Sitting of 16 June 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Resident Diplomats
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the value of locally resident diplomatic representation.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Our diplomatic representatives provide access and influence in order to further the United Kingdom's interests in the political, commercial, economic and other fields. They enhance the security and prosperity of this country and provide a wide-ranging service to British citizens abroad.
    Mr. Arnold: Following the successful development of co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in supporting British exporters, would not it be extremely unfortunate and counter-productive to reduce the number of our missions abroad, particularly when we are having to put such effort into increasing British exports?
    Mr. Hurd: It is increasingly clear to those who follow these matters that diplomacy, the work that I have just described, and trade promotion are intertwined and that, in more and more of our markets, Governments set the rules and, in many cases, award the contracts, so orders are not obtained without knowing the politics and the politicians—and that is not achieved with a fax machine.
    Mr. Hain: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that British businesses and expatriates in Nigeria need the protection of the Nigerian high commission under the excellent leadership of Sir Christopher MacRae? I hope that that praise will not prejudice Sir Christopher's career prospects. One of the commission's officials accompanied four Members of Parliament to observe the presidential elections on Saturday, the results of which I hope will be upheld as they were, by and large, free and fair.
    Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend— [Interruption.]—the hon. Gentleman. He was so polite that my tongue slipped. That exercise went well and I am glad that the high commission was able to give some help. Nigeria will remain a huge market. It illustrates the point that I have just made. During the past year, British exports have increased by 22 per cent. and I hope that a smooth movement back to civilian rule will help them, too.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that probably the most important diplomatic representatives that Britain has abroad at this difficult time in international affairs is our permanent representative at the United Nations? Will he take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sir David Hannay for the work that he does and confirm that it is extremely important that the United Kingdom retains its seat as a permanent member of the Security Council?
    Mr. Hurd: That is our intention. Sir David Hannay sets a vigorous lead in all that he does at the United Nations.
    Mr. Rogers: Is not the Secretary of State being a little economical with the facts in his answer? Is not it true that not only are the number of missions being cut but the Treasury has instructed the Foreign Office to cut the number of staff in embassies? In some important embassies —for instance, in north America—the number of staff dealing with trade and exports is being cut, while staff who deal with media and presentation are being retained. Is not that another example of the Government's policy of being all presentation and no substance?
    Mr. Hurd: I have had no instructions from the Treasury in these matters. We are just entering discussions on the public expenditure round. We have had to open posts in many of the 20 new countries that have come into being in the past two or three years and that has meant retrenching in other places. This is a matter of setting priorities.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I accept that it is necessary to have as comprehensive a representation around the world as possible, for the excellent growth reasons which were given by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and reinforced by my right hon. Friend's answer. Does not my right hon. Friend agree, however, that it is better to concentrate rather more on farther-flung places than on the EEC? In that context, will he reconsider the withdrawal of British defence attachées from Quito and Manila who play an important role in addition to the commercially and locally recruited personnel?
    Mr. Hurd: Defence attaches are not a matter for me, but we do review the size of staff at bigger embassies. In the past few years, we have cut the size of staff by seven in Paris, six in Bonn and 17 in Washington. Diplomacy inside the Community is crucial. For example, our representatives in Community posts are currently preparing for the Copenhagen summit—warding off developments that we would not like and encouraging developments that we do like. That exercise is important for the summit's success.

    East Timor
    Mr. Kilfoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to protect human rights in East Timor.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): Together with our European Community partners and bilaterally, we maintain a regular dialogue on human rights with the Indonesian authorities and raise particular issues— including East Timor—with them as necessary. European Community partners co-sponsored a resolution on East Timor at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva earlier this year.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Fine words, but since the invasion and occupation of East Timor in 1979, one in three of its population has died and Indonesia has been in breach of two Security Council resolutions and eight General Assembly resolutions. Is not it wholly unacceptable for the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence to visit Indonesia and to give both political and material support to a regime whose record is on a par with that of Pol Pot in Cambodia?
    Mr. Goodlad: Neither my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has visited East Timor. Maintaining good relations with Indonesia, which is the chairman of the non-aligned movement and an important member of the Association of South-East Asian Nations, is much the best way of increasing its observance of human rights.
    Mr. Nicholls: Whatever may have been Indonesia's human rights record over the years, it has improved a great deal—but instead of the regime being given credit for that, wildly exaggerated attacks are made by Opposition Members. Instead of indulging in the wild exaggeration that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), would not the interests of the people of Indonesia and of this country be better served if the regime were given credit for the real steps that it is taking to improve the situation?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend makes some extremely valid points. As I said, our best chance of helping to improve human rights in Indonesia and for many in East Timor is through the processes that we undertake.

    Angola
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held in the Foreign Affairs Council concerning Angola.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): Angola was discussed at the Development Council on 25 May.
    Mr. Enright: I am sure that the Minister is well aware that more than 1 million Angolans have been displaced as a result of the war in that country and that the Angolan Government have bent over backwards to bring Dr. Savimbi into the Government, yet he continues to terrorise Angola in the way that the former Yugoslavia is being terrorised. Will the Minister, with all possible haste and urgency, stress on the Council the need for a course of immediate action to assist the Angolan Government—possibly involving the four other Lusophone countries?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I join the hon. Gentleman in condemning UN1TA's action in rejecting the result of the election last September, which was judged by the United Nations special representative, Miss Margaret Anstee, as being generally free and fair. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the European Council will discuss at next week's meeting in Copenhagen the problems of Angola, which are firmly on the agenda.
    Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister be a little forthcoming? Since last year's elections, upwards of 20,000 people have been killed and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) said, more than 1 million have lost their homes. The situation in Angola poses a real threat to the international community as well as being a tragedy for Angola's people. Does the Minister acknowledge that UNITA is in breach of Security Council resolution 785, which clearly states that any party that fails to abide by the peace agreement will be rejected and isolated by the international community? What steps is he taking through the international community to ensure that UNITA is diplomatically and militarily isolated?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is right. We must all put pressure on UNITA, and this afternoon the House is providing the opportunity to do precisely that. The fact remains, however, that a resolution of the problems in Angola must involve a dialogue between UNITA and the Angolan Government. There is no other way in which peace can be brought to end the dreadful problem.

    Exports Promotion
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how his Department contributes to promotion of British exports overseas.
    Mr. Goodlad: The overseas trade services jointly provided by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry offer a comprehensive range of expert advice and support to British exporters through commercial sections in 196 posts world wide.
    Mr. Thompson: Bearing in mind the Government's declared support for a major export drive, which must be sustained to ensure continuing recovery, and the apparent lack of interest shown in the subject by the Opposition —when only one of their members was able to attend a full-scale debate on the subject on 21 May—will my right hon. Friend assure the House that sufficient priority, expertise and resources will be given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to posts overseas to meet the export challenge?
    Mr. Goodlad: British exporters have told us unequivocally, and in public, that they value highly the commercial work which is undertaken by the diplomatic service and to which my hon. Friend alludes so graphically and accurately. That is, of course, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's largest single activity overseas. It is our aim to ensure that the service continues to have the resources necessary to enable heads of mission and their staff to maintain their commercially proactive role and to meet the demands made on them by exporters, directly and via the enhanced overseas trade services in this country.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: How many embassies use their own property to entertain or to present exhibitions of British manufacturing and exporters' interests, as happened quite successfully a few years ago in Paris?
    Mr. Goodlad: I think that practically all of them carry out those functions. The British embassy in Paris is using

    851
    its premises to launch the new Rover model this year. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is an extremely important use for our overseas estate.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Would my right hon. Friend be willing to carry out a special inquiry into the failure of his Department and other agencies to match exports to the European Community with imports? Will he bear it very much in mind that this month we have broken the barrier of the £1 billion deficit since our membership? Is not that a chronic failure which is doing great damage to the l3ritish economy and to jobs and prosperity?
    Mr. Goodlad: The export services to which I referred have made an enormous contribution to ensuring that our exports to the European Community have been as healthy as they have.

    Yugoslavia
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the implementation of Security Council resolution 808 on a war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
    Mr. Hurd: United Nations Security Council resolution 827, which was adopted unanimously on 25 May, gave effect to the earlier decision in the resolution referred to in the question—808—to establish an international tribunal for former Yugoslavia. The latest resolution asks the Secretary-General to make practical arrangements for the effective functioning of the tribunal as soon as possible. We support that.
    Mr. Hutton: What further practical measures will the Government take to support the work of the war crimes tribunal? In particular, might any person convicted of war crimes by the tribunal eventually be detained in British gaols? Will the right hon Gentleman also confirm that the jurisdiction of the war crimes tribunal will apply to everyone within the territories of the former Yugoslavia, including the military and civilian leaders of all the warring groups in that country?
    Mr. Hurd: The answer to the last question is yes, and the answer to the second question about British prisons is that I do not believe that we are likely to make such an offer. However, we shall support the Secretary-General in establishing the three chambers of the tribunal and working out where they should sit, which I hope and think will be in The Hague. We shall also give him general support.
    Mr. William Powell: I thank my right hon. Friend for the support that the British Government have given to resolution 827 and to the measures that preceded it, which have led to the establishment of the tribunal. Is he aware that the nature of the evidence that could be presented against any potential defendant is likely to be driven by witnesses rather than by a paper chase through the archives and that it is therefore essential for a special prosecutor to be established as quickly as possible, so that the evidence that could be presented to a court is not lost through further delay? Will my right hon. Friend support the Secretary-General if he chooses to accept the advice given to him by nearly every member of the United Nations and recommends Professor Cherif Bassiouni as
    852
    the special prosecutor? My right hon. Friend will recall that I took Professor Bassiouni to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign Office a fortnight ago.
    Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his expert interest in the matter. I will pursue his point about the individual, and I agree that it is necessary to establish a special prosecutor as soon as possible. Meanwhile, as my hon. Friend certainly knows, there is already a commission of experts siting evidence, and that will continue at least until a special prosecutor is established.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that if, despite what he has told the House, those who have been responsible for the terrible crimes against humanity in former Yugoslavia are not brought to justice, that will encourage the continuation of such crimes and atrocities time and again? Does he also accept that the framework established at Nuremburg after the second world war is a good framework within which to try people held responsible for such crimes against humanity?
    Mr. Hurd: We now have a new framework, and it is for the Secretary-General to fill in the details. That will not be easy for him, and the House should not underestimate the difficulties, but the reason for the exercise is that which the hon. Gentleman stated in the first part of his question.

    Middle East
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the search for a peace settlement in the middle east.
    Mr. Hurd: Another round of bilateral negotiations between the parties is beginning in Washington this week. There were some encouraging signs at the end of the last round in May that the Israelis and Palestinians were beginning to discuss detail and substance. We continue to urge all parties to work for further progress.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the Arab states are holding up the search for peace by refusing to accede to his request at the Group of Seven conference in London that they stop the iniquitous Arab trade boycott? As the Government's attitude was that if there were a consensus for Community legislation, we should not oppose that and, as France, Holland and Germany have now initiated legislation against the boycott, will my right hon. Friend kindly consider taking more active steps to stop companies such as ICI cravenly obeying the boycott?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the experience of national legislation in other countries suggests that it has a powerful effect. It is largely declaratory and is difficult to enforce, so our course is the right one. Rather than legislating in this country, we seek to urge the Arabs to wind up the boycott. There has been some progress in the Gulf countries in that respect, as my hon. Friend knows —not enough progress, but the Kuwaitis, for example, have reportedly announced the abandonment of the application of the boycott to third countries. We will pursue the matter. The boycott is not the only obstacle to peace, but it is one.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that the greatest obstacle to peace at the moment is the weight of the occupation on the Palestinian population now locked up in Gaza and the west bank as a result of decisions by the Israeli Government. It does not really help to talk about a trade boycott when the producers in Gaza and the west bank cannot sell what they produce in their factories or on their land. If the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) really wanted to help, he would urge that those barriers, and some of the other repressive measures currently "enjoyed" by—or rather, pressed on—the Palestinians, be lifted. That would be a significant boost to the peace talks.
    Mr. Hurd: I sometimes think that it would be an excellent thing if people such as the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who favour the Palestinian cause, would occasionally condemn the boycott, and people such as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, who usually put questions from the other point of view, would urge the Israelis to do something to ease the burdens of the occupation. If the partisans—or rather, as that is a pejorative word, the advocates—of each cause occasionally used their influence and talents to urge better action on those whom they generally support, we might make more progress. Both those steps are needed.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that two of the barriers to peace in the middle east are the refusal of Arab states to recognise Israel and the refusal of the Arab captors to release Israeli hostages who have been held for many years, such as Ron Arad?
    Mr. Hurd: That is another fair point, but it needs to be balanced by the handling of the deportee question by the Israeli Government. The Arab countries that are still technically at war with Israel are not far off negotiating a change, but I doubt whether they will conclude peace with Israel until there is a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That is the most difficult aspect of those negotiations, but it can be helped by confidence-building measures, such as an end to the Arab boycott and the easing of the conditions of occupation.
    Dr. John Cunningham: The Foreign Secretary is right to urge people to play the role of forming a bridge in the difficult negotiations for peace in the middle east, Israel and the occupied territories. I certainly support him in that appeal. Since Britain has a somewhat peripheral role in those matters, may I urge the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear to the United States of America that it, too, should be evenhanded in the conduct of the current peace talks in Washington? Is not it rather depressing that the talks have recommenced on the basis of bilateral discussions rather than all the parties being around the table together? Has the right hon. Gentleman received any approaches from the Israeli Government or the Palestinians, either directly or through the European Community, for Europe to play a part in the economic reconstruction and rehabilitation of the occupied territories; if so, what response has been made? If the right hon. Gentleman has had such an approach, will he seek an initiative of that nature?
    Mr. Hurd: We take a part, through the Community, in the multilateral side of the negotiations, which is precisely concerned with matters such as water and economic development.
    854
    On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, there have to be bilateral negotiations between Arab countries and Israel, between Palestine and Israel and so forth. We had a good run through the subject with the American Secretary of State in Luxembourg last week and I believe that the United States Administration are pressing ahead with the negotiations in the right way.
    Mr. Clappison: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in his insistence on the need for evenhandedness, but does he agree that evenhandedness has not been achieved under the Arab boycott, because at the 1991 conference the issue of the boycott was linked to the issue of Israel freezing settlements? Although Israel has made progress on that, substantial equivalent progress has not been made on the Arab side.
    Mr. Hurd: There has been progress in ending settlements. My hon. Friend chose his word rightly—it is progress, not an end to the building of settlements, which are still going up in some places. We believe that that should be ended and the occupation eased. Equally, we shall continue to press hard for an ending of the Arab boycott.

    Cuba
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about British relations with Cuba.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): Relations with Cuba are correct.
    Mr. Pickthall: The Under-Secretary of State was good enough to give me an encouraging answer to a written question on the subject on 27 April, at column 363, in which he said that the American boycott of trade with Cuba would not have any practical effect on British emergency aid to Cuba. Will the Government take that a step further? They will know that the combination of severe storms and the American blockade is causing severe distress in Cuba. They may not know that Cuban schools and colleges are pleading with Britain for books in English and for other educational aids. Will the Government use their good offices to pressurise the American Government to lift what the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir 1. Lawrence) called an iniquitous trade boycott?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We gave some emergency aid to Cuba earlier this year following the storms and the delivery of that aid was not hindered in any practical way by the United States embargo. The Cuban economy is on the verge of ruin not because of the American embargo but because of 30 years of imposed state communism.
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend must accept that that is not good enough. The Government must strive to establish and maintain more open and fruitful relations with countries such as Cuba and North Korea, so that more people may be made aware of the glowing achievements of those remaining—although admittedly beleaguered—beacons of socialism and central planning. Would not that at least make more people aware that, although free market systems may not be perfect, they are a hell of a lot less imperfect than the central planning and socialism in countries such as Cuba?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Cuba provides a laboratory example of a socialist state gone wrong. We maintain diplomatic and trading links with Cuba, but our relations can improve only if the Cubans hold free and fair elections and respect human rights.

    Western Sahara
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the UN concerning the preparations for a referendum on the future of Western Sahara.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We maintain regular contact with the United Nations Secretary-General through our permanent representative concerning the implementation of the UN settlement plan.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that, for a long time, the Sahrawi people have been denied the right to live peacefully on their own land? Methods employed by the Moroccan Government in attempting to impose an electorate in advance of a UN-sponsored referendum would guarantee an outcome favourable to King Hassan. Is not it time for this country and others to stand up in support of UN resolutions 658 and 690 to ensure that the Sahrawi people get a free and unfettered voice in a referendum and not one dominated by the Moroccan military? Failure to do so will lead to a reopening of hostilities, a terrible loss of life and a further blow to the prestige of the UN. Will the Government act to ensure that those people have a free voice?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We very much wish to see the referendum take place. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the UN Secretary-General has just visited Morocco and Western Sahara and we are awaiting his report which is expected in the next few weeks. We believe that he will address the resolution of some of the problems of representation in the referendum. I expect that the Government will he supporting the Secretary-General when we have read the terms of his report.
    Sir David Steel: Does the Minister agree that there have at least been some tentative signs of compromise between the Polisario and the Moroccan Government? Should not we, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, encourage that and, for that reason, will the Foreign Office lift the ban on Ministers meeting the Polisario? We were late to do so in the cases of the African National Congress and the Palestine Liberation Organisation—let us not be too late again.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The way forward is to support the Secretary-General. The Polisario and the Moroccan representative will be in Vienna during the world human rights conference and will be meeting the Secretary-General. Our best contact with the Polisario is in that way rather than by ministerial contact, because we shall be supporting the Secretary-General's recommendations.
    Mr. Gill: Why are the Government in favour of a referendum in Africa but not in Great Britain?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend knows full well that the situation in the Western Sahara is compeletely
    856
    different. It involves the resolution of an ancient problem in which we wish to see the representation of people who have no Parliament.

    Kashmir
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had about the situation in Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Indian Government on the present position in Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs most recently discussed Kashmir with the Indian Vice-President on 25 May during his visit to London.
    Mr. Canavan: More than 20,000 Kashmiris have been killed and thousands more imprisoned and tortured by Indian forces over the past three years. Will the Government use their influence, particularly through the Commonwealth and the United Nations, to try to get the Indian and Pakistani Governments to reach an agreement whereby more respect is given to the human rights of the people of Kashmir? That agreement could also give the Kashmiri people the right to self-determination, leading possibly to the establishment of an independent state of Kashmir if that is what the people want.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can certainly agree that the resolution of that ancient and difficult problem must require dialogue between India and the Pakistan Government—that we urge. We wish to be as helpful as we can. We have certainly made it absolutely clear to the Indians that we are concerned about human rights. In fact, the Indians have initiated legislation to set up an independent human rights commission. But the way forward must be by dialogue between the two factions.
    Mr. Cox: The Minister referred to a meeting. What was the response of the Indian Minister to allowing an all-party group of hon. Members to visit the occupied area of Kashmir? In view of the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Cunningham), will the Minister give an indication of what progress the Prime Minister is making? In a letter to me in April, he clearly indicated that he would welcome Kashmir being on the agenda of the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in Cyprus later this year, because Pakistan and India would be at that conference.
    Mr. Lennox Boyd: As for visiting Kashmir, the hon. Gentleman must take up his case with the Indian high commissioner. For my part, I believe that it is helpful that there should be visits to that part of the world. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the problems of Kashmir with the Indian Prime Minister in January and with the Indian Vice-President when he visited Britain in May. My right hon. Friend made his views quite clear on both occasions and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I do so as well.
    Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend will know that there is great concern among hon. Members about human rights in Indian-held Kashmir. Will he confirm that the solution

    857
    to that long-standing problem must arise from negotiations between the two countries concerned, India and Pakistan, under the Simla agreement? Will he continue to bring to the attention of those countries, in particular India, our concern about human rights and the fact that the United Kingdom will be available to help both countries should they so wish such assistance?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Should both countries seek our support, we will always be willing and ready to give it. An important point that should be made when discussing the human rights problem in Kashmir is that the criticism that is expressed in the House is often mirrored—indeed initiated—by criticism in the Indian Parliament, from the Indian press and, of course, from Indian human rights organisations, all of which express their concern as well.
    Mr. Waller: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Simla agreement which India and Pakistan signed involves a commitment to start talking about Kashmir, which unfortunately at present the Indian Government appear to be unwilling to commit themselves to doing? Will my hon. Friend use every opportunity to reiterate to the Indian Government that it is unreasonable to exclude from Jammu and Kashmir independent observers such as British Members of Parliament and representatives of Amnesty International and that, short of such acceptance of independent visitors, India's reputation for human rights must be subject to the deepest scrutiny?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend has expressed his opinion. Obviously, contact between the Indian Prime Minister and the Pakistan Prime Minister is highly desirable. They last met at the non-aligned summit in Dhaka in April this year and I hope that they will have future meetings.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister press the Indian Government to publish the names of the 52,000 people held in India, including Kashmir, without trial? Will he also advise his counterparts at the Home Office that, in view of India's appalling human rights record and the numbers held in detention without trial, now is not the time to invite the British House of Commons to pass orders approving the extradition treaty between Britain and India?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should not have proper arrangements for the extradition of terrorist offenders. There will be the usual safeguards in the extradition treaty provisions which are presented to the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The person in question will have to be brought before Bow Street magistrates court. The court must be satisfied that he will not be prejudiced because of his political opinions. The Home Secretary makes the final decision, which is subject to judicial review. Therefore, there is a great deal of protection for anyone who is brought into the proceedings.

    Bosnia
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Mr. Slobodan Milosevic regarding Bosnia.
    Mr. Hurd: I have had no discussion with President Milosevic on Bosnia since the London conference in August 1992. However, we ensure that he is kept fully abreast of our views.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the vicious and brutal attack ordered by Mr. Milosevic on the Serbian opposition leader, Mr. Vuk Draskovic, during the anti-Government demonstrations in Belgrade? Is he aware that there is serious concern about the health of Mr. Draskovic, who is now in prison? He has suffered a broken jaw and a broken arm and has serious head injuries and he can neither walk nor speak. I urge my right hon. Friend to seek his immediate release. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is another example of the loathsome character of Mr. Milosevic, who seeks to promote ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, and another example of a fascist dictator?
    Mr. Hurd: The Prime Minister, responding to the sort of anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend, sent a strong message to President Milosevic impressing on him the need for the release of Mr. Draskovic and his wife and for them to be given full access to visitors and medical treatment in the meantime. My hon. Friend is right—this is a cruel step backwards in the wrong direction so far as Serbia is concerned.
    Mr. Faulds: In any future conversations with this leading war criminal Milosevic, what will the right hon. Gentleman suggest as to the practicality of the restoration of the territorial integrity of Bosnia, which has clearly been abandoned in the Washington agreement to which he shamefully put his name and that of this country?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman cannot have read the agreement as it specifically refers to the need for Serb withdrawal from the territories that they have seized.
    Sir Anthony Durant: In view of the increasingly dangerous situation in Bosnia, will my right hon. Friend ensure that British troops are withdrawn if circumstances become so impossible that they are unable to carry on with their humanitarian aid?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes. At the moment, our troops, as well as French, Spanish and other troops in different parts of Bosnia, are helping to keep people alive in two ways: by escorting convoys which continue to deliver supplies and, by their presence, averting the sort of massacre that would probably follow if they were withdrawn. So long as that is true and there is no undue risk to them, they should stay. But my hon. Friend is right—if the situation deteriorated further to the point at which we and others felt that the risk had become undue, they would have to be withdrawn. The steps that the Ministry of Defence announced last week to the House were formulated in that context.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Is not the Washington agreement on Bosnia deeply flawed? Did not it give, intentionally or otherwise, a clear signal to the Serbs that their aggression would be rewarded with extra territory? Has not President Milosevic been emboldened by continuing weakness on the part of the European Community and did not that result in the imprisonment and torture of Mr. Draskovic and his wife Danica? Is not it time for the European Community and our other allies to say once and for all that we will take whatever action is

    859
    required to ensure that the decisions of the Security Council of the United Nations and the Community are upheld in Bosnia?
    Mr. Hurd: The advice "Something must be done" is the least useful that can be given in these circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman paraphrased that advice and made it a bit longer. but that is really what he said. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) alleged that the Washington statement accepted Serb aggression. I pointed out that that was not so. The pressures for reversing that aggression are political, economic and financial. Those who believe that it would be right to send our troops and other troops to enforce a military solution should say so, not take refuge in the sort of rhetoric which is an obstacle to reality.

    NATO Information Budget
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current United Kingdom contribution to the NATO information budget; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The information budget of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for this year amounts to about £4 million, of which the United Kingdom contributes 18 per cent.—currently about £750,000.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is clear that, despite the ending of the cold war, NATO has a continuing, perhaps increasing, role? What is being done to explain that role more widely?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree that NATO is a successful collective security pact and we shall not throw it away in what is still a dangerous world. Its role is changing following the end of the cold war. It is developing a new role and it is important that it should explain that role to the public, not just in this country, but in the former Warsaw pact countries, which are keen that the stability that we have enjoyed in western Europe under NATO should be extended to them.
    Mr. Cryer: Was not NATO established because of an alleged threat from the east, led by the Soviet Union? Now that that threat has disappeared, even among Tory imaginations, is not it time that we abandoned the massive expenditure on NATO and worked towards its break-up to equate with the ending of the Warsaw pact? Surely that would be a step towards peace. To maintain NATO on the ridiculous presumption that there is some danger somewhere is a waste of money and the maintenance of a useless and outdated empire.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That threat to western Europe was real, even if the dinosaurs on the Labour Benches never recognised it. As I said in my first response, NATO's role is changing and there are opportunities for NATO troops to help with peacekeeping operations. We have seen NATO planes enforcing the no-fly zone in Bosnia. Just because the cold war has ended does not mean that NATO's role is less important.

    Subsidiarity
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to consider legislation passed since 1986 for possible
    860
    amendment or repeal on the grounds of subsidiarity and unsuitability for the United Kingdom, after the Brussels European Council of December 1993.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We are discussing with the Commission and member states action to ensure that subsidiarity is made to work in practice and that legislation is amended or repealed where necessary. The Commission has been instructed to present the outcome of its review on the subject at Brussels in December.
    Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend undertake to double and redouble his efforts to apply subsidiarity not only prospectively but retrospectively after the Brussels summit? If he finds difficulty in applying the principle retrospectively because there is no mechanism to do so, will my hon. Friend work with his European colleagues to try to find such a mechanism?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As a matter of law, the subsidiarity clause in the Maastricht treaty is not retrospective—the House respects that principle in its own legislation. But the Edinburgh Council agreed that the Commission should examine existing legislation with a view to amending or repealing it if it conflicted with the principle of subsidiarity or minimum interference, as it should perhaps be called. As a Government, we are looking at the European statute book with the same end in mind.
    Mr. Barnes: If the Government like what the European Community is doing they say that it is in line with the principle of subsidiarity. If they dislike what is being done they claim that it contravenes the principle of subsidiarity and that matters should be determined at national level. Therefore, the principle means anything that anybody wants it to. Would not it be better to have greater control over the activities of the Council of Ministers, which is supposed to decide whether subsidiary operates? It would help the House if the voting records of the Council of Ministers were systematically printed in Hansard when reports are made of Council meetings. In response to me, the Prime Minister said that that would be done, but it is not being done. Can we ensure that all Departments act on that issue in future? In fact, there are never any votes taken in Council meetings because, even when matters are to be decided by qualified majority voting, they are always passed on the nod.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The principle of subsidiarity applies to all the institutions of the EC—not just to the Commission and the Parliament, but to the Council of Ministers. Under Maastricht, it will be a legally binding principle, ultimately 'enforceable at law. But in order to make it a binding principle we first need to ratify the treaty. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would assist us with that process.
    Mr. Dykes: Is my hon. Friend aware that we welcome his cautious approach as outlined in response to the original question? As the 1986 legislation was mostly to do with the implementation of the single market, based on majority voting, and pursued for the most part by this Government, the question of subsidiarity did not arise as much as people might now think. Does he agree that the amount of legislation coming from the Commission is in any case much less than hitherto?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Even before the treaty has been ratified the Commission is respecting the principle of subsidiarity. That has led to a noticeable reduction in the number of instruments that it proposes. But we are also anxious to look back at existing legislation because, despite what my hon. Friend says, there have been some breaches of the principle in that legislation and we wish to amend or appeal it as appropriate.
    Mr. George Robertson: May I take this opportunity of welcoming the new Minister to the Dispatch Box? He is the 24th Foreign Office Minister whom I have sat opposite, so I advise him not to get too comfortable or he will go the same way as the rest of them did.
    Does not the distinct smell of deceit and hypocrisy come from the Government when they talk about subsidiarity, openness and transparency? What they champion is usually the precise opposite of what they practise. For instance, why, last week, did the new Minister go along with the deliberate decision by the Council of Ministers not to publish voting figures for Council meetings? That was not only in breach of what my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) was told in a parliamentary answer, but in direct breach of what the Danish people were told. This new Minister actually proposed that the European ombudsman should not have access to correspondence between the Council of Ministers and the European Commission, thereby undermining the principle of openness.
    Is not it a fact that the Minister, who was the Deputy Chief Whip, is taking into Europe the same old bad habits of that secret society, the Tory Whips Office, when what the people of Europe want is an open, accountable Community?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome. I was indeed privileged to be in the Whips Office for the past year, where I tried to rescue the Maastricht treaty from the political manoeuvrings of the hon. Gentleman—culminating in that heroic abstention on Third Reading.
    I entirely reject the idea that the Government take the view that proceedings should be anything less than open and helpful. The hon. Gentleman entirely misunderstands what happened last week in Luxembourg. We said, and we received support from all other member states, that the powers of the future European ombudsman should, in this respect, be the same as those of our own ombudsman—powers which work well in respect of access to secret and confidential documents.
    It was a matter of great regret that the European Parliament used that excuse not to agree to extend the subsidiarity principle to its own proceedings.

    Macedonia
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between the United Kingdom and the republic of Macedonia.
    Mr. Hurd: We gave full support to the admission of the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia to the United Nations on 8 April, thereby implicitly recognising the country as an independent foreign state. We now have a
    862
    British presence in Skopje. I visited the country on 4 June and held talks with President Gligorov and acting Foreign Minister Crvenkovski.
    Mr. Lidington: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he join me in welcoming the reported decision by the United States to deploy American troops on the frontiers between Macedonia and her neighbours to try to prevent border incursions? Does he agree that it might be a good idea if one or two European countries that have declined to contribute their troops to the humanitarian effort in Bosnia and have instead chosen to carp from the sidelines considered following that American example?
    Mr. Hurd: The Americans were following the European example in this respect. A Nordic battalion—Swedes, Norwegians and, I think, Finns and Danes—is already established in Macedonia. I hope that the mandates of both the Scandinavians and the Americans now joining can be interpreted or enlarged in such a way that they will be able to help the Macedonians to enforce sanctions. There is no doubt that the main breach of sanctions is now taking place through Macedonia. For the reasons that have already been discussed, it is extremely important that the economic and financial pressures on Serbia should be made effective.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Foreign Secretary, in his discussions with all the people concerned with these matters, remind them that they had better not take a blind bit of notice of what the Liberal Democrats and their leader say on the subject? Three months ago the leader of the Liberal Democrats wanted to bomb the hell out of Serbia and to send in more troops, yet, to a thin House last Friday morning, he said that the troops should be pulled out.
    Mr. Hurd: I have read in Hansard the hon. Gentleman's remarks about what the leader of the Liberal Democratic party said last Friday and I agree with them. Will he please continue to monitor the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Churchill: While we must all hope that the bloodshed in Bosnia will not spill over into Macedonia, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether Her Majesty's Government will ensure that we do not see in Macedonia a repetition of the declaration of safe havens which has been so disastrous in the case of Bosnia, where there was no evident United Nations determination to deploy forces to make areas safe? Have not these safe havens been just a cruel deception, which has undermined the authority of the United Nations?
    Mr. Hurd: Safe havens are an attempt to save people's lives. We started with humanitarian convoys. Then we moved on, despite considerable scepticism. Some European countries provided troops to escort the convoys and enable them to get through. We are seeking to move to the stage of making places safe, but that depends on a Security Council resolution—there is such a resolution—on a degree of local agreement and on the provision of more troops. What is necessary cannot be done without more troops. We are doing our bit, as are the French. Success relies on more countries coming forward in response to the Secretary-General's appeal and some countries are coming forward. Some Scandinavian countries are responding and the Secretary-General is now putting the list together. The greater the number of troops

    863
    that can be brought in, the safer the areas will become and the more likely it will be that some reality will emerge from the rhetoric of which my hon. Friend complains.
    Mr. Connarty: Does the Secretary of State realise how ironic it is that he should be talking about Macedonia in the same terms as about Bosnia? We recognise Bosnia. Is not everyone worried that when Croatia and Serbia have carved up Bosnia, they will turn to other targets? The shame that we shall have to wade through will be similar to what we have done in Bosnia and what is happening in Croatia. In fact, we may find ourselves throwing paper at the antagonists, as the right hon. Gentleman says has been done in the case of the Washington agreement. We should be talking about putting together a peace-making force to guarantee Macedonia's boarders. At the moment, all that we have is a few troops from a few countries.
    Mr. Hurd: The position in Macedonia is different. The hon. Gentleman will agree that the great majority—about 90 per cent.—of those fighting in Bosnia are Bosnians. They are helped and encouraged from outside, particularly from Serbia. There is no substantial Serb minority in Macedonia.
    However, the hon. Gentleman is the only one I have heard who is in favour of sending a military expedition into Bosnia to impose a solution. I respect the honesty of his views, although I do not share them.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Hong Kong to discuss Sino-British relations; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Goodlad: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has at present no plans to do so, but I visited Hong Kong from 29 May to I June. Talks are continuing between Britain and China on electoral arrangements in Hong Kong. We are working for an early and successful conclusion in time for us to hold elections in Hong Kong in 1994 and 1995 which are fair, open and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that pushing ahead with the new airport in Hong Kong is crucial to maintaining confidence for the future there, especially among the commercial community? Can he give some hope of progress in the relatively near future in the discussions with the Chinese authorities about the financing arrangements for that airport?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is correct: everybody agrees that Hong Kong needs a new airport if it is to remain an international trade and financial centre. We have done our best to take account of Chinese problems with financing arrangements and further discussions on those arrangements are taking place. I hope that they will lead to an agreement. Our view remains that if the problems were dealt with on their merits they could be quickly solved and that would certainly be a great boost to confidence. In the meantime, we are maintaining momentum on the airport to avoid expensive cost increases and slippages.
    Ms Hoey: Does the Minister envisage any circumstances in which the Government might renege on the 1997 agreement to withdraw from Hong Kong?
    Mr. Goodlad: No.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A few weeks ago, during the debate on the White Paper about the coal industry, you along with the rest of us heard the President of the Board of Trade and others speak about saving so many pits. We wanted to save all 31, and the Minister said that they would save a few. The news has now reached us that one of the pits that the President of the Board of Trade said would be saved, not shut—Rufford, in the east midlands—is due for closure this weekend.
Have you, Madam Speaker, at any time received from the President of the Board of Trade an application to make a statement to the House so that we can ensure we have not been hoodwinked by the President—because it looks very much like it?
Madam Speaker: If any Minister had sought to make a statement today, it would have appeared on the Annunciator and we would all know about it.
Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It arises from my request to you earlier today for a private notice question—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should understand that once I have made a decision he cannot raise the issue with me.
Mr. Wilshire: I was about to say that I am not seeking to challenge that.
Madam Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman raising a point of order for me?
Mr. Wilshire: I am, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: In that case I must hear it.
Mr. Wilshire: I seek your advice and help in protecting the interests of my constituents, and I do so as a result of a matter that I discovered subsequent to my request to you this morning.
I now realise that on 9 June the Department of Transport published air accident report No. 3/93, briefed the press upon it and gave copies to the press. The report reveals matters of grave importance to my constituents. It shows that a pilot suffered structural damage to his aircraft but failed to declare an emergency although there was one. He asked leave to land at Heathrow airport, in my constituency, but was asked to go to Stansted. He assumed that that request was made because he would overfly—
Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot interest myself in the argument. The hon. Gentleman must put a clear point of order. Does the matter affect our Standing Orders or procedures?
Mr. Wilshire: Yes, it does, Madam Deputy Speaker, but in order to show you why—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am being demoted.
Mr. Wilshire: I apologise, Madam Speaker. As you will appreciate, I do not often raise points of order, so I hope that you will allow a minimum amount of latitude.
The facts that I have given are essential to an understanding that my constituents, who suffered from the crash at Staines, are desperately worried.
I am able to tell you all this, Madam Speaker, only because of the media. I made inquiries and discovered that no local Member of Parliament was told by the Department of Transport and that no copy of the report has been deposited in the House. Is this something that you can look into to ensure that such matters are reported to the House?
Madam Speaker: It is a matter for the hon. Gentleman himself. As he knows, there are various procedures by which he can seek the information that he requires. He can seek to ask questions or apply for an Adjournment debate. Perhaps on reflection he will explore one of those avenues with a view to obtaining the information that he wants.
Mr. Ian Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had a request from the Home Secretary to come to the House to make a statement about his announcement, which most Conservative Members welcome, to the media concerning the introduction of the expandable side-handled police baton?
Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave a few moments ago.

