation

  Debt relief

  Humanitarian assistance

  Total

  1987–88

  2,181

  6,139

  5,496

  —

  137

  —

  63

  14,017

  1988–89

  4,848

  7,599

  7,230

  —

  42

  —

  —

  19,719

  1989–90

  5,289

  6,968

  1,248

  —

  48

  —

  78

  13,631

  1990–91

  1,654

  9,681

  2,845

  —

  34

  —

  194

  14,409

  1991–92

  1,658

  7,179

  591

  —

  30

  —

  70

  9,528

  Source: British Aid Statistics.

  Project

  Location

  Agriculture and livestock

  Agricultural research scholarship scheme

  Country-wide application

  Cambridge/Peradeniya veterinary link

  Kandy

  Audio visual centre, Peradeniya

  Kandy

  Reading—Ruhuna link

  Ruhuna

  Peradeniya collaboration project

  Kandy

  Coconut processing

  Country-wide

  Grain storage

  Country-wide

  Draught animal research

  Country-wide

  Forestry

  Victoria land use mapping project

  Central uplands of Sri Lanka

  Forestry and land use mapping; management and plantation; forestry research and information

  Emphasis on forest conservation and planting in the uplands; some aspects of wider application

  Sri Jayawardenepura university

  Colombo

  Oxford Forestry Institute/Peradeniya

  Kandy

  Fishing

  Sandskipper

  South East coastal zone

  364
  stuffs and 2 mecu (£1.4 million) for medical supplies. The bulk of the supplies have not yet arrived owing to the problems of transportation through neighbouring states.

  We have been working with our partners to try to overcome these problems. Following the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 1 February, an urgent assessment is being carried out and we have expressed the view that it should concentrate particularly on the political and logistical problems of delivering supplies. The Commission also confirmed its readiness to use part of its emergency humanitarian aid reserve (circa 10 mecu (£7 million) in 1993) for Armenia if necessary.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support the European Community is providing to the care and treatment of Armenian and Azeri refugees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: Last year the Community gave 2 mecu (£1.4 million) of emergency humanitarian aid specifically to refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh. The EC has also made available a 38 mecu (£26.4 million) loan facility for humanitarian purposes to Armenia as a whole.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the amount of financial aid given to Sri Lanka in each of the last five years; what specific projects this aid was given for; and where in Sri Lanka these projects were to be developed.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The amount of aid given to Sri Lanka in each of the last five years is as follows:

  This aid was provided for a wide range of projects including:
  365

  Project

  Location

  Ruhuna—Stirling link

  Ruhuna

  Mahaweli hatchery

  Central uplands

  Bay of Bengal project

  Coastal Sri Lanka

  Land development and irrigation

  BGS radial wells project

  Country-wide

  Energy

  Wood burning stoves

  Country-wide

  Samanalawewa hydro project

  Samanalawewa

  Power IX

  Colombo

  Samanalawewa archaeological project

  Samanalawewa

  Construction

  Victoria dam

  Upper Mahaweli

  Roads

  Colombo roads

  Colombo

  Monaragala roads feasibility study

  Monaragala

  Roads development authority

  Colombo

  Air Transport

  Colombo airport security

  Colombo

  Transport

  Tractor rehabilitation

  Country-wide/Colombo

  Buses

  Country-wide/Colombo

  Assistance to state transport board

  Country-wide

  Public administration

  Sri Lanka institute for development administration

  Colombo

  Bradford project planning

  Colombo

  Water and sanitation

  Loughborough WEDC

  Country-wide

  Hill country water supply

  Central uplands

  Housing

  Galle housing project

  Galle

  Education

  Colombo

  English teacher training college

  Regional English support centres

  Country-wide

  Department of English education

  Colombo

  Staff college for education and rehabilitation

  Country-wide

  Leeds—Moratuwa textile link

  Moratuwa

  DPU workshop

  Country-wide

  Loughborough—Moratuwa construction

  Moratuwa

  Technical education project

  Colombo

  Batticaloa Sussex link

  Batticaloa

  Jaffna university equipment

  Jaffna

  Cultural triangle project

  North-central Sri Lanka

  Testing and evaluation project

  Colombo

  Health and welfare

  Anti-malaria campaign

  Country-wide/Colombo

  Cleft lip palate/project

  Country-wide

  Matara health education

  Matara

  Jaffna hospital equipment

  Jaffna

  Primary health care

  Country-wide

  Institutional and other

  Sarvodaya

  Country-wide except north and east

  Save the Children Fund (reconstruction and rehabilitation)

  North and east

  Oxfam (reconstruction and rehabilitation)

  North and east

  Makandura village project

  Makandura

  Colombo municipal council workshops

  Colombo

  Colombo municipal council technical training

  Colombo

  Colombo municipal institutional development

  Colombo

  Note:The designation "country-wide" in the list above means that the project was with a national institution and not location-specific in character.

  Third World (Financial Reforms)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the International Monetary Fund and World bank to ensure that the poorest people in third world debtor countries are protected when internationally required financial reforms are implemented.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have supported the efforts the International Monetary Fund and the World bank are making to help their member Governments ensure that economic adjustment programmes take account of the needs of the poorest members of society, both through the overall pattern of public expenditure and through specific projects and programmes.

  Third World (Military Expenditure)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to urge the multilateral, financial and aid institutions to require the reduction of military expenditure as a condition of third world countries receiving loans; and to what extent this is a criterion when deciding on allocations of United Kingdom overseas aid.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It is for each country to assess and provide for its own legitimate defence needs. However, the United Kingdom actively supports the increased emphasis placed by the International Monetary Fund and the World bank in recent years on the implications for economic and social development of the composition of public expenditure. In the recently completed negotiations on the 10th replenishment of the International Development Association (IDA), donors urged that in reviews of public expenditure, IDA management should address the question of whether adequate levels of development expenditures in the budgets of recipient countries are being crowded-out by the weight of large or rising non-development expenditures, including military expenditure, and to take up this question with the Government concerned wherever appropriate.

  We have made it clear that we consider the setting of an appropriate level of military expenditure to be an important part of good government. It is therefore one of the factors we take into account when deciding our allocations of bilateral aid.

  United Nations (Disaster Assistance)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to encourage the United Nations to co-ordinate international assistance to areas affected by famine and natural disasters more effectively.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We encourage greater co-ordination of international humanitarian assistance in all fora of the United Nations, including the governing bodies of the various agencies concerned. Specifically we initiated the proposal which led to General Assembly resolution 46/182 and the formation of the Department of Humanitarian Affairs in April 1992. We will continue to support the efforts of that Department to ensure good co-ordination, more effective responses to the victims' needs and better value for money.

PRIME MINISTER

  Appointments
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Prime Minister what public appointments he has made since 1 November 1992; and what information he has on the political affiliations of those appointed.

  The Prime Minister
  Appointments (including reappointments) made by me between 1 November 1992 and 31 January 1993 have been as follows:

  Number

  Trustees of museums and galleries

  10

  Civil service appointments

  2

  Members of pay review bodies

  2

  Other appointments

  6

  Any political affiliations those appointed may have are not relevant to their appointments.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a table indicating the rate in pounds sterling of the uniform business rate in(a) Wales and (b) England in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The uniform rate was not in operation before 1 April 1990. The information for the last three years is given in the folowing table.

  Year

  Wales

  England

  1990–91

  0·368

  0·348

  1991–92

  0·408

  0·386

  1992–93

  0·425

  0·402

  The poundage for Wales and England were set in 1990 at a level which ensured that the overall yield from ratepayers remained at the 1989–90 level in real terms. Since 1990 poundages have been uprated in line with the annual increase in the retail prices index as at September in the preceding year.

  Honours System
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to make an announcement on his review of the honours system.

  The Prime Minister
  An announcement will be made shortly.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions Her Majesty's Government have used Crown privilege in criminal cases in the last three years.

  The Prime Minister
  Crown privilege is now described by the courts as public interest immunity. No central records of such claims are maintained. On 1 February 1993 at column 18 my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General provided particulars of cases conducted by the prosecuting authorities superintended by him, in which claims had been supported by ministerial certificates.

  Southwark (Visits)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister how many official visits he has made to Southwark since he became Prime Minister; and if he will give details of the date and purpose of each visit.

  The Prime Minister
  I visited Guy's hospital on 24 July 1991.

DEFENCE

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the role and function of building A1.1 at the atomic weapons establishment, Aldermaston;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the role and function of building A41 at the atomic weapons establishment, Aldermaston.