BILL PRESENTED
  CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  Mr. Alfred Morris, supported by Mr. James Molyneaux, Rev. Martin Smyth, Sir James Kilfedder, Dr. Joe Hendron, Rev. Ian Paisley, Mr. William Ross, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Mr. Eddie McGrady, Rev. William McCrea, Mr. Roy Beggs and Mr. Clifford Forsythe, presented a Bill to prohibit, in Northern Ireland, discrimination against disabled people on the ground of their disability; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time,; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July 1993, and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

  Funding of Political Parties
  3.34 pm
  Mr. John Spellar: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the funding of political parties, and for connected purposes.
  Let me make it clear that it is not about state funding for political parties; it is principally about regulating outside donations.
  The Bill has three main aims: first, to prohibit donations by foreign nationals not normally resident in this country, and by overseas companies and overseas Governments; secondly, to ensure the recording and publication of donations above a certain limit, probably about £1,000; thirdly, to require political parties to publish income and expenditure accounts, in the same way as companies and trade unions do.
  I am sure that such measures would be welcomed, not only by the Opposition but by many Conservatives, particularly those who support the Charter movement and who are demanding openness in their own party. I hope that the chairman of the Conservative party will be able to enlighten the Home Affairs Committee about many of these matters later today.
  The House passed a resolution as far back as December 1949 that
  "political parties, and all other organisations having political action as one of their aims, should publish annually full and adequate statements of their accounts."
  Perhaps 40 years is enough time for even the Tory party to catch up.
  Why is party funding, particularly funding of the Conservative party, such a relevant issue today? After all, the brewers have been involved in Tory politics for centuries; even today their influence is fairly substantial. Various shadowy organisations, such as British United Industrialists, have been funnelling money into Tory coffers for years. It is nearly 50 years since the so-called River companies were set up as a secret conduit for funds for the Tory party which it wanted to keep hidden from public gaze.
  It has also been clear for many years, to put it delicately, that there has been a strong statistical link between donations from companies and the chances of their bosses getting knighthoods and peerages. I am sure that that is a matter of coincidence. It has also been a long-running scandal that the Conservative party does not publish proper accounts, even for its own members.
  Recent events—particularly the case of Mr. Asil Nadir —have made this a major and burning public issue. We are talking about some very big money. Donations to the central Tory party came to an estimated £7·5 million in 1989, £7·9 million in 1990, £15·8 million in 1991, and a whopping £20·7 million in 1992. Donations from constituency associations and published donations in company accounts came to only a small percentage of this. So where is the rest coming from? It has become increasingly clear that it comes from extremely wealthy individuals, both at home and abroad.
  Mr. David Winnick: Such as Asil Nadir?
  Mr. Spellar: I am not sure whether Asil Nadir should be regarded as a domestic or overseas donor in this context. We have an estimate of his donation, admitted by the Tory party, of £400,000. The press has reported figures ranging
  868
  up to £1·5 million. It has also been reported that moneys were being accepted from him when it was clear that his business was in a shaky state. We do not know whether the money came out of his own pocket or from his company without even being legally reported. I am sure that his creditors will be most interested in knowing that. We hope that the chairman of the Conservative party will shed some light on the matter.
  British pension funds—and that means, in real terms, ordinary British pensioners—lost some £2 billion when Polly Peck crashed. We know that Asil Nadir received considerable support. What the public want to know about Asil Nadir and others is, what did they pay and what did they get for it? We know what Asil Nadir got. He did not get his knighthood, but he got seven Tory Members of Parliament, including Ministers, to press his case.
  What did the others get and what did they pay? What of some of the other dubious donors whose names have been linked with Tory funding?
  Mr. David Evans: What about Robert Maxwell?
  Mr. Spellar: I am very pleased to hear that the Bill has all-party support. It shows that there is a great demand for it and it is extremely helpful to know that it is widely supported, even from such a dubious source.
  What about Mr. Gerald Ronson, who was briefly a guest of Her Majesty's Government, who is alleged to have made donations through companies, possibly in the Virgin Islands? Jack Lyons was convicted of fraud and stripped of his knighthood and Nazmu Virani is now facing fraud charges regarding false loans from BCCI.
  It is said that one of the benefits to donors was a tax break for foreign business men who are given tax exemptions equalled only in Switzerland, the Channel Islands and Luxembourg. How much is that costing the taxpayer? Is it not ironic that, when the Secretary of State for Social Security, the mad axeman of the Government, is prepared to savage the welfare state, the Government are forgoing substantial tax income from people who already have more money than they need? It is even reported that the Prime Minister hosted a fund-raising dinner for some of them.
  One alleged beneficiary is John Latsis, who was extremely friendly with the Greek colonels. Another is Mr. Li Ka Shing, a Hong Kong billionaire who is well connected in Beijing. He is alleged to have given about half a million pounds.
  It is ironic that the Tories made so much fuss about money going from Moscow to the Communist party. It seems that Communist-connected money is acceptable from Beijing but not from Moscow. It is also said that the Prime Minister dropped off for a special dinner in Hong Kong. We want to know the facts, and so do the public.
  Why should overseas plutocrats take such an interest in our affairs to the tune of an estimated £7 million in 1991–92 alone? It is not just a question of foreign business men; it is believed that foreign Governments are also involved. The Governments of Brunei, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia have all been mentioned in articles. Is the British Government's foreign policy up for sale? What is the truth and how many others are there? The public have a right to know.

  869
  The United States have sensibly banned foreign donations and we should follow that example. It is an outrage that the Tory party should be wrapped up in such secrecy and be dependent on excessively large donations or loans from those who are not prepared to be publicly identified.
  More than 100 years ago, in 1883, Lord Randolph Churchill told the Tory party conference in Birmingham:
  "When you allow secret expenditure, you will certainly have corrupt expenditure."
  It is equally absurd that the Government are not prepared to provide proper accounts showing where the money goes and the level of their debts. It is only when we get a revelation like the spending on the legal bill of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) that the facts come out. The response of the Tory donors was drastic: half a million pounds was the estimate from the current vice-chairman of the Tory party.
  Perhaps that is why the Government are so reticent, but, as Professor Keith Ewing said in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee,
  "Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear".
  The Select Committee may come up with other measures. All I am hoping to do is to enable light to be shed on the dark and sleazy world of Tory political finance which has been hidden from the public gaze for too long.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Spellar, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Mike O'Brien, Mr. David Winnick, Ms Angela Eagle, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and Mr. Gordon McMaster.

  FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES
  Mr. John Spellar accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the funding of political parties: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 211.]
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noticed that my hon. Friend's ten-minute Bill had overwhelming and unanimous support from the House; there was no opposition to it. One or two Conservative Members made noises, which is all that some of them seem capable of doing, but no voices were raised in objection to the Bill. It clearly has the unanimous support of the House, and I am sure that it has strong support in the country.
  May I have your advice, please, Madam Speaker? Given the unanimous support for the Bill, are there any swift procedures whereby it can be enacted? It is clearly what the House wants and what the country needs.
  Madam Speaker: There is no easy way to success in this House. I am afraid that it is uphill all the way.

Orders of the Day

  Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill
  Lords amendments further considered.
  Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 23 agreed to.

Clause 22

  RIGHT TO MATERNITY LEAVE AND RIGHT TO RETURN TO WORK
  Lords amendment: No. 24, in page 40, leave out lines 40 to 44.
  3.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 25 and 26.
  Mr. Forsyth: The amendments fulfil an undertaking given by my noble Friend Viscount Ullswater to Lord Mottistone in Committee in another place. Lord Mottistone had raised a particular concern of employers about a woman who comes back from maternity leave early, without telling her employer of her intentions. Employers have pointed out that if they are unable to plan for that eventuality, the person whom they have taken on to replace the employee during her maternity leave will still be in post. The employer will be liable to give the replacement at least a week's notice and will end up having to pay for two people to do one job—the woman and her replacement.
  I do not expect that such a situation will arise often. Most women will probably choose to take their full 14 weeks' statutory entitlement and those who do not will, in the main, be in touch with their employer anyway and will want to let him or her know their date of return so that preparations can be made for it. Only a very small minority of employees are likely to behave otherwise. However, the Government agree with employers that it would not be reasonable for them to be put to trouble and expense by such thoughtless behaviour.
  The main amendment therefore provides that, in the rare case where a woman seeks to arrive back at work early without giving her employer a week's warning, he or she will be able to send her away again to continue her maternity leave until the seven days have expired—or until the end of the statutory period of leave, if that is earlier. That will enable the temporary replacement to be given the proper week's notice to which he or she is entitled, at the end of which the woman on maternity leave can return to work.
  The other amendments in the group are mainly consequential and ensure that employees are able to choose whichever is the more favourable of their contractual or statutory rights in any particular aspect. The provisions ensure that the position is equivalent—in respect of the new right to maternity leave—to the current situation regarding maternity absence.
  I commend the amendments to the House.
  Ms Joyce Quin: I have listened carefully to the Minister. We are disappointed that the maternity provisions of the Bill have come back largely unchanged from the other place and that we shall consider only this rather modest amendment. We are therefore left with a highly unsatisfactory package of measures covering pregnant women at work and women who wish to return to work after having a baby. It is a pity that the new intake at the Department of Employment has not been prepared, even at this late stage, to take a fresh, positive look at the maternity provisions in the Bill.
  The new Secretary of State is in his place. His reputation was referred to yesterday. He is also reputed to be a pro-European. It seems a great shame that, the day after being appointed to his new post, he should find himself in a minority of one in the European Community —seeming to embark on a route that would not endear him to his European colleagues, with whom we thought that he would work closely and have a great deal in common.
  I am also disappointed that our amendments to Lords amendment No. 25 were not selected and were deemed to be technically incorrect; they would have given us a chance to vote on improvements to a very unsatisfactory situation.
  The Minister explained that the amendment stemmed from a suggestion by one of his noble Friends who felt that it would help employers, although the suggestion does not seem to have been researched in any depth. I was reminded of a comment made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) when winding up the debate. He said that the minute that there seemed to be any conflict between the interests of employer and employee, the Government immediately jumped in without further examination and decided that the employer must be right in all circumstances. My hon. Friend said that that seemed to be some law of nature for the Government. I would go further and say that it saddens me that the Government always seem to be on the side of the had employer rather than the good one. It is a great pity that they seem to react in a knee-jerk manner.
  Good employers already give better maternity benefits than those in the Bill, which is a weak translation of the relevant European Community directive. Only bad employers wish to deny employees rights and are fe]:t to be normal and natural elsewhere. It is they who cause us difficulties in that regard. Such employers exploit the good will of their work force. That seems to be why the amendment was introduced.
  The Minister seemed to feel that not many women, employees or firms would be affected by the amendment, but how widely has he consulted? He has not had much time to consult about the amendment and the wisdom of altering the situation, adding greater complexity to an already complex set of arrangements which govern maternity provision.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Lady is usually extremely generous in her comments. However, is it not a little churlish to complain that no further amendments have come from the other place when, on Report, at her request and behest, we accepted two important amendments extending maternity rights? Does it not add insult to injury for her to complain that we did not consult fully before making amendments when she made no such
  872
  complaints while urging the Government on Report to accept the changes in respect of entitlement to choose between sick leave and maternity leave, for example?
  Ms Quin: I am sorry if the Minister feels that I am being churlish, but having looked at the report of the proceedings of the Bill in another place I was impressed by the number and quality of the amendments put forward, in particular by Baroness Lockwood and Baroness Turner. I t is those amendments that I am disappointed the Government have not seen fit to accept.
  I welcome the fact that in Committee the Government accepted some of the Opposition's suggestions, but to a certain extent consultation was not necessary as all members of the Committee had received wide representation from many people about the particular matter that the Government decided to take on board.
  The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but there does not seem to have been wide consultation or a wide measure of representation on this amendment. It seems to have resulted from a comment made in the other place, to which the Minister referred. Apart from that, I know of no other representations that were made. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us if there were a large number of representations. The fact that he remains silent suggests that he has not been written to by a large number of firms on this issue.
  In many ways the amendment is rather difficult to object to in detail, but we wish to vote against it as it is a symptom of the Government's willingness to see only one side of an argument and to introduce a further element of complexity which makes an already difficult position a great deal worse.
  The Minister commented vaguely on the number of firms and individuals likely to be affected. It is a pity that he is unable to give further information. Certain women who are not well off may feel a compulsion to return to work even before 14 weeks, despite that being inadequate maternity leave. I have seen no figures on the number of women who might want to do that.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Lady is being extremely unfair on the Government. She suggests that we have been one-sided in respect of our response to representations on the amendment from the Confederation of British Industry. Equally, the CBI made representations that were not favourable to the amendment that the hon. Lady tabled at an earlier stage in the Bill's consideration, to give women the right to an extra four weeks' absence where they have a doctor's certificate indicating sickness arising from their pregnancy.
  It is wrong of the hon. Lady to suggest that we have considered only one side of the argument. In this case, we responded to reasonable concerns expressed by business. I explained that it would be unlikely for notice not to be given, because most people will be courteous and have an arrangement with their employer, to ensure that such a thing would be done anyway.
  Ms Quin: I accept that the Minister listened to the CBI's point of view, but responded to a different one—although I do not believe that a particular point of view one way or the other was overwhelmingly held by employers.
  The Government were dragged kicking and screaming into accepting the terms of the EC directive. They did not positively vote in favour of it, but attempted to weaken it

  873
  at many stages in its progress through the Community. When the Minister and I recently crossed swords in a European Standing Committee, the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that the Community should not bother itself with the whole range of social issues. He said that most robustly, and is now nodding his head, even though those social issues, as many members of the Committee forcefully pointed out, do not stem from the Maastricht treaty but from even further back than the treaty of Rome —to the treaty setting up the European Coal and Steel Community, when there was an obvious detailed and firm commitment to a social dimension in European institutions.
  The Government's overall record on implementing that particular directive is far from distinguished. In nearly all cases, the Government have tended to back a narrow-minded employer's point of view.
  The health and safety of the baby is paramount, and the amendment—which relates to the 14 weeks' maternity leave, which we feel is too short—encourages a system that is not in the interests of many mothers or their babies. Although it may be true that some employers like to receive notice if new mothers intend to return to work early, many employers disagree with the Government's overall view and would prefer to see longer rather than shorter maternity leave. They take that view in fairness to the employee and in terms of the ease of finding a replacement for the absent employee.
  The shorter the period of maternity leave, the more difficult it can often be for an employer to obtain a replacement. A strong argument can be made for 18 weeks, plus the period of the right to return to work which many subject to employment protection currently enjoy but which the women who particularly concern us, at the end of the scale, do not enjoy. They are important points which the Government should bear in mind.
  4 pm
  Underlying the amendment is the argument that the Government have used many times. They do not want extra costs or administrative burdens to be placed on business. Behind that is the wider argument, which the Government persist in pursuing despite evidence to the contrary, that employment protection measures destroy jobs. That is the over-simplified view with which we have had to contend many times during our debates. In dealing with the argument about costs in another place, Viscount Ullswater did not provide detailed figures of how the costs break down in this and related matters.
  I beg the Government to reconsider the question of costs. I recently came across an interesting publication produced by Business in the Community and the Institute of Personnel Management. It is entitled "Corporate Culture and Caring" and talks of what it calls the business case for family-friendly provision. Pages 59 and 62 show clearly that for many companies it is cheaper to give women generous maternity leave rather than to encourage women to leave their jobs or even to sack those who do not have employment protection because companies then have to bear the costs associated with starting and training a replacement. In the example cited, the company was saving about £250,000 by giving its employees generous maternity provision and generous help with child care and by following other family-friendly policies. I urge the
  874
  Government to study the publication because a respectable case can be made for stating that employers can save money by offering proper employment protection, especially for women leaving work to have a baby.
  The Government's costings were not very well received in another place. Indeed, they have been challenged there in the report of the Committee that scrutinises European legislation. It was found that the costs referred to by the Government could be offset by other considerations.
  Although the amendment in itself is not substantial, it is nevertheless a symptom of the way in which the Government approach the issue. They have missed the opportunity provided by the Bill to give a fair deal to pregnant women and women who wish to return to work after having a baby. They have also, tragically, missed the opportunity to bring our standards up to those of many other countries in the European Community.
  The Government seem to regard European legislation as a ceiling rather than a floor. In fact, it is meant to be only a floor of protection, and it is up to individual countries to provide extra protection if they wish. Unfortunately, the Government want to get away with the minimum, whereas we believe that they should go for the maximum in terms of benefits and employment rights for working women, which is the fair deal that they deserve.
  Ms Angela Eagle: This part of the Bill, which confers a number of extremely limited new rights on employees protected by law, reveals the Government at their most schizophrenic. The Minister of State in particular and the Government in general believe that any statutory protection for people at work is somehow a burden on business, merely a cost and something which should be reduced to the absolute minimum. Now, however, they are biting their tongue while introducing legislation to give minimum new rights to people who previously did not have them. In this case, it is to pregnant women who do not qualify for the existing right to maternity leave because they have not been working in the same job for long enough.
  What is happening? As has already been said, I believe that the Government have been forced by European directives against their will to introduce rights with which they do not agree. They have therefore tried to introduce them as reluctantly as possible, in the most complex possible way, so that although women will be allowed to take them up, in practical terms it will be extremely difficult to claim them. The maternity provisions in the Bill provide a prime example of the Government in that schizophrenic state.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I hate to ruin the hon. Lady's theory, but may I draw her attention to the fact that all Conservative Members stood on a manifesto commitment to introduce those rights? The notion that we were forced to do so by the European Community is absurd.
  Secondly, were it not for the British presidency the combination of the antics of the European Parliament and those of the Italians would have prevented the directive from coming into force at all. It was thanks to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State, now the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in her role as president of the Social Affairs Council, that we were able to secure the directive, and the rights that accrue from it, within the Community.
  Ms Eagle: I am touched that the Government seem so concerned about their manifesto commitments, although they have spent the past few months reneging on most of them in the Budget—but I do not want to go into that.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: My hon. Friend may agree that if there were any praise to be allocated for managing to get the directive through the European Community, it should go to Christine Crawley, the Member of the European Parliament for Birmingham, East, who moved heaven and earth in the EC to ensure that the directive got through, against the usual obnoxious and ludicrous obstruction by the British Government.
  Ms Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Minister will not be surprised to know that that is also my interpretation of the shenanigans that went on in Europe while the maternity directive was going through the procedures there. Simply examining the record proves that the Government consistently opposed the directive, watered it down and delayed it as much as they could. In the end they could not find it in their heart to vote for it, so they abstained. That makes the case that they are reluctant converts to putting any legal protection for employees on to the statute book.
  Two minor amendments have come from the House of Lords and, ironically, they put obligations on employees rather than on employers. That, too, illustrates the Government's priorities. One of the new provisions; is that a woman has to give seven days' notice if she intends to return early. Nobody could strongly disagree with that, but it is disappointing that the Government have not seen fit to use the Lords stage of the Bill to clarify further some of the practical difficulties concerning the length of maternity leave proposed, which is 14 weeks.
  Many women start their maternity leave with 11 weeks of their pregnancy to go. That leaves them a mere three weeks after giving birth not only to get the child home and start caring for it but to recover and then to think about the practicalities of going back to work and making provision for the care of such a young baby. Even that assumes that women are so mechanical that the date of conception can be precisely pinpointed and that the date of birth will be precisely nine months after conception, so that it will all fit neatly into the 14 weeks. Any mother, and any doctor, will tell us that there is no precise science and that the dates are simply estimates.
  We discussed in Committee the fact that the absurd situation could arise, albeit in only a few cases, when the 14 weeks have passed and the baby has still not been born. We dealt with that problem to some extent in Committee, but, according to Maternity Alliance, 48 per cent. of women still take their maternity leave at a time that they think is about 11 weeks before the birth. That leaves them only three weeks to deal with all the practicalities that arise afterwards.
  The trouble stems not from the fact that women may suddenly descend on their employers without warning and cause practical problems, but that 14 weeks is too short a time and presents practical difficulties, both to the woman and the child, which may affect the child's health. I would have preferred the Lords to consider that, rather than trying to impose more duties on employees.
  There are all kinds of reasons why a woman who has given birth may not be in a position to return to work and leave the baby at home well and settled in a mere three
  876
  weeks. For example, 5 to 7 per cent. of live births in Britain are premature. Depending on how premature the babies are, they may need special care and they may have to stay in hospital, which causes practical problems for new mothers ensuring that their children are okay and that they can visit them. All those possible problems militate against a mother trying to return to work before the baby is thriving and settled.
  One per cent. of babies are extremely premature and that can lead to months of hospital treatment before the baby is allowed home. The existing law and the proposed change in the law says nothing about what a mother in such a situation is meant to do when contemplating returning to work. As premature births occur in a small percentage of cases, the Lords amendment should have considered the practical problems that a minority of women must face having given birth prematurely, with the problems that arise thereafter.
  Ten per cent. of newborn babies have problems requiring special or intensive care, which can last for several weeks. It means that not only are those mothers unable to return to work early but they are not even in a position to return to work after their 14 weeks' maternity leave. Those mothers then have the choice of giving up their jobs or trying to negotiate an unpaid period of leave. Just when mothers are incurring all kinds of costs after having a baby, they must contemplate taking unpaid leave and losing their earning power altogether.
  With multiple births—as a twin, I speak with some feeling, and 30 in every 1,000 live births are now triplets or more—birth weights are lower and it takes longer for those children to reach the stage when they are stable and thriving. There are also practical problems suddenly facing a mother who, with many young children, has the organisational task of getting her home into some sort of equilibrium so that she can contemplate returning to work.
  Caesarean deliveries require a longer period of recuperation for the mother than for the baby. Again there are only three weeks in which the new mother is meant to have sorted out all the practical difficulties and found herself back at work. The problem is not the employer's of having a woman decide that she is going to return to work early and giving a week's notice. The problems are all on the side of the mother and baby. Why have the Government decided to move Lords amendment No. 24, after one comment in the Lords on that relatively trivial matter, and to ignore serious, practical problems that occur day in, day out for new mothers?
  Other issues such as the health of baby must be considered. It is thought that 14 weeks is inadequate to establish breast-feeding—as encouraged by the Government and especially the Department of Health. The number of the mothers who breast-feed is declining, which is a health threat to new babies. It should have been in the Government's mind to ensure that, before having to return to work, a mother was able to establish adequate breast-feeding arrangements for her new baby so that she could protect its health to the best possible extent.
  The timetable for the immunisation of babies is more suited to the old system of maternity benefit than the new 14-week rule. The Department of Employment seems to have given little consideration to these matters, despite the fact that the Department of Health is extremely concerned about them.

  877
  I should have liked the Lords amendments to give some recognition of those factors, yet once again the other place has not seen fit to make amendments to deal with such practical problems.
  The Government are concerned about what they call "costs to business", but seemingly are not concerned about practical measures to ensure the health of mothers and babies and therefore the next generation.
  4.15 pm
  Lords amendment No. 25, rather than attempting to tackle the complex nature of the old system, new statutory provision and extra provisions that employers may make in some cases for the female work force, merely says that women can take the best provision that is available to them. Why on earth does not it simplify and consolidate maternity provision so that employers and mothers-to-be could simply work out the entitlement from a leaflet and plan for the birth of the baby?
  Instead, we have three complex and convoluted systems working in tandem. Nobody is sure how they work together or what provisions a mother may be entitled to. The Lords amendment says that she can have the system that is best for her. Lords amendments Nos. 24 and 25 address the wrong problems. They are too obsessed with disbenefits to the employer rather than practical help to the mother.
  Maternity leave should be seen as a right and not as a cost. If the Government were committed to sensible maternity provision of which Britain could be proud they would have considered it in that light rather than being so churlish about the new rights that they have introduced. Maternity leave is vital to ensure reasonable equal opportunities. It is a starting point for dealing with the many other matters necessary to ensure that women can take their rightful place in the economic life of the nation and in society in general.
  There is a practical and moral case for women to be given provision that they and employers understand and that can be triggered easily. For those reasons, the Lords amendments address the wrong issues. They are too modest and they do not solve the serious problems that have resulted from the Government's seeming unwillingness to provide a simple, easy system of maternity provision that women can look forward to receiving.
  Mr. Richard Burden: I was staggered by the Minister of State's sedentary remark that the British Government saved the pregnant women at work directive. We have spent many hours discussing that, in Committee and in the Chamber, but clearly it has not sunk in with the Minister of State. Therefore, let us again examine how the British Government allegedly saved the directive.
  When the directive was first proposed by the Commission, it suggested that any woman working since the beginning of her pregnancy, whether full or part-time, would be eligible for a minimum maternity leave entitlement of 14 weeks on full pay, with the flexibility of further time on 80 per cent. of pay.
  I should like to ask the Minister of State whether the Government now support that. If he was in the Chamber, he would be able to give me an answer, but I shall return to it when he comes back.
  878
  The directive would apply to all companies, irrespective of size. Do the Government now support that? There would be two weeks' compulsory rest on full pay before the birth. Is the Minister now saying that the Government support that? Women would not lose pay for ante-natal appointments during working time. I understand that the Government support that principle—they just did not want it in the Bill because they said that it was self-evident, despite the fact that several industrial tribunal and other cases have shown that the matter is far from simple in practice. Periods of sickness during pregnancy could not be deducted from maternity leave. The Government have a rather ambiguous position on that matter, and I would like them to clarify it.
  All work-related rights would be maintained during pregnancy. Dismissals linked to pregnancy would be outlawed. Employers would be required to improve conditions at work and find alternative jobs or an improved environment for pregnant and breast-feeding women should that be necessary. There must be a real alternative to night work for pregnant women, for at least eight weeks before the birth. That was the original draft directive introduced in 1990.
  The final directive was approved two years later. It took two years, because the original proposals were watered down and blocked. The state that had more to do with that blocking process than any other was Britain. If the Minister is saying that the directive was saved by the Government, he has an obligation to say whether the draft directive containing real improvements for working women is now acceptable to the Government. If it is not, his statement that the Government saved the directive is no more than fluff.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said, if anyone saved that directive and is responsible for ensuring that some modest improvements have been adopted in European and now also in British law, it is probably Christine Crawley, the MEP for Birmingham, East. Organisations such as Maternity Alliance, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and the Equal Opportunities Commission should be thanked for the good work they have done. We have nothing for which to thank the Government. They have given every concession with a bad grace, and have had to be pushed and shoved into doing so.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am sure that Miss Crawley is a perfectly splendid person, but will the hon. Gentleman explain what role she played in ending the difficulties resulting from a conflict with the European Parliament? I had the impression that my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State was responsible for bringing that to a conclusion. I would be more than fascinated if the hon. Gentleman could explain the role played by Miss Crawley in that.
  Mr. Burden: Christine Crawley was the chair of the Committee on Women's Rights at the European Parliament. That Committee, more than any other body, was responsible for bringing the various parties together to ensure that the views expressed by the British Government and others did not wreck the directive. That ensured a successful outcome of sorts.
  If the Minister is saying that the Government were in favour of that directive, why did they object to the specific provisions suggested by the European Commission and

  879
  the European Parliament? Why was it that, in the final vote during a Fisheries meeting, Britain could not even bring itself to vote for the directive, but only abstained? It is odd to claim credit for a piece of legislation by saying that one abstained when it came up for a vote. That is an astonishing statement.
  The amendment has been tabled by the Government because, without it, the Bill would be inconvenient. It would not be particularly inconvenient for women, but it would be inconvenient for employers, because a woman could return to work early after having a baby and not give notice. Taken in isolation, that point might be reasonable. But of course the legislation does not exist in isolation; it exists in the round.
  If we want to ensure that the legislation is as convenient as possible for all concerned—mothers and employers—would it not be rather more useful for the Government to listen to the advice that they received from the Maternity Alliance, Opposition Members and all kinds of experts who suggested that the way that the legislation could be most simplified and made most effective and most convenient would be to extend the period of minimum maternity leave to 18 weeks—indeed, to extend it to the levels that were envisaged in the European directive in the first place?
  If the Government consider that the welfare of the mother and the baby is important, let me give them some examples. Some have already been given by my hon. Friends. Under the Bill, even though there is some statutory protection for a woman from coming back to work before she is ready because of illness, there is very little or no protection if the baby is ill. Extending the period of statutory maternity leave in the way that we have been urging would not overcome that problem, but it would help. The Government have refused to help in that way.
  We have already heard that the Government—indeed many Governments—encourage breast feeding, yet a woman will be required to go back to work perhaps just three weeks after she has had a baby. How on earth does that fit with a Government who claim to encourage breast feeding? The timing of the vaccination and inoculation programme that is recommended for babies these days just does not fit with the insistence that women should go back to work after just 14 weeks.
  It has been proved that the chances of finding a child minder in the vital early weeks after birth are much more difficult. That position would be improved if the Government had seen fit to increase the period to 18 weeks. Those are real conveniences that the Government could have offered to employers and women, but they have not done so. Why not? They say that it is because of cost.
  Cost has been mentioned time and again in respect of this aspect of the Bill. It is time that the point was answered. Ministers have thrown out figures and mentioned an alleged cost of £200 million if the maternity leave period is extended to 18 weeks. They have never stated the reasons or the basis for that calculation, but they have said that it would cost about £200 million and that it would be a burden on employers' costs. Two points arise.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am not aware that the Government have ever said that. We have estimated the cost of the additional four weeks at £50 million. But £200 million is a big number and £50 million is also a big
  880
  number, particularly when employers are obviously fighting to maintain employment and improve employment prospects for those who are unemployed.
  Mr. Burden: I am grateful for that intervention. I find it interesting that the figure has apparently been revised downwards. I do not have to hand the Hansard reference showing where the £200 million comes from, but the reference exists. If the figure is now said to be £50 million and that it is a big cost, in terms of how much money the Minister and I have, it is a lot of money.
  I would not say that £50 million, even if the amount were that much, was a great deal of money for a Government to spend to ensure that working women had decent maternity rights. When we compare £50 million with the £1 billion that was lost in one day in order to maintain the fig leaf over the Chancellor's economic policies, it does not seem a great deal.
  Ms Quin: Some information which I did not have available during our earlier deliberations on this subject reinforces my hon. Friend's point. A letter from the Federation of Small Businesses to the previous Secretary of State for Employment states very clearly:
  "From the point of view of small businesses, this increase"—

  that is, the extension from 14 weeks to 18 weeks—
  "would make little difference and we would have no objection to the proposed amendment."
  The federation says that costs are incurred at an earlier stage and can stay in place for an extra four weeks without any problem at all, and that extending the leave to 18 weeks would simplify the system and make it easier for small employers who find the present set-up, like the set-up proposed in the Bill, a real headache.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend makes an exceptionally valid point. Ministers manage to talk at two levels when they refer to the costs involved. They are not always over-specific about who they expect to stand which cost. They say that the cost will be a burden on employers. However, if the state was prepared to extend the period of statutory paid maternity leave to 18 weeks, the cost would not fall on employers—it would fall on us as a society. But is it too much to expect society to give working women the same sort of rights that women in other countries get?
  My hon. Friend made an especially valid point about the cost to employers. If a woman is on maternity leave and an employer appoints a temporary replacement, costs have been incurred, and increasing the period to 18 weeks would make virtually no difference. Indeed, it may be that employers' costs are reduced in the medium and longer term because the consequence of having inadequate maternity leave and not seriously addressing the issue of a baby being ill or the mother not being ready to come back to work, and the problems of breast feeding and finding a child minder, is often to force working women to leave their jobs. The result is that the employer must pay the cost of advertising, finding a replacement and so on. It would be much better if decent maternity leave was given in the first place.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman again. I suspect that the figure that he has in mind of £200 million probably relates to the compliance cost assessment of between £100 million and £250 million that we produced, a copy of which is in the Library. If he

  881
  is right about no costs being involved, and if the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) is right about the assessment of the Federation of Small Businesses that there is no cost in extending the period from 14 weeks to 18 weeks, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. They are free to extend it. Employers can agree that the leave will be longer if they so wish. That is a contractual matter between employers and employees.
  If the hon. Gentleman is right about all the advantages to business, we do not need to pass legislation to compel employers to do what he says is in their economic interests. However, our assessment is that it would add a cost of £50 million, which would create difficulties for employment in the future, especially for women.
  Mr. Burden: It is precisely because enlightened employers understand that decent maternity leave provisions are in their interests, as well as in the interests of the mother, that so many of them offer maternity leave provisions that are well above the statutory minimum. The importance of having a statutory minimum is not to force enlightened or forward-looking employers to do what they see is in their interests and in the interests of the mother.
  The importance of having a statutory minimum is to ensure that there is protection against bad employers, short-sighted employers or employers who have a narrow view of working women's rights, the interests of their enterprise and how they should operate in a civilised society, just as the importance of having wages councils has always been to ensure that pay does not fall below a minimum level.
  The ridiculous thing about the Government's approach to this matter and the argument by the Minister, which underlies their proposal to abolish wages councils, will not make much difference as far as good employers are concerned. However, it will ensure that bad employers and bad employment practices are given statutory sanction. That is the tragedy of the Government's approach to employment legislation.
  The amendment was not introduced when the matter was discussed in this place, but it was felt to be so important that it was introduced in another place. It was felt that, if the worst came to the worst and an unreasonable mother gave no notice to her employers but simply returned to work earlier than expected and demanded her work back—I cannot imagine many women doing that—the employer might have to bear an extra cost for a few days. That possibility is seen as so significant that it requires not only an amendment in another place but a debate here today.
  Does it not reveal that the Government have an odd set of priorities when that possibility is seen as significant, but a mother's rights to decent child care, to breast-feed her baby for a reasonable period and to have a decent period of maternity leave are not seen to be important? It is not considered important to introduce legislation to ensure that bad employers are encouraged to become good employers. It seems that the Government, as so often, have their priorities wrong.
  The statements that have been made about why it is unnecessary to legislate reveal the attitude that was displayed during the debates in Europe. I am pleased with the legislation as far as it goes. It is a small step forward, but does not go far enough. Instead of introducing
  882
  one-sided amendments that benefit only the employer, it would be better if, for once, the Government started listening to working women, and introduced amendments to benefit them and guarantee decent maternity rights in this country.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I am surprised to see that a Conservative Member wants to speak at this late stage in our debate. I was beginning to think that no Conservative Members held a view on the important issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) and others. As my hon. Friend said, in yesterday's debate reference was continually made to the employer's need and rights. I hope that the Government will relax their guard a little and talk about the interests of the child. If they do not, they will go down as being the Government who favoured bosses before babies. I hope that that does not prove to be the case. Children should be given the highest priority.
  Throughout the debates, both in Committee and in the other place, the Opposition have sought to improve on the Government's position. Some interesting exchanges have suggested that the Government are still in a rut and apparently listen more patiently to employers' organisations than organisations representing and supporting women of child-bearing age. That is an extraordinary position.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) referred, with the benefit of some personal knowledge, to the problems associated with multiple births. Knowing her sister as I do, I must say that if—or should I say when —she joins us in this place, it will present you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with an enormous problem. I cannot tell the two women apart and I look forward to seeing the Speaker being foxed over that.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: What is a collection of eagles called?
  Mr. Miller: I am not sure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) mentioned an important aspect of the debate—the availability of child care for parents of young babies. It is undoubtedly extremely difficult to find child care for young babies. A recent Equal Opportunities Commission report states that fewer than 10 per cent. of children between birth and the age of four have places in non-family child care. Recent Government child care regulations require one worker for every three babies in day nurseries and other collective child care arrangements. Although that is welcome as a measure to improve the quality of care, it restricts the number of places for babies in some nurseries.
  I hope, therefore, that the Government will have fresh thoughts as we see how the legislation proceeds. Thirty-six per cent. of mothers returning to full-time work rely heavily on child minders for care, but many child minders are reluctant to care for children under the age of six months. The National Child minding Association has commented that the nature of the care required for young babies is particularly intensive. That is likely to reduce the number of minders willing to look after them. Caring for a small baby can make it impossible for a child minder to look after any other child and can reduce her income significantly. The 53 per cent. of working mothers who rely on relatives for care may also find them unwilling to care for babies who are as young as three weeks.