  Mr. Aitken
  Although we have provided information on the new A90 complex it is not our general policy to disclose the role and function of individual buildings at atomic weapons establishment, Aldermaston.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement about the death of Walter Mallin from injuries received at Aldermaston; what operations were being carried out at the time of the accident; in what part of the site the accident took place; and how many other persons were injured in this accident;

  (2) if he will make a statement about the death of Terence Bishop from injuries received at Aldermaston; what operations were being carried out at the time of the accident; in what part of the site the accident took place; and how many other persons were injured in this accident;

  (3) if he will make a statement about the death of Norman Adams from injuries received at Aldermaston; what operations were being carried out at the time of the accident; in what part of the site the accident took place; and how many other persons were injured in this accident;

  (4) if he will make a statement about the death of Douglas Whittaker from injuries received at Aldermaston; what operations were being carried out at the time of the accident; in what part of the site the accident took place; and how many other persons were injured in this accident;

  (5) if he will make a statement about the death of Peter Allen from injuries received at Aldermaston; what operations were being carried out at the time of the accident; in what part of the site the accident took place; and how many other persons were injured in this accident;

  (6) how many workers have died from injuries sustained in accidents at Aldermaston, listing for each worker his or her name and the date of the accident.

  Mr. Aitken
  AWE records show that a total of seven fatalities among the AWE work force or contractors employed by AWE have occurred as a result of incidents on the Aldermaston site. The dates of each incident and the names of those who died are listed:11 December 1957; Mr. D. Whittaker died as a result of injuries received when he was sprayed with molten metal which was accidentally released from the equipment on which he was working in a research area of AWE. Five other workers were injured.
  26 February 1959; Mr. T. Bishop and Mr. J. W. Malin sustained fatal injuries as a result of the accidental
  370
  detonation of a conventional high explosive which they were transporting on an electric vehicle in an explosives area. One other worker was injured.
  13 May 1959; Mr. N. Adams, an employee of a firm contracted to do work associated with the construction of pressure vessels, died as a result of being struck by a metal plate which blew out from the high pressure line on which he was working. The accident occurred in a nuclear reactor building prior to commissioning. There were no others injured.
  14 September 1973; Mr. T. Hughes, a contractor's employee, died as a result of a fall from a boilerhouse chimney stack which he was inspecting. There were no others injured.
  23 July 1979; Mr. P. Allen died as a result of an explosive charge detonating close to or on his left temple. The incident occurred within the explosives area, but in a room which was not authorised for explosives detonation. The inquest recorded an open verdict. There were no others injured.
  25 November 1986; Mr. R. Preston, a contractor employed as a night watchman, died as a result of injuries received in a road accident on the Aldermaston site. There were no others injured.

  In addition, a contractor was killed on 2 November 1985 as a result of falling from scaffolding whilst carrying out construction work on a new boilerhouse at Aldermaston. The boilerhouse was not, however, under AWE management control at the time and therefore the incident is not a matter for detailed AWE recording.

  The hon. Member will be aware that my Department did not assume responsibility for AWE, Aldermaston until 1973 and that the earlier accidents occurred when it was within the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. We sympathise with all of the bereaved families who have had to live through these sad experiences, and I am sure that no useful purpose would be served by making further statements on individual cases.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the date of the start of construction of building A1.1 at AWE Aldermaston; on what date construction was completed; on what date the building was declared operational; and how long he expects the building to remain operational.

  Mr. Aitken
  Construction of building A1.1 began in the second half of 1950 and was completed in 1951. It became operational in 1952, and is expected to remain operational for some years.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which buildings at AWE Aldermaston will be removed from operational service once(a) the A90 complex and
  (b) the A91 complex are declared operational.

  Mr. Aitken
  A90 and A91 are planned to replace current facilities which will then be taken out of use and decommissioned.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost, so far, in constructon and commissioning of(a) the A90 complex and (b) the A91 complex at AWE Aldermaston; and what is the estimated expenditure required for completion.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not our practice to disclose cost details of individual buildings at Aldermaston.

  Arms Transfers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) of 22 January,
  371
  Official Report, column 464, when he intends to place in the Library the British contribution to the United Nations register of conventional arms transfers.

  Mr. Aitken
  The British contribution to the United Nations register of conventional arms transfers will be placed in the Library as soon after its compilation as possible. It is due to be forwarded to the United Nations by 30 April 1993.

  Amphibious Helicopter Carrier
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in making a decision on orders for the proposed amphibious helicopter carrier.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 15 January to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) at col.840.

  Portland Naval Base
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which organisations and individuals responded to his consultation on the future of Portland naval base; what was the consensus of the responses to the consultation; when he expects to make a final decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Responses have been received from the Ministry of Defence industrial and non-industrial trade unions, the Portland Joint Trade Union Action Committee, Dorset county council, Weymouth and Portland borough council and Plymouth city council. My hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) and for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) have made valuable contributions to the consultation process. In addition there have been a number of letters from members of the public. These responses are currently being considered and I expect to make a decision shortly.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate for the number of service redundancies that have, and are likely to arise, as a result of the implementation of the "Options for Change" cuts and of the overall cost of redundancy payments involved.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  To date, 5,969 service personnel have been selected for redundancy as a result of the restructuring of our armed forces. In addition, approximately 6,400 army personnel are due to be notified later this month of their selection for redundancy. For these 12,369 personnel, the estimated cost of redundancy payments—special capital payments—is £363 million All three services are considering carefully what further redunancies will be necessary.

  Drugs Offences
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel have been discharged from the services as a result of drugs-related offences in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of personnel dismissed from the services following court martial or 372
  summary proceedings for offences of importing, supplying or possessing drugs since 1986, the earliest date for which the information is available, is:

  Number

  1986

  58

  1987

  55

  1988

  59

  1989

  68

  1990

  116

  1991

  160

  1992

  —1

  1 Not yet available.

  In addition, the numbers of Army and Royal Air Force personnel administratively discharged for drug offences, since 1982, are as follows:

  Number

  1982–83

  36

  1983–84

  31

  1984–85

  57

  1985–86

  49

  1986–87

  13

  1987–88

  24

  1988–89

  9

  1989–90

  31

  1990–91

  38

  1991–92

  82

  1992–93

  1287

  1 to 4 February

  The Royal Navy record administrative discharges as dismissed only and do not refer to the specific offence.

  The armed forces have a comprehensive drug abuse prevention programme and the measures taken to combat drug abuse are regularly reviewed.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those nuclear submarines that have been removed from service and are awaiting disposal, indicating the location of each submarine, and stating whether(a) the reactor fuel and (b) the reactor core of each submarine has been removed.

  Mr. Aitken
  The reactor core and the fuel are one and the same thing. The information requested is as follows:

  HM Submarines

  Location

  Reactor core status

  Dreadnought

  Rosyth Naval Base

  Removed

  Warspite

  Devonport Naval Base

  Removed

  Churchill

  Rosyth Naval Base

  Removed

  Conqueror

  Devonport Naval Base

  Removed

  Courageous

  Devonport Dockyard

  Undergoing removal

  Swiftsure

  Rosyth Naval Base

  Removed

  Revenge

  Rosyth Dockyard

  On board awaiting removal

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  EC Butter and Meat
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those categories of people eligible to qualify for EC butter and EC meat.
  373
  Mr. Curry
  People in receipt of income support, family credit, disability working allowance, the homeless and destitute and those living in welfare hostels are eligible to receive food under the arrangements for implementing the EC surplus food scheme in the United Kingdom.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet a delegation of pensioners from Stoke on Trent, North to discuss eligibility for EC butter and meat.

  Mr. Curry
  I have no plans to do so. I am aware of the views expressed by pensioners. To extend the scheme to all pensioners would spread the available food so thinly that it would be of little benefit to anyone.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the amount of(a) butter and (b) meat which will be destroyed because of non-take up by those deemed eligible.

  Mr. Curry
  None. The Intervention Board Executive Agency arranges reallocation among other designated organisations for distribution to eligible categories of people.

  Agricultural Land (Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what area of agricultural land in (i) Lancashire and (ii) Pendle is currently subject to set-aside under the CAP; and what is the annual cost.

  Mr. Curry
  The latest available figures show that 243 hectares of agricultural land are currently set aside under the five-year scheme in Lancashire. Payments to farmers, in respect of this land are estimated at £50,000 this financial year. Similar information for Pendle is not readily available. Information on land set aside under the new arable area payments scheme will not be available until growers have to declare the area later this year.

  Regulations
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a list of all the regulations for which his Department is currently responsible with a descriptive title for each individual regulation.

  Mr. Curry
  A provisional list of regulations which impact on business has recently been put together. Consideration will be given to placing the list in the Library once it has been fully checked for accuracy and consistency of definition.

  Hill Sheep Farmers
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what estimate he has made of the number of hill sheep farmers in Cumbria who will suffer a reduction in income due to the change in hill livestock compensatory allowances; and what plans he has to compensate such farmers;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the impact of the reduction of hill livestock compensatory allowances on hill sheep farmers in Cumbria.

  Mr. Curry
  About 2,300 farmers in Cumbria will be affected by the reduction in sheep headage payment rates 374
  under the 1993 hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme. The resultant loss of income by the hill sheep sector in Cumbria will be more than offset by significant increases in the 1992 ewe premium, the final instalment of which will be paid in the spring.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average level of income for hill sheep farmers in Cumbria for each year since 1978–79; and what was the percentage change each year.