  883
  The Select Committee on Health recently commented on the EC directive on the protection of pregnant women at work—a subject on which we have just heard an interesting exchange between the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield. The Committee says in its second report that the United Kingdom Government have
  "laid itself open to the accusation that it is only interested in the effects the Directive would have on employers and on the Treasury."
  That underlines my point about the Government putting bosses before babies. Perhaps the Minister will try to refute that and adopt a more flexible approach to the legislation.
  The maternity provisions of the Bill fail to give sufficient priority to the needs of the child. The legislation is wholly unsatisfactory, and I hope that the Government will give it another careful look.
  Mr. Hartley Booth: The speeches by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) were classic examples of the Opposition's casual approach to placing burdens on business. They seem to discuss the issue as if it could be divided into two separate, unrelated boxes,. They seem to think that the burden on the employer is wholly unrelated to the situation of the mother and the child. The fact is that placing too many burdens on employers jeopardises chances of employment as well as the position of mother and child. The two issues are linked at every stage.
  Ms Eagle: That was precisely the argument used before a Labour Government passed the equal pay legislation. It was said that, if women were granted equal pay, it would represent an extra cost and would militate against women being employed. Since then, there has, of course, been a huge growth in the employment of women.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Booth: I prefer to stick to the point in hand. I maintain that the Opposition treat burdens on employers casually. Their attempts to sidetrack me from the issue do not detract from the point that I am trying to make.
  Our 14-week statutory period has been pooh-poohed by the Opposition, but Germany, Ireland and the two countries of the Iberian peninsula all have similar periods. It is a perfectly respectable period, and children and mothers can deal with it. It is accepted as a compromise.
  I support Lord Ullswater's amendment. It was his proposal on 6 May that led to the suggestion that employers should be protected from mothers who come back at no notice to reclaim their jobs. This sensible amendment merely attempts to give employers seven days—
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman will be reassured to learn that I do not intend to take up his phrase about protecting employers from mothers. I would, however, like to ask him about his international comparisons. I am sure that he would agree that it is important to compare like with like. Is he, for instance, aware that Germany gives 14 weeks on 100 per cent. of salary and Ireland gives 14 weeks on 70 per cent. of salary? One of the criticisms of the legislation is that it guarantees nothing about pay. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a major omission from the Bill?
  Mr. Booth: Pay is a matter for the DSS. I was only comparing the periods involved, and I do not want to widen the debate to other issues.
  I support the Lords amendment because I think that we should prevent more burdens from being placed on employers. It would seem sensible of the Government to support that idea. That does not turn our party into a party that is against children or mothers—a ridiculous suggestion. The amendment prevents an additional burden from being imposed and allows for the smooth running of the workplace. Sudden events in the workplace cause friction and a great deal of trouble.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: We have had an interesting debate. When my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) said that we should remove burdens, I thought that he was referring to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden). Having heard his speech, I can see why my hon. Friend was provoked to adopt such an undemocratic view.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley about the importance of striking a balance between employment rights and costs. Compared with our European partners, we in Britain can be proud of the much higher proportion of our labour force that is in employment and the larger percentage of women who work. Apart from Denmark, which has about the same number of women at work, we have the highest proportion in Europe. In common with Denmark, we have a deregulated labour market. We may have different views about social provision, but we take a similar approach in respect of regulation in the labour market.
  The socialist paradises that Opposition Members draw to our attention seem to find it difficult to provide employment opportunities for as large a proportion of their work forces—and especially for women—as we in Britain are able to provide. In the debates that are now taking place in the Social Affairs Council and elsewhere, it is evident that our European partners are coming to recognise the importance of regulation in the destruction of job opportunities—a recognition that is singularly absent from the contributions of Opposition Members.
  Hon. Members cannot say, on the one hand, that they wish to see more opportunities for women to work and thereby contribute to our economy and, on the other hand, that they are prepared for whatever burdens on business are involved in the employment of those women. What they propose would deprive women of opportunity, just as has happened in Europe. It is no coincidence that the countries cited as examples to be followed have not been able to achieve the employment and job opportunities that Britain has achieved.
  Ms. Quin: The Minister may have given the wrong
  impression about Denmark, which has a Government whose views have much more in common with those of the Labour party than with those of the British Government. The current Danish presidency of the European Community particularly wants progress to be made on many of the social directives that the British Government say will put additional burdens on business; thus, it is hardly right for the Minister to claim Denmark as an ally.
  Mr. Forsyth: I was not claiming Denmark as an ally; I was merely making the point that the Danish labour market is not regulated to the extent that the hon. Lady

  885
  advocates. If she is saying that the Danish Government are about to embark on that course, I make a prediction: Denmark will not be alongside Britain at the top of the league in terms of the provision of employment opportunities for people of both sexes. The policies that Opposition Members advocate would destroy jobs—a fact that is becoming increasingly understood throughout the Community.
  Ms Eagle: Does the Minister agree that, in almost all cases one can think of, men too are responsible for the birth of children? A woman' capacity to give birth should not be regarded as some kind of extra cost that she takes into the workplace—a cost that makes firms disinclined to employ her. Reasonable maternity provision should be associated with extended paternity provision; in that way, the costs could be shared between the genders, within the family, and employers would not be encouraged to regard the woman as a walking womb that imposes extra costs.
  Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Lady on her biological points, but not on her labour market points. She must understand that it is not discriminatory to say that we must be careful about the costs that are imposed on employers. The hon. Lady's solution would involve more costs through the provision of paternity leave, but those costs would have to be borne by employers. Employers make their money by selling goods and services. If their goods and services are no longer competitively priced, employment opportunities are destroyed. There is a balance to be struck.
  In suggesting that the Government are putting business before babies, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) ruined the quite good reputation that I thought he was building up following his service on the Standing Committee, where he seemed to be a thoughtful person who added a great deal to our debates. His description of a measure that provides a right to 14 weeks' maternity leave, with entitlement to all the normal benefits of contracts of employment, apart from wages or salary, as well as comprehensive protection against dismissal or unfair selection for redundancy on maternity-related grounds and new rights for women who have to be suspended from work on maternity-related health and safety grounds, is absurd. To say that this is putting bosses before babies is so ridiculous that I can only imagine that the hon. Gentleman does not really think it but put it in a press release to his local newspaper—or perhaps there is some other, equally fatuous, reason for his coming out with such nonsense.
  Mr. Miller: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me an idea. I have not yet put this in a press release, but I think I shall now do so.
  If the Government had listened more carefully to the advice of many professional organisation—particularly the Maternity Alliance—they could have gone much further without imposing any significant additional costs on employers. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) made the point in the context of the Federation of Small Businesses. Against that background, the Minister's remarks are churlish.
  Mr. Forsyth: I should not be at all concerned if the hon. Gentleman were to issue such a silly press release. It might
  886
  help to achieve the result that we should have had at the polls last year—the election of Mr. Andrew Pearce. A few more daft statements of that type will see the hon. Gentleman on his way out of the House.
  Mr. Burden: I should like to press the Minister on the issue of costs. I shall try to avoid using the word "burden", but I may not succeed. The hon. Gentleman prayed Denmark in aid with regard to regulation. He probably knows that Denmark offers 28 weeks' maternity leave on 90 per cent. of salary. If the Minister regards that as a deregulated market, his view is different from mine. If he wishes to avoid the imposition of an excessive "burden" —I have used the word—on businesses but accepts the need to ensure decent maternity rights, he must accept also that the state should ensure decent levels of statutory provision. Would not that be better than cutting provision for working women?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is getting frightfully muddled. He is confusing regulation of the labour market with benefits. We are not dicussing benefits, which are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. What the hon. Gentleman has said about the provision of welfare services in Denmark is quite right. That is why Denmark has very high levels of taxation.
  I was not making the point that Denmark is an ally; I was simply pointing out something that Opposition Members do not seem to recognise—that, comparatively speaking, a very high proportion of our population are in work. Let hon. Members consider countries—such as Spain, whose unemployment percentage is almost twice ours—that have embraced the minimum wage and all the other social protection policies so beloved of Opposition Members.
  Of course Conservatives are committed to the provision of a fair deal for employees, but they are not prepared to accept advice that would put people on the dole. If people were unemployed, they would not have the benefit of the legislation that we have brought before the House over the past 14 years.
  The hon. Members for Northfield and for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said some very odd things. The hon. Lady said that no one could disagree with seven days' notice, yet the hon. Member for Gateshead began her speech by telling us that Opposition Members would vote against the amendment. As the hon. Lady has said that she could not possibly disagree with that, I expect to see her vote with the Government in the Division Lobby. The hon. Member for Northfield said that he did not imagine that anyone would not give notice; presumably he will be in the Division Lobby with us as well.
  Ms Eagle: If the Minister had listened more carefully to the overall thrust of my remarks, he would not be quoting half-sentences out of context and he might have picked up that I said that the amendment dealt with a fairly trivial matter that happened on only a few occasions. Other matters affecting the health of mothers and babies are more serious and much more common, but the Government have seen fit not to deal with those. The thrust of my speech was that we should spend more time addressing the real issues rather than spend time on relatively trivial matters.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady has not added to what I have said. She said that the matter was trivial and that no

  887
  one could disagree with seven days' notice. Now she says that she will vote against what she agrees is a reasonable provision because it is not something else. That is an extraordinary basis on which to vote down a perfectly sensible amendment.
  Ms Eagle: It is tactical.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady says that it is tactical. Her constituents will be astonished if they find that her voting record on amendments or other legislation is based not on what is in them but on what she thinks should be in them. That is absurd. If that is the hon. Lady's best argument to justify her speeches, she had better get herself a new research assistant.
  5 pm
  Mr. Burden: I shall intervene before the Minister gets too carried away by what he perceives to be Opposition contradictions. In Committee, Conservative Members voted against amendments to ensure that women had clear rights not to be subjected to action by employers if they sought time off for ante-natal care and relaxation classes. Those hon. Members said that that happens anyway, but there is clear evidence from tribunal decisions that it does not. Conservative Members are throwing stones from glass houses.
  Mr. Forsyth: I did not entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's point. My assessment of what he said is that he could not imagine that anyone would not give notice and that he would support the amendment.
  Mr. Burden: I said that I could not imagine many women not giving notice. I then gave the hypothetical situation of a woman who does not give notice to her employer but returns unannounced to work, demanding her job from that moment. The net cost of that to the employer would be a few days' pay while the temporary employee was still there. I contrasted the Government's concern for the cost of that few days' pay with the extent to which they are prepared to amend the Bill to show a lack of concern for women who are denied access to decent child care, are unable to breast-feed their babies for long enough and face all the other problems associated with the fact that there is no maternity leave of 18 weeks.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. He disagrees with the Government about the extent to which the protection should be extended. However, if he votes against the amendment, he will look ridiculous, because the amendment says that there should be seven days' notice. The hon. Gentleman gaily writes off a week's pay for a temporary worker as it if were of little consequence. That betrays the fact that he has never had to run a company or a small business and does not realise that such sums are often the difference between profit and loss. They also make a difference to growth of employment and employment opportunities. As we say in Scotland, "Many a mickle maks a muckle." The hon. Gentleman should be more careful with other people's money.
  Ms Quin: I should not like the Minister to misunderstand our reason for voting against the amendment. As I have explained, the amendment adds a rule, an extra complexity, to an already complex system. From the beginning, we have argued for a comprehensive
  888
  overhaul and simplification of the system of maternity leave. We are using the amendment as an example of the complexities that we have argued against all along.
  The Minister has done little to justify the amendment. He has not said how many people will be affected by it, nor has he spoken about the number of people who were consulted before the amendment was tabled. If he could give us more information about that and say that he will look at the overall system of maternity leave with a view to making it much more simple, along the lines that we have suggested, that would be something else.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for contradicting her hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, who said that no one could disagree with seven days' notice. She was clearly wrong, because the hon. Member for Gateshead, East obviously disagrees with it. She says that it unnecessarily complicates the legislation. Following a commitment to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East, we tabled an amendment on Report to give women the choice of sick leave rather than maternity leave if they were absent between the 11th and the sixth week of the expected week of childbirth.
  Again at the hon. Lady's request, I tabled an amendment to provide four weeks' extra protection against maternity-related dismissal in cases where a medically certified sickness prevents women from returning to work at the end of maternity leave. The hon. Lady did not urge me not to do that on the ground that it complicated the provisions, as it does. However, it is not a question of whether it complicates the provisions. We want a system that is workable. The legislation may be complex, but the position of the employer and the employee will be perfectly straightforward.
  The hon. Member for Gateshead, East seems to apply one argument when it suits her and another when it suits people who are making representations. When the hon. Lady pressed me to table the amendments, she did not urge me to rush out and consult everybody. She wanted me to agree in Committee to consider the matter and table amendments at an early stage. She urged us to make those amendments in respect of the additional month after the end of the period that would be available for someone who was suffering from pregnancy-related sickness.
  The CBI and others expressed reservations about those amendments. I have tabled a perfectly reasonable amendment, and the hon. Lady's colleagues have said that no one could disagree with it. However, because it has come from the CBI and is subject to exactly the same process as her amendments, she criticises us for not conducting proper consultation.
  We are a listening Government. We listened to the arguments and tabled amendments in the light of discussions at every stage. The amendments will result in substantial extra benefits for women who become pregnant while they are still at work. Opposition Members cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that it is a good measure and fulfils the Government's manifesto commitment.
  The hon. Members for Northfield and for Wallasey said that the Government had abstained on the vote on the European directive. We abstained because we thought that it was being issued on an inappropriate treaty base. It is extraordinary that Opposition Members should question our enthusiasm for the directive as adopted because we abstained on the issue of the treaty base. My right hon.

  889
  Friend the then Secretary of State for Employment moved heaven and earth in the presidency to conclude the Council's deliberations following the intervention of the European Parliament. That Parliament tried to overturn an agreed position by the Council of Ministers, thus risking the destruction of the directive itself. It was thanks to the Government's efforts in the presidency that the directive was brought into force. Opposition Members suggested that the Labour party in the European Parliament carried the day; in fact, it was the European Parliament, and the conflict that arose between it and the Council of Ministers, that put the directive at risk.
  Ms Eagle: The Minister has just explained why the Government chose to abstain, although they really agreed with all the directive's provisions. Was that a tactical decision?
  Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Lady follows such matters closely, she will know that we abstained on the working time directive. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, we did not accept the treaty base, and we shall be challenging the directive in the European Court. When we believe that the treaty base is wrong, we shall abstain. The hon. Lady clearly does not pay careful attention to these matters.
  The position on the EC pregnant workers directive was made clear. A common position text was agreed in December last year; it was originally produced by the Dutch presidency, because the Commission's original proposal was unacceptable to the great majority of member states. The treaty base, which we challenged, provided for qualified majority voting, not unanimity, and the United Kingdom was never in a position to threaten a veto—if that is what the hon. Member for Wallasey was implying. Ultimately, the United Kingdom secured agreement through its presidency; that is why the directive applies throughout Europe. The legislation is before the House because we had made a manifesto commitment to present such measures. We have been as good as our manifesto commitment and we were elected to implement it.
  Mr. Burden: Can we be clear about the nature of the disagreements that we are discussing?
  Mr. Deputh Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Not unless they are related to the amendment.
  Mr. Burden: I am sure that they are, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the ground that the Minister has been referring to them himself—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was about to call the Minister to order.
  Mr. Forsyth: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was misled by Opposition Members, who made scurrilous remarks about the Government while you were not in the Chair, and thus unable to remind them of the matter under discussion. I hasten to add that I am making no criticism of Madam Speaker.
  Rather than proceeding further with my speech, I invite the House to endorse the amendment. It is perfectly reasonable, as Opposition Members have said. I look forward to seeing the hon. Members for Northfield and for Wallasey in the Aye Lobby.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 42, line 40, at end insert—
  ("Requirement to inform employer of return during maternity leave period.
  .—(1) An employee who intends to return to work earlier than the end of her maternity leave period shall give to her employer not less than seven days notice of the date on which she intends to return.
  (2) If an employee returns to work as mentioned in subsection (I) without notifying her employer of her intention to do so or without giving him the notice required by that subsection her employer shall be entitled to postpone her return to a date such as will secure, subject to subsection (3), that he has seven days notice of her return.
  (3) An employer is not entitled under subsection (2) to postpone an employee's return to work to a date after the end of her maternity leave period.
  (4) If an employee who has been notified under subsection (2) that she is not to return to work before the date specified by her employer does return to work before that date the employer shall be under no contractual obligation to pay her remuneration until the date specified by him as the date on which she may return.")—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
  Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 238.

  Division No. 298]

  [5.13 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Churchill, Mr

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clappison, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Amess, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Colvin, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Congdon, David

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Conway, Derek

  Ashby, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Atkins, Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Couchman, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Cran, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bates, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Day, Stephen

  Bendall, Vivian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Devlin, Tim

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Dicks, Terry

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Booth, Hartley

  Dover, Den

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan, Alan

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowis, John

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Eggar, Tim

  Brazier, Julian

  Elletson, Harold

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Evennett, David

  Burns, Simon

  Faber, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Fabricant, Michael

  Butler, Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Butterfill, John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Forman, Nigel

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Forth, Eric

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Cash, William

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  891

  French, Douglas

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gale, Roger

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gallie, Phil

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Merchant, Piers

  Garnier, Edward

  Milligan, Stephen

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mills, Iain

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gorst, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Needham, Richard

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hague, William

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Norris, Steve

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hannam, Sir John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Page, Richard

  Harris, David

  Paice, James

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hawksley, Warren

  Pawsey, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Pickles, Eric

  Heald, Oliver

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hicks, Robert

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Richards, Rod

  Horam, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

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

  Robathan, Andrew

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jack, Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sackville, Tom

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Key, Robert

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Shersby, Michael

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sims, Roger

  Knapman, Roger

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spring, Richard

  Legg, Barry

  Sproat, Iain

  Leigh, Edward

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lidington, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Lightbown, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Stern, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stewart, Allan

  Lord, Michael

  Streeter, Gary

  Luff, Peter

  Sumberg, David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sweeney, Walter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sykes, John

  MacKay, Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maclean, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Madel, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Malone, Gerald

  Thomason, Roy

  Mans, Keith

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Marlow, Tony

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  892

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Whitney, Ray

  Tracey, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Trend, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Trotter, Neville

  Willetts, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wilshire, David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Wolfson, Mark

  Walden, George

  Yeo, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Watts, John

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dewar, Donald

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Dixon, Don

  Ainger, Nick

  Dobson, Frank

  Allen, Graham

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Alton, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Eastham, Ken

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Enright, Derek

  Ashton, Joe

  Etherington, Bill

  Austin-Walker, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Barnes, Harry

  Fatchett, Derek

  Barron, Kevin

  Faulds, Andrew

  Battle, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Fisher, Mark

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Flynn, Paul

  Beggs, Roy

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Bell, Stuart

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Benton, Joe

  Foulkes, George

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fyfe, Maria

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Galbraith, Sam

  Blair, Tony

  Galloway, George

  Blunkett, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Garrett, John

  Boyes, Roland

  George, Bruce

  Bradley, Keith

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Godsiff, Roger

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Burden, Richard

  Gould, Bryan

  Byers, Stephen

  Graham, Thomas

  Caborn, Richard

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gunnell, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hain, Peter

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hall, Mike

  Cann, Jamie

  Hanson, David

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Henderson, Doug

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Heppell, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clelland, David

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Coffey, Ann

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Corbett Robin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hutton, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Ingram, Adam

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jamieson, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Janner, Greville

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  893

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jowell, Tessa

  Purchase, Ken

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Keen, Alan

  Radice, Giles

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Randall, Stuart

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Reid, Dr John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rendel, David

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Leighton, Ron

  Rogers, Allan

  Litherland, Robert

  Rooker, Jeff

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rooney, Terry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rowlands, Ted

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Salrnond, Alex

  McAllion, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheerman, Barry

  McCartney, Ian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Macdonald, Calum

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McKelvey, William

  Short, Clare

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan

  McLeish, Henry

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Madden, Max

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mahon, Alice

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Marek, Dr John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Spellar, John

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Martlew, Eric

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Maxton, John

  Stevenson, George

  Meacher, Michael

  Stott, Roger

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Milburn, Alan

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Miller, Andrew

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Trimble, David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Turner, Dennis

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Tyler, Paul

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Vaz, Keith

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wallace, James

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Walley, Joan

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mudie, George

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mullin, Chris

  Welsh, Andrew

  Murphy, Paul

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wigley, Dafydd

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Winnick, David

  Olner, William

  Wise, Audrey

  O'Neill, Martin

  Worthington, Tony

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wray, Jimmy

  Patchett, Terry

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Pike, Peter L.

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pope, Greg

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Mr. Cordon McMaster and

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Prescott, John

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 28 agreed to.

  New Clause
  Lords amendment: No. 29—Entitlement to itemised pay settlement—
  (". After section 146(4) of the 1978 Act (provisions disapplied in relation to employment below minimum number of hours weekly) there shall be inserted—
  "(4A) Subject to subsection (4B), subsection (4) shall have effect as respects section 8 subject to the following modifications, namely—

  (a) the substitution of a reference to eight hours weekly for the reference to sixteen hours weekly, and

  894

  (b) the omission of the words "Subject to subsection (5), (6) and (7)",

  (4B) Subsection (4A) shall not apply in relation to employment if, at the relevant date, the number of employees employed by the employer, added to the number employed by any associated employer, is less than twenty.
  (4C) For the purposes of subsection (4B) "relevant date" means the date on which any payment of wages or salary is made to an employee in respect of which he would, apart from subsection (4B), have the right to an itemised pay statement."")
  Read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient also to discuss Lords amendment No. 41.
  Ms Quin: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a) leave out subsection (4B).
  This is an important amendment and we will seek to divide the House on it, as it seeks to establish an important right for many part-time workers who will not otherwise be covered by the welcome concession by the Government.
  The amendment concerns the right of employees to receive an itemised pay statement. Many of us feel that that is a basic right for all people in employment. However, until the Government agree to amend the Bill, employees who work for between eight hours and 16 hours a week have to work for the same employer for five years before they have the right to an itemised pay statement. We find it quite amazing that some people have to work for one employer for that length of time before they can enjoy what most of us would consider a basic and necessary right.
  We are glad that, in order to respond to concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Government have agreed to extend the right to an itemised pay statement to many part-time workers who work for between eight and 16 hours per week. The Lords amendment excludes part-time workers working between eight and 16 hours in firms with fewer than 20 employees. We feel strongly that that rather large derogation from the new rule is unjustified, so we have tabled our amendment to do away with it.
  The arguments advanced by the Minister in the other place in favour of the amendment were similar to those that I would put forward in favour of our amendment, which extends that right even further. In the other place, the Minister said that employees should have the right to know how their pay is made up, with which I am sure my hon. Friends agree strongly. But we do not see why that right should be denied to workers in firms with fewer than 20 employees.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Lady agree that the majority of difficult contractual disputes between employers and employees arise in smaller firms, particularly those with half a dozen to a dozen employees, where the hours of work may not be fully noted and where the conditions may not be fully recorded because they vary from time to time? Does she further agree that the Lords amendment will remove a necessary protection from a large number of workers if the figure is as high as 20?
  Ms Quin: I agree with the points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, to which I shall come later. The evidence available to us suggests that what the hon. and learned Gentleman says is right and that the greatest

  895
  difficulties have arisen for workers in small firms who have wanted itemised pay statements but have been unable to obtain them.
  Unfortunately, there is much evidence that the denial of itemised pay statements to employees is part and parcel of an attempt by employers criminally to defraud the Treasury by not registering employees properly for national insurance purposes. Therefore, they have been happy to deny their employees this right. Unless employees caught in that situation have written evidence of deductions from their pay, they might even be thought to be colluding with the employer in such frauds and malpractices. That is another important reason why we want to extend the right to an itemised pay statement as widely as possible.
  There is no doubt that having the right to an itemised pay statement would simplify the process of resolving disputes over pay and deductions which can arise, causing problems for employers and employees. In addition, the right to an itemised pay statement can be crucial to an employee's attempt to gain benefits to which he is entitled. Without such written proof in the form of an itemised pay statement, an employee may have great difficulty in proving his entitlement to benefits which may enable him to make ends meet. We are talking not about something theoretical, but about something that is of immense practical help to people if the system is made to work properly.
  It is also important for employees to have written proof of their pay—and conditions—if they transfer to another employer who asks for such information. I should also mention the value of such a system to the Child Support Agency that the Government have set up. There again, a person may need proof of his or her financial situation in the form of an itemised pay statement in order to support his or her case.
  It is odd that the Government should be so keen to ensure that the check-off arrangement should be spelt out in seemingly endless detail, as they clearly were in the early parts of the Bill, but are not prepared to allow every employee the basic right to an itemised pay statement. Surely, if the Government are so keen on allowing employees to see what deductions are made for trade union subscriptions, they should also be keen for employers to show employees the state of their pay and the full range of deductions.
  Those are important matters, to which, to be fair to the Government, the Minister in another place referred, but, having made those important points, he agreed, surprisingly, to deny so many people the right to an itemised pay statement.

  The Government have come out with some curious arguments for not wishing to extend that right to all people, even in small companies. The argument about costs has been put forward, but I do not know whether the Government will be able to persuade us today any more easily than the Minister in the other place was able to persuade the Members there. He singularly failed to convince them of what he was saying about costs. The cost of giving employees an itemised statement may be slight. The Minister in the other place agreed that various standard proformas were available, making it easy for employers to complete such requirement.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: During the discussion on the previous set of amendments, the hon. Lady criticised me
  896
  for bringing forward an amendment without having consulted widely. Does she not think that it would be right for the Government, having consulted on this matter, to take account of the representations that we have received from organisations such as the Forum of Private Business?
  Ms Quin: I hope that the Minister will consider the information and evidence available to him from all quarters. We have received interesting information from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and organisations such as the Fawcett Society. They have talked to employers in some detail in order to try to work out the costs involved.
  They concluded that many employers can produce itemised pay statements without any difficulty whatever, that they can be absorbed into existing administrative costs and that the booklets of proforma statements, which can be easily completed, would make that an easy job for small businesses. I hope that the Minister will address that evidence, as well as other representations made to him. I can only go on the representations that have been made to us, which have all been in favour of extending that right to many, if not all, employees.
  It is not only Opposition Members who are concerned about that issue. In Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) spoke first about extending that right to part-time workers—those who work between eight and 16 hours per week. We agreed strongly with the points that she made, and it was partly as a result of her representations that the Government tabled this amendment. However, I am not sure that the hon. Lady would support the Minister in this derogation for companies with fewer than 20 employees.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth indicated assent.
  Ms Quin: The Minister is nodding. In that case I am disappointed with the hon. Lady, because it goes against many of the arguments that she advanced in Committee, where she spoke of the individuals about whom we are concerned in this amendment—those working in small companies that may exploit them by not giving them this information.
  I well remember the Minister in Committee making one of his revealing jokes. He said that there seemed to be cross-party agreement about the amendment, which probably meant that it was wrong. That tells us something about the Minister's attitude. I urge him to take into consideration the comments made not only from this side of the House but by Conservative Members in Committee, as well as the wealth of opinion from the Fawcett Society and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, to which I pay tribute for its work on that issue.
  I refer also to the views of organisations such as the townswomen's guilds, the National Federation of Women's Institutes and the United Kingdom Federation of Business and Professional Women, which all support the argument that we are advancing today. Those organisations carry considerable weight, not least in Conservative constituencies. The Minister ought to take that into account, consult those organisations, and learn their views. They feel strongly that many employees are being denied a basic right that most people would consider normal and natural in a civilised society.
  I referred to evidence collected by various organisations that some employers who are trying to defraud the authorities deny employees the right to an itemised pay

  897
  statement. NACAB states that many employers do not issue employees with itemised pay statements, and that there is often doubt whether the employer is paying tax and national insurance contributions on behalf of the employee.
  A CAB in Essex reported that employees at one establishment were paid in cash, and handed back an amount to cover their tax and national insurance—but had no evidence whether those moneys were being passed on to the appropriate authorities. No itemised pay statement was issued, and the employer "turned nasty" when asked for one. The CAB's client found another job and asked for her P45. Instead of receiving an updated P45, that which she had originally given the first employer was returned to her—which seems to prove that that employer was trying to defraud the system and to avoid the regulations covering both employers and employees.
  A CAB in Warwickshire reported a client whose wages were paid partly by cheque and partly in cash, to enable the employer to default on national insurance and PAYE. The bureau explained that, as the client lived in a tied cottage, she was very reluctant to complain, because obviously not only her job but also her home was at risk.
  A CAB in Shropshire commented:
  "It is often only when employees leave their employment that they discover that their employer has not been deducting or paying over PAYE, income tax and national insurance contributions."
  It is extremely important for the right to an itemised pay statement to be widely available, so that attempted fraud can be overcome.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) mentioned the number of people who might be affected. The Government are excluding many by the derogation that the amendment introduces. Figures supplied by the Library suggest that 7 million employees work in businesses having fewer than 20 employees—about 31 per cent. of all those in work. A number work for only between eight and 16 hours a week. I do not have Government figures, but I believe that hundreds of thousands of workers would be affected by the Government's proposal. I should be grateful for any figures that the Minister can give.
  I understand that about 780,000 people work more than eight hours but fewer than 16 hours a week in companies employing fewer than 20 people. That substantial figure represents the number who will fall foul of the Government's amendment. We ask the Minister to consider those 780,000 people and their right to an itemised pay statement.
  5.45 pm
  The Minister may argue that there is nothing to stop employers issuing itemised pay statements. That is true, but we are concerned about employers who do not observe that practice. If many firms are already able to issue such statements, we see no reason why others should not he able similarly to comply.
  We are concerned also about employees who work fewer than eight hours a week. Although we have not tabled an amendment on that specific issue, it touches on the Government amendment under consideration. We see no justification for the eight-hour cut-off limit. In Committee, the Minister said that it would be inconvenient for employers to issue pay statements to
  898
  those who only work two or three hours a week, but I ask the Minister to view the matter from the employee's point of view.
  An employee may work fewer than eight hours in one job but additional hours in another job. He or she may need to prove total entitlement to certain benefits, want to transfer to another employer, or meet all the other possible scenarios that I mentioned earlier.
  Many people in Britain today work in unsatisfactory part-time jobs. Sometimes, they have two or three such jobs—and may ultimately find it difficult to claim pension or other entitlements if they are unable to prove that they have worked as many hours as they have.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Lady suggests that anyone in Britain who employs a cleaning lady, gardener, or someone else to do the odd job should be required—regardless of the amount of time worked—to produce an itemised pay statement as a matter of law. Is that her proposal?
  Ms Quin: Employees, no matter in what capacity they work, should receive an itemised pay statement if they want one. Under the Government's rules, they will have no such entitlement. The Government do not understand the difficulties confronting many people in Britain today who have been casualised by Government employment policies. They work week in, week out in unsatisfactory conditions of employment, and then discover that the hours worked count for very little in respect of their benefits and pension rights, and that there is little to which to look forward in the future. They are therefore twice handicapped.
  I beg the Minister to examine more carefully than he seems prepared to do some of the dire working conditions that obtain in Britain today, of which the denial of an itemised pay statement is part and parcel. It may seem a small part, but it is an important element in an unsatisfactory equation.
  By removing the derogation for firms employing 20 or fewer employees and the time limit, the Minister will take a small but significant step towards improving the lot of part-time and temporary workers.
  We are concerned that part-time workers appear to have such a bad deal. In order to be entitled to many employment rights, they have to work for one employer for five years, which, in effect, denies about two thirds of part-time workers any employment rights at all. It is an absolute scandal.
  Other European countries do not make the same rigid distinctions between full-time and part-time workers; nor do they distinguish between different types of part-time work. For example; they do not distinguish between part-time work lasting 16 hours or eight hours, a distinction which is so unfavourable for many part-time workers in Britain.
  The Government should consider far more seriously extending full-time employment rights to part-time workers. They sometimes accuse us of being anti part-time workers. We are not, but we are anti part-time work in appalling conditions. We want part-time work to be a tremendous opportunity for women and men, but unfortunately it is not: it is merely a way of exploiting them and giving them fewer employment rights than their full-time counterparts. We are not opposed to part-time work—we are very much in favour of it—but we do not