  Mr. Curry
  This information is not available.

HEALTH

  Contraceptives
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the names of contraceptive pills, coils, diaphragms and spermicides available free on prescription and the number of prescriptions for each named item given by general practitioners in the last year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  To release data on the number of prescriptions issued by general practitioners for each named drug would indicate the trading position, and could affect the business, of the manufacturers concerned. It is therefore treated as commercial in confidence. However, the numbers of prescriptions issued in England in 1991 for contraceptives as indicated in the "British National Formulary" chapter 7.3 was 7.7 million. The figures for 1992 are not yet available. The remaining information requested is in the table.

  Contraceptives prescribed in England 1991

  BNF Drug Name

  Binovum Contracep Tab

  Brevinor Contracep Tab

  C-Film Contracep

  Cilest Contracep Tab

  Conova 30 Contracep Tab

  Delfen CRN Pack B

  Delfen Foam B Aero 20G

  Delfen Foam Pack A

  12.5 per cent. plus

  Applic 20G

  Double check spermicide VAG inserts

  Duracreme CRM 2 per cent.

  Duragel Jelly 2 per cent.

  Emko VAG Foam kit 40G

  Emko VAG Foam refill

  Eugynon 30 Contracep Tab

  Eugynon 50 Contracep Tab

  Femodene-Ed Contracep Tab

  Femodene Contracep Tab

  Femulen Contracep Tab

  Gynol 11 Contracep Jelly

  Gynovlar 21 Contracep Tab

  Loestrin 20 Contracep Tab

  Loestrin 30 Contracep Tab

  Logynon-Ed Contracep Tab

  Logynon Contracep Tab

  Marvelon Contracep Tab

  Mercilon Contracep Tab

  Microgynon 30 Contracep Tab

  Micronor Contracep Tab

  Microval Contracep Tab (30MCG)

  Minilyn Contracep Tab

  Minovlar Ed Contracep Tab

  Minovlar Contracep Tab

  Minulet Tab

  Meocon 1/35 Contracep Tab

  Neogest Contracep Tab

  Norgeston Contracep Tab (30MCG)

  375

  Noriday Contracep Tab

  Norimin Contracep Tab

  Norinyl-1 Contracep Tab

  Noristerat Inj 200MG/1ML Amp

  Ortho-Creme Crm Pack B

  Ortho-Forms Pess

  Ortho-Gynol Jelly Pack B

  Ortho-Novin Contracep Tab 1/50 Pushpack

  Ovran 30 Contracep Tab

  Ovranette Contracep Tab

  Ovran Contracep Tab

  Ovulen 50 Contracep Tab

  Ovysmen Contracep Tab

  PC4 Contracep Tab

  Rendells Pess

  Staycept Jelly

  Staycept Pess

  Synphase Contracep Tab

  Trinordiol Contracep Tab

  Trinovum ED Contracep Tab

  Trinovum Contracep Tab

  Schizophrenia
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many sufferers form schizophrenia were detained(a) under section 2, (b) under section 3, (c) under section 37 and (d) under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in each year since 1984;

  (2) how many sufferers from schizophrenia were detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in each year since 1984, in each regional health authority area;

  (3) how many (a) non-offender and (b) mentally disordered offender patients detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983 in each year since 1984 were suffering from schizophrenia.

  Mr. Yeo
  The available information is given in the tables.

  These data are not the number of patients as a person may be admitted more than once during the year.

  Information on a comparable basis is not held centrally for later years.

  Admissions (with a diagnosis of schizophrenia) to mental illness hospitals in England detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 during each year 1984–1986, by regional health authority

  Mental Health Act 1983; Section 136

  Year

  Regional health authority

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Northern

  26

  10

  16

  Yorkshire

  2

  5

  11

  Trent

  3

  11

  4

  East Anglian

  6

  3

  2

  North West Thames

  149

  109

  81

  North East Thames

  178

  159

  131

  South East Thames

  87

  79

  73

  South West Thames

  93

  94

  80

  Wessex

  4

  3

  5

  Oxford

  0

  1

  0

  South Western

  2

  2

  2

  West Midlands

  5

  2

  5

  Mersey

  2

  3

  2

  North Western

  7

  10

  15

  England

  564

  491

  427

  376

  Admissions (with a diagnosis of schizophrenia) to mental illness hospitals in England detained under selected sections of the Mental Health Act 1983 during each year 1984 to 1986

  Mental Health Act 1983 Section

  Year

  2

  3

  37

  47 and 48

  1984

  1,886

  859

  483

  32

  1985

  2,122

  912

  382

  21

  1986

  2,164

  864

  395

  27

  Admissions (with a diagnosis of schizophrenia) to mental illness hospitals in England detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 during each year 1984 to 1986: (a) non-offenders and (b) mentally disordered offenders

  Mental Health Act 1983

  Year

  (a) non-offenders

  (b) mentally disordered offenders

  1984

  4,348

  594

  1985

  4,547

  522

  1986

  4,334

  550

  Hospitals (Activity Returns)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to her answer of 9 December,Official Report, column 690, what was the total number of hospitals making activity returns in England in 1992, distinguishing between (a) the NHS, (b) joint users and contractuals and (c) independent acute.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 9 December 1992 at column 690. In addition to the 1,578 national health service sites making activity returns in 1990–91 there were 217 independent hospitals which had an operating theatre and could therefore be classified as acute. There are no sites classified as joint users and contractuals making returns to the Department.

  The information requested is not available after 1990–91.

  Ethnic Communities
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what surveys have been undertaken by her Department as to the health service provision available to elderly members of ethnic communities in(a) London and (b) England; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  District health authorities are responsible for assessing the health care needs of their resident populations, including their ethnic communities, and for ensuring that appropriate services are available. Monitoring access to and use of services by members of ethnic groups will be introduced nationally from April and will provide health authorities with information which they can use in planning services.

  The Age Concern Institute of Gerontology has recently completed two studies of health and social services provision for ethnic elders, covering a wide range of localities, including some in London. This work was funded by the Department and the reports are currently being considered.

  Chiropodists and Physiotherapists
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will consider introducing legislation to apply the principles of the Osteopaths Bill to state-registered chiropodists and physiotherapists.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have no plans to do so. The state-registered chiropody and physiotherapy professions are already regulated under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will consider the preparation of a factsheet on chiropody in the health service "Careers" series.

  Mr. Sackville
  The need for national health service careers information for a range of occupational groups is regularly reviewed.

  Regulations
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a list of all the regulations for which her Department is currently responsible with a descriptive title for each individual regulation.

  Mr. Sackville
  A provisional list of regulations which impact on business has recently been collated. Consideration will be given to placing the list in the Library once it has been fully checked for accuracy and consistency of definition.

  Down's Syndrome
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which health authorities provide(a) full funding and (b) partial funding for pregnant women to undergo the Bart's test for Down's syndrome;

  (2) how many pregnant women have had the Bart's test for Down's syndrome in the last two years; and if she will break down the figure by age group;

  (3) what information she has on the availability of the Bart's test through (a) non-trust hospitals and (b) self-governing trust hospitals; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines her Department has issued on the use or sale of the Bart's test for pregnant women for Down's syndrome.

  Mr. Sackville
  The provision of advice to clinicians and practitioners on medical procedures is a matter for the professional bodies concerned. No specific guidance has been issued by the Department in respect of biochemical screening for Down's syndrome.

  RU486
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement detailing the progress which has so far been made in identifying the source of the pills of the abortifacient drug RU486 which were imported into the United States of America from the United Kingdom, and about which she has received correspondence from the hon. Member for Congleton.
  378
  Mr. Sackville
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 4 November 1992 at col.291.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the latest estimates by the Registrar General of Populations of those aged 17 years and over, plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years, for each district council area and parliamentary constituency in England and Wales, together in each case with the equivalent year's electoral registration figures expressed as a figure and as a percentage of relevant population.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 26 October 1992 at col.476.

  Neither the mid-1992 population estimates nor the 1993 electorate figure is yet available. The Registrar General expects to publish the mid-1992 population estimates in October 1993.

  Dentistry
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to assist those patients having difficulty registering for NHS dental services in west Cumbria.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is the responsibility of family health services authorities (FHSAs) to ensure that national health service dental treatment remains accessible locally. FHSAs can apply for permission to employ salaried dentists if they consider it necessary to maintain services. Cumbria FHSA is able to assist those people who need help obtaining NHS dental treatment.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental practices in west Cumbria are now accepting new NHS patients.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally.

  The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Cumbria family health services authority, Mr. J. R. Wills, for details.