  899
  want it to be used to penalise people for the rest of their working lives, which is what appears to be happening under the system approved by the Government.
  I refer the Minister of State to the excellent report produced some time ago by the Committee which considers European legislation in another place. It is a very good report, which pours cold water on the Government's claims about the extra costs incurred in extending many employment rights to part-time workers. If the Minister studies the information in detail, he will see that a very impressive case was made for extending such rights to part-time workers.
  Indeed, a survey referred to in the Committee's report showed that less than 1 per cent. of firms which were contacted quoted poorer employment rights as the reason for employing part-time workers. Generally, there seemed to be a great lack of conviction in the Government's case that extending even basic rights to part-time workers would cost the earth. The evidence for the Government's argument is patchy, but the evidence that British part-time workers are getting a poor deal is not patchy but overwhelming.
  I urge the Minister to do what he has often said he favours, and encourage quality part-time work by accepting the ideas that we have proposed in all the debates. As a modest beginning, he could welcome the amendment and thus allow those who want an itemised pay statement to have it. It is a basic right, which should no longer be denied.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: My comments relate to the 20-employee limit. I am surprised that the Government have chosen such a high figure. It is almost inconceivable that an employer who has 19, 15 or even a dozen employees could remain in business if he was incapable of filling in a small form setting out the items that comprise an employee's pay. It does not require sophisticated machinery, a chartered accountant or a qualified bookkeeper to do so; it requires only a duplicate pad on which the employer's bookkeeper—who is often not qualified—jots down for the benefit of the employee the number of hours worked, the hourly rate for the work, any overtime, and any other items which make up his pay. If an employer is not capable of carrying out such rudimentary book work, it is unlikely that he will stay in business very long.
  As I am sire the Government have learnt in the past three years in particular, it is often small firms which go bankrupt or into liquidation because they are incapable of completing their books properly. The resulting debt is often crippling for the victims. All hon. Members are aware of small businesses in their constituencies whose proprietors have faced bankruptcy or near-bankruptcy because of the inefficiency of other small firms and organisations purchasing from them.
  I would suggest that modest bookkeeping requirements, including the provision of itemised pay statements, help towards the necessary measure of efficiency. I do not suggest that the requirement should be placed on the very smallest employers, those employing two, three, or perhaps fewer than half a dozen employees. In that respect, I take a slightly different view from the Labour party, but an employer who employs more than half a dozen people can be regarded as significant in an employment market where such a large proportion of working people are employed in small firms.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. He agrees with the Government that there should be an exemption for small firms, but says that it should apply to those employing six rather than 20 people. The Liberal party has not tabled an amendment to reflect that view. I should have thought that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman believed that the figure should be six rather than 20, he would have been able to make a case for that idea and tabled an amendment. What does he expect the Government to do in response to his representations, given the fact that we have reached this stage in our consideration of the Bill?
  Mr. Carlile: I do not harbour the illusion that the hon. Gentleman would have urged his right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for such an amendment had I tabled it. It is for the Government to make the regulations. They are well aware of representations that have been made. [ Interruption.] If the Minister will listen for a moment, I repeat that the Government are well aware of the all-party representations made on this issue in Committee.
  As we have been reminded, it was the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), who is sitting behind the Minister, who urged on the Committee—indeed, who assisted Labour Members in urging on the Committee—an amendment that was incorporated in part in Lords amendment No. 29. It is somewhat surprising that the hon. Lady now seems to accept that the 20-employee limit is appropriate. When the Government fix an appropriate level, they should act in the interests of both employers and employees.
  In an intervention, the Minister of State mentioned the Forum of Private Business. I have considerable regard for that organisation, which provides useful information to hon. Members, enabling us to keep abreast of the requirements and concerns of small employers in particular. However, the organisation is not always right. Of course, the way in which it collects its material is founded on the sending of questionnaires for which it devises the questions.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth rose—
  Mr. Carlile: I shall give way in a moment.
  As a result, the information provided by the questionnaires may not always be entirely reliable in considering such issues. Does the Minister still want me to give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: I will just say that there were no Liberal representatives on the Committee, but, had the hon. and learned Gentleman had the pleasure of serving on it, as many hon. Members present today did, he would know that we listened to the Opposition's arguments and accepted many amendments.
  Mr. Miller: Many?
  Mr. Forsyth: Many. My point is that at no stage have the Liberals tabled an amendment suggesting that six rather than 20 would be the appropriate limit. I am rather surprised to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman talk down the importance of representations made by the Forum of Private Business, but we had similar representations from the Confederation of British Industry.
  Mr. Carlile: I was telling the Minister that it is surprising to hear that the hon. Member for Tiverton, who

  901
  in Committee apparently asked for something rather more extensive, now seems to accept the rather grudging 20-employee limit. That point was entirely fairly made.
  Mr. Forsyth rose—
  6 pm
  Mr. Carlile: I shall not give way to the Minister again, because we do not want a ping-pong debate.
  I regret that the Government have not dealt with the amendment in the spirit that I understood from reading the Committee debate—I did not have the advantage of serving on the Committee—was the basis on which the Minister responded to that debate. In response to his claim that I tried to talk down the Forum of Private Business, I add that I did the precise opposite. I was at pains to point out that the information that that organisation provided was helpful. Nevertheless, it is not always right, and in my view it was not right on that occasion.
  There is another practical aspect of the 20-employee limit that the Government should consider seriously. Disputes that arise about terms and conditions of employment often relate to hours worked, and especially to whether national insurance contributions should have been paid, or whether the full tax due under the PAYE arrangements has been paid. As the Minister intervened in my speech, I should be grateful if he would take the trouble to listen for the next two or three minutes. I was addressing a comment to him in the hope that he might respond to it when he replies to the debate.
  As the Minister knows, the disputes that arise between employers and employees relate to a contract between the two parties. An employee is often at a considerable disadvantage if he has no documentary evidence of the terms and conditions of his employment, and especially of the hours worked in a particular week or other period. If an employer chooses to act dishonestly—he may well choose to do so if the issue is whether national insurance contributions or tax should have been paid—he can enter false particulars in his records at the time when the dispute arises. I am afraid that my experience over more than 20 years as a practitioner in the courts is that, unfortunately, that is just the sort of thing that happens from time to time. Of course, most employers are completely honest, but the employers with whom employees have the greatest difficulty are often those who are not.
  When, for example, an employee comes to his Member of Parliament and says that he is in dispute with his former employer, who should have paid national insurance contributions, the first thing that the conscientious Member of Parliament asks to see is documentary evidence of the employment. If the employee is not entitled to an itemised pay statement, even when he has been working as many as 16 hours a week, he is at a disadvantage. This can lead to a contest between the oral evidence of the employee and the not always entirely accurate or honest written evidence of the employer. Such disputes take up much time. They come before small claims courts regularly and take up the time of citizens advice bureaux. It is notable that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux takes precisely the same view as I.
  Why are the Government not prepared to impose on businesses that are not the smallest the relatively minor
  902
  requirement to provide a weekly or monthly statement of particulars for employees? It is not asking much. I ask the Minister to explain the reasoning behind the views expressed by the CBI to which he referred. We have not heard the reasoning in the debate so far and there cannot be many CBI members who either could or would wish to take advantage of the distinction that the Government, with the arbitrary cut-off limit of 20 employees, seek to draw between large and small businesses.
  If the Minister is unwilling to change his mind, I ask him at least to give the House an assurance. My request is supported by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which is concerned about the issue. Will he ensure that his Department monitors the operation of the 20-employee limit? I understand that it could be altered by statutory regulations, so primary legislation would not be needed. If the Minister were prepared to monitor the operation of the limit, and if the Government found that abuse was taking place, it would be possible to introduce regulations to reduce the limit. I hope that the Minister will find that to be a reasonable approach.
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I rise briefly to encourage the House to support the Lords amendments and to resist the blandishments of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin). I should declare two interests, one as a trade unionist—I am a member of Equity, enjoying what the union kindly describes as "honourable withdrawal", which I trust will continue for a full three decades—and the other as someone who is unwittingly currently taking part in an experiment on the 48-hour week, as it is 36 hours since we who serve on the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill last saw our beds.
  I urge the House to support Lords amendment No. 29, because everything in it is good sense. Clearly, it reflects a recognition of the changes in the labour market—both the considerable increase in the number of women in the labour market in recent years and the great increase in part-time workers. Incidentally, I look forward to studying the book by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), as I am sure it is full of interesting information on that very topic.
  The nub of the disagreement between the two sides of the House involves the 20-employee limit. The essence of what I wish to share with the House is what I have heard from employers in my constituency—yes, they are members of the Forum of Private Business. I sometimes think that Opposition Members have had little experience of running small businesses. There is no doubt that small businesses are the source of growth. Larger businesses grow from smaller businesses.
  Mr. Miller: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman intends to tell us about his experience as a small business man. Does he provide itemised pay statements for the employees in the small businesses with which he has been involved?
  Mr. Brandreth: Yes, indeed. That is a marvellous example of good practice, and we want to encourage it. That is why the requirement is in the Bill. But we want to get the balance right. We do not want to impose compulsorily on small businesses—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We want to encourage good practice. No doubt, in the fulness of time, more and more small businesses will provide itemised pay statements, but they do not wish to have their hands tied. This is all about getting the balance right. People asked for a listening Government and they

  903
  have got one. We listen to the small businesses and we say, "We want to do this; it is good practice. But we also want to enable you to conduct your business in the way that you think best."
  Mr. Frank Field: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman. Is there not a real weakness in his argument, in that it relies on good practice on a voluntary basis? Presumably he, as a small business man, provides itemised pay slips because he is a good business person, he has nothing to fear and he pays his national insurance contributions as he should. The worry about the voluntary system is that those who do not provide the information are those who most need to do so. Surely that is where, in any civilised society, the law has some part to play.
  Mr. Brandreth: The whole idea is to extend good practice. That is what Conservative Members want, but Labour Members have made it clear that they would like workers who work fewer than eight hours to be included. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Nestor (Mr. Miller) is nodding enthusiastically at the prospect of somebody working for one or two hours a week and being entitled to an itemised pay statement. That is because Labour Members are the friends of bureaucracy and regulation and want to increase the burden. We want to encourage good practice and, at the same time, allow small businesses to work and to grow. This is a small piece of legislation, but it is vital and I thoroughly commend it to the House.
  Mr. Frank Field: I want to support the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) and in so doing to add two further lines of argument.
  I want to develop the line that the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) has just taken, in which he accused Labour Members of paying no attention to what is happening in the labour market. The changes that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East advanced were based on what is happening in that market. An increasing number of people are active in the Labour party —the labour market, rather; thank God the two are not comparable, or the economy would be totally down the drain—and are part of what is called the flexible labour market. If we are not to store up trouble for those people and huge bills for taxpayers later, it is important that we ensure that minimum services are given and contributions are both paid and recorded.
  The argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East—that we should be concerned about both the cut-off point for employers with fewer than 20 employees and the hours cut-off point—is crucial. When we look back on our working lives, let alone those of our grandchildren, we will be amazed at the number of people who at some time worked for a few hours and at other times worked hours more like what we would call a full-time week. If, during those working lives, we are to build up contributions to the national insurance fund and, more important, as time goes by, to universalise private pension arrangements, we should ensure that all employees are safely linked in to building up wealth, from which they can draw on later in their lives.
  I hope that our argument, and the amendments that we have tabled, are seen as part of a broader argument for changes in, for example, national insurance contributions. At the moment, the labour market is rigged. As Mrs.
  904
  Thatcher once said, however, "You can't buck the market." If employers' national insurance contributions are not required below £56 a week, we cannot be surprised when there is a massive extension in part-time jobs.
  I hope that Labour Members will increasingly call for employers' contributions to start at the first pound of earnings—not because we want to increase the amount of money raised by national insurance contributions, but because it is important to have a level playing field, whereby employers and employees can work out how many hours of work are offered and how many hours people want to work, rather than have a financial incentive that gears job creation to part-time jobs.
  If we take seriously the argument of the hon. Member for City of Chester—that we should be concerned with developments in the labour market—we will see him in our Lobby tonight. Changes in the labour market and an increase in the number of what are called "flexible workers" make our argument carry that much more force and leave the Government in some difficulty trying to defend their position.
  If the Government genuinely believe in not rigging markets and in level playing fields, workers' rights should begin with the first hour of earnings. The standards that the hon. Member for City of Chester applies in his own business will, we hope, be applied by all employers. The bad employers would apply those standards because the law compels them to do so and the good employers—who, we hope, are the vast majority—would have no difficulty in fulfilling that requirement because they already do so.
  6.15 pm
  That is one of the arguments that I wish to advance. The other is about minimum standards. The Government have knocked away minimum standards in our society. We have seen that with the mutilation and abolition of wages councils and the abolition of the fair wages resolution and of security for people against being unfairly sacked. If I were speaking to members of the Tory party, they would have no difficulty in understanding my argument, but in the past 15 years a group of 19th-century liberals have climbed aboard the Tory party, thrown the crew overboard and steered the ship in a completely different direction.
  There must be minimum standards. The body politic and the economic arrangements of a society are like the complicated human body, which needs checks and balances; throwing them away results in some very distorted positions and gross exploitation of the weakest members of the labour market. I hope that, as we think about the next election, when we recognise that we are living in an economy governed by a social market, to which we have no fundamental alternative, we make a case against the unacceptable faces of a social market economy as run by this Government.
  Guaranteeing minimum standards for people at the bottom of the pile is one feature. Therefore, I very much support the arguments that were advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East. In so doing, I merely wish to correct the record, because in some debates on the Bill it has been suggested that I am against minimum wage proposals. That is untrue. I have cautioned my party about the employment consequences of a minimum wage—of setting it at an absurd level in the early stages—and about the need for it to be very low, for it to be offset by reductions in national insurance contributions,

  905
  and to link it to an industrial strategy for training and investment to increase productivity. I have not made a stand against a minimum wage, but have cautioned as to how we implement it.
  If Labour is successfully to challenge the unacceptable faces of a social market economy, it must come out very clearly in favour of laying down minimum standards, not in a way that kills the goose that lays the golden egg but with the confidence of a party that knows that all these questions are matters of balance and feels that it has that balance correct. Tonight, we can take one small step against the unacceptable faces that have driven wage rates down to less than £2 for workers in the Birkenhead jobcentre. That is not acceptable. We want countermeasures to tackle that.
  As we approach a much more flexible economy, it is crucial that employers do not get their employees on the cheap—that employers do not deny them their rights to have their national insurance contributions paid and to become part of a universalise provision of private pensions. We must ensure that those contributions are paid, because if we do not, and if the Government get their way, that failure will put that much extra cost on taxpayers and welfare in the future.
  I hope that the Labour party increasingly accepts a reform of welfare which sees the budget being reduced because we have been so successful in knitting people into jobs and into wealth that comes from work and from owning wealth. If that happened, there would be less need for people to draw on what we have traditionally thought of as the welfare state. If that is to be our approach, the House will oppose the Government today. They are moving away from that situation and are increasingly putting the costs back on the employees, and especially those who are least able to bear that cost.
  I welcome the decision of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East to divide the House. We will divide the House tonight on an aspect of the unacceptable faces of the social market economy. Those unacceptable faces are now the big divide between the two major parties in the Chamber.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: The Government's attitude never ceases to amaze me. I find it incredible that we are talking about people as if they were a motor car that was being repaired. Many hon. Members will have had their car fixed and then checked the bill. The bill is itemised, so that the customer can see how much he is being charged per hour for the fitter and the electrician and how much for oil and for the parts. It is not difficult. We live in a high-tech world where computers are an everyday thing, and where schoolkids probably know more about computers than any hon. Member.
  Has any young person been asked how he feels about the proposal? The Government seem to have asked the Confederation of British Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses. I do not know one young person under the age of 20 who has been approached by the Government and asked about the abolition of anything that relates to young people. They have been taken out of the wage councils and have lost some of their rights to protection. There is now a suggestion that they will not get even an itemised wages slip. That is quite incredible.
  Despite the problems that the country faces, the Government are spending time supporting a Lords
  906
  amendment such as this. I find that lamentable. Young people in my constituency want the right to get a job, to get training and to get a full education that will take them into a decent arena of work. Perhaps the Minister would agree with me. I know plenty of young people who would like the Minister's job, and would probably do a far better job than he does. In fact, I guarantee that nearly every 20-year-old in my constituency could do a far better job in coming forward with employment rights to suit the needs and requirements of young people than the Minister.
  I am trying to use my English accent rather than my Glasgow accent so that the Minister will understand. The nitpicking of the Government is unbelievable. The Bill is about trade union reform and employment rights, and we are saying to young folk under 20 that they will not get their rights. The Government want employers not to bother telling their young employees what their deductions are. They do not want to tell the young people what they are earning. Those young people may be working for eight, 10 or 16 hours and they will not be told what they have earned.
  We heard from the Government how many part-time workers are contributing to the country's economy. Are we going to treat them like a lump of stone to be shoved about, or are we going to treat them like human beings? I resent the Government treating our people like cannon fodder to be blown about and to be treated in such a fashion. The House is not talking about animals; it is talking about people. Surely our people have the right to be treated in a dignified fashion. If they work for an hour, they are entitled to know what their wages are for that hour. They are entitled to get a pay slip.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Normally, the hon. Gentleman and I get on extremely well in debates such as this. Could I draw to his attention the fact that we are discussing a Government amendment which, precisely as he asks, gives people the right to an itemised pay statement? The Opposition amendment seeks to amend our amendment to remove the limit that has been set to exclude small employers. That is the issue. I should not want the hon. Gentleman to be put in a position where Conservative Members might decide that his job could be better done by a 20-year-old as well.
  Mr. Graham: I am convinced that literally hundreds of thousands of young people under the age of 20 could do a far superior job. I am here to give the House the benefit of my experience in a way that is fitting, given that my constituents sent me to this place.
  Could the Minister say why the matter has been discussed with employers only? Why has it not been discussed with young people? The Government never discuss anthing with the young people of this country, and they are treated like cannon fodder. In a war such as there was in the Gulf, it would not be long before the young people were in the front line and lying down and dying for this country. The Government would demand that they go to war.
  Why do not the Government recognise the right of young people to an itemised wage bill? Why should not young people see a breakdown of their pay? I know of plenty of duff employers. I know of some savage employers who have gone bankrupt and out of business. Some are hiding in Cyprus or Spain and did not pay any tax for their employees. I know some kids who are waiting

  907
  for their holiday pay. I know people who have waited years for their holiday pay because they did not get it from a bum, bad employer. I have a list of those companies as long as my arm. We can supply the Minister with the list if he wants us to.
  I am sick and tired of the House debating the subject of young people without any real consideration for their thoughts. We are turning out some of the biggest bunch of old fogeys in the western world. Unfortunately, when I sit in the House, I realise that I am an old fogey along with other hon. Members. I have two young sons who do not miss me. When I come home, they ask: "When is the House going to get its act together? Why are there thousands and thousands of their pals on the dole who cannot get work and who want to work? Why are not the young people getting a proper education or proper training?"
  I challenged the Minister on the question of training credits for young people. I was told that there were thousands of training credits in my area. Last night, I asked an executive of Scottish Enterprise how many folk were getting the credits. The answer was none. There were six getting credits in Dunbarton and others elsewhere in Scotland. The point is that I got bum information, which was neither suitable nor acceptable to my constituents. If the Minister can get that wrong, he can get the amendment wrong, too.
  The other day I got a telephone bill from British Telecom. Have hon. Members seen it? There is an itemised bill—no problem. The customer sees that he has spent 64p here and 54p there, or talked for a minute here and one and a half minutes there. The customer can find out whether his wife has overdone the phone bill—my wife usually says that I have overdone it. If a customer goes to the grocers, or shops at Asda or Tesco, there is an iternised bill. Has the Minister ever been shopping? I go with the wife. The bill shows a pint of milk and a loaf of bread. It tells the customer that he has bought those things and gives him the price of them. There is no problem at all.
  Yet the Government tell us that they are helping small business by not giving employees an itemised wages slip. Their heads are in a tin—they are off their nut. That is not the kind of progress that we need. Let us have genuine discussions about employment rights, and no nonsense wasting the time of the House.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Michael Clapham:The statutory right to an intemised pay slip is fundamental. It is something that a worker should expect when he takes employment, no matter how many hours he works. The amendment will not extend that statutory right to tens of thousands of vulnerable people.
  Many, if not all, of those workers will be women who have been forced into part-time employment because of economic circumstances. They have had to take a few hours work to earn a little more money to support the family, to buy a little more for the table and to buy clothes for the children, because, generally, one person in the partnership is out of work.
  In these days of mass unemployment, when jobs are hard to come by, many part-time workers will be young people who have been unable to find full-time work and have had to take the first part-time job that comes along.
  908
  The people who framed the amendment have little idea how many people might be affected. I said that tens of thousands of people will be affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) mentioned 780,000 people.
  This morning, in its submission to the Trade and Industry Select Committee, the Federation of Small Businesses said there are as many as 4 million self-employed small business men and I million small limited companies. It said that about 97 per cent. of small businesses employ fewer than 20 people, and 91 per cent. employ fewer than 10 people. A great many of those employees will be part-time. If we multiply that figure by 10, we will not be far short of the figure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East used—that is, 780,000.
  Ms Quin: The 780,000 which my hon. Friend rightly quoted includes those in companies which employ fewer than 20 people who work more than eight hours but fewer than 16 hours. If we take into account those who work fewer than eight hours, we have a figure of 1·25 million. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; a very large number of people are affected.
  Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. We are talking of more than 1 million workers being affected.
  Under this Government, small businesses have been treated rather shabbily. In 1992, for example, the failure rate was almost 63,000. Many employees will have claims against the small businesses that have folded. Those employees will be able to prosecute their claims, because they will have evidence that they were employed, evidence of the hours they worked, and evidence of how much they earned. Without an itemised pay slip, it is unlikely that an employee will be able to prosecute a claim.
  The amendment gives a nod and a wink to employers not to keep records. The Government should make it clear that records are necessary and should be kept by small businesses. The Lords amendment is a retrograde step; I ask the House to vote against it and to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East.
  Ms Ann Coffey: No doubt the Minister will respond to our amendment by arguing that the small additional costs that might be incurred by itemising pay slips for employees in firms of fewer than 20 employees will be the straw that breaks the camel's back for some small firms, and will drive them into bankruptcy. The Minister might be interested to hear what representatives of industry, including small businesses and the Confederation of British Industry, have told the Trade and Industry Select Committee about ways of improving the competitiveness and productivity of British industry, so that the hon. Gentleman can be assured that the emphasis on cost is the least of industry's problems and that he can therefore support our amendment.
  Among the problems that have been identified, particularly by small business, are the way that VAT is collected; the attitude of the banks; difficulties in obtaining loans; the tax system, and particularly how it affects small businesses; the lack of an overall structure; infrastructure, including education; and the difficulty with training and transport. This morning, the representatives who attended the Select Committee did not touch upon any costs

  909
  relating to labour. That has not been identified to us as a major problem, although representatives went on at length about some of the factors that I have drawn to the Minister's attention.
  It is becoming clear that the countries that do better than us and have more productive industries than ours —for example, Japan and Germany—have a fundamentally different attitude to their employees. That is reflected in employment and trade union rights and the bargaining process in respect of wage settlements. The reason for those countries' higher productivity is that their work forces have been managed properly and involved in firms' decisions. They feel that they have a long-term future and are therefore willing to work harder for their companies. That has led to higher productivity and higher-quality goods.
  That point is not difficult to understand. The Minister knows that anybody who is managed well will respond more favourably. I am sure that the Ministers whom the Prime Minister treats well behave much better than the Ministers whom he does not treat well. That is a fact of life: it is plain common sense. Indeed, this morning, the CBI acknowledged that there has been a problem with the lack of management skills in industry, and that we must involve people more. Only by doing so can we use the talents and skills of our people and stop the desperate malaise in British industry. I draw that to the Minister's attention because the issue of itemised pay slips, although small in itself, is important in recognising employees' rights.
  A Conservative Member talked about the odd job of a cleaning lady. It is not an odd job at all. Without women doing those jobs, the country would collapse. The problem is that no value is placed on that work. Itemised pay slips for those workers is a way of giving the message that they are important. It is up to the Government to show leadership. If the Government do not show leadership by saying that people and their jobs are important, we cannot expect the management of British industry to give that message. The Government have a chance to give that message by supporting our amendment. Cost did not prevent the Government from asking local authorities to send out itemised poll tax bills to all residents. Local authorities are a service industry. The Government asked local authorities to do that because they thought that it was right and proper that taxpayers should be aware of what they were being asked to pay.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady is making the same mistake as the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). As a result of our amendment, large employers will, for the first time, he required to give itemised pay statements to employees who work a small number of hours. What is at issue is small businesses, so an analogy with itemised statements being required by large employers such as local authorities is not a fair one.
  Ms Coffey: The Minister should recall that, at the beginning of my speech, I anticipated his argument about extending that right to firms with less than 20 employees. I anticipated that his argument would relate to cost. I have not misunderstood the amendment. My point is that, if something is right and the Government think that it is right, regardless of the cost—for example, to send itemised
  910
  poll tax bills to all residents in a borough—the argument about cost is not one that the Minister can use at all because the issue is about rights. I see that the Minister now understands.
  Millions of pounds have been spent on sending out glossy brochures about the citizens charter and aspects of the health service. That has cost the service industries money, but the Government did that because they thought that it was right. My point is that, if it is right to send itemised pay slips to employees, it is right to send them to all employees.
  The Government have a fundamental problem in distinguishing rights from costs. There is a great strength of feeling in the United Kingdom that the contribution that people make is not valued and their rights are balanced by the Government time and time again on factors relating to cost. The contribution that people make is important, and they should not be denied basic rights simply because of the cost.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Miller: When my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) was speaking, I noticed that the Government Whip had his handkerchief out. I thought that he was bursting into tears at the thought of having to provide an itemised pay statement for his valet, or whatever.
  The crux of the argument is the question: why should any worker not be entitled to an itemised pay statement? The Government bluntly said that it would be too costly. Indeed, in Committee on 14 January, the Minister of State suffered from the needle being stuck more than once, because he repeated himself three times in columns 435–36 when referring to the additional cost imposed on employers.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made an important point that followed the theme adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) in terms of legal cases. My hon. Friend referred to the evidence submitted by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery referred to a number of legal cases in his professional background that stemmed from companies with a small number of employees.
  Last night, I advised the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on an issue that affects her responsibility, which spills into this debate. It is ironic that she held the position of Secretary of State for Employment previously. It is a great pity that the Minister has chosen to ignore the evidence provided to the Committee by NACAB.
  In a document sent to me today, NACAB says that evidence shows that itemised pay slips can save a lot of time later if disputes arise. That is exactly along the lines of the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. For example, if an employee thinks that an employer has not paid the correct amount, made an illegal deduction from his pay or not been paying tax, it is the experience of the NACAB that some employers clearly flout their obligations under the law by not deducting pay-as-you-earn tax and national insurance contributions. Other employers may make the deductions but not pay the money to the Inland Revenue.
  In both cases, that is revenue lost to the Exchequer and deficient national insurance contribution records affect

  911
  future benefit entitlements. The National Audit Office reported that there was large-scale under-collection of national insurance contributions.
  If those issues are not ones in which the Government should be interested, given the perilous state of the nation's finances, I do not know what are. It is ironic that the Government should choose to ignore that, from the Treasury point of view and that of individual citizens who are affected by some of the examples to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East referred.
  There are many other examples. A citizens advice bureau in South Wales reports a client who is employed by a nursing home. Her contract states that, if her pay exceeds the lower limit for national insurance contributions, she may receive store gift vouchers, which are exempt from national insurance. That is illegal. I am not entirely sure that having a pay statement would mitigate that. but it would go a long way to helping the employee to argue her legal rights if the matter went to court.
  A citizens advice bureau in Devon reports a client who was paid £23 a night to work in a residential care home, despite being told that she would be paid £24 a night. When she complained, she was told that it was to keep her payments below the national insurance level. She insisted on full payment, and her next wage packet had £6·50 deducted for national insurance contributions. As her wage was below the level for national insurance contributions, the deductions were clearly wrong. If she had had documentary proof of that in the form of an itemised pay statement, she would have been in a strong position to challenge her employer in court.
  I shall give the Government some advice about the way in which to encourage small businesses to think positively about this matter, and I shall do so in two ways. One way to encourage small businesses is by the use of modern technology—I say this as someone who has some knowledge of the subject.
  It is interesting that the training and enterprise council in my area has sent out 10,000 attractively produced glossy leaflets showing its successes and activities. I do not criticise the TEC for many of the activities in which it has engaged, but, I criticise the use of money to produce the glossy literature. That money could have been used to train small employers in how better to utilise modern technology in their industries to ensure that such simple things can be provided as a matter of course.
  Any company worth its salt keeps records. It is more efficient to keep records on a computer database than to do so manually. The Secretary of State will know Chester, Ellesmere Port and Warrington TEC—CEWTEC—and will doubtless praise many of its activities, but I am sure that he will agree that it could direct some resources towards helping to train small businesses in how to improve their record-keeping, administration and efficiency. Part of that process could be to encourage small businesses, many of which use computers, to utilise facilities that are available at minimal cost to provide statements to their employees.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: From his experience, can the hon. Gentleman say how long it would take to prepare an itemised statement?
  Mr. Miller: I shall stick to the point that I was making about computerised information, and will refer to manual records later.
  912
  A good employer will collate the relevant computerised data, and it would take seconds to produce an itemised statement. If an employer has a well organised database, the stroke of a handful of keys will be all that is necessary to produce the statement. The process can he as quick as that in a well run business—and we are all in favour of encouraging such businesses.
  The same arguments can be applied to the question whether there should be an upper limit of 20. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) made an important contribution in Committee, and I congratulate her on being positive. I hope that she does not back off one jot from the sentence, which is on record, in which she said:
  "As the trend is towards part-time work, especially for women, it is important that everyone who has deductions from pay, and who in future may have to prove them either to the Inland Revenue or to the Benefits Agency, has written proof of those deductions."—[Official Report. Standing Committee F, 14 January 1993; c. 434.]
  I absolutely agree—"everyone" must mean everyone in a company, irrespective of size. I hope that the hon. Member for Tiverton will support us in the Division Lobby. Why should there be an arbitrary limit on the number of employees in a company?
  To return to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), even if a very small company cannot justify the few hundred pounds' investment in a personal computer that could be used for other activities, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has supplied the ideal solution. A proforma duplicate pad could be used to provide the basic information.
  An employer—no matter what size his business—must keep books in some form or another, so to produce information on a carbonised pad would not take any effort. It would require the employer to produce information in an honest, open and accountable way to all those involved—not just the employees, but all the public agencies. Even if the technology in a company extended only to a ballpoint pen, the employer would have the facilities at his disposal to provide the information required.
  It is against that background that I believe that the Government have slipped up badly. They had an opportunity to make a major advance and have failed to take it. Therefore, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East in opposing the Lords amendment.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: We have had an interesting debate and learnt that the official Opposition policy is to start a paper chase the length and breadth of Britain. Every cleaning lady and part-time handyman will be given a piece of paper by their employers, whether they want it or not.
  The Opposition have been thoroughly ungrateful today in the face of the Government's reasonable and responsible response to considered arguments.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: Not true.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that that is not true. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) —I am delighted that she has agreed to become my Parliamentary Private Secretary today. It was in no small part due to the part that she played in Committee that my right hon. Friend and I felt that she would be a splendid

  913
  addition to the Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton took the initiative in Committee. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) supported the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend.
  The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) is not distinguishing himself today—he is no gentleman. He quoted my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton selectively. He did not quote column 436, where she said in response to my comments:
  "I am encouraged by my hon. Friend's comments"
  My comments in respect of the amendment were:
  "Once again, we are discussing an additional cost being imposed on employers. I am not certain what the costs or the implications would be. We have had no opportunity to discuss the idea with any of the organisations which represent small businesses, which would be affected by the proposal. If my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment, we can pursue her idea with outside groups which take an interest in these matters, and reach a conclusion."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 14 January 1993; c. 436.]
  That is precisely what we did—we consulted.
  Earlier, I was criticised for not consulting. On that occasion we consulted and found that the Confederation of British Industry, the Forum of Private Business and other organisations wanted a cut-off for small firms. That was why we introduced the amendment to improve the law by giving new rights to employees who work a small number of hours. We limited the legislation in terms of the impact on business and introduced it in such a way that any change to the limit can be made by secondary legislation should any Government decide to do so in the future.
  That policy marks an advance, and to be faced with Opposition criticism that we have not done enough in a sector where we have done a great deal as a result of discussions in Committee—and done so in double quick time—is harsh.
  Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and particularly for reminding us that the Government are a listening Government. We applaud the Minister for talking to the CBI and representatives of small businesses before reaching a decision. However, how many low-paid, part-time workers in his constituency did he speak to before coming up with his formula?
  Mr. Forsyth: The conversations that I have had with low-paid workers in my constituency showed that receiving itemised pay statements was not at the top of their agenda, where they listed more basic items such as how to improve their employment prospects, deal with housing problems and other such issues. One of the ways of solving such problems is to increase this country's wealth-creating capacity. We shall not achieve that by tying up businesses in red tape, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
  Mr. David Hanson: Did the Minister consult his colleagues in the Department of Social Security and in the Benefits Agency? I am worried that many people who will not now have itemised pay slips will not qualify for means-tested benefits and other benefits administered by the Department. What did the DSS have to say about his proposals?
  7 pm
  Mr. Forsyth: People in the tax system will get their P60s, which provide the information. There is nothing to prevent employers, the vast majority of whom follow best practices in this matter, from providing the information for people whose incomes fall below that. Just for once, the hon. Gentleman should bring himself to welcome a Government proposal and to acknowledge that the position of people employed by firms with more than 20 employees working a small number of hours has been greatly improved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Brandreth) said, there must be a balance between the benefits and the costs of the bureaucracy imposed on small businesses.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said that not many members of the CBI have fewer than 20 employees. He should remember that these small firms are the future large employer members of the CBI, and if they have to spend every waking hour filling in forms and sending out bits of paper, they will never become the larger firms that will provide the jobs of the future.
  Mr. Graham: I am not knocking the Government for talking to the CBI—I thought that the Government were in the closet with the CBI all the time, anyway—but I do take issue with the Government over how many employees they may have consulted. Have they spoken to trade unions or youth organisations about their decision? We seem to hear a lot from the Government about small employers, but not much about employees. How will this measure help them?
  Mr. Forsyth: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech. He said that computers are all around us and that high technology is a fact of life. I suggest that he go and talk to those who own the newsagents, corner shops and small firms in his constituency and ask them to show him their computers which will produce itemised pay statements. He will find that there, as elsewhere in the country, employers with small numbers of employees are struggling under numerous burdens, and they would not thank this House for adding to those burdens at a time when they are working hard to create wealth and to survive in difficult trading conditions.
  Mr. Peter L Pike rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been listening long to our proceedings.
  The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), who is not now in her place, asked me to bear in mind the importance of competitiveness. She spoke about the evidence given by the CBI and others to the Trade and Industry Select Committee. She at least listens to the voice of business. She said that competitiveness was important and that we ought to learn from Japan, where there was a fundamentally different attitude to employees. I could not agree with her more. The difference between Japan and Europe is that Japanese non-wage labour costs are exactly half those of Europe. Opposition Members should stop coming up with bright ideas to add to the non-wage costs of our employers—especially small employers.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery wanted me to give an assurance that we would monitor the progress of the legislation. The Government monitor every

  915
  piece of legislation. I only regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not give us credit for having made an advance—
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister mean to say that he has evidence that in Japan pay slips are not given to employees who work part time in industry? I suggest that the vast majority of Japanese employers give computerised pay slips to part-time employees who work less than 16 hours.
  Mr. Forsyth: I knew that the Liberals made up their policies as they go along; I did not realise that they did the same when it comes to arguments of this kind. I repeat: the non-wage labour costs of Japan are half those of the European Community, thus giving it a competitive advantage. If the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues had had their way, British non-wage costs would be a good deal higher, as they would have made us sign up to the social chapter and all the other nonsense which will make it much more difficult for Europe to compete with the Japanese and others.
  Lords amendments Nos. 29 and 41 represent an advance. I ask the House to support them and to reject the Opposition amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 281.

  Division 299]

  [7.05 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clelland, David

  Allen, Graham

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Alton, David

  Coffey, Ann

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Connarty, Michael

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ashton, Joe

  Corbett, Robin

  Austin-Walker, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry

  Cousins, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Cryer, Bob

  Battle, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dafis, Cynog

  Beggs, Roy

  Darling, Alistair

  Bell, Stuart

  Davidson, Ian

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Benton, Joe

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Denham, John

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Dewar, Donald

  Blair, Tony

  Dixon, Don

  Blunkett, David

  Dobson, Frank

  Boateng, Paul

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Dowd, Jim

  Boyes, Roland

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bradley, Keith

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Eastham, Ken

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Enright, Derek

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Etherington, Bill

  Burden, Richard

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Byers, Stephen

  Fatchett, Derek

  Caborn, Richard

  Faulds, Andrew

  Callaghan, Jim

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Canavan, Dennis

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Cann, Jamie

  Foulkes, George

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Fraser, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clapham, Michael

  Galbraith. Sam

  916

  Gapes, Mike

  Milburn, Alan

  Garrett, John

  Miller, Andrew

  George, Bruce

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Godsiff, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Gould, Bryan

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Graham, Thomas

  Mudie, George

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Mullin, Chris

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Murphy, Paul

  Grocott, Bruce

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gunnell, John

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hain, Peter

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hall, Mike

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hanson, David

  Olner, William

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Neill, Martin

  Heppell, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Parry, Robert

  Hoey, Kate

  Patchett, Terry

  Home Robertson, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pope, Greg

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Radice, Giles

  Hutton, John

  Randall, Stuart

  Ingram, Adam

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Rendel, David

  Jamieson, David

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Janner, Greville

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jowell, Tessa

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Salmond, Alex

  Keen, Alan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Short, Clare

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Simpson, Alan

  Leighton, Ron

  Skinner, Dennis

  Litherland, Robert

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Snape, Peter

  McAllion, John

  Soley, Clive

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Spearing, Nigel

  McCartney, Ian

  Spellar, John

  Macdonald, Calum

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McKelvey, William

  Stevenson, George

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Stott, Roger

  McLeish, Henry

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Maclennan, Robert

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Tipping, Paddy

  McWilliam, John

  Trimble, David

  Madden, Max

  Turner, Dennis

  Mahon, Alice

  Tyler, Paul

  Mandelson, Peter

  Vaz, Keith

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Wallace, James

  Martlew, Eric

  Walley, Joan

  Maxton, John

  Warded, Gareth (Gower)

  Meacher, Michael

  Wareing, Robert N

  Meale, Alan

  Welsh, Andrew

  Michael, Alun

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  917

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Winnick, David

  Wise, Audrey

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mr. Eric Illsley.

  Wright, Dr Tony

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Dicks, Terry

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Alexander, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Dover, Den

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Duncan, Alan

  Amess, David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dunn, Bob

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Ashby, David

  Eggar, Tim

  Aspinwall. Jack

  Elletson, Harold

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bake, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Baldry, Tony

  Evennett, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Faber, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bates, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forman, Nigel

  Bendall, Vivian

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forth, Eric

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Booth, Hartley

  French, Douglas

  Boswell, Tim

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gallie, Phil

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bowis, John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Garnier, Edward

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bright, Graham

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gorst, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burt, Alistair

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Butler, Peter

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hague, William

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Cash, William

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hannam, Sir John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Churchill, Mr

  Harris, David

  Clappison, James

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hayes, Jerry

  Coe, Sebastian

  Heald, Oliver

  Colvin, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Congdon, David

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Horam, John

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

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

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cran, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (North

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Norfolk)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  918

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Key, Robert

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knapman, Roger

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shersby, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sims, Roger

  Legg, Barry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lightbown, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lord, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Luff, Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacKay, Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Maclean, David

  Stephen, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Madel, David

  Stewart, Allan

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Streeter, Gary

  Malone, Gerald

  Sumberg, David

  Mans, Keith

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marlow, Tony

  Sykes, John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Tapsell. Sir Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Milligan, Stephen

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tracey, Richard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tredinnick, David

  Needham, Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Trotter, Neville

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Norris, Steve

  Walden, George

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Waller, Gary

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Page, Richard

  Watts, John

  Paice, James

  Wells, Bowen

  Patnick, Irvine

  Whitney, Ray

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Whittingdale, John

  Pawsey, James

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Pickles, Eric

  Willetts, David

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wilshire, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wolfson. Mark

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wood, Timothy

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Yeo, Tim

  Richards, Rod

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Riddick, Graham

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Lords amendment No. 29 agreed to.

  New clause
  Lords amendment: No. 30—Dismissal on ground of assertion to statutory right—
  (".—(1) After section 60 of the 1978 Act (as substituted by section 23 of this Act), there shall be inserted—

  DISMISSAL ON GROUNDS OF ASSERTION OF STATUTORY RIGHT.
  60A.—(1) The dismissal of an employee by an employer shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as having been unfair if the reason for it (or, if more than one, the principal reason) was that the employee—

  (a) brought proceedings against the employer to enforce a right of his which is a relevant statutory right; or

  (b) alleged that the employer had infringed a right of his which is a relevant statutory right.

  (2) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (I) whether the employee has the right or not and whether it has been infringed or not, but, for that subsection to apply, the claim to the right and that it has been infringed must be made in good faith.
  (3) It shall be sufficient for subsection (I) to apply that the employee, without specifying the right, made it reasonably clear to the employer what the right claimed to have been infringed was.
  (4) The following statutory rights are relevant for the purposes of this section, namely—

  (a) any right conferred by—

  (i) this Act, or

  (ii) the Wages Act 1986, for which the remedy for its infringement is by way of a complaint or reference to an industrial tribunal;

  (b) the right conferred by section 49 (minimum notice):

  (c) the rights conferred by the following provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consoldiation) Act 1992, namely, sections 68, 86, 146, 168, 169 and 170 (deductions from pay, union activities and time off)."

  (2) In section 59 of the 1978 Act (dismissal on ground of redundancy), in subsection (2) (inserted by section 23(2) of this Act), after the word "(e)" there shall he inserted the words "or 60A(1) (read with (2) and (3))".
  (3) In section 64 of the 1978 Act (qualifying period for right not to be unfairly dismissed), in subsection (4) (inserted by section 23(3) of this Act), after the word "(e)" there shall be inserted the words "or 60A(1) (read with (2) and (3))".")
  Read a Second time.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 42, 59, 60 and 64.
  Mr. Forsyth: Government amendment No. 30, with which are grouped the associated minor and technical amendments, is an important addition to the Bill's provisions, making a further significant enhancement to employees' individual rights.
  The new clause was first introduced by the Government in Committee in another place to fulfil a commitment that I gave, I think from memory, to the hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). We had undertaken to introduce a measure giving employees, regardless of their length of service or hours of work, protection against being unfairly dismissed for seeking to
  920
  enforce the right to a written statement of main employment particulars. We had also said that we would consider the extent to which similar protection might be extended to employees seeking to enforce other statutory employment rights.
  We concluded that the new provision should be comprehensive, applying in respect of all statutory employment protection rights. The rights in question are: all rights conferred by either the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 or the Wages Act 1986 for which the remedy for infringement is by way of a complaint or a reference to an industrial tribunal; the right to a minimum period of notice; and all the rights which an employee may exercise against his or her employer under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
  The protection will apply where the employee's dismissal was on the ground that he or she had brought proceedings against the employer to enforce one of these rights and also where it was on the ground that he or she had alleged that the employer had infringed such a right. The protection will also apply where the employee was selected for redundancy on the same grounds.
  It will be unnecessary for the employee actually to have made detailed reference to the right in question, as long as he or she made it reasonably clear to the employer what that right was. It will also be immaterial whether the employee had actually qualified for the right and whether the right had been infringed, provided that he or she had acted in good faith in seeking to assert it. I am sure that the Opposition will agree that that is watertight.
  As I am sure all hon. Members will agree, dismissal of an employee for seeking in good faith to enforce his or her statutory employment protection rights is wholly unjustifiable. I am confident that few employers would ever contemplate acting in such an irresponsible manner. However, the new clause, which will make all such dismissals automatically unfair, will provide comprehensive new protection for individual employees against any misguided employer who might act in this way.
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: I welcome this generous amendment, which more than fulfils the commitments given by the Minister in Committee. We are pleased that the amendment does not merely place a duty on the employee to show that his rights were impeded. Irrespective of whether it was later shown that he did not have a right to ask for information because of a technical problem, the important issue is that the employee acted in good faith. It is good that, for once, in the Bill the benefit of the doubt is given to the employee.
  The measure does not deal with whether an industrial tribunal can order reinstatement or award compensation. However, I should be ruled out of order if I started to discuss that and the Minister would think I was being churlish. In any case we discussed the matter in Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  New clause
  Lords amendment: No. 31—Application of 1978 Act to service in armed forces—
  (".—(1) In section 138 of the 1978 Act (application of Act to Crown employment) for subsection (3) (service in the armed forces excepted) there shall be substituted—
  "(3) This section applies to service as a member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown but only

  921
  in accordance with section 138A and it applies also to employment by any association established for the purposes of Part VI of the Reserve Forces Act 1980."
  (2) After section 138, there shall be inserted—
  "Application of Act to armed forces.
  138A.—(1) The provisions of this Act which apply, by virtue of section 138, to service as a member of the naval, military or air forces of the crown are—

  Part I;

  in Part II, sections 19 to 22 and 31A;

  Part III;

  in Part IV, section 53;

  Part V, except sections 57A and 80;

  Part VIII; and

  this Part.

  (2) Her Majesty may, by Order in Council,—

  (a) amend subsection (1) above by making additions to, or omissions from, the provisions for the time being specified in that subsection by an Order under this subsection; and

  (b) make any provision apply to service as a member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the Order.

  (3) Subject to subsection (5) below, modifications made under subsection (2) above may include provision precluding the making of a complaint or reference to any industrial tribunal unless the person aggrieved has availed himself of the service procedures for the redress of complaints applicable to him.
  (4) Where modifications include the provision authorised by subsection (3) above the Order in Council shall also include provision designed to secure that the service procedures for the redress of complaints result in a determination, or what is to be treated under the Order as a determination, in sufficient time to enable a complaint or reference to be made to an industrial tribunal.
  (5) No provision shall be made by virtue of subsection (3) above which has the effect of substituting, for any period specified as the normal period for a complaint or reference on any matter to an industrial tribunal, a period longer than six months.
  (6) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an Order in Council under subsection (2) above unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
  (7) In this section—
  "the normal period for a complaint or reference", in relation to any matter within the jurisdiction of an industrial tribunal, means the period specified in the relevant enactment as the period within which the complaint or reference must be made, disregarding any provision permitting an extension of that period at the discretion of the tribunal; and
  "the service procedures for the redress of complaints" means the procedures, excluding those which relate to the making of a report on a complaint to Her Majesty, referred to in sections 180 and 181 of the Army Act 1955, sections 180 and 181 of the Air Force Act 1955 and section 130 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957."")
  Read a Second time.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) for his comments on the previous amendment. I am sure that he and his colleagues will also welcome this new clause, which will considerably improve the rights of members of the armed forces to enjoy employment protection measures equivalent to those that are enjoyed by civilian employees.
  It has always been recognised that members of the armed forces are in a special employment position, and that measures applying to civilian employees may well be inappropriate. This is why service in the armed forces has up to now been excluded from coverage by the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, by
  922
  virtue of section 138(3). This subsection provides that subsection (1), which applies many of the Act's provisions to Crown employees, does not apply to those in the armed forces. However, in this day and age, such a blanket exclusion is unnecessary and unjustified. The new clause brings the provisions up to date. It applies to the armed forces almost the same list of provisions as apply to Crown servants.
  Nevertheless, it is clear that modifications will need to be made to the provisions to make them compatible with the special considerations that necessarily apply to the services. Therefore, the clause contains powers to enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to make an order providing that internal procedures will need to be exhausted before service men and service women can take a complaint to an industrial tribunal and make any other necessary adaptations.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I have a special responsibility for defence for the Opposition and I welcome this new clause. It has been tabled because of cases of discrimination, especially against pregnant women. I hope that there will be no repeat of the recent case of an RAF sergeant, a skilled technician, who, although she was not dismissed when she had twins, was told that she would not be given housing accommodation and that if she was posted abroad and her children went with her they would not be given education or medical facilities. She was also told that if her children stayed in this country boarding school allowances would not be payable. That was discrimination of the worst kind.
  I understand that pressure was one of the reasons for the Government altering the Bill. Another reason is the EC directive, which would probably force the Government to accept contracts of employment. The debate in the other place was short. Will people in the armed forces be allowed a written statement of employment, an itemised pay statement and maternity leave? Will they be given a written statement of reasons for dismissal and will they be allowed the right to claim unfair dismissal and the right to go to an industrial tribunal?
  I understand that the clause precludes members of the armed forces from becoming members of a trade union. For that reason, it is important to place on record the rights that the new clause will extend to members of the armed forces. Those rights need to be spelt out in black and white and I hope that the Minister can state the exact meaning of the new clause.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of detailed questions. I am grateful to him; I share his concern about, for instance, the rights of women in the armed services who become pregnant.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me about certain specific rights. The amendment replaces section 138(3) with a new subsection which will apply to members of the armed forces, relating to the rights specified in new subsection (1) —that is, rights to written statements of the main terms and conditions of employment, as amended to reflect, among other things, the requirement of the EC proof of employment directive. Those terms and conditions are itemised pay statements, the right to be paid when under medical supervision, time off for ante-natal care, maternity rights as amended by the Bill to implement the pregnant

  923
  workers directive, a written statement of the reason for dismissal, a right not to be unfairly dismissed and resolution of disputes by an industrial tribunal.
  7.30 pm
  I have said that access to an industrial tribunal will be limited until the internal procedures have been followed —although there is a further safeguard in the form of a six-month time limit. Subsections (2)(a) and (b) of new section 138A provide that the provisions specified in subsection (1) may be added to, removed or modified by Order in Council.
  The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who probably knows more than I do about the details of arrangements for the armed services, will be aware that their members already receive itemised pay statements.
  ("( ) in Regulation 5 (effect of transfer on contracts of employment, etc)—

  (a) in paragraph (1), at the beginning, there shall be inserted the words "Except where objection is made under paragraph (4A) below,";

  (b) in paragraph (2) after the words "paragraph (I) above there shall be inserted the words "but subject to paragraph (4A) below,";

  (c) after paragraph (4), there shall be inserted—

  "(4A) Paragraphs (1) and (2) above shall not operate to transfer his contract of employment and the rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with it if the employee informs the transferor or the transferee that he objects to becoming employed by the transferee.

  (4B) where an employee so objects the transfer of the undertaking or part in which he is employed shall operate so as to terminate his contract of employment with the transferor but he shall not be treated, for any purpose, as having been dismissed by the transferor."; and

  (d) in paragraph (5), for the words "Paragraph (1) above is" there shall be substituted the words "Paragraphs (1) and (4A) above are".")

  Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in line 19, leave out
  'not be treated, for any purpose'
  and insert
  'be treated, for all purposes'.
  I fear that peace broke out for only a short time and that we are about to engage in battle again. The Minister and his hon. Friend do not like that idea at all; it frightens them. We are about to discuss the aspect of the Bill that the Minister and the Government probably hate most—the question of the European acquired rights directive on the transfer of engagement. It is more commonly known as TUPE, or the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1991.
  The Government have always opposed the directive. They have always tried to cover up its significance and have attempted to fiddle the law in order to do so. When they were caught, instead of saying, "It's a fair cop, guy," their line was, "We never did anything. We did not steal the car; we were just borrowing it. If they wanted it back, they could have had it back at any time—honest, m'lud. We were not trying to mislead the public in any way." According to the Government, their proposals were always intended to apply to competitive tendering. We are now dealing with an amendment to the regulation involved.
  The amendment was prompted by a case in the European Court of Justice. It is known as the Kastikas
  924
  The Ministry of Defence is reviewing the policy that denies married quarters and boarding-school allowances to unmarried parents; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is pleased about that, as I am.
  Peace has broken out in our consideration of these Lords amendments. I commend Lords amendment No. 31 to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29

  AMENDMENTS OF TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS REGULATIONS
  Lords amendment: No. 32, in page 47, line 10, at end insert—
  case. I hope that I have pronounced that correctly; I understood the Minister when he said that many a mickle makes a muckle, but my Greek is not quite up to his lowland Scots. [Interruption.] The Minister has just corrected my pronunciation, demonstrating that he has a grasp of Greek as well as lowland Scots. That is splendid. He had a proper Scottish education: if hon. Members are in any doubt about that, let me tell them that he attended Arbroath high school. That good start was followed by a retrograde step, in that the Minister then went to St. Andrews university; but those of us who went to superior Scottish universities appreciate that some folk who cannot get into them will end up at St. Andrews.
  The Kastikas case demonstrated that, when an undertaking is transferred from one employer to another, no one employed by the transferor is obliged to have the contract transferred to the employee. That surprised me, and I gather that it surprised many other people. We had always assumed that, in the event of a transfer of engagement, all contracts of employment were transferred. Not so, said the European Court:
  "If the Directive … allows an employee to remain in employment with a new employer on the same conditions as those agreed with the transferor"
  this is important—
  "it cannot be interpreted as obliging the employee to continue his employment relationship with the transferee.
  Such an obligation would undermine the fundamental rights of the employee who must be free to choose his employer and cannot be obliged to work for an employer." That important first part of the Court's judgment established that the individual had a fundamental right not to be compelled to work for an employer and that the contract could therefore not be considered transferable under the directive.
  The judgment stated that the provisions
  "do not prevent an employee from objecting to the transfer of his contract of employment or of his employment relationship."
  The court then dealt with what is effectively the crux of the dispute that we are having today:
  "In such cases, it is for the Member States to determine the fate of the contract of employment or of the employment relationship."
  The judgment has two essential parts. First, it states that the employee can object: he is under no obligation to transfer. However, what happens to the contract of employment is then a matter for the member state alone. No decision has been made about that, so it is up to the Government to table the necessary amendment. They were given the opportunity to clarify the law, but once again they have chosen not to side with the employee. Most people would have expected them to do so; after all, the employee is at a disadvantage. It is the employer who triggers the change in employment. The amendment, however, gives the advantage to the employer yet again. Whenever they are given the choice, the Government side with the employer.
  The Government have said that the employee has the right to object, but if that happens, what was described in the other place as a depth charge or nuclear explosion will be brought into play: the employee will instantly be considered to have been dismissed.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: What is at issue is this: if an employee decides not to transfer to the new employer, he is held to have resigned. The hon. Gentleman is arguing that he should be paid redundancy money. Is he really suggesting that, in the event of a transfer from the public to the private sector, the employee should be able to claim redundancy payment and then reapply for the job the following day? What protection would there be? Is that the evenhanded approach that the hon. Gentleman is advocating?
  Mr. Galbraith: The Minister should have thought about that before tabling the amendment. That is the problem of tabling new amendments at short notice.
  The amendment raises various issues. What rights should be available to employees? What redundancy rights should there be and what rights should employees have to go to an industrial tribunal? What rights should they have to payment in lieu of notice and should they have the right to be given due notice? We may wish to discuss those issues, but it is clear that none of those rights prevails under the Government's amendment.
  Before a transfer is made, an employee has the right to notice of dismissal, payment in lieu of dismissal and all the other associated rights, but if he objects to the transfer all his rights are lost because, under the amendment,

  "he shall not be treated, for any purpose, as having been dismissed".
  926
  Our amendment seeks to retain the rights that the employee had before the transfer. It would not give the employee the right to be employed for ever by the employer. We are not suggesting that, but simply that the employee should retain the rights that he had before the transfer. The employer can still dismiss the employee, but the employee will have the right to notice, to payment in lieu of notice, to redundancy, and the right to go to an industrial tribunal. The Minister may say that it would not be suitable to retain some of those rights, and we can discuss that, but it is clear that under the Government's amendment employees who do not transfer will have no rights whatsoever.
  Mr. Forsyth: I do not want to disturb the hon. Gentleman's train of thought, but the employee does have rights. He has the right to retain his employment and move into employment with the new employer. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that, if the employee decides not to transfer to the new employer and retain the rights that he has accrued, he should not be treated as if he had resigned and that he should be given redundancy payment. Given that the employee is not being required to lose his job, it is difficult to understand the hon. Gentleman's argument that that would be a legitimate position.
  Mr. Galbraith: The Minister has failed to understand that the employee is no longer under any obligation. He should remember that it is the employer who triggers the necessity for the employee to choose whether or not to transfer. If the employer makes that decision—and the European Court recognised that the employee is under no obligation to transfer—what rights should be retained by an employee who chooses not to transfer? Under the Government's proposed amendment, the employee loses all rights; he retains the right not to transfer, but he then has no rights whatsoever. Our amendment seeks to retain some rights for that employee.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: It is time to clear up this whole TUPE business, as the truth has not been told. Labour's proposal is ridiculous. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that someone who is not redundant should be regarded as redundant, that someone who, through the generosity and good will of the European Community is guaranteed the same job with the same pay and the same working arrangements, working in the same place, should be treated as redundant. Surely the Labour party, which has a splendid record of fighting for working people, cannot regard as redundant someone who is not redundant at all.
  Mr. Galbraith: I do not agree, although we may wish to discuss that issue. However, other rights apart from the right to redundancy payment are also involved. The right to notice of termination of employment and the right to payment in lieu of notice would also be lost. In other words, an employee would go from having certain rights to having absolutely none at all. We may wish to discuss what rights are available to that individual. Some rights may be inappropriate, but it is clear that, as a result of a change in the working relationship triggered by the employer, absolutely no rights are available to the employee and that cannot be acceptable. That is what we seek to amend.
  Mr. Graham: Last night we discussed the fact that some employers were bribing workers not to be members of trade unions. If I were an employer and another company

  927
  was buying out my company, I would not expect my staff to want to transfer because they would have to accept a reduction in pay. Many people would end up working for employers who were hostile to their fully held union beliefs and would not wish to work for such companies.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Galbraith: I thank my hon. Friend, who made his point in his usual inimitable style.
  Mr. Clapham: is my hon. Friend aware that the situation that he describes appertains to the coal industry? If a colliery surface is privatised and sold to a new company, employees previously employed by the British Coal Corporation receive the opportunity of accepting redundancy. They are paid money in lieu of notice and then, it' they wish, they are taken on by the new employer.
  Mr. Galbraith: These issues certainly merit further discussion. I understand that the Government introduced the measure to deal with the Kastikis case and therefore they probably had less time than usual. However, it raises a number of issues.
  Our interpretation is that the amendment removes from the employee every right that he or she has. Perhaps the Minister, who shakes his head, can say whether or not an employee who refuses to transfer still has the right to notice of dismissal and payment in lieu of notice. Finally, when is it considered to he dismissal? Is it when the employee signs an undertaking saying that he does not wish to transfer, or is it when the engagements have been transferred?
  Given the opportunity to confer rights on individuals, once again the Government have failed. I understand their hostility to TUPE. I well remember that, in Committee, the Minister used to speak through clenched teeth and explain to his Back Benchers who were up in arms that. no matter what his personal feelings were, he could not alter European law.
  It was probably one of the saddest moments in the Minister's political career. It was the bottom, and he has had some pretty low points. For example, he accused the National Federation of Women's Institutes of being a Marxist organisation. These poor women in Stirling, Callender and Doune making jam and buttering scones on behalf of charities were all labelled Marxist subversives. They were shaking in their hoots in Callander.
  Under the amendment, do employees lose all rights when they refuse to transfer and when are they considered to have made that refusal?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The Opposition's amendment is one of the most ridiculous that I have ever seen. The clear implication of the hard-fought-for right to compensation for redundancy was that someone made redundant was entitled to compensation. We are talking here about a situation in which a new employer takes over a service. If the new employer, through the generosity of the EC, is obliged to offer the same job, without any change in working conditions, even in the room in which he works, without any change in wages, without change in anything, there is no way in which that employee can be declared redundant. The Opposition's amendment is ridiculous because in it they are asking for a special category of redundancy to be given to people who are not redundant at all.
  928
  But it is not that which worries me so much as the Government's proposal and the Lords amendment, not because I object to it—it seems quite sensible, particularly the new paragraph (4B)—but because I am concerned about whether the Government are right.
  The only point that I want to make, which I hope the Minister will think about, is that when we look back we see that two things have happened. First, the Government have been consistently wrong in their judgments or assessments of the law. Secondly, the most shameful cloak of secrecy has been thrown over the TUPE business. The Government have consistently sought to try to hide the iniquitous policies of the EC, the way in which our freedom is being taken away and the way in which industry, commerce and jobs are being undermined.
  That is clear, as we see time and again. Perhaps most obvious is the fact that we are not allowed to table questions on the size of the piles of food in the EC. All kinds of things are being covered up, but on this issue I make two points. First, because of the Government's cloak of secrecy, there has been a deliberate attempt not to tell employers what is happening. Privatised employers feel most upset about the fact that the long infraction proceedings initiated by the European Commission were not made public by the Government. and employers and local authorities went ahead with arrangements, making contracts and offering out services, without being aware that all the time Jacques Delors and his friends were nibbling away at the matter, with serious results.
  The second point on which I hope that the Minister will give me some guidance concerns what will happen to the local councils that privatised their services many years ago. Southend is an obvious example. We privatised services, we believe to the benefit of the ratepayers, although that is a question of judgment, and saved money. But whether we were clever or stupid, the Minister will he well aware of the judgment on the Eastbourne case, as a result of which it seems that backdated responsibility will be put on the councils or the employers to pay massive sums of money to the employees concerned. Not only will they have to make redundancy payments to workers who were made redundant at the time of privatisation, but they will have to compensate them for loss of earnings as well.
  East bourne and Southend sacked all the workers, brought in a new employer who appointed new people, no doubt with better working conditions—in Southend the wages rose over a period—but there were far fewer people doing more work. Now, having done what the Government told them to do, they find that they are faced with horrendous liabilities. What we in Southend would like to know, what Eastbourne would like to know, is who will pay. We are not clear whether the employer or the council will have to pay. We understand that it will be the employer who has to pay, which will put many good employers out of business through no fault of their own. If that happens, it will be serious.
  I should like the Minister to give advice, particularly to friends of mine who pop into the House of Commons from Scotland from time to time, on who will be responsible for that and what will happen. The Minister will be well aware from the activities of the clause 26 group—a group of private employers—that they feel let down. They did what was legal and what the Government told them to do. They did a good job and now they find that they are being clobbered retrospectively through no fault of their own.

  929
  It would be okay if the Government said, "Look, we are terribly sorry, but Jacques Delors has mucked all this up. We don't control the EC. They did it." But the fact is that for two years the Government were being pursued by the EC Commission. They knew it would probably go funny, they did not tell the employers, new contracts were made and a great loss was involved.
  Secondly, what the blazes is the Government's advice now? I have seen the advice given by the Secretary of State for the Environment to local authorities. Let me read one sentence of the advice given to that splendid council in a place called Liverpool which sought the advice of the Conservative Government. It was told:
  "Mr. Farrell of the TGWU is not incorrect in suggesting that the TUPE will require any future contractor to guarantee the existing wages and conditions of cleaners based at your school. It should not be assumed, however, that the Regulations will apply in this particular case."
  What is the Liverpool council meant to do? What are councils throughout the land meant to do when not only arc they told that it may be correct but it may be wrong, but they also receive circular letters from the Secretary of State for the Environment with huge newsletters saying that, if they try to shove in TUPE, they could be taken to court under some strange regulation of local government legislation, and the council could be held personally responsible?
  We have the crazy situation in which councils are looking for advice, they are given ambiguous replies and then they receive circulars from the Department of the Environment saying that, if they do not get it right, if they do not follow it through, the councillors could be taken to court for letting down the ratepayers.
  Thirdly, and terribly importantly, will the Minister give some guidance on what will be the difference on 1 July 1993? On 1 July, which is not far away, something called the EC services directive will apply. The expert officials who follow such things with great delight will be well aware that that says that any contract over £142,000 will have substantial consequences for TUPE and the responsibilities of local authorities. My understanding is that the ambiguous advice given by the Department of the Environment will be overtaken on 1 July 1993 when the EC services directive comes into force. There is not much point sending out circulars when we arc getting it all wrong.
  I simply make the point that the Government are saying, "Don't worry about this one. We have put it right and we will say that people who are not redundant should not be redundant because that is the way we have interpreted the European directive. We appreciate that the acquired rights directive was passed under a Labour Government, but it was a long time ago and the directive that was passed at that time is wildly different from the present law."
  My final point—I hope that the Government will think about this—is that many private firms in Britain face disaster if they are to be sued retrospectively for doing what was legal at the time according to the British courts and the British Government, according to the advice that they had which was legal. They will face bankruptcy and ruin and many workers will be sacked. There is something very wrong in such a situation and something must be
  930
  done. At the very least, our delightful new Secretary of State for Employment should say that he will meet those people and talk to them.
  The whole problem has arisen because of the EC's obsessive desire to be involved in every aspect of law. I accept that the Labour party is delighted that some of the things that it wants—
  Mr. Graham: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that people whose jobs were taken over have the right to have their existing wages and conditions transferred with them?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Previously they had no such right. If the service was transferred, there was no guarantee for anyone. The new employer could employ two people to do the jobs of 10. He could pay them half the wages. But, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, that has all changed because of the delightful EC and the nice Mr. Delors. He said that everyone's job was okay, no one's conditions could be touched, and there must be meaningful consultation with the workers' representatives.
  As hon. Members probably know, the EC made four demands of the Government, three of which they accepted without a fight; they simply caved in, which I find astonishing given that the Department of Employment was meant to be tough on the matter. The only issue on which they are having a battle with the EC is that the EC wants workers' representatives to be defined as workers' representatives. The Government say that the only workers' representatives that a Tory Government are willing to accept are registered trade unionists. That will probably lead to a great battle in the European Court.
  Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me why, when the EC makes four ridiculous demands, the Government accept three of them without a fight and include them in the Bill. The only one that they want to battle against is that which ensures that only registered trade unions will he entitled to discuss the issue on behalf of workers. That is terribly unfair. Will I have to rush up and down the Fenchurch Street line, which is to be privatised, and say to every rail worker. "For goodness sake, rejoin a trade union"?
  8 pm
  My hon. Friend the Minister may say that that is silly, because everyone will benefit from the discussions, but the fact remains that the people discussing it will he the registered trade unions. If I were an employee on the Fenchurch Street line, I would want to make sure that the organisation discussing it was one of which I am a member. We have ended up with an appalling situation.
  I accept that the main responsibility lies with the EC, which has stretched the acquired rights directive well beyond the bounds intended. I acknowledge that private firms are suffering hugely because of the retrospective element that will arise from the Eastbourne case, and that many face ruin. I accept also that the Government, sadly, have tried to pull a cloak of secrecy over the whole business. Being pro-European, they are trying to push through, with the help of my delightful and hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Lull), a Bill that will give even more power and responsibility to the EC, and want to hide the fact that businesses are being ruined and people are losing their jobs because of the acquired rights directive.
  No Government like to say, "Give more power to this crowd," when jobs are being lost. [Laughter.] My hon.