  Registered Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what distinction is made in departmental guidance to local authorities between adult family placement schemes and small homes due to be registered when the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991 comes into force on 1 April.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department's guidance to local authorities on the implementation of the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991 highlights a number of factors which need to be considered in the case of adult placement schemes. These include the fact that registration is not required unless both board and personal care are provided; the possibility of modifying usual registration procedures where checks have already been made on people belonging to a scheme; the scope for local authorities to waive fees; and the fact that placement scheme organisers may be able to help carers fulfil their duties under the Act.

  Nurse to Bed Ratio
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the nurse to bed ratio for national health service hospitals, annually, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 29 January 1993]: The information requested is in the table.

  Years

  Nurse to bed ratio

  1979

  0·98

  1980

  1·03

  1981

  1·10

  1982

  1·13

  1983

  1·15

  1984

  1·18

  1985

  1·22

  1986

  1·26

  1987–88

  1·34

  1988–89

  1·41

  1989–90

  1·47

  1990–91

  1·55

  1991–92

  1·62

  Price (pence per litre

  Duty (pence per litre)

  VAT rate per cent

  Tax differential duty plus consequential VAT (pence per litre)

  Member State

  unleaded

  diesel

  differential

  unleaded

  diesel

  Belgium

  56·9

  48·2

  8·7

  29·9

  22·2

  19·5

  9·2

  Denmark

  51·6

  49·3

  2·2

  23·6

  20·3

  25·0

  4·1

  France

  58·3

  42·2

  16·1

  34·3

  20·2

  18·6

  16·7

  Germany

  55·2

  43·0

  12·2

  33·2

  22·0

  214·0

  12·7

  Greece

  58·7

  41·4

  17·3

  32·7

  21·4

  18·0

  13·3

  Ireland

  61·8

  56·7

  5·1

  27·8

  23·7

  21·0

  4·9

  Italy

  69·1

  53·8

  15·2

  39·1

  28·8

  19·0

  12·2

  Luxembourg

  39·4

  35·4

  4·0

  20·4

  14·4

  15·0

  18·2

  Netherlands

  63·3

  40·3

  22·9

  36·3

  17·3

  17·5

  22·3

  Portugal

  62·5

  50·9

  11·7

  35·5

  26·9

  16·0

  10·0

  Spain

  56·1

  44·5

  11·6

  29·1

  21·5

  15·0

  8·7

  UK

  46·4

  46·9

  -0·4

  23·4

  22·9

  17·5

  0·7

  1 Luxembourg levies VAT at a rate of 15 per cent for diesel and 6 per cent for unleaded petrol.

  2 Now 15 per cent.

  Bank Notes
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the size, layout and printing on the £5, £10, and £20 bank notes to make it easier for visually impaired people to distinguish one value note from another.

  Mr. Nelson
  The design of Bank of England notes is the responsibility of the bank. The bank advises that it keeps the designs of its notes under constant review. In designing the new series of notes the bank consulted widely with representatives of the blind and partially-sighted. Differential sizes were retained for each denomination to help the blind, and a distinctive bold-coloured symbol was included on the front of each note specifically to help the partially sighted.

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the practice in respect of treating a limited partnership and the general partner of the limited partnership as one entity for VAT purposes.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  GDP
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) of 26 January,Official Report, column 662, if he will give the actual figures underlying the figures listed for shares of total gross domestic product.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information for the years 1981 to 1991 is published in table 2.1 of the 1992 edition of the "United Kingdom National Accounts", the Central Statistical Office Blue Book, which is available in the House of Commons Library. Figures for earlier years are held on the CSO database which can be accessed by the Library.

  Fuel Differentials
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is(a) the price differential and (b) the tax differential between unleaded petrol and diesel fuel in each EC member state.

  Sir John Cope
  The information is as follows, based on data for December 1992 using exchange rates as at 1 October 1992—the date used by the European Commission as the reference for exchange rates.

  Sir John Cope
  Where there is one general partner in a limited partnership he is the taxable person for VAT purposes. However, one VAT registration can cover the activities of that limited partnership in addition to any other activities undertaken by the general partner as an individual.

  Newcastle Tax Offices
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the staff at the Newcastle tax offices was on 1 April 1991, 1 April 1992 and at the most recent available date; and what further changes in numbers of staff are proposed.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The staff at Newcastle tax offices was as follows:

  1 April 1991

  1 April 1992

  Now

  Newcastle 1 Tax District

  137

  146

  145

  Newcastle 2 Tax District

  25

  25

  24

  Newcastle 3 Tax District

  64

  68

  64

  381

  1 April 1991

  1 April 1992

  Now

  Newcastle 4 Tax District

  74

  83

  78

  Newcastle Collection

  53

  53

  48

  Totals

  353

  375

  359

  There will be a reduction of approximately four full-time units in the staff allocated to Newcastle 1 tax district following the removal of trust work from that office in March 1993.

  The Inland Revenue is reviewing the organisation and structure of its Newcastle tax offices with the aim of increasing the quality of service to taxpayers and the efficiency of the operations. No decisions have yet been made about the structure and staff numbers needed.

  Automatic Weapons (Import)
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps Customs and Excise take to prevent the import of automatic weapons from France by individuals arriving at Dover.

  Sir John Cope
  Though all systematic customs controls on intra-Community traffic ended on 1 January 1993, customs continue to make targeted anti-smuggling checks to prevent the importation of illicit goods, including weapons which represent a serious threat to society.

  Television (Expenditure)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has concerning the average weekly household expenditure on(a) cable television, satellite television, video recordings, and other broadcast media and (b) the BBC licence fee.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: The information required is published annually at current prices in "Family Spending", the report on the family expenditure survey. The most recently published report is that of 1991. Copies of this volume are available from the House of Commons Library.

  Gilt Issues
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will publish on a monthly basis for the period 1965 to date(a) net gilt issuance, (b) gross gilt issuance and (c) outstanding sterling denominated national debt.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 29 January 1993]: Figures on gilt issuance appear in table 3 of the Bank of England "Quarterly Bulletin" for issues published before March 1976 and in table 8 of the Bank of England "Quarterly Bulletin" for issues published between March 1976 and November 1991 inclusive. Figures for 1991 onwards may be found in table 3.5 of Financial Statistics, published by the Central Statistical Office. Figures are published on a quarterly rather than a monthly basis.

  Detailed information about the nominal national debt (the total liabilities of the National Loans Fund) is compiled annually. The sterling national debt is published in the February issue of "Financial Statistics" (table S1). The supplementary statements to the Consolidated Fund and the National Loans Fund, published each December
  382
  as a House of Commons Paper also show the oustanding national debt and its components as at 31 March each year.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the amount of capital receipts likely to be released in the smallest area for which figures are available which covers the Hyndburn constituency during the calendar year 1993 and the financial year 1993–94 from the sale of council-owned dwellings under the right-to-buy legislation.

  Mr. Baldry
  At the time of last year's autumn statement it was estimated on the basis of local authorities estimate for 1992–93 that around £2¾ billion of capital receipts would be raised by local authorities in the United Kingdom in 1993–94, mainly from the sale of council houses. No estimates are available for individual local authorities or regions of the United Kingdom, nor for the 1993 calendar year.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the structure of the means test for home improvement grants; what is the grant withdrawal rate for a couple, a couple with one child, and a couple with two children assuming receipt of community charge benefit and/or family credit; and how many such grants were awarded in each nation and region in the last complete year.

  Mr. Baldry
  The details of the means test for house renovation grants are set out in the Housing Renovation etc, Grants (Reduction of Grant) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990 No 1189) as amended. These regulations are summarised in the Department's circulars 12/90 and 5/91 on house renovation grants. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  The level of grant awarded depends in the financial circumstances of each applicant and the cost of the proposed works. The Department does not collect information on the grant withdrawal rates for the groups listed.

  Information on renovation grants awarded is available only for England as a whole but data are available for numbers of grants paid in each English region. The figures are as follows:

  Number

  Grants Awarded

  England

  38,141

  Grants Paid

  England

  18,731

  By Region

  North

  1,954

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,027

  East Midlands

  2,038

  East Anglia

  908

  Greater London

  1,608

  South East

  2,976

  South West

  1,828

  West Midlands

  2,227

  North West

  3,165

  383
  The renovation grant systems in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the appropriate Secretary of State.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that mandatory grants for house improvement should remain mandatory.

  Mr. Baldry
  A number of changes to the house renovation grant system are being considered for inclusion in the consultation paper announced by my hon. Friend, the Minister for Housing and Planning on 12 January at columns 707–8. Nothing is being ruled out at this stage.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses or flats have been bought in each local authority area under the grant to housing associations announced in the autumn statement for the purchase of properties; how many of these properties in each area have been newly built; what has been the average price paid in each authority area for newly built properties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have today deposited in the Library a table providing the information requested.