  931
  Friend the Member for Worcester should not laugh at this. These are real problems. If his local authority has passed any contracts over to private firms, it will now face being chased retrospectively for lots of compensation for all those involved. It is not a laughing matter at all; it is a matter of jobs, cash and private industry.
  Hardly anyone knows what is going on. Only the firms which will lose jobs and cash, and which will probably go out of business, know. I ask the Government to tell people what is happening. If the public do not know, how can they possibly prepare for the problems ahead? We appreciate that the Government can do nothing about EC measures other than fight them—and the Government do not want to do that.
  Mr. Clapham: The hon. Gentleman used the word "freedom". Does he agree that Labour's amendment would give the individual freedom to decide whether to transfer to his new employer or to accept redundancy and look elsewhere for work?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: That freedom has never been challenged by anyone. It is surprising that the hon. Gentleman, as a Labour party member, should say, "Please treat as redundant someone who is not redundant."
  Where is the money for redundancy payments to come from but from public and private funds? If someone is offered the same job, working conditions, and everything else, it is difficult to understand why a Labour party member should say, "We will regard that chap as redundant." If I do not like the new foreman of my shipyard, why should I not be allowed to do the same and to change him? Why should I not be able to do the same if the shareholding of my company changes? It is terribly wrong to introduce a new law that says that someone should be treated as redundant when he is not.
  Will the Government please hold discussions with the private employers, who are concerned, worried and perplexed? Will they tell people what is happening, because they did not tell them in the past? If they do that, we may enjoy a bonus in a dreadful situation, which will inevitably grow worse with the determinations of the European Court.
  Mr. John Hutton: Once again, the House finds itself discussing the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which have a convoluted history. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is correct when he says that there is considerable concern among private employers as to the implications for them of recent decisions of the European Court. That is common ground between right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I differ from the hon. Gentleman in that I believe that those difficulties have more to do with the drafting of the regulations than with the interpretation that should be placed on the acquired rights directive. The history of the directive's jurisprudence makes it clear to me—and, I am sure, to other lawyers—that, although the directive itself is simple and transparent, the 1981 Conservative Government introduced the regulations from a position directly contrary to the directive's purpose and intent.
  When a series of domestic regulations such as TUPE that supposedly implement the terms of a European directive are portrayed and presented from a different
  932
  standpoint, sooner or later there will inevitably be conflict. The legal position is clear. In any case of conflict between a Community member state's domestic regulations and the terms of a directive, then—whether the hon. Member for Southend, East likes it or not; clearly he does not, and I respect his views—the directive must take precedence.
  That confusion between the implications of the 1981 regulations and the clear intent and purpose of the acquired rights directive is a cause of genuine concern, but many of the difficulties to which the hon. Member for Southend, East referred are the fault and responsibility of the Government, in trying to implement the directive.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned a matter of particular concern in Southend, arising from the implications of privatising its public cleaning department, and the question whether the private contractor who took over that work will now face a serious legal liability. I understand that that might well be the case, but it is equally clear that the Government may have liability for the predicament in which many small employers now find themselves.
  In the Frankovitch case at the beginning of the 1990s, it was established in the European Court that a legal liability can be enforced in member states' domestic tribunals, where a member state fails properly to implement the terms of a European directive. In Committee, I put that point to the Attorney-General. He made no attempt to respond, but there is a distinct possibility that the British Government may face substantial legal liability because of their botched attempts to implement the acquired rights directive.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman describes the British Government's attempts to implement the acquired rights directive as botched, but those attempts were made by the last Labour Government.
  Mr. Hutton: The Minister is being uncharacteristically disingenuous. Although the last Labour Government attempted to introduce the regulations in the House, they made no reference to the notion of a non-commercial venture, which is the source of the difficulties in which the Government now find themselves. That notion was a transparent design to exempt from the acquired rights directive the privatisation programme that was then beginning and the eventual competitive tendering process which left many casualties in its wake. The Minister is wrong to suggest that the difficulties surrounding TUPE 81 are the responsibility or fault of the last Labour Government. He must remember that they did not succeed in bringing any enforceable regulations into effect.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is right, but the last Labour Government signed up to the acquired rights directive and, in the other place, gave an assurance to the House that the directive's provisions would not have the effect of including private contracting of the kind that concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East in respect of public sector services. That is firmly on record, as the hon. Gentleman knows from our previous, rather lengthy debates on the subject.
  Mr. Hutton: We certainly had lengthy debates about the issue, but it is clear from our exchanges tonight that we shall not be able to agree about the import or intent of the

  933
  acquired rights directive, or about the efforts of the previous Labour Government to introduce them into British domestic law.
  I repeat my central allegation against the Government: our predicament, to which the hon. Member for Southend, East drew our attention yet again—I think I am right in saying that he spoke to the regulations when they were introduced in 1981 and made similar points to those which he has made tonight about the implications for private sector contracting—lies exclusively at the door of the Government. They misled many private companies that were interested in tendering for public sector work by telling them they did not have to worry about the implications of the TUPE regulations on the tendering process. It is astonishing, and therefore, I suppose, wholly in character, for the Minister of State to repeat his bogus contention tonight.
  We have probably spent enough time dealing with historical issues. I know that they are of concern to the House, but I now direct my attention specifically to Labour's amendment and to the Government amendment tabled in another place by Lord Ullswater only a few weeks ago.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) said, the amendments are connected to the recent decision of the European Court of Justice in the Katsikas case. The Government's attempt to respond to that decision is typically extreme: employees will have no rights whatsoever if they choose not to permit their contract of employment to be transferred to the transferee, or the new employer.
  The Minister of State and the hon. Member for Southend, East have made some play of the question, why should it be possible for an employee to have any statutory employment rights in those circumstances? The hon. Member for Southend, East described the situation as perverse. He said that it would not he a genuine redundancy so it would be unacceptable and inappropriate for workers in that position to have any employment protection.
  However, I point out to both hon. Members that if one casts even a cursory glance at British redundancy law—for example, at section 84 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978—one finds that plenty of examples of what one can best describe as specific redundancy cases are already written into English law. They perhaps do not come within the commonsense definition of the term, but we are dealing with the law and, as any lawyer will tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, law and common sense do not usually have much connection with each other.
  Section 84 gives employees the right to claim a redundancy payment even though they have been offered suitable alternative employment by another employer. As long as an employee reasonably refuses that offer, he or she is entitled to a redundancy payment. There are other examples in British employment law of workers being given a right to claim a redundancy payment. I am thinking in particular of the provisions relating to time off during short-time working. If a worker is laid off or put on short-time working, even if his job still exists he is entitled
  934
  to claim a redundancy payment from his employer. The precedents are not in favour of the argument made by the hon. Member for Southend, East.
  Other discrepancies may be found in the law applying to redundancy, but we could find plenty of examples under British employment law where workers are entitled to claim a redundancy payment even though it appears that, at first glance, a job still exists. I do not think that there is anything illogical or improper in that. If we want confirmation of that, we must consider the purpose of the Katsikas judgment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden was correct to say that the Katsikas judgment came as something of a surprise. Most people assumed that employees had no option but to accept the transfer of their contract. With hindsight, and after looking after the terms of the judgment, I am glad that the European Court of Justice decided that that was not so.
  The Katsikas judgment was designed specifically to protect employees. It was an attempt not to subvert the import of the acquired rights directive but to enhance it by making it clear that a worker was and should be entitled to decide whether he wants his contract to be transferred to the new employer. I hope that there will be no disagreement between us about that. What is objectionable about an employee having the option of saying that he does not want to work for the new employer? The issue is the right to choose for whom one works.
  8.15 pm
  In the past, the House abolished slavery and ended enforced, conscripted labour. I am sure that Conservative libertarians will accept that individual employees should have the option to decide whether to work for a particular employer. If they exercise that option for genuine reasons —they may, for example, have an aversion to the management style of an employer—and state that they do not wish their contract to be transferred, there is no reason why they should not also claim a number of the statutory employment rights. There is nothing illogical in that.
  We could perhaps have a more structured argument about exactly what rights an employee should have in such a case, but our objection to the Government amendment is that the Government are yet again adopting a blunderbuss approach. In an attempt to resolve the so-called dilemma of the Katsikas case, the Government are trying to take away all employment rights from the employee who decides that he will not have his contract transferred to a new employer. Clearly, other options are open to the Government.
  Before the Government tabled the amendment, they should, as Lord Wedderburn suggested, at least have considered giving employees the right to claim notice or money in lieu of notice from their old employer. After all, in a transfer the old employer, or the transferor, brings the contract of employment to an end. That must be so, because he is ceasing to trade in a particular business. There is an end to or rupture in the employment relationship. In any other context, the employee would have the right to claim unfair dismissal, redundancy or at least the bare minimum contractual notice. Why do such rights not pertain in a transfer?
  I am perfectly prepared to accept that we are dealing with a marginal case which will not involve many employees. If there was an endemic weakness in the regulations or the acquired rights directive, we would have

  935
  found more examples of British workers saying that they did not want their contract to he transferred, but it has not happened. I may be wrong, but I cannot recall one case of a British worker arguing that before an industrial tribunal. Although the case may be marginal, it has a potential impact on the working prospects of many people. It is unnecessary and severe of the Government to say that employees in this position should have no rights.
  There is a case in law for allowing workers to be able to claim at least some of the employment rights to which they would otherwise be entitled. It is regrettable that the Government have taken the opportunity once again to parade their rather dubious European credentials. I am a strong supporter of Britain's membership of the European Community. We should recognise the fact that our only progressive and socially liberal employment measures in the past 14 years have been due to that membership.
  I oppose the Government amendments. It is regrettable that the Government have taken the blunderbuss approach to solving a small problem, but it typifies their objectionable attitude to employment protection.
  Mr. Graham: I intend to speak for only a few minutes. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) mentioned a letter. When compulsory competitive tendering was introduced in my area, porters, drivers and others lost £50 a week. We must remember that, although competitive tendering may suit the Government, it does not suit employees. Employees should have the right to decide who their employer should be.
  I have worked for various companies. I sold my labour to them and when the employer changed, I had the right to move on. If I worked for a good employer, which I did, who decided to sell his company, he did not sell me along with it. He may have sold his business, but he did not sell Tommy Graham the engineer. Tommy Graham had the right to say that he had helped to make the business go well but he did not want to work for the new employer because he had a terrible record in engineering. I am saying that folk are not slaves that one can wheel and deal with.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth indicated assent.
  Mr. Graham: I am obliged to see that the Minister is nodding his head in agreement, but some of our trade union legislation is the worst in Europe. It is beginning to look as if the Government wish to treat trade union members as slaves, and second-class people in Europe.
  Surely a man or woman who has worked for a local authority or a similar organisation for 20 years has the right to say, "I do not want to go to that employer." That person may have good reasons, such as those that I have already mentioned. The new employer may have a bad industrial record with trade unions and a record of firing people that is second to none. The worker may say, "I would rather take the money and cut, and see if I can get a better job." Surely that is the right of all workers in this country.
  Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the observations of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) on slavery. He is right to say that, if he were employed by someone and the company were sold, the employer had not sold him along with the company. Indeed, that seems to be the principal objection of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) to the acquired rights directive, because where a business is transferred or
  936
  sold, the employees are transferred, if they wish, and retain all the employment rights, including pay and conditions, whether or not the employer purchasing the company or the employer selling the company wishes that to be so. That is what the acquired rights directive has brought about, by means of the TUPE regulations.
  Mr. Graham: The Minister must realise that if someone works for 20 years in a company as an ordinary engineer, plumber, baker, butcher or whatever, he accrues 20 years of redundancy money, and if he is older than 50 he get more. Someone in the situation described by the Minister would be throwing up 20 years' work, and 20 years' accrued redundancy money. Come on, Minister, it is not fair.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has completely grasped the idea. If there is a transfer to a new employer, the employee's rights transfer to the new employer. If he chooses not to transfer to the new employer, clearly he has no continuing rights with the old employer. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, and I am surprised at the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, who is usually fairly concerned about value for money. For the Labour party to argue that people should be paid redundancy money because they are not prepared to continue to do the same job on the same terms and conditions is absurd. I do not belief that the amendment can have been tabled with any serious belief that it would be accepted. Indeed, the Labour party put forward no such proposal, but made a rather more moderate proposal, in the other place.
  The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) and I had an exchange in Committee when we were discussing the matter, but clearly I did not get my point across to him. He sought to blame the Government for some of the difficulties that have arisen on the transfer of undertakings regulations and said that we had not handled the implementation of the directive properly. He said that the complaints coming from contractors and others involved in local authority work—I understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East about that matter—were entirely due to the Government's implementation of the directive.
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the debates in the other place on 10 December 1981. It is recorded in columns 1485–86 that the Labour spokesman, Lord McCarthy, said:
  "The last Labour Government presented"—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not recollected that it is not in order to quote from the other place unless it be from a Minister's statement. I rather think that he was not quoting a Minister.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are right that I should not quote, so if I may I will tell the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness broadly what Lord McCarthy said. He said, as I recall, that the Labour Government had presented the new Government with a draft regulation and that the approach in the 1978 draft by the Labour Government was different from that of the Conservative Government. The noble Lord said that one of the differences was that the Labour version spelled out clearly that charitable bodies,

  937
  Government Departments and local authorities would be excluded from the scope of the regulations. My hon. Friend for Southend, East is concerned—
  Mr. Galbraith rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: In a moment.

  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East is concerned about the interpretation of the European Court, which has been taken up by the Commission, of the phrase:
  "not in the nature of a commercial venture".
  That was the phrase that the noble Lord criticised as not having explicitly excluded local authorities from the scope of the regulations.
  Mr. Galbraith: I well remember the Minister giving us that explanation in Committee. He will also remember that I said that the Labour spokesman whom he has quoted from memory said those words because no Labour Government, and no Labour Member, could conceive of a situation in which a local authority would wish to contract out its services. That is why it was not necessary to apply the regulations to such a situation. On the same basis, the Shops Act 1950 did not apply to Scotland. It was considered that we were such a religious nation that we would never open our shops on Sundays. We were wrong on that, and the premise behind the Labour Government's belief that it was unnecessary for the regulations to apply to local authorities was wrong, too. We did not support the principle then, and we do not support it now.
  Mr. Forsyth: That is a nice theory, but unfortunately it does not stand up. I also seem to recall—of course, I cannot quote exactly the words that the noble Lord used, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman will look up the reference—that Lord McCarthy went on to say that the original draft by the Labour Government would avoid endless arguments about what constituted a commercial venture. In that sense he was right, and prescient about things to come.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: It does not matter what the Labour party said or thought in 1981, or what the Minister thought in 1981. Surely we accept that all that is irrelevant. The Europeans have told us what the facts are; what people think does not matter. The Europeans tell us and we have to accept it, right or wrong, whatever was said in 1981. Does the Minister not accept that it is rather silly to be concerned about what Labour said in 1981? That does not matter. Democracy is effectively dead, and Europe will tell us what the facts are.
  Mr. Forsyth: On that basis, presumably we are all wasting our time. It matters what the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness said, because I have to reply to him. He was blaming a Conservative Government for having made a mess of the implementation, so it is entirely appropriate for me to explain what view the Labour Government took.
  Mr. Hutton rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: I was just about to deal with what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East said, because I thought that it mattered and that I ought to respond to it. Nevertheless, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the Minister for showing his usual courtesy in giving way. Does he not admit that, throughout the 1980s, Conservative Ministers in various Departments, especially the Department of the Environment and the Department of Employment, made a great fuss about the fact that the regulations would not apply to privatisations and competitive tendering, only to be told in the 1990s by the European Court of Justice that they had applied all along?
  Mr. Forsyth: No, I do not agree at all. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should say that, because he said that he had read the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East made in 1981. I do not have that in front of me, so I cannot quote it, but I shall rely on my memory. I think that the Minister at the Dispatch Box at that time was my right hon. and now noble Friend Lord Waddington, and that in response to my hon. Friend's speech he made it clear that the TUPE regulations as such would apply to local authorities. My hon. Friend asked the specific question whether privatisation would be within the scope of the regulations, and my right hon. and noble Friend made it clear that it would. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness looks puzzled. I realise that this explodes his argument, but he can go to the Library and look up the words, by which, no doubt, he will be persuaded.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East asked a number of questions, most of which did not fall within my area of responsibility.
  Mr. George Foulkes: It has never stopped the Minister in the past.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but I become more conservative and more cautious as I grow older.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East expressed some serious concerns that I know are held outside and inside the House. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment notes those points and that my hon. Friend receives a proper reply, especially about local authority competitive tendering and the case in Eastbourne.
  My hon. Friend expressed concern about the way in which the law has been changed beyond what was originally intended by a series of judgments by the European Court. I agree that there has been a significant change in the meaning of the law. The Government believe that the acquired rights directive should be amended and we will continue to argue that, because it cannot be in the interest of value for money to restrain the ability to carry out competitive tendering fairly in the interests of the taxpayer.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: If the Government are so anxious to fight the battle and to change the directive, why, when they had the infraction proceedings against them, did they cave in on three of the four demands without a battle? It seems astonishing that they had two years of secret discussions and caved in on three of the four demands. I cannot understand why they are fighting the fourth demand at all.
  Mr. Forsyth: It is unfair to describe the Government's approach as having been to cave in without a battle. We must consider the infraction proceedings that are being

  939
  brought and, on the basis of legal advice, take a judgment on the best way forward. My hon. Friend is right to point out that, in one respect, we are continuing to fight our corner, but for obvious reasons I am not going to comment further.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East knows perfectly well that it is not within the power of the House to alter the terms of the acquired rights directive or to pass legislation in conflict with it, without incurring those same infraction proceedings. If he is anxious about the effect of that directive and the extension of the effect of TUPE, I can understand and sympathise, but the way forward is to seek to amend the directive. That is the Government's position, for which we will continue to fight.
  My hon. Friend should be in no doubt about our commitment to achieving change or our understanding of the problems that are being caused across the length and breadth of Britain, of which, I am sure, he will continue to remind us.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I promise that I shall not interrupt my hon. Friend again—[Interruption.] I would not do this if it were not serious. On privatisation, is it the view of the Government that retrospective claims against local authorities will be met by local authorities, by the company or, in terms of Frankovitch, by the Government? Local authorities must know, because millions of pounds and lots of jobs with private firms are at stake. Surely the Minister should give some guidance on retrospective cases. Will councils, employers or the Government pay?
  Mr. Forsyth: Ministers are expected to do many things, but they are not expected to give instant legal advice on cases where the facts are not before them. I cannot respond in the way that my hon. Friend would wish. The guidance that has been given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has made it clear that each case under TUPE must be considered on its own merits. I am sure that no one's case would be helped if Ministers or anyone else were to make casual off-the-cuff remarks about the implications of the legislation.
  Lords amendment No. 32 was tabled and agreed on Report in another place and is concerned with an employee who does not wish to transfer to a new employer when the undertaking in which he works is transferred. It was tabled to make the position clear following speculation about the effects in the United Kingdom of what is known as the Katsikas case. I am amazed that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), having had such a good Scottish education, is not a classical Greek scholar. Mr. Katsikas was a Greek chef in a German restaurant. He refused to continue as a chef when the restaurant was franchised.
  Mr. Dobson: A chef in a Greek restaurant in Germany?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am delighted that, on this occasion, the hon. Gentleman has a clear grasp of the detail.
  The chef argued that he did not want to continue in the same job and the European Court considered whether he had a right not to transfer. The court held that he had that right. It has been suggested that, under existing United Kingdom law, the contract of an individual who refused to transfer to a new employer would remain in force with the old employer, whether the old employer wished that or not. If the old employer declined to maintain the contract
  940
  of employment, it was suggested that he would be found to have dismissed the employee, who would then be entitled to redundancy or compensation for unfair dismissal.
  I am delighted that the Labour party obviously agrees with the Government's assessment that that would not be so, which is why it tabled its rather misguided amendment, which would seek to provide that those who do not wish to transfer to the same job should be paid redundancy money. I do not know whether there is some kind of sabotage programme against competitive tendering in the public sector or some hidden agenda, but I cannot believe that the Labour party tabled this rather absurd amendment on an idle afternoon. Labour Members would like public sector employees whose operations are privatised or transferred to be able to get redundancy payments for refusing to transfer and the following day be re-employed in the same post, with all their conditions maintained. That clearly would be an abuse. It would be indefensible and I urge the House to reject the Labour amendment for that reason.
  I hasten to add that the Government do not share the view that the contract of an individual who refused to transfer would remain in force. The advice that we have received is that an individual who refused to have his contract of employment transferred to an employer in this way would have no continuing rights against the old employer.
  Nevertheless, because we are a careful and cautious Government, it was apparent that the Katsikas judgment had given some scope for uncertainty about the position of individuals who make use of their right to object to the transfer of their employment contracts, and the Government amendment was made on Report in another place not to change the existing law but simply to put the position beyond doubt. Having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, I am even more convinced that we were right to do so. Had the position not been placed beyond doubt, I am sure that, at a future date, some other unfortunate Minister would be berated for not having acted swiftly and decisively. I look forward to receiving my hon. Friend's support—along with that of the rest of my hon. Friends—in the Division Lobby. I trust that my hon. Friends will reject amendment (a) and vote for the Government amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 306.

  Division No. 300]

  [8.39 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Ainger, Nick

  Blair, Tony

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Blunkett, David

  Allen, Graham

  Boateng, Paul

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Boyes, Roland

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bradley, Keith

  Ashton, Joe

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Austin-Walker, John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Barnes, Harry

  Burden, Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Byers, Stephen

  Battle, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Bayley, Hugh

  Callaghan, Jim

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bell, Stuart

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Benton, Joe

  Canavan, Dennis

  941

  Cann, Jamie

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Clapham, Michael

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Keen, Alan

  Clelland, David

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Coffey, Ann

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Connarty, Michael

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Leighton, Ron

  Corbett, Robin

  Lewis, Terry

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Litherland, Robert

  Cousins, Jim

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cryer, Bob

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dafis, Cynog

  Loyden, Eddie

  Darling, Alistair

  McAllion, John

  Davidson, Ian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  McCartney, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McKelvey, William

  Denham, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Dewar, Donald

  McLeish, Henry

  Dixon, Don

  McMaster, Gordon

  Dobson, Frank

  McNamara, Kevin

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McWilliam, John

  Dowd, Jim

  Madden, Max

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Mahon, Alice

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Mandelson, Peter

  Eastham, Ken

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Enright, Derek

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Etherington, Bill

  Martlew, Eric

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Maxton, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Michael, Alun

  Faulds, Andrew

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fisher, Mark

  Milburn, Alan

  Flynn, Paul

  Miller, Andrew

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Foulkes, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Fraser, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fyfe, Maria

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Gapes, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Garrett, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  George, Bruce

  Mudie, George

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mullin, Chris

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Murphy, Paul

  Godsiff, Roger

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Gordon, Mildred

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Gould, Bryan

  O'Hara, Edward

  Graham, Thomas

  Olner, William

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Patchett, Terry

  Grocott, Bruce

  Pike, Peter L.

  Gunnell, John

  Pope, Greg

  Hain, Peter

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hall, Mike

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Henderson, Doug

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Heppell, John

  Prescott, John

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hoey, Kate

  Purchase, Ken

  Home Robertson, John

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hood, Jimmy

  Radice, Giles

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Randall, Stuart

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rogers, Allan

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hutton, John

  Rooney, Terry

  Ingram, Adam

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jamieson, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Janner, Greville

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  942

  Short, Clare

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Simpson, Alan

  Walley, Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Snape, Peter

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Soley, Clive

  Wilson, Brian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Winnick, David

  Spellar, John

  Wise, Audrey

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Stevenson, George

  Wray, Jimmy

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Turner, Dennis

  Mr. James Arbuthnot and

  Vaz, Keith

  Mr. Alan Meale.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Colvin, Michael

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Congdon, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Alton, David

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Amess, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Couchman, James

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cran, James

  Ashby, David

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Day, Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Devlin, Tim

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bates, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Beggs, Roy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dover, Den

  Bendall, Vivian

  Duncan, Alan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dunn, Bob

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Eggar, Tim

  Booth, Hartley

  Elletson, Harold

  Boswell, Tim

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bowis, John

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Evennett, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Faber, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Forman, Nigel

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Burns, Simon

  Forth, Eric

  Burt, Alistair

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Butcher, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Butler, Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Butterfill, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  French, Douglas

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gale, Roger

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gallie, Phil

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Carttiss, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Cash, William

  Garnier, Edward

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Chapman, Sydney

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Churchill, Mr

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Clappison, James

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Gorst, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  943

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hague, William

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Needham, Richard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hannam, Sir John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Harris, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Norris, Steve

  Hayes, Jerry

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heald, Oliver

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, Richard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Paice, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Pawsey, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pickles, Eric

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

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (North

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Norfolk)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rendel, David

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Jack, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Sackville, Tom

  Key, Robert

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knapman, Roger

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shersby, Michael

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Sims, Roger

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Soames, Nicholas

  Legg, Barry

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Leigh, Edward

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lidington, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lightbown, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lord, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Luff, Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stephen, Michael

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Stern, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Allan

  MacKay, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Maclean, David

  Sumberg, David

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sweeney, Walter

  Madel, David

  Sykes, John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Marlow, Tony

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Mates, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Tracey, Richard

  Mills, Iain

  Tredinnick, David

  944

  Trend, Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Trimble, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Trotter, Neville

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Willetts, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Wilshire, David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Wolfson, Mark

  Walden, George

  Wood, Timothy

  Wallace, James

  Yeo, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Watts, John

  Mr. James Arbuthnot and

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. Irvine Patrick.

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Question accordinly negatived.
  Lords amendment No. 32 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 33, after clause 34, insert the following new clause—Agreements not to take proceedings before industrial tribunal—
  (".—(1) In section 140 of the 1978 Act (restrictions on contracting out)—

  (a) in subsection (2) (exceptions), after the paragraph (fa) inserted by paragraph 21 of Schedule 7 to this Act, there shall be inserted—

  "(fb) to any agreement to refrain from instituting or continuing any proceedings specified in section 133(1) (except (c)) or 134(1) before an industrial tribunal if the conditions regulating compromise agreements under this Act are satisfied in relation to the agreement;";

  (b) after subsection (2), there shall be inserted—

  "(3) The conditions regulating compromise agreements under this Act are that—

  (a) the agreement must be in writing;

  (b) the agreement must relate to the particular complaint;

  (c) the employee must have received independent legal advice from a qualified lawyer as to the terms and effect of the proposed agreement and in particular its effect on his ability to pursue his rights before an industrial tribunal;

  (d) there must be in force, when the adviser gives the advice, a policy of insurance covering the risk of a claim by the employee in respect of loss arising in consequence of the advice;

  (e) the agreement must identify the adviser; and

  (f) the agreement must state that the conditions regulating compromise agreements under this Act are satisfied.

  (4) In subsection (3)—

  "independent", in relation to legal advice to the employee, means that it is given by a lawyer who is not acting in the matter for the employer or an associated employer; and

  "qualified lawyer" means—

  (a) as respects proceedings in England and Wales—

  (i) a barrister, whether in practice as such or employed to give legal advice, or

  (ii) a solicitor of the Supreme Court who holds a practising certificate;

  (b) as respects proceedings in Scotland—

  (i) an advocate, whether in practice as such or employed to give legal advice, or

  (ii) a solicitor who holds a practising certificate.

  (2) Schedule (Compromise contracts) to this Act shall have effect for making corresponding amendments in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Wages Act 1986 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.")
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 43, 61 and 62.
  Miss Widdecombe: It gives me great pleasure to put to the House Lords amendment No. 33. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) drew our attention in Committee to employers' concerns in this matter. Therefore, I hope that he, and indeed all hon. Members, will welcome the new provisions. I hope that after the previous unsuccessful skirmish there will be peace among the Opposition, at least in respect of this provision.
  Amendments Nos. 33 and 61 offer a new, alternative means by which the parties to a particular dispute may reach a speedy and effective agreement between them which settles the dispute, without needing to refer it to an industrial tribunal. It will, however, be possible to do that only if a number of important conditions included for the express purpose of safeguarding the interests of the individual are met.
  Under the proposed new provisions, if an agreement settling a dispute includes a term which precludes an individual's right to bring or to continue proceedings before an industrial tribunal in respect of that dispute, that term will be enforceable provided that all the relevant conditions are satisfied.
  At present, under the 1978 Act, any term in an agreement which precludes the employee's right to bring proceedings before an industrial tribunal is generally invalid. It cannot prevent the employee from bringing a subsequent tribunal case, the main exception being where an Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service conciliation officer has taken action under section 133 or section 134 of the 1978 Act to assist the settlement. Similar provisions are contained in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and the Race Relations Act 1976, the Wages Act 1986 and the 1992 consolidation Act. Amendment No. 61 would amend those Acts in the same way as we propose to amend the 1978 Act.
  If the parties to a dispute have already reached an agreement between themselves, ACAS takes the view that it has no statutory role to become involved. In such a case there is no dispute outstanding and therefore, by definition, nothing to conciliate. In this it is supported by legal advice. The practice of validating, or "rubber-stamping", privately reached agreements represented a considerable drain on ACAS resources until it ceased after receipt of that advice in 1990. In 1989, the last year before that service was withdrawn, ACAS dealt with well over 17,000 such cases, representing 36 per cent. of the total number of cases received.
  Representations seeking a change to the current situation have been made by a number of employer associations. We have therefore consulted interested parties on the proposals set out in the amendments, and the response has revealed that they would indeed be welcomed.
  The proposed means of settling disputes will, of course, be optional. No one can be forced into signing such an agreement; people will always be able to choose to take their claim to an industrial tribunal instead. However, it is
  946
  obvious that any legislation which allows individuals to agree not to bring or to continue with tribunal proceedings, even if doing so is optional, must be very tightly drawn for the protection of the individual. The amendments therefore include a number of important conditions which must be met if the term of the agreement which precludes the employee's right subsequently to bring a tribunal claim is to be binding. That is to ensure that no one is misled or coerced.
  First, the new provisions can be used only in respect of a dispute which has already arisen between the parties and is outstanding. Concerns have reached us from some quarters that the new provisions could be used to encourage individuals to agree not to bring any tribunal claims should disputes arise in the future. I can reassure hon. Members that it would not be possible to use the provisions to do that. It is a condition that the agreement should relate to a specific dispute that has already arisen, and, if that condition is not met, the term of the agreement which precludes a tribunal claim will not be enforceable.
  Secondly, the amendments require that the individual must have received advice from a qualified solicitor or barrister or, in Scotland, an advocate satisfying the conditions set out in the amendments.
  9 pm
  The adviser, who must be named in the agreement, must also be independent of the other party or parties to the dispute. The adviser must advise the individual about the terms and effect of the agreement, especially its effect on his or her right to pursue a tribunal claim with regard to the dispute to be settled by the agreement. The advice must be covered by insurance so that, in the event of the individual suffering loss as a result of negligent advice, he or she will be adequately protected. Finally, the agreement must be in writing, and must state that the relevant conditions are satisfied.
  I hope that hon. Members will agree that those conditions will adequately safeguard the interests of individuals, while at the same time offering a simple and effective means of settling individual disputes without adding unnecessarily to the already considerable work load of our industrial tribunals.
  Amendment No. 62 will amend schedule 13 of the 1978 Act, which deals with the rules governing the calculation of an individual's period of continuous employment. At present, schedule 13 allows for regulations to be made to preserve continuity of employment when an individual is reinstated or re-engaged as a consequence of the presentation of a claim of unfair dismissal under the 1978 Act, and when he is re-employed as a consequence of an agreement reached with the help of an ACAS conciliation officer when he claims action has been taken where he could present a claim of unfair dismissal.
  The amendment extends the order-making power so. that regulations can be made to ensure that, when individuals are re-employed as a consequence of an agreement reached under the proposed new provisions in the 1978 Act for settling a complaint relating to unfair dismissal, or the new provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 or the Race Relations Act 1976, continuity of employment will be preserved in exactly the same way.
  It also extends the order-making power to cover re-employment as a consequence of the presentation of a complaint of dismissal under the Sex Discrimination Act or the Race Relations Act, and re-employment after

  947
  conciliation by an ACAS officer with regard to such a claim, but before such a claim has been presented. That closes a lacuna in the existing provisions.
  I hope, therefore, to have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House in moving that we agree with the House of Lords amendments.
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: As my hon. Friend the Minister said, this amendment arises out of a clause that I submitted to the Committee to address what is and has been since 1970—and, indeed, for a period before that—a real problem in industrial relations. It cannot be right that, when two sides to a dispute voluntarily reach an acceptable agreement, there is no mechanism for making that agreement enforceable.
  I accept that there were some defects in the clause that
  I submitted and I withdrew it on the undertaking that the Government would produce a clause in another place. The Government have produced such a clause and I wholeheartedly endorse it. I congratulate them on striking a sensible balance between the need to provide a relatively simple and easy method of resolving disputes and the need to protect the rights of individuals.
  When I first read this clause, I thought that there might be a slight problem in that it would require employers to rely on a declaration by a solicitor or by a barrister representing the employee that various conditions had been met which they might be unable to verify. However, after examining it in practical terms, the likelihood of that presenting a problem would be limited. The professional bodies of both barristers and solicitors would deal heavily with any member of the profession who signed a false declaration.
  On that basis, there should be no obstacle to agreeing to the clause. It will be widely welcomed by industry at large as a way of bringing peace and certainty to an area of industrial relations which has caused significant problems since ACAS withdrew from performing this service.
  Mr. Galbraith: I assure the Under-Secretary of State for Employment that hostilities on this Bill have probably come to an end. I cannot absolutely rule out a knee in the groin as we depart from the battlefield, but we can probably say that there is peace in our time.
  This clause has resulted from the efforts of the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and he must be congratulated on that. The Government have introduced a reasonable and simple clause that has the important aspect of guaranteeing the rights of individuals. I am impressed by the conditions that are laid out—the employee must have received independent legal advice from a qualified lawyer and the agreement must be in writing. Those matters are of supreme importance.
  The hon. Gentleman is correct not to worry about the question of false declarations. I understand that the legal profession is bound by an ethical code, as are most professions. One of the great sins of any profession is to make a false declaration. In the medical profession, doctors do not get struck off for killing anyone. But if they indulge in alcohol, adultery, advertising or false declaration, they can lose their livelihood. I presume that the position in the legal profession is similar. Alcohol is probably excluded from the list that applies to the legal profession.
  948
  The clause is simple and straightforward and it deals with an important issue. I am grateful to the Government for introducing it in such a splendid manner. It is such a good clause that I almost thought that I must have written it.
  Question put and agreed to.

  New clause
  Lords amendment: No. 34—Restriction of publicity in cases involving sexual misconduct: industrial tribunals—
  (".—(1) Schedule 9 to the 1978 Art (regulations for industrial tribunals) shall be amended by the insertion in paragraph 1 of the following.
  (2) After sub-paragraph (5) there shall be inserted—
  "(5A) The regulations may include provision—

  (a) for cases involving allegations of the commission of sexual offences, for securing that the registration or other making available of documents or decisions shall he so effected as to prevent the identification of any person affected by, or making, the allegation;

  (b) for cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct, enabling an industrial tribunal, on the application of any party to proceedings before it or of its own motion, to make a restricted reporting order having effect (if not revoked earlier) until the promulgation of the decision of the tribunal.

  In this sub-paragraph—
  "identifying matter", in relation to a person, means any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify him as a person affected by, or as the person making, the allegation;
  "restricted reporting order" means an order prohibiting the publication in Great Britain of identifying matter in a written publication available to the public or its inclusion in a relevant programme for reception in Great Britain;
  "sexual misconduct" means the commission of a sexual offence, sexual harassment or other adverse conduct (of whatever nature) related to sex, and conduct is related to sex whether the relationship with sex lies in the character of the conduct or in its having reference to the sex or sexual orientation of the person at whom the conduct is directed;
  "sexual offence" means any offence to which section 141A(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, section 4 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 or the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applies (offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976 and certain other enactments);
  and "written publication" and "relevant programme" have the same meaning as in that Act of 1992."
  (3) In sub-paragraph (6), after the word "send" there shall be inserted the words "(subject to any regulations under sub-paragraph (5A)(a))".
  (4) After sub-paragraph (7) there shall be inserted—
  "(8) If any identifying matter is published or included in a relevant programme in contravention of a restricted reporting order the following persons shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale—

  (a) in the case of publication in a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, any editor and any publisher of the newspaper or periodical;

  (b) in the case of publication in any other form, the person publishing the matter; and

  (c) in the case of matter included in a relevant. Programme—

  (i) any body corporate engaged in providing the service in which the programme is included; and

  949

  (ii) any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper.

  Expressions used in this sub-paragraph and in subparagraph (5A) above have the same meaning in this sub-paragraph as in that sub-paragraph.
  (9) Where a person is charged with an offence under sub-paragraph (8) it shall be a defence to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he was not aware, and neither suspected nor had reason to suspect, that the publication or programme in question was of, or (as the case may be) included, the matter in question.
  (10) Where an offence under sub-paragraph (8) committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—

  (a) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or

  (b) a person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

  (11) In relation to a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members "director", in sub-paragraph (10), means a member of the body corporate."")
  Miss Widdecombe: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 35 and 44.
  Miss Widdecombe: Amendment No. 34 gives industrial tribunals discretionary powers to protect people from intrusive or offensive media reports when they are involved in cases which include allegations of sexual misconduct. The definition of sexual misconduct covers sexual offences, sexual harassment and other adverse conduct based on sex, or relating to the sex or sexual orientation of the person at whom the conduct is directed.
  The tribunals themselves sought such powers, and when the Department of Employment consulted interested organisations earlier this year, it was clear that there would be widespread support for such a move. The responses show that some potential applicants are deterred from bringing tribunal cases involving allegations of sexual harassment for fear of hostile and intrusive publicity. Many people find the experience of bringing a complaint which involves such allegations deeply distressing, and it is wrong that their distress should be enhanced by their fears of being identified against their will in salacious and incomplete reports of the case. Therefore, I think that hon. Members will agree that it is in the public interest that discretionary reporting restrictions should be available in such cases.
  The amendment falls into two halves. New paragraph 4A(a) covers the small number of cases which involve allegations constituting an indecent assault or more serious sexual offence. It gives industrial tribunals powers to remove permanently from decisions and any other documents available to the public any information which would identify any person making or affected by the allegations. Those powers are largely needed to avoid the risk of the tribunals themselves committing a technical breach of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. That Act, which applies in England and Wales, makes it a criminal offence to publish information which would identify the victim of such an offence without their consent for the rest of their life.
  New paragraph 4A(b) contains the substantive powers. It covers the potentially larger group of cases which involve allegations of sexual harassment or other sexual
  950
  misconduct, as defined in the new clause. In cases which involve such allegations the amendment gives industrial tribunals discretionary powers to make restricted reporting orders. Such an order, once made, will prevent any reports of the case published or broadcast in Great Britain from including information which would identify anyone making or affected by those allegations. The order will not be made automatically, but only where the tribunal sees fit. It will lapse on promulgation of the tribunal's decision unless it is revoked earlier by the tribunal. Transgression of the order will be a criminal offence punishable by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, currently £5,000.
  Amendment No. 35 gives the Employment Appeal Tribunal discretionary powers equivalent to those given to the industrial tribunals by amendment No. 34. The powers to be given to the EAT cover appeals in cases which involve allegations of sexual misconduct, where the proceedings are appeals against an industrial tribunal's decision or refusal to make a restricted reporting order, or against any interlocutory decision in a case where such an order had been made.
  In appeals in cases which involve allegations of an indecent assault or other more serious sexual offence, the amendment gives the EAT powers to remove information which might identify any person making or affected by those allegations permanently from decisions and any other documents which are available to the public. As in the case of amendment No. 34, those powers are largely needed to allow the EAT to avoid the risk of committing a technical breach of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.
  I hope that hon. Members from both sides of the House will join in the Government's strong condemnation of sexual harassment. The purpose of the amendments is to protect individuals in cases involving such allegations from offensive and intrusive reporting and to encourage potential applicants who might otherwise be deterred by the fear of such publicity to pursue their complaints.
  Ms Quin: I congratulate the Minister on her appointment and wish her well. I hope that, in the course of her tenure, she will turn out to be a champion of women's rights at work. This amendment helps women at work, although I regret that so much else in the Bill does not.
  The Opposition welcome the amendment, which is very much in line with suggestions that we have made in the past. We also welcome the strengthening of its wording at the instigation of Baroness Lockwood. We are glad that the Government took her additional words into account.
  We also welcome the fact that there has been consultation and that the Government have listened to the various organisations that have made representations to' them. We would encourage such listening.
  We are fully aware that, in some cases of sexual harassment, harm may be caused to an innocent party by intrusive publicity. That is why we welcome the amendment, which allows reporting restrictions. I have one or two questions about it, however. We are somewhat concerned about how widely the new provisions may be interpreted. Of course, the Minister said that the reporting restrictions will not be granted automatically—that is important. Still, we must strike a balance between the need

  951
  to ensure that such cases are understood by the general public and are not pursued behind closed doors, and the need to protect innocent parties.
  It can often be in the interests of the accused to avoid publicity altogether. We do not want to make that too easy. Although there have been many cases of which the reporting has been most intrusive, there have also been cases where reporting has raised awareness of the problem among employers, employees and the public. Some such cases have contributed to the problem being taken seriously, and we should all be pleased about that.
  I know that some people say that all publicity is good publicity. I do not share that view; nor do I share the view that all publicity is bad publicity. We should be aware of the gains that publicity can produce. If reporting the results of sexual harassment cases is restricted, it may become more difficult to persuade employers that the subject requires proper complaints procedures and preventive measures. When a complaint of sexual harassment has been upheld by a tribunal, press reports can be an important means of emphasising employers' responsibility to take action to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. Although the names of the harasser and the victim are often not necessary, some reporting of the name of the employer and the workplace can be an effective method of alerting other employers to their responsibilities under the law.
  I should like the Minister to comment in more detail on these observations and to undertake to monitor how the provision works in practice, so that, if there is a danger that it is being interpreted too widely, the matter will be reviewed in future.
  9.15 pm
  Miss Widdecombe: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall reply briefly to the points that have been made.
  I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) for her broadly supportive approach to the amendment. The Government are seeking to strike a balance. The hon. Lady made the valid point that publicity arising from sexual harassment cases draws the public's attention to the problem, deters employers from tolerating such activity and encourages them to ensure that they do not themselves become the subjects of such publicity. On the other hand, there will be no publicity at all if people do not bring complaints.
  We have to strike a balance between encouraging public examination of the problem and deterring people from taking action as a result of what may have been extremely distressing circumstances. When people are deterred, the perpetrator is not called to account and is left free to carry on with his conduct. I believe that that balance is ensured, first, by the discretionary nature of the power—I repeat that it is certainly not automatic—and, secondly, by the fact that the order will lapse on promulgation of the decision, at which point the facts of the case and of the determination will be made known.
  As in the case of the employment tribunals, in whose work we are interested although they are independent, we shall keep a close eye on the progress and effects of the legislation. I can certainly give the hon. Lady an undertaking that if this were ever interpreted as being automatic, we should want to put an end to such an interpretation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 35, 36, 65, 79 and 37 agreed to.

Clause 37

  REQUIREMENT TO INFORM EMPLOYER OF PREGNANCY ETC.
  Lords amendment: No. 38, in page 54, line 26, at end insert:
  "; and in doing so the Secretary of State shall have regard to the requirements of disabled persons."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 39 and 40.
  Mr. Galbraith: You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a brief moment ago we had a declaration of peace in our time and the cessation of hostilities. I was unable to guarantee departure from the field without putting a knee in the groin. However, I have had to reconsider my position, as a knee in the groin would be unfair to the Minister, who knows that I am only too willing to be fair to him. I shall therefore limit my activity to a shout of "Yah-boo" as we close hostilities.
  My concern is not with the efforts that the Minister has made on our behalf and on behalf of the disabled. A fairly strong amendment would impose on Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise some sort of duty to take account of the needs of the disabled. The Minister thought originally that he had agreement with the Scottish Office, but this was more difficult to get through its system than he thought it would be. When he was a Minister in the Scottish Office, he was able to push through virtually anything at will. This is an indication of what happens when a Minister is moved to a Department dealing with matters on a United Kingdom basis.
  Thus, this is a somewhat weakened amendment. I do not blame the Minister, and I know that he will not take my remarks personally, as he never takes anything personally. This provision makes reference to such times as the Secretary of State may require—not will require: there is no absolute statutory obligation—provision, if any, to be made. There may or may not be provisions for disabled people. It depends on what takes the Secretary of State's fancy because he has no obligation to include such provisions. That is probably the best compromise that the Minister could reach, but I am disappointed by this weak amendment.
  The Minister knows the background to our amendment, so I shall not go through it. It relates to Lennox Castle hospital in my constituency for people with learning and physical disabilities. It had a useful garden project that was funded in part by the local enterprise company, but financial provision was withdrawn. That seems to be happening all over the country. When money in the enterprise companies becomes tight, provision of training for the disabled is the first item to be sacrificed.
  Our amendment sought to redress the balance and to place on the Government a statutory obligation to consider the training rights of such people. The Minister agreed with the thrust of our amendment and tried his best. Unfortunately, he has not been completely successful.

  953
  There is another reason for a stronger amendment. At Question Time, the Minister and I had a discussion across the Dispatch Box about the laws relating to the employment of the disabled, and especially the 1944 legislation, in cases where the 20 per cent. quota is not enforced. The Minister has said that the policy is one of virtual non-enforcement.
  It is difficult to get employers to fulfil their obligations. The Minister said that the Government try to cajole and convince them without having recourse to the law. It makes matters more difficult when the local training and enterprise companies do not have an obligation and can withdraw from looking after the unemployed. For those two reasons we sought a stronger amendment. The Minister has done his best and we are grateful for the amendment, but we wish that it was stronger than "may or may not" and "what, if any". We should be much happier with a statutory obligation to provide training for the disabled and others.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 39 to 79 agreed to.

  House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975
  9.23 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): I beg to move,
  That Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification act 1975 be amended as follows:

PART II OF SCHEDULE 1

  Additional entries
  1. The following entries shall be inserted at the appropriate places:
  The Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances established under section 140(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
  The Citizen's Charter Advisory Panel.
  The Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for Northern Ireland.
  The Forestry Commissioners.
  A Meat Hygiene Appeals Tribunal constituted under regulation 15 of the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations 1976, regulation 15 of the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) (Scotland) Regulations 1976, or regulation 6 of the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992.
  The Mental Health Review Tribunal for Northern Ireland.
  The United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board.

  Entries omitted
  2. The following entries shall be omitted:

  The Attendance Allowance Board for Northern Ireland.

  Food from Britain.

  The Highlands and Islands Development Board.

  The National Bus Company.

  The National Development Team for People with a Mental Handicap.

  Northern Ireland Electricity.

  Other amendments
  3.—(1) In the entry beginning "The Parole Board constituted", the words from "constituted" onwards shall be omitted.
  (2) In the entry beginning "The Parole Board for Scotland", the words from "constituted" onwards shall be omitted.
  (3) For the entry beginning "The Planning Appeals Commission" there shall be substituted the following entry:
  The Planning Appeals Commission constituted under Article 110 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

  PART III OF SCHEDULE 1
  Additional entries
  4. The following entries shall be inserted at the appropriate places:

  Certification Officer for Northern Ireland appointed under Article 69 of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992.

  Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Commonwealth Institute.

  Chairman of the Chief Executives' Forum in Northern Ireland.

  Full-time Chairman of Child Support Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland.

  Chairman of the Consumer Committee for Electricity appointed under Article 7 of the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992.

  Chairman of Food from Britain.

  Chairman or any member, not being also an employee, of the Health Education Board for Scotland.

  Chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

  Chairman of any of the National Boards for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting constituted under section 5 of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979.

  Chairman of the Northern Ireland Higher Education

  955

  Council.

  Chairman of, or secretary to, the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee.

  Chairman of the Northern Ireland Rural Development Council.

  Chairman of the Training and Employment Agency Advisory Board in Northern Ireland.

  Chief Adjudication Officer appointed under section 39 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.

  Chief Adjudication Officer appointed for Northern Ireland under section 37 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.

  Chief Child Support Officer appointed under section 13(3) of the Child Support Act 1991.

  Chief Child Support Officer appointed under Article 15(3) of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

  Director General of Electricity Supply for Northern Ireland.

  District judge appointed under section 6 of the County Courts Act 1984.

  Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland.

  Independent Commissioner, or Deputy Commissioner, for the Holding Centres in Northern Ireland.

  Member of the Board of the Industrial Research and Technology Unit in Northern Ireland.

  Member of a panel of chairmen for Child Support Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland appointed under paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 3 to the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

  Member of a panel of chairmen of industrial tribunals established under Article 30 of the Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984.

  Member of a panel appointed under section 6 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 of persons to act as chairmen of Child Support Appeal Tribunals.

  Member of the staff of the State Pathology Service for Northern Ireland.

  Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members.

  Pensions Ombudsman.

  Secretary of the Medical Research Council.

  Social fund Commissioner in Northern Ireland.

  Entries ominted
  5. The following entries shall be omitted:—

  Chairman of the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Chairman or other full-time member of the Forestry Commission.

  Chairman of the London and Metropolitan Government Staff Commission.

  Chairman of the Northern Ireland Training Authority.

  The entry beginning "A member of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions".

  President, or member of a panel of chairmen, of industrial tribunals established under Article 30 of the Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984.

  Registrar or Assistant Registrar appointed under section 6 or section 7 of the County Courts Act 1984.

  Other amendments
  6.—(1) In the entry "Chairman of the Agricultural and Food Research Council", after "Chairman" there shall be inserted ", or Director General and Deputy Chairman,".
  (2) In the entry "Chairman of the Business Technician Education Council", for "Technician Education" there shall be substituted "Technology".
  (3) In the entry "Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Home-Grown Cereals Authority", the words "or Vice-Chairman" shall be omitted.
  (4) In the entry "Chairman of the Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland", after "Chairman" there shall be inserted "or Chief Executive".
  (5) In the entry "A full-time chairman of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals for
  956
  Northern Ireland", for "and Medical Appeal Tribunals" there shall be substituted ", Medical Appeal Tribunals and Disability Appeal Tribunals".
  (6) In the entry beginning "Any member of the Audit Commission", after "Local Authorities" there shall be inserted "and the National Health Service".
  (7) In the entry beginning "Officer of the Supreme Court", for "registrar, or assistant registrar," there shall be substituted "judge".
  (8) In the entry "President of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland", for "and Medical Appeal Tribunals" there shall be substituted ", Medical Appeal Tribunals and Disability Appeal Tribunals".
  The motion seeks the approval of the House to the amendment by Order in Council of schedule 1 to the 1975 Act. As the House is aware, the Act is concerned with the maintenance of the independence of the House and the safeguarding of hon. Members from undue influence by the Executive through the exercise of patronage. Schedule 1 lists those offices whose holders are thereby disqualified from membership of the House.
  It has been the usual practice for any legislation establishing new offices or winding up existing ones to amend schedule 1 accordingly. The 1975 Act is therefore reprinted from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the Act, to incorporate such amendments. The last reprint was made on 1 March 1992; a further reprint will be ordered after the new order has been made.
  In addition, from time to time it is necessary to use the procedure outlined in section 5(1) of the Act to bring schedule I up to date by Order in Council. That section provides for the schedule to be amended following a resolution by the House, by adding offices which have been created by administrative action, by amending or correcting existing entries and by deleting offices that no longer exist or in relation to which a statutory disqualification is no longer appropriate. The procedure has been followed on nine previous occasions: the first was in 1961, and the last in December 1990.
  Copies of the explanatory note describing the amendments in detail have been available in the Vote Office since 11 June. Perhaps I should add that Ministers have been individually responsible for the details of the additional entries and deletions which cover offices within their areas of responsibility. They have based their judgments on the same general principles and criteria which have been followed in the past and which are covered in the explanatory note. Of the 61 amendments, 37 are new entries, 13 are deletions and 11 are amendments to existing entries. Approximately 381 office holders will be brought into the scope of schedule I. Up to 58 others will no longer be disqualified: that includes offices that have been abolished: There is therefore a net increase of 323 office holders disqualified. Of the 381 added to the schedule, up to 225 are part-time chairmen of child support appeal tribunals.
  We also propose that the "de minimis" level—that is, the level below which paid offices in the gift of the Crown or Ministers do not normally attract disqualification—should be raised to £8,000. The "de minimis" limit, of course, has no effect on the level of remuneration received by office holders; its purpose is merely to prevent trivial disqualification. The 1990 figure of £7,000 has been uprated approximately in line with movements in average earnings, and remains within the range of a quarter to a third of Members' salaries.
  As we are following a well-established procedure, I commend the motion to the House.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Mark Fisher: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I welcome him to his new post, and to his first chance to speak following his time in the Whips Office,.
  The details of the amendments and additions to schedule 1 to the 1975 Act are not in themselves greatly contentious, but I welcome this opportunity—the first since 1990—to consider the scope and purpose of parliamentary disqualification. The principle of disqualification, the criteria on which it should apply and who, in practice, should be disqualified are issues that go to the heart of the powers and independence of the House. It is proper that certain groups should be disqualified from membership. Broadly, those groups fall into two categories—those who should be disqualified because of lack of competence and those involved in a clash of interests that requires a separation of powers.
  About six further categories are included in the first category: examples are treason, imprisonment for more than one year in Britain—and, strangely, in the Republic of Ireland—and corrupt practices at elections. The Mental Health Act 1983 refers to a statutory procedure for vacating the seat of a sitting Member of unsound mind. I do not know whether the House would agree on exactly what constitutes "unsound mind", and on how subjective that definition is—we could debate that for some time.
  Curiously, people under the age of 21 are also banned from the House. That would have denied it the services of Charles James Fox and Lord John Russell, and it would probably have been a weaker House for that. It is interesting to note that Sir Edward Coke, the great jurist, wrote in 1623 that several "infants" sat in the House in his day
  "by connivancy—but if questioned would be put out"—rather like dogs, I assume.
  The Minister did not touch on the chief aspect of lack of competence, which is bankruptcy. That is of particular interest to the House at a time when, under the present Government, the number of personal bankruptcies has risen.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that he is straying beyond the remit of what is before us this evening.
  Mr. Fisher: Whether the amendments should include bankrupts, and what the implications of that are, is important and I seek an assurance from the Minister on it.
  Bankruptcies have risen from 7,728 in 1988 to 32,106 in 1992. A great many people have been disqualified by the Government's economic incompetence. The House would appreciate an assurance from the Minister that the Government have no plans to protect Lloyd's names and, by doing so, to protect the 47 Tory Members who apparently, according to press reports, are at risk of losing their seats and being disqualified for reasons of bankruptcy.
  An assurance from the Minister would relieve a great deal of press speculation. [Interruption.] I will certainly
  958
  give way to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) if he wishes to intervene. If he does not, I am sure that he will agree with a former Member of the House, Mr. Thomas Benyon, who is a director of the Society of Names. Last week, Mr. Benyon said that this
  "is a time bomb adding uncertainty to the ability of the Major Government to keep its majority intact for the next two or three years."
  As the House is debating disqualification for the first time, these matters may be of considerable interest to 47 hon. Members. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South is not taking it more seriously. No one wants to see hon. Members being disqualified.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: What?
  Mr. Fisher: We should like to see them beaten at the ballot box, but not necessarily disqualified.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. In the short time that I have been in the Chair, it appears to me that the type of disqualification that the hon. Member is talking about is not set out in the motion as a disqualification.
  Mr. Fisher: That is true, but as we are debating the 1975 Act and amendments to it for the first time in three years, and it is an important current issue, an assurance from the Minister that Lloyd's names will not be handled separately would be an important assurance. I will willingly give way to the Minister if he wants to put the record straight.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend said that the last thing he wanted to see was Tory Members being disqualified. I will tell him straight. If we see 47 Tory Members up to their necks in debt and being made bankrupt, I hope that he will join me in the Lobby to make sure they are kicked out.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now return to the motion.
  Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend did not quite catch my drift. I would prefer to see them beaten at the ballot box where they deserve to be beaten, and I am sure that we agree about that.
  I turn to the second category which is absolutely central to the amendments—those areas in which there is a clash of interests. We all know about the armed forces, the police and the judicial offices, but the categories added to schedule 1 by today's amendments all involve quangos. As the Minister said, the Government are adding 381 new posts to schedule 1. Those quangos were set up by the Government, as indeed were the previous 2,600 additions to the Act between 1987 and 1990. There are not many growth industries in Britain under this Government, but quangos are certainly one.
  It is proper that people who head and work for quangos should be disqualified because of the potential clash of interests. They are, in effect, Government employees, and, like civil servants, they ought to be disqualified. The Government are the quango kings. Inevitably, the amendments will be repeated in the few years left to the Government because they are so intent on creating quangos-40,000 posts in 1,412 quangos, which spend an amazing one fifth of all Government expenditure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) has pointed out that in Scotland one third of all Government expenditure is directed through quangos. As the Government are using quangos

  959
  as an instrument of government, it is absolutely right that those who do the Government's work through those quangos should be disqualified from being Members of the House as if they were civil servants. It is interesting to note that the Government, by bringing forward the motion, accept the fact that those people are arms of Government and civil servants in all but name and conditions of work.
  As the Government seem to imply by the motion, finance is the key. The quangos are public bodies spending public money and it is right that there should be a separation of powers to prevent a clash of interests. The Government do not always seem to understand that there might be such a clash of interests.
  Baroness Denton, referring to the 804 appointments at the Department of Trade and Industry, said, "I cannot remember knowingly appointing a Labour supporter." The Government rigorously control the political complexion of the quangos—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Baroness Denton said that she never knowingly appointed a Labour appointee and if Conservative Members are proud of that and believe that that is the right way in which to handle quango appointments, let them intervene in the debate. The Minister's words are on the record and she has never taken them back.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: To put the record straight, the point that my noble Friend was making was that she does not consider the party political affiliations of people whom she appoints. She appoints people on merit. That is the important point. It has nothing to do with party politics.
  Mr. Fisher: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is being deliberately humorous or disingenuous, but he knows perfectly well that Baroness Denton meant something totally different. She said that she was proud that she was appointing only non-Labour people.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: If I were my hon. Friend, I would not take any notice of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), who is on record as saying that the BBC radio programme "Start the Week" is communist propaganda. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to take that view, he would be prepared to believe that Baroness Denton tried to appoint people on a neutral basis.
  Mr. Fisher: If the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) will not accept the word of a Minister, perhaps he will accept the words of the Financial Times, which did a survey showing that, of the 10 largest quangos and the 30 largest quangos in the national health service, not one had a chairperson who was either a Liberal Democrat or a Labour supporter, but eight were paid-up members of the Conservative party. It is clear that the Government have a clear and consistent policy and that is why it is right that, because of the clash of interests, those people should be disqualifed from membership of the House.
  What the Government do not seem to understand is the difference between their interests and the interests of Parliament or the interests of the Tory party and the interests of the Government. That they cannot make that distinction is to the Government's discredit. They need the separation of powers implicit in the Act, because for the Government it is a seamless robe.
  I hope that the new Minister will bring a fresh eye and some intelligence to his responsibilities. I hope that he will
  960
  bring a new look to his job—I am being nice to him again —and consider the role of disqualification and the clash of interests involved. He can make a start by reducing the number of quangos, by giving us a categorical assurance now that he will have no amnesty for Lloyd's names on bankruptcy and then by working with the Government to try to change the economic policies that are causing such ruin and shoving up the number of bankruptcies across the country to more than 32,000 in the past year.
  The Opposition will not oppose the motion, but we shall keep a watchful eye on the Government's quango mania. We shall await the real disqualification act which will be the general election, when the Government will find that they are disqualified from office by the British people.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer rose—
  Dr. Robert Spink: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me how the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) can possibly comment, when he was not in the Chamber for the Minister's opening remarks?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That matter is not a point of order for me. Mr. Cryer.
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister spoke so rapidly that I was unable to get to the Chamber in time to hear his maiden speech as a representative of the right-wing extremists in the Whips Office now in the Government. I am sorry that I missed it —all two minutes of it.
  When this motion appeared in the Whip, all the reporters and Lobby correspondents sought it out immediately, to see whether it contained other than routine changes to the 1975 Act of the kind that are made from time to time. They wanted to make sure that the Government were not trying to get off the hook the 47 Tory Members of Parliament who are up to their necks in debt at Lloyd's. [Interruption.] In fact, the motion does not say that. However, that matter is of considerable concern, particularly to those of us who were here in 1981, when Tory after Tory said that Lloyd's should have all the self-regulation that it wanted because it was such a wonderful—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying down that road again, and I have already drawn that to the attention of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will return to the subject of the debate.
  Mr. Cryer: -I shall try my very best, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but Conservative Members were shouting from a sedentary position in a most unruly and undignified fashion, which brings disgrace to this great mother of Parliaments. I do not know how they can do it. It is quite appalling. I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, against that pin-stripe mob that is trying to break up democracy.
  The proposed alteration to schedule 1 to the 1975 Act reflects the Government's penchant for appointing people instead of extending democratic principles. If the Government were concerned about some of those institutions, they could extend local authority democracy, by allowing some functions—if not all—to be undertaken

  961
  in association with local authorities. The Government prefer to appoint people, which is a system of political patronage.
  The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) knows that that is true. He might protest when we say that such appointments are based on Conservative political attitudes, but the Government's record of the past 14 years is one of dedication to the application of political prejudice in every possible walk of life. It has been a corrosive influence. The Government have used patronage—of which this measure is an example—and extended the powers and expenditure of quangos. That was suggested in a recent issue of the Financial Times.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) mentioned, one fifth of Government expenditure is now made not through Parliament but through the allocation of moneys to quangos. It is clear from the explanatory note provided with the measure that some people are now paid honorariums, whereas before they did the job for nothing. The payment of those sums of money brings them within the scope of the legislation. That shows the extent of the patronage that the Government are doling out.
  Labour will examine some of those appointments, to see whether they cannot be placed on a more democratic footing, instead of the terrible business of the Government handing out appointments on the basis that those appointed support the party in power. That has been a canker in our body politic. After the next general election, we shall take a good look at that situation, to see whether we can improve matters.
  We can expect more such amendments, because of the Government's shifting sands of patronage. Many quango chairmen, chairwomen and members receive salaries that are way beyond the scope of ordinary people—they are very well paid. It is proof of the power of patronage that it buys people's support, even if there is doubt about that support in the beginning.
  I have already mentioned Baroness Thatcher. It is worth remembering that she coined a phrase that echoed throughout her years as Prime Minister. She asked about any candidate, "Is he one of us?" and used that as the political test of reliability. If a Labour Government had applied the same test, they would have been hounded by the press, but because the vast majority of the press is on the side of the Conservative party, it pays little or no heed to the political corruption about which the Minister is now smiling.
  The Minister is a former Whip and therefore in an ideal position to hand out patronage because, as a Whip, he has been bullying and bribing Tory Members for the past few years. He would tell them that if they were not present, they would not be allowed to go on free trips or become members of Select Committees. He knows all about patronage, which is very much part of the legislation. We shall examine the legislation again. We are unhappy about it as it stands, but this has been a useful debate to highlight the Tory party's patronage system.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I, too, missed the beginning of the debate, but I have picked it up as I went along.
  962
  I have been scanning the list of new quangos which have been included or excluded, as the case may be. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is right. The Government have been establishing more quangos, but I cannot see listed the Norman Lamont legal aid defence fund, which should be there.
  The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to get money indirectly from Asil Nadir, but also from the taxpayer—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the motion. Will he please confine his remarks to the motion?
  Mr. Skinner: We are talking about whether people should be disqualified because they have jobs that are in some way connected with money paid by the Government, which means by the taxpayer. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer received money from the taxpayer, which means that for a short time he also had an office of profit under the Crown—he was being paid his salary but also received £4,000-odd from the taxpayer. That was Government money and he should therefore have been included in the list. That is my point.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is very interesting, but it has nothing to do with the list.
  Mr. Skinner: It has nothing to do with the present list. What I am trying to say is that people are disqualified for getting money from Government bodies, quangos or whatever one wants to call them.
  I cite an example. When the 1974–79 Labour Government were elected, one of the first things they did was to hold a special mini-debate—you were probably here at the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker—about someone who had been elected to Parliament although he had an office of profit under the Crown. It had to be a Liberal, a Dr. Winstanley. He had been receiving money from the taxpayer and, therefore, through the Government. The Government suddenly realised that Dr. Winstanley should be barred as a Member of Parliament.
  I think that it was Lord Glenamara, Ted Short at the time, who presented to the House a motion similar to that presented this evening by the Minister. I came into the Chamber and wondered what was happening. The Labour Government did not need the Liberals' support at the time as they still had a majority—we still had Stonehouse plus two. I found that the Labour Leader of the House was making arrangements to allow that Liberal whippersnapper off the hook, although he had broken the law.
  The amount of money was small, but the Liberal was on a medical panel. and attended various panels and tribunals during the year. It happened on only a few occasions, but he was receiving a sum of money and that disqualified him. The Leader of the House he did not get my support; I think that I was the only one who refused—got the House to agree to retrospective legislation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Terrible."]—for a Liberal!
  Mr. Riddick: Which way did the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) vote?
  Mr. Skinner: I do not know what he was doing at the time. He may have voted in favour, because he finished up as a Minister. But I am not sure which way he voted, because he was not a Minister at the time; that came later.

  963
  My hon. Friend made sure that the wheels of industry turned—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the IMF?"] It had nothing to do with the IMF.
  I was trying to illustrate the fact that the amount of money involved in the earlier case was small and that a very fine line was drawn in the case involving the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. That case should be examined, as, indeed, should any case involving a Minister or anybody else who gets money from the Government and thereby has an office of profit under the Crown. That is the real reason why I am taking part in the debate.
  The case that I mentioned also shows that Labour did not go in for the policy of looking after Labour people. They were not very good at doing that. That is sad when we think about it. Now we have experienced 14 years of Tory Government and they have put hard-line Tories in everywhere—health spivs and all the rest. But when Labour were in power they used to say, "We shall have one for their side and one for the other." What a carry-on. If I had been in power that would not have happened. We would have had a few more socialists on some of those bodies.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman. te11 us whom the Labour Government appointed to be Her Majesty's ambassador in Washington and what relation he was of the Prime Minister of the day?
  Mr. Skinner: It is well known that that was Peter Jay —[HON. MEMBERS: "Who was?"]—Jim Callaghan's son-in-law. [ Laughter.] I never considered him a socialist.
  Mr. Riddick: Jim Callaghan?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is all very entertaining, but what has it got to do with the motion? Let us get back to the motion.
  Mr. Skinner: I am asked all those questions arid I am expected to answer them, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I was talking about the fine line in the case of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is another fine line to he drawn and that is why I believe the schedule should be examined afresh. We should consider the retrospective nature of what happens when former Ministers of the Crown and Members of the Cabinet become directors of privatised companies; in some cases they have taken the legislation to privatise those companies through the House of Commons. I am talking about water, electricity and so on. Nineteen former Tory Cabinet Ministers got 59 directorships between them, some of which were connected with the industries whose privatisation they had taken through the House of Commons. Those posts should be added to the schedule.
  9.54 pm
  Mr. David Davis: With the leave of the House, I thank hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, (Mr. Fisher), who have congratulated me on my appointment. I especially thank the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for his compliments. I also wish to thank the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who I read in the weekend press, has been nominated for a ballroom dancing honour. I hope that he does well.
  It is difficult to answer some of the questions that have been asked and still stay within order, but I will do my best. I shall start by referring to a previous debate. When
  964
  I asked for some previous editions of Hansard, one of my officials wrote that, over the years, the debates have been less than colourful. We have changed that tonight. In 1983, Mr. Charles Morris said:
  "a somewhat salutary thought for parliamentarians to note and remember, that, in a job where some might think madness and bankruptcy are distinct possibilities, perhaps occupational hazards, to come here with either involves an infringement of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975."— [Official Report, 12 April 1983; Vol. 40, c. 766.]
  I think that he was right.
  I say to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central that there is nothing in the amendment to alter the disqualification for bankruptcy. That disqualification comes under section 427 of the Insolvency Act 1986. There is nothing in the motion that changes that, nor am I aware of any intention to change it.
  If the amendment introduced disqualification for the bankruptcy of ideas, the Opposition Benches would be rather vacant. In fact, they look rather vacant now.
  Mr. Fisher: The record will show that all that the Minister said about the Lloyd's bankruptcy disqualification is that he had no knowledge of it, or that there was no intention. Could he give the House a categorical assurance that his Government will not change either the Insolvency Act or the 1975 Act to give any accommodation that might include Tory Members of Parliament made bankrupt by their dealings with the Lloyd's gambling den?
  Mr. Davis: I do not think that people change laws on that basis anyway. The limit that I can give on anything is my knowledge of it, and I have given that.
  It was suggested that over the years we have increased the number of quangos. In fact, in 1979 there were 2,167 quangos, whereas now there are 1,412. That puts it on a rather more even basis.
  Mr. Cryer: Since the Minister has the figures, presumably in preparation for the debate, will he say how much money was administered by quangos in 1979 compared with today?
  Mr. Davis: I do not have those figures. To take up a point that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bolsover pursued, the purpose of this Act is to avoid even the appearance of any influence on Members of the House. It was disgraceful to suggest that Baroness Denton said that she appointed on a political basis. The important word in that statement was "knowingly". Appointments are made on merit and Ministers are not told of the applicant's political affiliation. It is not done on a "One for you, one for us" basis, which appears to have operated in the past. That was somewhat of an own goal.
  The suggestion that the need for the Act is a characteristic of a Conservative Government misses one point. This is a 1975 Act. I cannot remember which party was in power then, but I do not think it was the Conservative party; it must have been the Labour party. That rather puts paid to that point, too. The whole point is to prevent there being even the appearance of what Opposition Members have asserted. I commend the motion to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 be amended as follows:—

PART II OF SCHEDULE 1

  Additional entries
  1. The following entries shall be inserted at the appropriate places:—

  The Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances established under section 140(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  The Citizen's Charter Advisory Panel.

  The Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for Northern Ireland.

  The Forestry Commissioners.

  A Meat Hygiene Appeals Tribunal constituted under regulation 15 of the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations 1976, regulation 15 of the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) (Scotland) Regulations 1976, or regulation 6 of the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992.

  The Mental Health Review Tribunal for Northern Ireland.

  The United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board.

  Entries omitted
  2. The following entries shall be omitted:—

  The Attendance Allowance Board for Northern Ireland.

  Food from Britain

  The Highlands and Islands Development Board.

  The National Bus Company.

  The National Development Team for People with a Mental Handicap.

  Northern Ireland Electricity.

  Other amendments
  3.—(1) In the entry beginning "The Parole Board constituted", the words from "constituted" onwards shall be omitted.
  (2) In the entry beginning "The Parole Board for Scotland", the words from "constituted" onwards shall be omitted.
  (3) For the entry beginning "The Planning Appeals Commission" there shall be substituted the following entry:—
  The Planning Appeals Commission constituted under Article 110 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

PART III OF SCHEDULE 1

  Additional entries
  4. The following entries shall be inserted at the appropriate places:—

  Certification Officer for Northern Ireland appointed under Article 69 of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992.

  Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Commonwealth Institute.

  Chairman of the Chief Executives' Forum in Northern Ireland.

  Full-time Chairman of Child Support Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland.

  Chairman of the Consumer Committee for Electricity appointed under Article 7 of the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992.

  Chairman of Food from Britain.

  Chairman or any member, not being also an employee, of the Health Education Board for Scotland.

  Chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

  Chairman of any of the National Boards for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting constituted under section 5 of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979.

  Chairman of the Northern Ireland Higher Education Council.

  Chairman of, or secretary to, the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee.

  Chairman of the Northern Ireland Rural Development Council.

  Chairman of the Training and Employment Agency Advisory Board in Northern Ireland.

  Chief Adjudication Officer appointed under section 39 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.

  966

  Chief Adjudication Officer appointed for Northern Ireland under section 37 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.

  Chief Child Support Officer appointed under section 13(3) of the Child Support Act 1991.

  Chief Child Support Officer appointed under Article 15(3) of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

  Director General of Electricity Supply for Northern Ireland.

  District judge appointed under section 6 of the County Courts Act 1984.

  Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland.

  Independent Commissioner, or Deputy Commissioner, for the Holding Centres in Northern Ireland.

  Member of the Board of the Industrial Research and Technology Unit in Northern Ireland.

  Member of a panel of chairmen for Child Support Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland appointed under paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 3 to the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

  Member of a panel of chairmen of industrial tribunals established under Article 30 of the Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984.

  Member of a panel appointed under section 6 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 of persons to act as chairmen of Child Support Appeal Tribunals.

  Member of the staff of the State Pathology Service for Northern Ireland.

  Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members.

  Pensions Ombudsman.

  Secretary of the Medical Research Council.

  Social fund Commissioner in Northern Ireland.

  Entries omitted
  5. The following entries shall be omitted:—

  Chairman of the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Chairman or other full-time member of the Forestry Commission.

  Chairman of the London and Metropolitan Government Staff Commission.

  Chairman of the Northern Ireland Training Authority. The entry beginning "A member of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions".

  President, or member of a panel of chairmen, of industrial tribunals established under. Article 30 of the Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984.

  Registrar or Assistant Registrar appointed under section 6 or section 7 of the County Courts Act 1984.