  I am delighted that purchases have already been approved in over 90 per cent. of the local areas in England, which will take over 13,000 properties off the market. The proportion of purchases approved from builders and developers so far has been around 60 per cent., as these deals are typically the quickest to complete. Last week only a third of approvals were for such purchases, and the great majority of the remainder were for purchases from private individuals. The Housing Corporation estimate that housing associations will be able to buy some 17,000 properties in England by the end of March as a result of these measures, and another 3,500 purchases will be made possible through cash grants to tenants. Taken together with recent substantial falls in interest rates, this package should certainly have a very positive impact on the housing market.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the booklet "How to Appeal", in relation to council tax, will be made available to local authorities.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is planned to publish the booklet later this month, when regulations introducing the appeals system have been made. The final text of the booklet was sent to authorities on 2 February.

  Ecolabels
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he regards the testing of cosmetics on laboratory animals as a relevant criterion in assessing fitness of a product for an ecolabel award by the Ecolabelling Board;

  (2) what guidelines have been provided to member states by the European Commission in relation to the scope for life cycle assessment studies for ecolable criteria studies; and if he will place the guidelines in the Library;

  (3) what is the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board's target for the range of market share to be obtained by
  384
  products receiving an ecolabel; if the board intends to issue an ecolabel to at least one brand of each product; and if he will make it his policy to ensure that an adequate objective standard is met in all cases where an ecolabel is issued.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board has been established to administer and promote the European Community ecolabelling scheme nationally and has responsibility for dealing with the operational aspects of the scheme. I have therefore asked the board to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations his Department has had from Body Shop in relation to the standards of assessment established by the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board; what response has been made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department has received no representations from the Body Shop on this matter. I understand, however, that the Body Shop has raised the matter with the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board and I have asked the board to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board to be financially self-sufficient; and what impact on the timetable for self-sufficiency he expects the rate of awarding labels will have.

  Mr. Maclean
  One of the aims of the UK Ecolabelling Board is that it should ultimately become self-financing. My Department has asked the board to prepare a plan for covering its costs in the sixth year of operation. This target will be reviewed annually following discussions of the board's corporate plan and in the light of the success of the scheme.

  Urban and Inner City Policies
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will give a breakdown of the £10 billion referred to in the oral statement by the Home Secretary of 9 June 1992,Official Report, column 167, as having being spent by the Government on urban and inner city policies since 1985–86;

  (2) if he will give a breakdown of the £4 billion a year referred to in the oral statement by the Home Secretary of 9 June 1992, Official Report, column 167, as being spent by the Government on projects in the inner cities.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Government support for urban regeneration of £10 billion is based on the total of expenditure for 1988–89 (£3 billion), 1989–90 (over £3 billion) and 1990–91 (£4 billion).

  The £4 billion a year total divides broadly into support of £1 billion under each of the following heads:

  Targeted urban group of programmes

  Housing programmes

  Employment, Trade and Industry programmes

  Other Action for Cities programmes, and Scotland and Wales

  Refrigerators (Disposal)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the provision for safe disposal of refrigerators in each local authority.
  385
  Mr. Maclean
  Local waste regulation authorities are required to produce plans detailing the arrangements needed to treat, recycle or dispose of controlled waste likely to arise or be situated in their areas. Waste disposal and treatment facilities may be provided by waste disposal authorities or by the private sector; regulation of such facilities is the responsibility of waste regulation authorities.

  Where refrigerators are controlled waste, compliance with the duty of care requires the waste producer to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the waste goes only to legally authorised destinations. These would be sites that are licensed to treat or dispose of this type of waste, or specially exempt from the requirement to be licensed, or operated by a local authority under a resolution under section 11 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

  Local authorities may bid for supplementary credit approvals for the provision of facilities for recycling chlorofluorocarbons. £15 million is available for recycling facilities in 1993–94.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to issue an updated version of waste management paper No. 25.

  Mr. Maclean
  A revised version of waste management paper No. 25 is in preparation and it is hoped a public consultation draft will be issued shortly for comment.

  Owner Occupiers
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to assist overcrowded owner-occupiers trapped by(a) negative equity and (b) low income.

  Mr. Baldry
  Reductions in average mortgage rates mean that they are now lower than at any time since March 1969, and mortgage repayments as a proportion of earnings are at their lowest since 1978. Mobility is also made easier by the raising of the ceiling on unsecured loans by building societies, and by measures in hand to allow the security of the new property to be substituted for that of the old without the loss of mortgage interest tax relief.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he received prior to his decision to overrule the Boundary Commission recommendation in relation to Leyton and Redbridge; from whom they were received; which favoured an overruling of the Boundary Commission; and on what dates they were received.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Secretary of State has accepted all the proposals of the Local Government Boundary Commission for the boundary between Leyton and Redbridge, with one minor modification to the proposal for Hollybush hill, thereby moving the boundary from the centre to the western edge of the road to ease highway maintenance. This modification was made in the light of a letter of 17 June 1992 from the chief executive of the London borough of Waltham Forest.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy as President of the European Environment Council to place the issue of the environmental risk of transporting plutonium from Europe to Japan on the agenda for the European Community-Japan bilateral meeting on environmental co-operation to be held on 3 and 4 December in Brussels.

  Mr. Maclean:
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: No. The meeting on 3 and 4 December is one between officials of the Commission of the European Communities and Japan. Shipments of plutonium take place only in compliance with stringent internationally agreed standards.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now list by how much each local authority benefits from the area cost adjustment in 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 2 February 1993]: I have placed in the Library a table showing all those authorities which benefit from the area cost adjustment, and by how much, within standard spending assessments for 1993–94. All other authorities receive an area cost adjustment of zero.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the outcome of the consultation on the local government finance settlement for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 January, column 854]: I am today placing in the Library and the Vote Office a further table showing the standard spending assessment and grant entitlement of each local authority. These reflect small revisions to the tax base of some authorities as a result of the treatment of boundary changes.

TRANSPORT

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost to the Exchequer of the decision not to proceed with the construction of the Birmingham northern relief road as a publicly funded road; and if he will break down the cost into its component parts.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Following the decision to seek private finance for the Birmingham northern relief road, the Department reimbursed some £38,000 to individuals and organisations who had incurred costs in objecting to proposals for a publicly-funded road. In addition about £1,000 was paid to engineering consultants who arranged storage of data on the public scheme. The total cost of the public scheme taken to the inquiry was estimated at about £310 million at 1990 prices. The decision not to proceed with a publicly-funded BNRR has therefore produced a substantial saving to the Exchequer.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate at current prices the total identifiable
  387
  expenditure incurred by Her Majesty's Government in relation to the proposed Birmingham northern relief road (a) as a public road and (b) as a toll road.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  About £11.4 million was spent by my Department in working up proposals for a publicly-financed Birmingham northern relief road, mainly on consultants' fees, purchase of land and objectors' costs. The subsequent costs to date of selecting a private sector promoter, negotiating a concession agreement, purchasing land and contributing to the preparation of draft orders are currently estimated at about £6.3 million. Both figures are at outturn prices: figures at current prices could be produced only at disproportionate cost. Some costs of land purchase are recoverable.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date the public inquiry into the Birmingham northern relief road will start; what is the name of the inspector appointed to carry out that report; what is the length of time allocated to carry out the inquiry; and what is the venue involved.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I cannot answer any of these questions because the draft orders for the Birmingham northern relief road are yet to be published. Upon publication my Department will take the necessary steps, along with the planning inspectorate, to make arrangements for the public inquiry.

  ATOLs
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the steps taken by the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure that all passengers whose travel is arranged through package operators are adequately protected through the holding of air transport organiser's licences.

  Mr. Norris
  The Civil Aviation Authority examines each ATOL licence holder annually to ensure that it is managed by persons who are fit to hold a licence and have a financial bond as a guarantee of security against financial failure. Should the bond prove inadequate in the event of failure, the Air Travel Trust, which is managed by Civil Aviation Authority officials, is designed to meet claims which would properly have been payable from the bond.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will specify the types of bookings on scheduled air services which require the organiser to hold an air transport organiser's licence.

  Mr. Norris
  Under The Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers' Licensing (ATOL)) Regulations 1972, as amended, an ATOL licence is required where a person selling air seats on scheduled flights is acting as a principal in the sale to the public rather than acting as the agent of the airline. An airline does not need an ATOL in order to advertise or sell tickets for carriage on its own aircraft.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what protection exists for clients of packaged air travel operators who do not hold an air transport operator's licence and do not satisfy EC regulations.

  Mr. Norris
  Most air tour operators are required by The Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers' Licensing)388
  Regulations to hold an ATOL. ATOL holders are required to show their ATOL number in all their brochures, leaflets and advertisements.

  There are some air tour operators without an ATOL who may currently have alternative bonding arrangements with the Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA), pending the completion of requirements for an ATOL.

  Hereford Bypass
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide a detailed break-down of the Q2/1992 prices for construction of the A49–465 Hereford bypass using the(a) published route and (b) western alternative route 1C; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a public inquiry into the proposals for the Hereford bypass was held between March and September 1991 and in May 1992. The inspector heard evidence on the relative merits of the Department's published route and objectors' alternative route 1C and much of what the hon. Gentleman now asks, with many other issues, was discussed, in principle, at that time.

  The inspector has submitted his report to the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport. They are presently considering his recommendations and will announce their decision soon. It would not be right for me to comment further on the merits of the eastern and western routes.

  Shipping
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all British ships registered by his Department on 23 January, 1 April 1992, 1 April 1991 and 1 April 1990; and if he will, in each case, indicate whether the vessel is(a) an oil tanker, (b) a passenger/freight ferry and (c) carrying out North sea offshore operations.

  Mr. Norris
  I have placed in the Library lists of vessels on the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man registers on the nearest available dates.

  Road Safety
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of the President of the Board of Trade of 17 December 1992,Official Report, column 472, what assessment has been made of the effect on road safety of requiring motor advertisers to include within advertisements a safety warning that speed kills.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No such assessment has been made and I am not convinced that there would be any substantial safety benefit in imposing this requirement on motor advertisers.

  All vehicle advertisements are assessed by the Advertising Standards Authority against its code of practice and those which are regarded as placing an undue emphasis on speed are already banned. I am encouraged to see that there is an increasing compliance with the code and that numerous manufacturers are now choosing to advertise their vehicles on safety grounds. This indicates a welcome increase in market demand for safer vehicles.

  Merchant Shipping
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many representations he has had since 1 January 1992 about(a) the change in the size in the British merchant fleet, (b) the change in the number and quality of vessels flying flags of convenience sailing in United Kingdom waters, (c) the change in the level of the United Kingdom's invisible earnings from shipping and (d) the ability of the merchant fleet to support the armed forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  We have received a number of representations from interested parties covering these and other shipping issues.

  A detailed breakdown of meetings, discussions and correspondence on these issues cannot be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he proposes to make to the cash limits and running costs limit for his Department for 1992–93.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limits in class VII will be changed as follows:

  Class and vote

  Current cash limit

  Changes

  Revised cash limit

  VII, 1

  2,124,259,000

  1-6,314,000

  2,117,945,000

  2

  215,205,000

  1 2-2,300,000

  212,905,000

  4

  171,769,000

  2 3-785,000

  170,984,000

  5

  439,851,000

  4900,000

  440,751,000

  1 Transfers of £3,000,000 to the Department of Environment, Class VIII, Vote 3 for the Bristol Spine Road and of £4,814,000 to Class VII, Vote 3 to cover payments to British Rail pension funds in respect of pre-1975 obligations. These are offset by a transfer from Class VII, Vote 2 of £1,500,000 for certain running costs.

  2 A transfer of £800,000 to Class VII, Vote 4 in respect of certain running costs.

  3 A reduction of £1,585,000 in respect of demand financing.

  4 An increase of £900,000 in grant to the Humber Bridge Board.

  My Department's gross running costs limit has been decreased by £1,585,000 from £393,458,000 to £391,873,000 as a consequence of (c) above.

  Where increases are involved these will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Westminster Pier
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it is part of his transport strategy for London that commuters on the River Thames should have access to Westminster pier; and how many people he estimates would benefit from this.

  Mr. Norris
  I understand from the Port of London Authority, which owns Westminster pier, that the pier is used to capacity in the summer months by existing contractual licence holders, who are primarily geared to meeting the needs of tourists, and that in its present form the pier could not safely accommodate extra commuter services of the type, for instance, operated by Riverbus.

  The River Thames working group, which I established recently, will be studying the general issue of commuter access to the river, including the potential benefits which improved access could bring.

  Air Navigation Licences
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will instruct the Civil Aviation Authority not to issue any further licences under the Air Navigation Order 1989, or under section 38 of the Airports Act 1986, and to withdraw any licences already issued but not yet operated upon, in circumstances where no public announcement of the issue of the licence was made;

  (2) if he will instruct the Civil Aviation Authority not to issue any further licences under the Air Navigation Order 1989, or under section 38 of the Airport Act 1986, and to withdraw any licences already issued but not yet operated upon, in circustances where the operation of the licence could affect the operations of an airport within a 30-mile radius;

  (3) if he will instruct the Civil Aviation Authority not to issue any further licences under the Air Navigation Order 1989, or under section 38 of the Airports Act 1986, and to withdraw any licences alrady issued but not yet operated upon, in circumstances where the putative licence operator has previously given assurances that no such operation would be commenced and the operations under the order will cause financial damage to private citizens;

  (4) if he will instruct the Civil Aviation Authority not to issue any further licenses under the Air Navigation Order 1989, or under section 38 of the Airports Act 1986, and to withdraw any licences already issued but not yet operated upon, in circumstances where no planned permission has been obtained;

  (5) if he will instruct the Civil Aviation Authority not to issue any further licences under the Air Navigation Order 1989, or under section 38 of the Airports Act 1986, and to withdraw any licences already issued but not yet operated upon, in circumstances where the operation of the licence would affect the value of an airport within a 30-mile radius.

  Mr. Norris
  Licensing of airfields under the Air Navigation Order, and the grant of applications under section 38 of the Airports Act are matters for the Civil Aviation Authority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has no powers to direct the Civil Aviation Authority in these circumstances.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will instruct the Civil Aviation Authority not to issue any further licences under the Air Navigation Order 1989, or under section 38 of the Airports Act 1986, and to withdraw any licences already issued but not yet operated upon, in circumstances where there would be potential environmental damage, and a full environmental impact assessment has not been carried out and publicly discussed.

  Mr. Norris
  No. The circumstances under which a full environmental impact assessment would be required for an airport/aerodrome development, are set out in the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Israel
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the appropriate
  391
  steps that will be taken to ensure that Israel complies with United Nations Security Council resolution 799 on the Palestinian deportees.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have repeatedly urged the Israeli Government to comply with Security Council resolution 799. Their decision to allow 100 of the deportees to return is a useful step in the right direction. We hope they will build on this. We are stressing to all concerned that the top priority is to resume the peace process.

  Muslims, India
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence has been gathered from the Foreign Office posts in India about violence towards Muslims on account of their religion; and what discussions have taken place with the Government of India about this problem.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received regular reports from our posts in India about the recent communal violence there. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed the situation with the Indian Prime Minister during his visit to India in January. We have condemned the violence and support the principles of Indian secular democracy and protection for religious minorities.

  Cyprus
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Turkish Government about progress made by the United Nations on Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary discussed Cyprus with their Turkish counter-parts in London on 23 November. The Secretary of State has since kept in close touch via our ambassador in Ankara. He has made clear to the Turks that we expect them to encourage the Turkish Cypriots to work actively towards a settlement.

  Birmingham Summit
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 563, how the costs of the Birmingham summit were met.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The costs of the Birmingham summit were met from public funds.

  UN Charter
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on adapting article 2(7) of the United Nations charter to take into account humanitarian aspects.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. Article 2(7) prohibits the United Nations from intervening in matters which are "essentially" within domestic jurisdiction. Article 55 requires the United Nations to promote human rights, which are now a matter of international concern. The prohibition in article 2(7) does not apply to enforcement measures under chapter VII.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be taken by officials at the post in Islamabad concerning applications by Shenaz Begum (DOB: 5:7:1979); Afsar Khan (DOB: 31:10:1980) and Shaira Begum (DOB: 5:7:1989) to join their father in the United Kingdom; when their applications were submitted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British High Commission at Islamabad is not satisfied that Shenaz Begum, Afsar Khan and Shaira Begum are British citizens by descent from Mr. Mohammed Gham Ghani as claimed on their passport applications made in October 1991. This is because, according to Mr. Ghani's certificate of registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies, his wife's name is Zaitoon Jan. The children's mother Zartaj Bibi, claims that she is his first and only wife. The decision to withhold passport facilities from the children was communicated to Zartaj Bibi on 17 January 1993.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be taken on an application to the post in Islamabad by Mrs. Janat Begum (Ref: B6038) to join her husband in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The High Commission in Islamabad agreed on 3 February to issue entry clearance to Mrs. Janat Begum to join her husband in the United Kingdom. The entry clearance officer will write to Mrs. Begum, inviting her to call in to collect her visa.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be taken on an application made at the post in Islamabad by Mr. Raja Ibrar Hussain, who was born on 8 November 1962, to join his wife in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A decision was taken by the British High Commission in Islamabad on 15 November 1992 to refuse entry clearance to Mr. Raja Ibrar Hussain as the entry clearance officer was not satisfied, as he is required to be under the immigration rules, that Mr. Hussain was related to his wife as claimed; that the primary purpose of the marriage was not to gain entry to the United Kingdom; and that there was adequate support and accommodation available for Mr. Hussain in this country without recourse to public funds.

  Iran
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have recently been made in international bodies over the continued human rights abuses in Iran.

  Mr. Douglas-Hogg
  The UN Secretary-General's special representative on human rights in Iran presented his latest report to the UN General Assembly in November. We and our EC partners co-sponsored the critical resolution reflecting his concerns, which was adopted on 18 December. The Edinburgh Council's conclusions on Iran at the EC summit in December made
  393
  it clear that improvement in Iran's human rights record, among other factors, will be important in determining the extent to which relations with and confidence in Iran can be developed.

  South Korea
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the withdrawal of British personnel from South Korea.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on 18 January at column 50.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answers to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 18 January,Official Report, column 38, when he expects to introduce primary legislation on the chemical weapons convention; and which interested bodies he will consult on the implementation in the United Kingdom of the chemical weapons convention.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Legislation to implement the United Kingdom's obligations under the chemical weapons convention will be introduced when the parliamentary timetable permits.

  Consultation arrangements have not yet been finalised, but those to be consulted will include the Chemical Industries Association, the British Chemical Distributors and Traders Association, and the Confederation of British Industry.

  Steel
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to the Government of the United States of America concerning duties imposed by the United States department of commerce on imports of flat rolled steel from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Needham
  The provisional anti-dumping duties of 109.22 per cent. on British Steel exports of steel plate are unwarranted and wholly disproportionate.

  The actions, brought by the highly protected US steel industry, will not help efforts to secure a much needed international settlement in the multilateral steel agreement negotiations.

  The President of the Board of Trade has written to US Commerce Secretary Ron Brown urging him to focus on these matters at the earliest opportunity. The issue was raised at the Foreign Affairs Council on 2 February.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the recently imposed United States tariffs on steel imports.

  Mr. Needham
  The provisional anti-dumping duties of 109.22 per cent. on British Steel exports of steel plate are unwarranted and wholly disproportionate. They were in addition to the earlier countervailing duties imposed on United Kingdom exports of plate and bar. To penalise 394
  genuinely privatised companies which have not received subsidies for over six years is unfair and economically unsound.

  The actions, brought by the highly protected US steel industry, will not help efforts to secure a much needed international settlement in the multilateral steel agreement negotiations.

  The President of the Board of Trade has written to US Commerce Secretary Ron Brown urging him to focus on these matters at the earliest opportunity. The issue was raised at the Foreign Affairs Council on 2 February when the actions were condemned as unacceptable.

  International Trade Commission
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cases have been brought against United Kingdom-based companies, by United States companies, to the International Trade Commission in each of the last five calendar years; and what United Kingdom Government advice or assistance is available to companies faced with such hearings.

  Mr. Needham
  The table details, according to the best information readily available, the number of cases against United Kingdom companies with the US International Trade Commission.

  The British embassy in Washington monitors the filing of complaints. My officials notify any United Kingdom companies affected by these quasi-legal investigations.

  My department is not in a position to offer financial assistance for legal fees. But DTI and the British embassy do provide general advice and assistance to British companies on such matters as tactics and procedure and in anti-dumping cases are prepared to raise particular points with the Department of Commerce, in support of the European Community, if it appears that the US authorities are not operating their rules fairly. My Department is in any event directly involved in any countervailing duty cases as these involve questions of government subsidy.

  Total number of petitions filed with the ITC involving United Kingdom firms

  Year

  Anti-dumping

  Countervailing

  Section 337

  1988

  2

  —

  —

  1989

  1

  —

  1

  1990

  4

  —

  1

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  1992

  4

  2

  2

  Intangible Technology
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans Her Majesty's Government have to introduce legislation to control the export of intangible technology.

  Mr. Needham
  While current export controls apply only to technology in a tangible form, they in practice enable significant transfers of technology to be controlled.

  The control of intangible technology raises very considerable practical difficulties and while the Government have no immediate plans to introduce such legislation, it is keeping the position under review.

  Nature Conservation Bodies
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the role of statutory nature conservation bodies under the new arrangements for the out-of-round award of petroleum production licences.

  Mr. Eggar
  The role of statutory conservation bodies under the new arrangements for out-of-round awards of petroleum production licences is the same as their role in licencing rounds. It is our general and established policy, before offering blocks for licence in any part of the United Kingdom continental shelf, to consult relevant statutory and non-statutory bodies (including conservation bodies) in advance of any announcement and to attach licence conditions agreed with such bodies which reflects each block's sensitivities.

  Petroleum Production Licences
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how he consulted the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and other appropriate statutory conservation agencies before making his decision to award petroleum production licences for North sea blocks 39/1 and 39/2.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Joint Nature Conservation Committee and other appropriate statutory conservation agencies were consulted about blocks 39/1 and 39/2 in March, as part of the 14th round consultation process. At that time no out-of-round application had been received for these blocks and it was envisaged that they would be offered in the 14th round.

  Biofuels
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has analysed the potential of bio-diesel as a transport fuel in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department of Trade and Industry has today published through HMSO a review of the potential of bio-diesel as a transport fuel which was prepared by the energy technology support unit. The report assesses the economics of bio-diesel production and concludes that a subsidy of approximately 15p per litre would be required for bio-diesel to be commercially viable in the United Kingdom. It also considers the environmental implications of bio-diesel production and use. The review will inform those contemplating growing oil seed rape, investing in the conversion plant or using bio-diesel as a vehicle fuel. A copy of the report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Coal Review
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements he has made for making the evidence submitted to his Department's coal review available to the public in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Eggar
  Copies of the evidence to the review, other than commercially confidential material, have been placed in the following libraries, where members of the public may call, by appointment, to view it:
  396
  Edinburgh:

  The Library, Scottish Office, St. Andrew's House, Edinburgh, EH1 3DH.

  Cardiff:

  The Library, Welsh Office, New Crown Buildings, Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF1 3NQ.

  Belfast:

  The Library, Department of Economic Development, Netherleigh, Massey Avenue, BT4 2JP.

  In addition copies of individual pieces of evidence, other than confidential evidence, may be ordered from the DTI Energy Library and Information Centre, 1 Palace street, London, SW1E 5HE.

SCOTLAND

  Car Crime
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to reduce car crime in Scotland and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office launched a major advertising campaign aimed at reducing car crime in April 1992. Scottish police forces have taken complementary local initiatives. Recent statistics point to an overall reduction in car crime following the campaign.

  Decisions on the priority to be given to car crime in the crime prevention programme for 1993–94 have yet to be taken.

  Motorways
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many miles of motorway in Scotland are without central reservation crash barriers; and what percentage of the total mileage this represents.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are 285 km (178 miles) of motorway in Scotland of which, by the end of March 1993, approximately 32 km (20 miles) will be without central reserve safety fencing. This represents 11 per cent of the total length.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many miles of motorway in Scotland are unlit at night; and what percentage of the total mileage this represents.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Of a total of 178 miles of motorway in Scotland, 145 miles are unlit, which equates to approximately 81 per cent.

  Health Boards (Revenue Allocation)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each health board their revenue allocation for 1992–93 and 1993–94, the percentage change for each health board between the two periods after allowing for inflation and the percentage variation from Scottish health authoritities resources equalisation parity for each health board for each period.

  Mr. Stewart
  Details of individual board revenue allocations for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are contained in the table.
  397

  Health Board

  £ million Revenue Allocation 1992–93

  1Distance from Parity (Under)/Over per cent. after 1992–93 Allocation

  £ million Revenue Allocation 1993–94

  1Distance from Parity (Under)/Over per cent. after 1993–94 Allocation

  Percentage change between 1992–93 after allowing for Inflation

  Argyll and Clyde

  220·299

  (0·49)

  229·154

  (0·87)

  1·24

  Ayr and Arran

  171·197

  (5·90)

  180·855

  (5·31)

  2·81

  Borders

  54·407

  (2·17)

  57·467

  (1·98)

  2·80

  Dumfries and Galloway

  77·968

  (1·17)

  80·548

  (1·19)

  0·54

  Fife

  158·162

  (3·85)

  167·956

  (3·07)

  3·35

  Forth Valley

  126·674

  (1·97)

  137·369

  (1·28)

  5·54

  Grampian

  252·837

  (2·66)

  266·766

  (2·12)

  2·61

  Greater Glasgow

  560·259

  4·41

  594·379

  3·93

  3·17

  Highland

  106·800

  (0·17)

  110·492

  (0·45)

  0·61

  Lanark

  239·761

  (1·68)

  253·617

  (2·13)

  2·87

  Lothian

  403·552

  1·00

  409·112

  0·67

  -1·41

  Orkney

  11·169

  (1·27)

  11·337

  0·63

  -1·29

  Shetland

  12·768

  0·08

  13·542

  1·40

  3·15

  Tayside

  240·393

  4·45

  240·627

  3·62

  -2·66

  Western Isles

  20·638

  (0·95)

  22·704

  1·70

  6·99

  Note: A further £159 million will be distributed during 1993–94 for cardiac surgery, breast cancer screening, bridging finance and other specific initiatives.

  1 Distance from parity affected by demographic change between 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Drug and Alcohol
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve aftercare facilities for drug users in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Scottish Office has made available to health boards £2.4 million in the current financial year specifically for the support and provision of drug misuse services. Assistance is also given to local authorities through the urban programme for drug-related projects. The planning and development of services are primarily the responsibility of health boards and local authorities, in consultation with the voluntary sector and having regard to local circumstances.

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Number of Addicts Notified

  Proportion1 of Population (per 100,000)

  Number of Addicts Notified

  Proportion of Population (per 100,000)

  Number of Addicts Notified

  Proportion of Population (per 100,000)

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board

  21

  5: 100,000

  29

  7: 100,000

  55

  13: 100,000

  Strathclyde Region2

  268

  12: 100,000

  370

  16: 100,000

  483

  21: 100,000

  Scotland

  728

  14: 100,000

  1,184

  23: 100,000

  1,480

  29: 100,000

  1 The figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

  2 Aggregation of figures for Argyll and Clyde, Ayrshire and Arran, Greater Glasgow and Lanarkshire Health Boards.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provisions are to be made for residential care and treatment for drug and alcohol abuse and misuse under the new community care arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart:
  [holding answer 4 February, 1993]: From 1 April 1993, under the NHS and Community Care Act 1990, local authorities will make provision within community care plans for people who misuse alcohol and drugs. They will be responsible for assessing the social needs of individual alcohol and drug misusers and arranging appropriate packages of care, including residential care provision. Residential services offer a number of different treatment approaches, and local authorities will need to ensure that individuals are referred to a service best suited to their needs. The Scottish Home and Health Department will shortly be issuing special
  398
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the numbers of notifications of drug addicts and the proportions of the communities in(a) Greenock, (b) Port Glasgow, (c) Paisley, (d) Strathclyde and (e) Scotland as a whole in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: Information on addicts notified to the Home Office from Scotland is collected on a health board rather than town or regional basis. The table gives the number of notifications and the proportions of the population they represent in 1989, 1990 and 1991 for (a) Argyll and Clyde health board, within which Greenock, Port Glasgow and Paisley lie; (b) Strathclyde; and (c) Scotland. Figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  guidance to local authorities, encouraging them to give special attention to the needs of alcohol and drug misusers within community care.

  Breast Screening
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the preliminary results of the breast screening programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  A report on the Scottish breast screening programme will be published towards the end of March 1993 in conjunction with similar reports for England and Wales and I shall place a copy in the Library of the House.

  The data of the Scottish report will relate to 1991–92 which was the first full year of operation. Preliminary results indicate that attendance was 72 per cent. of women invited and that the rate of cancers detected was 6.3 per 1,000 women screened.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of long-term unemployed people in each travel-to-work area in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is available on the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. Library staff are ready to assist in accessing the information.

  Investment
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total value of investment and the names of organisations or companies invested in by each local enterprise company in Scotland and by Highland Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise.

  Mr. Stewart
  Investments made by local enterprise companies are a matter for these bodies, subject to their respective delegated authorities. The most significant investments made by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, in terms of value and proportion of capital held, are reported in the bodies' published annual accounts, copies of which are in the Library. I am arranging for the chairmen of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to write to the hon. Member with details of the remainder of their investments.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the right of tenants to buy houses owned by par value co-ops including their eligibility for the relevant discounts.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are two types of par value co-operatives: non-fully mutual co-operatives, and fully mutual co-operatives. Secure tenants of local authorities who transfer to a non-fully mutual co-operative have a preserved right to buy and are eligible to purchase their houses at a discount in accordance with section 128 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988. Fully mutual co-operative tenants do not have a statutory right to buy. Their rights are defined by the tenancy agreements drawn up between them and the co-operatives.

  Dentistry
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, how many patients have been de-registered by their dentists for NHS treatment in(a) each Scottish health board and (b) Argyll and Bute since (i) 1979, (ii) 1 October 1990 and (iii) 8 July 1992.

  Mr. Stewart
  Formal arrangements for patients to be registered with a specific dentist were introduced under the new contract for general dental services on 1 October 1990. No information about de-registration is therefore available prior to October 1990. Information about de-registrations since 1 October 1990 supplied by health boards for their area is contained in the table. Information for individual local government districts is not available.
  400

  Number of Patients de-registered by dentists in Scotland by Health Board area

  Health Board

  1 October 1990 to 7 July 1992

  8 July 1992 to 29 January 1993

  Argyll and Clyde

  49

  2,222

  Ayrshire and Arran

  46

  1,060

  Borders

  14

  1,186

  Dumfries and Galloway

  72

  3,394

  Fife

  10

  241

  Forth Valley

  140

  304

  Grampian

  18

  1,864

  Greater Glasgow

  116

  432

  Highland

  30

  189

  Lanarkshire

  34

  231

  Lothian

  142

  330

  Orkney

  Nil

  Nil

  Shetland

  Nil

  Nil

  Tayside

  47

  184

  Western Isles

  Nil

  11

  Scotland (Total)

  718

  11,648

  Lambs
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evidence he has of infringements of the law regarding the time limit on the castration of lambs in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I have no reports of infringements relating to the castration of lambs.

  This practice is regulated by the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 which prohibits castration without the use of an anaesthetic from the age of three months.

  The code of recommendations for the welfare of sheep stipulates that castration must be carried out only in strict accordance with the law and by a competent trained operator. Where anaesthetic is used, the provisions of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, as amended, restrict operators to veterinary surgeons only.

  The Farm Animal Welfare Council recently reconsidered the general practice of castration of farm animals. On its recommendation the Government are funding a research programme which is now in progress.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average legal aid cost per case at(a) the sheriff court in a solemn procedure trial and (b) a High Court trial, where (i) there is one accused and (ii) there is more than one accused.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not available in the form requested. In 1991–92 the average legal aid cost of a case in(a) a Sheriff court solemn procedure trail was £2,049 and in (b) a High Court trial was £5,716.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average legal aid cost of a High Court of Justiciary trial day.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not available in the form requested. In 1991–92 the average legal aid cost of a case in a High Court trial was £5,716.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average legal aid cost per case at(a) the sheriff

  401
  court in a solemn procedure trial and (b) a High Court trial applicable to (i) the advocate involved and (ii) the solicitor involved.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  For 1991–92 the information is as follows:

  Average cost per case (£)

  Counsel

  Solicitor

  Sheriff Court—solemn trial

  182

  1,702

  High Court—trial

  1,960

  3,358

  Note: In addition various outlays such as payments to witnesses, may be payable.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average legal aid cost per case at the sheriff court in summary trials.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In 1991–92 the average cost per case was £798.

  Records Office
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future organisation of the Scottish Records Office.

  Mr. Lang
  I have decided that, under the next steps initiative, the Scottish Record Office should be considered for executive agency status.

  MV Braer
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the aftermath of the grounding of the MV Braer.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 3 February 1993]: Follow-up action to the Shetland oilspill received the highest priority. The Government's bridging fund for businesses facing economic hardship is now in place; the health survey of people living in the vicinity has started; the remit and chairman, Professor William Ritchie, of the ecological steering group have been announced and the remaining membership will be shortly; and the fishery exclusion zone has been extended. The Government will continue to ensure that all necessary steps are taken.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) business frauds, (b) cheque, credit and cash card frauds, (c) thefts from companies, (d) thefts from employees, (e) offences of shoplifting, (f) offences of vandalism against business and (g) assaults at the work place were committed (i) in Scotland and (ii) in each police force area in 1991.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: The only available information collected centrally is given in the table.
  402

  Number of Cases of theft by shoplifting recorded by the police in Scotland, 1991

  Police Force

  Number

  Northern

  905

  Grampian

  2,329

  Tayside

  2,918

  Fife

  1,064

  Lothian and Borders

  5,750

  Central

  1,723

  Strathclyde

  14,862

  Dumfries and Galloway

  547

  Scotland

  30,098

  Disability
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held recently with the Council of Scottish Local Authorities concerning the new arrangements for the provision of personal assistance services to people who would previously have been eligible for financial assistance from the independent living fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart:
  [holding answer 4 February, 1993]: My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State most recently met representatives of the convention's social work committee on 2 October 1992 when a number of community care issues were discussed. This meeting preceded the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People on 24 November about the future of the independent living fund and its successor body arrangements to be introduced from 1 April.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland subsequently announced on 2 December that in 1993–94 £2.8 million was being added to both Government supported expenditure and to aggregate exchequer finance to cover costs to local authorities arising out of their responsibilities under the new arrangements.

  Disadvantaged Areas
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many producers are entitled to hill livestock compensatory allowances in the Highlands region; and how many of those are located in severely disadvantaged areas.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 4 February, 1993]: In Highland region 3,989 producers were paid hill livestock compensatory allowances under the 1992 scheme. Of these 3,955 were located in severely disadvantaged areas.