  Other amendments
  6.-(1) In the entry "Chairman of the Agricultural and Food Research Council", after "Chairman" there shall be inserted ", or Director General and Deputy Chairman,".
  (2) In the entry "Chairman of the Business Technician Education Council", for "Technician Education" there shall be substituted "Technology".
  (3) In the entry "Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Home-Grown Cereals Authority", the words "or Vice-Chairman" shall be omitted.
  (4) In the entry "Chairman of the Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland", after "Chairman" there shall be inserted "or Chief Executive".
  (5) In the entry "A full-time chairman of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland", for "and Medical Appeal Tribunals" there shall be substituted ", Medical Appeal Tribunals and Disability Appeal Tribunals".
  (6) In the entry beginning "Any member of the Audit Commission", after "Local Authorities" there shall be inserted "and the National Health Service".
  (7) In the entry beginning "Officer of the Supreme Court", for "registrar, or assistant registrar," there shall be substituted "judge".
  (8) In the entry "President of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland", for "and Medical Appeal Tribunals" there shall be substituted, " Medical Appeal Tribunals and Disability Appeal Tribunals".

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  CUSTOMS UNION (SAN MARINO)
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreement on Customs Union and Co-operation between the European Economic Community and the Republic of San Marino) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 13th May. be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101( 5 ) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  CRIMINAL LAW
  That the draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 13th May, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That the draft Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 13th May, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That the draft Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990, (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 13th May, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.

  Thorpe Marsh Power Station
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring the matter of the closure of Thorpe Marsh power station before the House. The closure was announced on 8 June, and is a disaster for my constituency and for many of my constituents who work at the plant.
  The blame for the closure must be laid fairly and squarely at the door of the Government. I hope that the Government will get their act together and get an energy policy before it is too late for the many hundreds of people in my constituency who rely on the power industry for their jobs, features and livelihoods.
  The decision to close Thorpe Marsh proves the folly of the Government's energy policy. It will lead directly to more than 200 job losses in my constituency and in the Doncaster area, and ultimately to many more job losses. The 1,000 MW plant is just another casualty of a policy which, through a mixture of incompetence and malice, has rigged the market against coal. As a result, the workers of Thorpe March now have to suffer.
  The coal-fired plant has proved itself time and again. In May 1993, National Power News boasted proudly that Thorpe Marsh had set thermal efficiency records for the past two years running. The reason for the success of the plant lies largely with the excellent industrial relations and team approach. Management and unions have worked side by side and given their absolute best to the plant and to National Power.
  For the workers, the closure came out of the blue. In the past three years, National Power has invested £40 million in new equipment at the plant, and the future of Thorpe Marsh seemed secure. Yet we are now told that there is no option but closure. The workers at Thorpe Marsh have done all they can to keep the plant successful; they even accepted 120 redundancies in March. Now the remaining 232 jobs are also to go. That is a profound disappointment to all those involved, and a shock to the local community.
  Thorpe Marsh workers will feel the most immediate effects of the loss of the plant, but many other groups of workers in Doncaster will also be affected. Bentley and Hatfield pits both lie in my constituency. Both are currently undergoing so-called market testing, and both rely on Thorpe Marsh to buy one third of the coal that they produce. Last year, Bentley supplied 270,000 tonnes to Thorpe Marsh, and Hatfield supplied 400,000 tonnes. On Friday 11 June, the last deliveries of coal to Thorpe Marsh from those two pits were made. The plant will rely on stockpiles between now and the closure date next March. That has massive implications for both Bentley and Hatfield. With one third of their market gone, their chances of surviving beyond market testing have been seriously undermined.
  Where will the two pits find new markets of that size now? The closure is a huge blow to all the men at the two pits, who had at least been offered some chance of a future but who have suffered a serious setback with the announcement of the closure of Thorpe Marsh. With an unemployment rate of 13·6 per cent., Doncaster is way

  969
  above the national average, and further rises caused by the closure of Thorpe Marsh will make matters even more difficult.
  However, should the closure of Thorpe Marsh also force local pits to close, the long-term unemployment effects will decimate many towns and villages in the area. White collar jobs, along with mining jobs, will go. Local businesses, especially small businesses, and those involved in mining supplies will be badly hit.
  It has been estimated that the possible effects of the closures could add as much as 6 per cent. to the present unemployment total. The implications go far beyond the tragedy of Thorpe Marsh. That is why I call on the Government to help. It is a Government-created problem, and the Government must solve it. I do not want to see any more job losses and economic difficulties in Doncaster. I hope that the Government are as concerned as I am about the economic impact of their energy policies on areas such as Doncaster, and that they are finally willing to redress the imbalance in our energy markets.
  The Government's energy policy, or lack of one, is at the heart of the debate. Privatisation of the electricity industry sounded the death knell of the coal industry and, with it, coal-fired electricity generation. The Government have stood idly by while regional electricity companies have invested in gas-fired plant when ample capacity already existed in the generating industry. Regional electricity companies want their own generating stations so that they can produce and sell their electricity, at whatever price they want, to themselves. Either the Government do not understand what that will mean for consumers and the size of their electricity bills, or they do not care.
  The electricity consumer is playing for the dash for gas and for the building of the expensive new plant that is needed before one watt of electricity is produced. The costs of that plant outweigh any cost benefits of an alternative fuel, which will actually add to rather than reduce consumers' bills. It is only when there is a shortage of capacity that building such an amount of plant can be justified on cost grounds, yet the Government have let the dash for gas continue.
  The Government have persisted in the fiction that burning gas is an efficient way of producing electricity, and an efficient use of the nation's energy resources. However, gas burned in power stations gives only 52 per cent. efficiency, and that is at maximum, whereas gas burned in industrial and domestic use is more than 90 per cent. efficient.
  That is a dire waste of our scarce energy resources, especially in the light of the alternative of coal fuel, which has fewer alternative uses in the industry and in homes and which has served Britain so well in the past as an efficient generator of electricity. Instead of encouraging the most efficient use of an increasingly scarce energy resource, the Government have allowed coal-fired stations to be closed and have let regional electricity companies continue their profiteering. They have stood by and allowed consumers to be exploited once again.
  The consumer is being exploited even more blatantly by the fossil fuel levy, which is subsidising a nuclear industry that has crippling plant, safety and decommissioning costs. With 10 per cent. of all fuel bills going to support the
  970
  nuclear industry, the consumer is being forced to give a massive subsidy to the industry, and almost 20 per cent. of Britain's fuel is being heavily subsidised. Nuclear Electric received subsidy of more than £1 billion last year, and that subsidy came straight from the pockets of consumers, rich and poor alike. That industry cannot compete with other sources of fuel because of high costs, yet its markets are guaranteed.
  Regional electricity companies are forced to buy the output of the nuclear industry, and the consumer is forced to pay the costs of the consequent inefficiency. The amount of electricity that is being sold in that way is on the increase —from 47 to 57 TWh per annum over the past three years. Nuclear power output continues to rise and consumers, are paying more for their electricity to subsidise that expensive white elephant.
  The folly of the policy is demonstrated by the case of Trawsfynydd power station. That nuclear power station has not produced enough electricity in the past two years to light a 60 watt bulb, yet it remains open. It has been staffed by 560 people for all that time, costing taxpayers and consumers a small fortune. That should be compared to the model of the Thorpe Marsh power station. It is a comparatively efficient generator, has low costs and has produced good results. For their efforts, the workers and management are now rewarded with redundancies and closure.
  The experience with the interconnector has proved that the Government's energy policy is a farce. Only this Government would be barmy enough to allow electricity to be imported when we have surplus capacity. The Government allowed the interconnector to become a one-way traffic, making Electricité de France more like simply another power station, rather than an emergency supply.
  The Government's perversion of the energy market has created such waste and such costs for consumers. The nature of the market desperately needs to be tackled, and the interests of consumers and workers protected. It is that wasteful policy that has caused the closure of Thorpe Marsh. It is simply not true to say that coal has no market or that coal-generated electricity is not efficient. Coal-fired power stations are simply not being allowed to compete with gas and nuclear fuels. We have already lost 6,000 MW of coal-fired generating capacity and we look set to lose another 3,000, only to see it replaced by gas powered plant.
  A new gas-fired station is being built only 20 miles down the road from Thorpe Marsh at Keadby near Scunthorpe and will have a 750 MW generating capacity. Where is the justification for closing one efficient plant and replacing it with a new plant, incurring all the costs of building and commissioning? How can such a wasteful duplication be based on sound economic arguments? The point is that there is no justification.
  The Government's policy lacks any overview or coherence. It has pitted one energy source against another, encouraged duplication and waste, endorsed high costs and high prices for the consumer and penalised efficient coal-fired generation. In so doing, the Government are jeopardising many thousands of jobs in power generation, coal mining and related industries in the Doncaster area.
  Have the Government not noticed the destructive effects of their energy policy? The Minister must admit that, through incompetence or design, his Government have set the energy market against the coal industry and all

  971
  those who work in it. The closure of Thorpe Marsh will have disastrous consequences for the economy in my constituency and in many other localities.
  Thorpe Marsh power station is an effective plant, with a dedicated staff who have found a recipe for success in teamwork and hard work. They represent more than simply a branch of a company—they are an important part of the local community, and have given a great deal back to Doncaster in the past few years. Thorpe Marsh should be given a chance. It should be given back the chances that the Government took away when they wrecked Britain's energy market and condemned the coal industry.
  Thorpe Marsh must be saved. The only thing that will save it is intervention from the Minister. Over the past 14 years, the Government have stacked the cards against the coal industry and we are all paying the price for that incompetence. It is time for the Government to tackle the problems that they have created. I call on them to intervene to correct the appalling imbalance that they have created in the energy market, and save Thorpe Marsh power station from closure.
  10.14 pm
  Sir Harold Walker: I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster; North (Mr. Hughes) who has outlined a tragic case. I attended the official opening of Thorpe Marsh power station. little thinking that I would have the sad experience of bemoaning the consequences of its closure in the House. The Minister will recall that I recently led a deputation with my hon. Friend about the appalling consequences for the region of the pit closure programme and the serious economic difficulties that we faced. I little thought that we would have to face an additional hammer blow.
  It will not affect merely the power station's employees, many of whom are my constituents, but will have a knock-on effect, further exacerbating the problems caused by the closures of pits and railways. Those matters are interconnected, as my constituency and that of my hon. Friend depend on the three industries, which together face a crisis.
  As my hon. Friend said, we are not facing a natural catastrophe, such as the floods in north Wales or fire. The disaster was created by Government policies. The Government must provide the answers for the thousands of people in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend who are suffering as a consequence of those policies. They face misery and hardship and, unless the Government intervene, there is little likelihood of those people obtaining new employment and a new future.
  I want the Government today to say not only what they will do about the consequences of the closure of Thorpe Marsh power station, but what they will do to help my constituency and that of my hon. Friend which will be, to put it mildly, blighted by the Government's policies.
  10.17 pm
  The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): I am delighted to see you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the Chair yet again on a coal-related matter.
  I understand the concern felt about this subject. I well remember the deputation led by the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Sir H. Walker), accompanied by the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes). We
  972
  discussed in detail the widespread concern then felt in Doncaster about the impending closure of the two pits. I felt that that was a useful meeting, at which we had a frank exchange of views. I hope that those present felt that I was able to provide reassurances about our plans for development area status for the region and the issue of an enterprise zone in south Yorkshire.
  I know that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North made a case for locating the enterprise zone in somewhere other than the Dearne valley. He did not mention it in his speech tonight, but I know that he feels that the announcement about Thorpe Marsh—and its possible implications for other pits in the region—bears on the issues that he and others were making at the previous meeting. I assure him that we shall bear in mind those representations.
  I also recognise that it is a particularly sad moment for the employees at Thorpe Marsh. I do not think that there is any doubt that the station has performed well, and the employees have done what they can to improve the plant's efficiency. The closure announcement is linked to two factors: the capacity of the market to absorb the station's production and the fact that the station is old.
  The right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central said that he was at its opening; he did not refer—perhaps understandably—to the fact that that was more than 30 years ago. It is commonly recognised that the station is one of the older stations still in operation. Drax, which is perhaps the best example of a modern station, has a generating capacity no less than four times the size of Thorpe Marsh's.
  When Thorpe Marsh was opened, it represented a new type of technology and a new level of thermal efficiency, but everyone recognises that it has been overtaken by developments since then. It is also widely recognised that, without extensive retrofitting, coal stations have a finite life.
  I do not wish to raise false hopes or lay myself open to the charge of misrepresentation, but I should point out that the closure announcement by National Power is not necessarily the end of the story for Thorpe Marsh. The Director General of Electricity Supply has made it clear that he wants greater competition in electricity generation, and he has drawn particular attention to the possibilities for competition in coal-fired generation. Professor Littlechild has also made it clear that the generators could and should do more to make redundant generating plant available for sale to third parties.
  One advantage of the early announcement of this closure is that it will at the very least provide enough time for real negotiations with potential purchasers. I do not want to raise hopes, however, because I genuinely do not know whether potential purchasers will emerge. I do know that there are companies looking for investment opportunities in coal-fired plant in this country, and that the director general is keen that such opportunities should genuinely exist. I also know that both National Power and PowerGen are aware of that. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear this in mind, although I do not want to mislead him or his constituents about the possibility of further life for Thorpe Marsh.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: Can the Minister confirm a story carried on a local television news programme in Yorkshire this evening to the effect that two private generators are

  973
  interested in purchasing the Thorpe Marsh power station? Does he have any knowledge of that; if so, will he elaborate?
  Mr. Eggar: I am afraid that I do not know what was on the programme—I did not see it. I am not aware of any such interest in Thorpe Marsh. I am aware that a small number of companies have expressed interest, in principle, in entering into serious negotiations about the possibility of purchasing older, coal-fired plant. I understand that some companies wish to examine the possibility of retrofitting such plant, which I have been told can be done cost-effectively, and which has been done in the United States to considerable effect. Operating costs have been reduced, and the operating efficiency of older plant has been increased.
  I do not think it fair to the employees of Thorpe Marsh or to the people of Doncaster to raise hopes which I am not sure can be fulfilled, but it is right to point out that such an option exists.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the role of nuclear power and of the new gas-fired stations. There was reference to the inefficiency of producing electricity from gas. The new gas-fired generating plant has a thermal efficiency of above 50 per cent., and that figure is rising as each new piece of plant comes on stream. Currently the most efficient coal-fired plant has an efficiency level of below 40 per cent., so there is a considerable gap. Gas has become competitive as a result of technological breakthrough in terms of the development of the combined cycle.
  I—like many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I suspect—believe that there may very well be a similar technological breakthrough in the development of coal-fired technology, which will improve thermal efficiency, as well as the environmental operating factors. Of course, in considering the environmental aspects of coal-fired plant, one must always bear in mind the fact that, by definition, it will be virtually impossible to remove all carbon emissions. As far ahead as, with existing technology, one can reasonably predict, this will always be an environmental disadvantage for coal as against other generating methods, including gas and nuclear generation.
  974
  We have been told that nuclear is clean. There is no doubt that, in terms of emissions, it is considerably cleaner than both coal and gas. However, it would be inappropriate at this time to rejig the debate that we had at the time leading up to the coal review and the matters that were investigated by the Select Committee. It is fair to point out, however, that the Select Committee, as well as the Government, recognised that there was a role for nuclear power and that the avoidable costs were low. The Select Committee did not argue for an end to the building of gas-fired plant.
  The hon. Gentleman made some remarks about Trawsfynydd. That nuclear station is not operating, as it has been necessary to develop a safety case for the inspectorate. The result of the inspection is awaited. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about Bentley and Hatfield. I realise why he and his constituents are worried. I do not know exactly where the coal flows will go. That is a matter for British Coal and for the generators. However, I strongly believe that there is a market for deep-mined British coal. That is why the Government have made a subsidy available and why we are committed to the market testing period to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  I understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter on the Adjournment. I understand the immediate response to the announcement about the closure of Thorpe Marsh. Everybody realises that we have a stock of older coal-fired plant, which is not competitive and is bound to face replacement. It is not competitive with nuclear or gas plant or, critically, with the most modern coal-fired plant.
  It would not be appropriate for the Government to intervene on an issue of this kind. It is clear that National Power, the owners, believe that there is no market for the product of the plant and that keeping it open would undermine the viability of other generating plants, which they regard as more productive and more competitive. It is possible that other entities will be interested in the plant, and I know that the director general will want to pursue that possibility.
  I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this very important issue. I have taken careful note of all the points that he has made.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Red Star Parcel Service
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the sale of the British Rail Board's Red Star Parcels business will commence.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The board has today invited prospective purchasers of its Red Star parcels business to apply for an information memorandum describing the business and the proposed basis for sale. The closure date for receipt of detailed proposals is 13 August 1993.

  Mersey Ferries
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what requests he has received to end the royal charter which currently covers ferry services across the River Mersey.

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

  Train Accident, York
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cause of the train accident at York on 23 April which involved hospital treatment of injured persons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail is at present conducting an inquiry into the events which led to this accident. Until conclusions are reached, I am unable to comment on the cause, but I understand that the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate is keeping closely in touch with BR on this matter. The inspectorate will consider the report of the BR inquiry in due course and take any necessary action.

  M1 to M62 Link Road
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account was taken of the desirability of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the cost benefit analysis for the M1 to M62 link road.

  Mr. Key
  The reduction of carbon dioxide emissions is not a factor in the Department's cost benefit economic analysis.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had from hon. Members, lobby groups, businesses and the general public with regard to the M1 to M62 link road.

  Mr. Key
  The public consultation has so far resulted in:

  58 parliamentary questions

  137 letters from hon. Members to Ministers

  718 letters from the public to Ministers over 1,500 letters to officials

  550

  12 petitions containing over 20,000 signatures

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to seek private sector finance for the M1 to M62 link road.

  Mr. Key
  Although this scheme is at an early developmental stage, we would be willing to consider any approaches from the private sector about financial involvement.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received since the formal consultation process ended from local authorities with regard to the M1 to M62 link road.

  Mr. Key
  Representations have so far been received from Kirklees metropolitan district council and the City of Wakefield MDC since the end of the consultation period.

  Railway Centre, York
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will establish a permanent working group incorporating(a) his Department, (b) British Rail, (c) York Chamber of Commerce, (d) relevant local authorities and (e) other relevant interests for the promotion and protection of the Greater York area as a railway centre.

  Mr. Freeman
  I would be happy to meet hon. Members and representatives of the local authorities and the York Chamber of Commerce to discuss the impact of our proposals for the railways on the York area. I will write to the hon. Member and other hon. Members concerned with proposals for such a meeting.

  "Is Your Flight Affected by a Royal Flight"
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Civil Airports Authority regarding the leaflet it has distributed to airfields entitled "Is Your Flight Affected by a Royal Flight"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  None. The leaflet advertises a free telephone service which provides aviators with up-to-date information on temporarily restricted airspace which they should avoid, for their own safety and the safety of others. Royal flights are not the only reason why a temporary restriction might be imposed, as the leaflet indicates.

  Forward Look
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will designate one of his Ministers to be responsible for his Department's contribution to the Government's science and technology Forward Look.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Paragraph 2.37 of the recent White Paper "Realising Our Potential—A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology" describes the preparation of the Forward Look by the Office of Science and Technology, and the participation of Government Departments through the existing, well-established machinery of the official and ministerial Cabinet Committees on Science and Technology.

  Near-market Research
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his Department's policy is with regard to the funding of near-market research.
  551
  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 2.20 to 2.22 of the White Paper "Realising Our Potential—A Strategy for Science, Engineering, and Technology".

  Coastguard
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many auxiliary coastguard(a) patrol hours and (b) training hours were worked in each coastguard district in the United Kingdom in each year since 1979; and how many are expected to be worked in the current year.

  Mr. Norris
  The historic information on the patrol and training hours could be given only at disproportionate cost. The estimate for the current years figures for the coastguard districts are as follows:

  District

  Patrol hours

  Training hours

  Aberdeen

  1,644

  3,982

  Shetland

  0

  2,500

  Pentland

  972

  4,860

  Forth

  1,284

  3,144

  Tyne Tees

  1,560

  2,860

  Humber

  2,540

  4,672

  Yarmouth

  2,424

  3,840

  Thames

  6,160

  3,500

  Dover

  4,778

  4,040

  Solent

  8,250

  4,422

  Portland

  7,354

  5,163

  Brixham

  10,362

  3,850

  Flamouth

  8,758

  9,120

  Swansea

  3,990

  5,620

  Milford Haven

  1,272

  3,700

  Holyhead

  2,210

  3,060

  Liverpool

  3,363

  3,540

  Clyde

  2,200

  2,667

  Oban

  5,892

  4,320

  Stornoway

  2,612

  7,136

  Belfast

  2,904

  2,208

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money his Department has provided for auxiliary coastguard pay and allowances(a) excluding and (b) including training costs in each coastguard region in the United Kingdom in each year since 1979 at 1979 values.

  Mr. Norris
  The information in the form required is not readily available and could be given only at a disproportionate cost. The total auxiliary coastguard pay and allowances, including training costs, for coastguard regions for financial years in actual prices are as follows:

  Region

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  Aberdeen

  201,889

  187,103

  200,123

  Yarmouth

  181,201

  181,597

  219,218

  Dover

  115,344

  149,805

  251,839

  Falmouth

  448,425

  439,077

  379,940

  Swansea

  297,384

  287,035

  337,332

  Clyde

  191,330

  221,988

  237,354

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many auxiliary coastguard(a) patrol hours and (b) training hours were worked in each coastguard region in the United Kingdom in each year since 1979; and how many are available in the current year.
  552
  Mr. Norris
  The historic information on the patrol and training hours could be given only at disproportional cost. The estimate for the current years figures for the coastguard regions are shown as follows:

  Region

  Patrol hours

  Training hours

  Aberdeen

  13,020

  14,486

  Yarmouth

  6,524

  11,372

  Dover

  19,188

  11,962

  Falmouth

  26,474

  18,133

  Swansea

  10,835

  15,920

  Clyde

  13,608

  16,331

  Railway Vandalism
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 27 May,Official Report, column 687, what information he has on how many of the offences of vandalism on rail lines received sentences of four years' imprisonment and on the nature of the offences in each such case.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information in the form requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  British Rail (Appointments)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of Railtrack's senior appointments come from(a) BR, (b) his Department, and (c) elsewhere; and how pay levels for people in (a) and (b) have altered.

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 March 1993, column 165]: Mr. Horton's appointment as chairman-designate of Railtrack was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, on 2 February 1993, during the second reading debate of the current Railways Bill. With effect from 3 February, Mr. Horton's salary was increased from £28,640 to £120,000, in recognition of the extra work and responsibilities he was being asked to take on, in planning and implementing the creation of Railtrack, in addition to his ongoing duties as a member and vice-chairman of the BR board.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  High Court Judges
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list by year for the last five years, and for this year to date, the number of barristers asked but who have declined to become High Court judges.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Set out below are the numbers of practitioners who have consented, and declined, to allow their names to be recommended to Her Majesty the Queen for immediate appointment to the High Court Bench in each of the last five years, and so far this year. All those who declined, with one exception, have made it clear that they hope to be considered again for appointment to the High Court Bench in the future.

  Numbers consented

  Numbers declined

  1988–89

  7

  —

  1989–90

  8

  —

  1990–91

  2

  —

  553

  Numbers consented

  Numbers declined

  1991–92

  7

  1

  1992–93

  19

  6

  11993–94

  8

  2

  1 to date.

  Legal Services Ombudsman
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects publication of the second annual report of the legal services ombudsman.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The legal services ombudsman has today published his second annual report and copies have been placed in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Environment Statistics
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department's 15th "Annual Digest of Environment Statistics" was published; how many copies were printed; at what cost; and to whom the digest is being distributed.

  Mr. Yeo
  The 15th annual "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics" was published on 27 May 1993. It is on sale through bookshops, priced £14·95. Her Majesty's Stationery Office has printed 1,500 copies, of which my Department has purchased 450. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and have been sent to other Government Departments, to those who contributed data and information and to other contacts.

  Council Tenants
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each local authority the number and total value of cash incentive grants made to council tenants in 1992–93.

  Mr. Baldry
  The table shows the number of value of cash incentive scheme grants made to local authority tenants in 1992–93 under section 129 of the Housing Act 1988.

  Local Authority cash incentive schemes—grants and expenditure 1992–93

  Local authority

  Number of grants

  Total expenditure(£000)

  Eastern

  Aylesbury Vale1

  8

  154

  Basildon1

  14

  226

  Braintree1

  3

  22

  Broxbourne1

  10

  180

  Castle Point1

  6

  91

  Colchester1

  29

  491

  Dacorum

  29

  612

  East Hertfordshire1

  24

  531

  Epping Forest

  2

  24

  Huntingdon

  22

  177

  Luton1

  20

  344

  Maldon1

  5

  100

  Mid Bedfordshire1

  11

  160

  Milton Keynes1

  10

  150

  North Hertfordshire1

  6

  68

  554

  Local authority

  Number of grants

  Total expenditure (£000)

  Peterborough

  10

  101

  Rochford1

  8

  173

  St. Albans1

  19

  302

  Southend1

  8

  100

  South Norfolk

  4

  44

  Stevenage1

  9

  140

  Three Rivers1

  12

  86

  Watford1

  14

  167

  London

  Barnet1

  32

  1,250

  Bexley1

  20

  369

  Brent1

  221

  4,000

  Bromley

  17

  179

  Camden1

  52

  1,017

  City of London1

  5

  92

  Croydon1

  136

  2,337

  Ealing1

  87

  1,148

  Enfield1

  71

  1,368

  Greenwich1

  57

  583

  Hackney1

  73

  933

  Hammersmith and Fulham1

  69

  1,101

  Haringey1

  69

  1,449

  Harrow1

  47

  987

  Havering1

  17

  123

  Hillingdon1

  78

  1,846

  Hounslow1

  71

  1,034

  Islington1

  119

  2,759

  Kensington and Chelsea1

  41

  850

  Kingston upon Thames

  17

  299

  Lambeth1

  46

  920

  Lewisham1

  25

  328

  Merton1

  27

  475

  Newham1

  51

  750

  Redbridge1

  8

  149

  Richmond1

  84

  1,382

  Southwark1

  15

  198

  Sutton1

  26

  462

  Tower Hamlets1

  25

  412

  Waltham Forest1

  52

  796

  Wandsworth1

  125

  2,481

  Westminster1

  80

  1,598

  South East

  Adur1

  21

  302

  Arun1

  11

  110

  Brighton1

  21

  298

  Canterbury1

  20

  263

  Cherwell1

  5

  48

  Chichester1

  18

  214

  Dartford1

  9

  175

  Dover1

  24

  447

  Eastbourne1

  11

  176

  Eastleigh1

  16

  198

  East Hampshire1

  5

  80

  Elmbridge1

  3

  52

  Fareham1

  4

  76

  Gillingham1

  30

  359

  Gosport1

  6

  96

  Gravesham1

  6

  60

  Guildford1

  5

  132

  Hart1

  4

  92

  Hastings1

  13

  112

  Havant1

  10

  147

  Horsham1

  6

  102

  Hove1

  7

  88

  Lewes1

  15

  150

  Maidstone1

  5

  107

  Mole Valley1

  8

  112

  New Forest1

  16

  211

  Oxford1

  3

  41

  Portsmouth1

  162

  1,943

  Reading1

  23

  446

  Reigate and Banstead1

  11

  220

  555

  Local authority

  Number of grants

  Total expenditure (£)

  Rother1

  8

  130

  Runnymede1

  2

  40

  Rushmoor1

  28

  420

  Shepway1

  6

  111

  Slough1

  57

  580

  Southampton1

  68

  445

  Spelthorne1

  4

  321

  Tandridge1

  5

  60

  Test Valley1

  15

  215

  Thanet1

  8

  133

  Waverley1

  4

  76

  Wealden1

  10

  200

  West Oxfordshire1

  6

  107

  Windsor and Maidenhead1

  14

  150

  Woking1

  17

  365

  Wokingham1

  8

  160

  Worthing1

  5

  75

  EAST MIDLANDS

  Daventry

  7

  70

  East Northamptonshire

  20

  120

  South Kesteven

  6

  36

  West Midlands

  Malvern Hills

  1

  10

  Solihull

  4

  23

  Stafford

  12

  94

  Wyre Forest

  6

  50

  South West

  Bournemouth

  19

  165

  Cheltenham

  25

  249

  Cotswold

  5

  34

  Exeter

  5

  49

  Kennett

  4

  40

  Kerrier

  1

  5

  Kingswood

  1

  5

  Mendip

  10

  120

  Penwith

  5

  50

  Poole

  15

  103

  Purbeck

  2

  20

  Restormel

  1

  8

  Stroud

  10

  100

  Taunton Deane

  21

  162

  Teignbridge

  3

  22

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Hambleton

  2

  18

  Total

  3,094

  50,226

  1 Expenditure fully or partially funded from additional £30 million made available to local authorities in London and South-East England as part of the autumn statement package to stimulate the housing market and help relieve homelessness.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the possibility of water companies using council tax banding rates for charging purposes.

  Mr. Baldry
  Many customers have expressed the view that the fairest way of paying for water and sewerage services is in relation to the amount used. There is no evidence as yet that council tax banding provides a reasonable proxy for water usage.

  Air Pollution, London
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of air pollution in London; what targets he has for reducing it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Air quality is currently monitored automatically at four sites in London by my Department.

  So far this year the air quality measured at these four sites has been "good" or "very good" on at least 96 per cent of days. On occasions particularly during hot sunny weather, photochemical smog may be produced which can lead to poor air quality.

  The main source of air pollution in London is vehicle exhaust emissions. Measures to deal with such emissions include the requirement for catalytic converters on new cars from 1 January this year. This will reduce emissions from each car by at least 80 per cent. In addition, the MOT emission check introduced for cars from 1 November 1991 should secure substantial reductions in carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. A metered smoke test was introduced in the annual test for heavy diesels on 1 September this year.

  Council Tax, Harlow
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the substance of representations he received other than from Harlow district council in deciding on the limits to be imposed on the council's rates for council tax for 1993–94.

  Mr. Baldry
  We received representations from both of the main opposition groups on Harlow council, and from the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes). The Conservative group suggested various options for reducing the authority's expenditure, criticised a number of policy decisions taken by the authority and considered that a budget of about 11·5 million for 1993–94 would be achievable. These representations were supported by the hon. Member for Harlow.

  The Liberal Democrat group considered that the final cap should be higher than our proposed cap but lower than the authority's alternative.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which representations made on behalf of Harlow district council in relation to the probable consequences of reductions in net expenditure contemplated by his proposed council tax cap he has rejected.

  Mr. Baldry
  Before taking his decision on the level of the final cap for Harlow my right hon. Friend took account of all the relevant available information, including all representations, both written and oral, made by and on behalf of the authority in support of its alternative cap.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment from which hon. Members he has received representations about council tax capping for(a) Harlow and (b) Castle Point for 1993–94.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have received representations from the hon. Members for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) and for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on capping for 1993–94 in relation to Harlow and Castle Point respectively.

  Radon
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has received from the National Radiological Protection Board about the number of deaths and incidence of lung cancer attributable to the presence of radon in houses; what assessment he has made of the results of the programme to tackle the radon problem; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) estimates that 2,000 cases of lung cancer per annum are attributable to the presence of radon in houses. Measurements of radon have been made in 140,000 houses and 35,000 more are being processed. The Government's programme to identify homes with radon levels above the action level is continuing, and is subject to continuous assessment.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are taken to ensure that expenditure and revenue controls imposed on a local authority by his Department are not so substantial or at such short notice as to make the reduction unreasonably difficult to achieve.

  Mr. Baldry
  In recent years, as local authorities themselves requested, we have announced our provisional capping criteria well in advance of the date by which they must set their budgets.

  Before proposing a cap for any authority designated for capping, my right hon. Friend takes into account all available relevant information. It is then open to an authority to challenge its proposed cap and to suggest some higher alternative. The supporting case made by the authority and all other relevant available information about its circumstances is carefully considered before a decision is taken on its final cap. That final cap must in the view of my right hon. Friend be reasonable, achievable and appropriate in all the circumstances of the authority.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the five highest year-on-year reductions in net expenditure required of a local authority to bring its budget into conformity with the controls imposed under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, since the Act came into force.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 contains no provisions relating to the reduction of local authorities' expenditure.

  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what major developments are projected within the Merseyside development corporation area for the next five years.

  Mr. Baldry
  Merseyside development corporation has a substantial programme of encouraging major developments throughout the designated area. MDC's policies are discussed at the ministerial corporate plan meeting and with officials at Merseyside task force throughout the year. MDC's strategy is to secure the self-sustaining regeneration of Merseyside and great emphasis is placed on 558
  attracting investment to the area. Twenty-two major developments are projected within MDC's area over the next five years. These include five developments on land not owned by the corporation but which could require MDC support.

  The list is as follows:
  South Liverpool

  Riverside Housing Area

  Herculaneum—Commercial Development

  Brunswick Business Park—Further refurbishment of industrial/commercial units

  East Brunswick Housing Site

  South Ferry Island—Commercial/residential development

  Liverpool Waterfront

  Kings Dock—Leisure development

  Princes Dock1—Commercial/residential/leisure

  Baltic Triangle—Office development

  Albert Dock—Commercial/leisure

  North Liverpool

  Sandhills Business Park—Industrial development

  BEOCO Site1—Mixed use/office/business park/retail

  North Liverpool Industrial Area—Industrial development

  Vauxhall Housing Area—Social/low cost housing

  Waterloo Dock1—Further housing

  Birkenhead

  12 Quays

  Rose Brae Phases I and II—Residential development

  Scottsfield—Commercial/industrial development by Hanks Group plc.

  Green Lane—Commercial/industrial development

  Cammell Lairds1—In ownership of VSEL

  New Brighton Area

  Kings Esplanade Site—Leisure

  Victoria Parade Site–60 residential units

  Bootle

  Port expansion1—Port related activities, warehousing etc.

  1 Non-M DC land/property.

  Wall Insulation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he gave to proposing improvements to wall insulation in his Department's consultative document on building regulations (conservation of fuel and power); and what public guidance he gives on cavity wall insulation.

  Mr. Baldry
  The current proposals for revising part l of the Building Regulations would significantly improve wall insulation taking the fabric of the wall as a whole. In particular the proposals would no longer allow lower standards of wall insulation where double glazing is fitted.

  The Department's Building Research Establishment has produced a number of publications over the years on cavity wall insulation and made contributions to publications produced by for example the British Standards Institution, and the National House-Building Council. Two of its publications are:
  Report No. 143 "Thermal insulation avoiding risks"; and NHBC Good Practice Guide: "Thermal insulation and ventilation".

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to make it illegal for recycled CFCs to be used except where proof is demonstrated that none will be used to service leakages.

  Mr. Yeo
  No.
  559
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to establish an annual audit indicating the amount of CFCs and hydrochlorofluorocarbons purchased by United Kingdom companies.

  Mr. Yeo
  No, this would impose an unnecessary burden on business, given the tight controls on the supply of CFCs and the supply and use controls we will be negotiating for HCFCs.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward legislation to ban the sale of CFC and hydrochlorofluorocarbons technology and equipment.

  Mr. Yeo
  Production and supply of new CFCs will end in the European Community by 1 January 1995, with an 85 per cent. cut from 1986 levels by 1 January 1994.

  HCFCs are necessary in the short to medium term in some applications to phase out CFCs quickly. Within the EC we will be pressing for strict controls to ensure that HCFCs are used only where other more environmentally suitable alternatives are not available.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people will be enforcing the phase out of CFC 113 in the United Kingdom; and what information he has as to how many staff will be involved in each of the other European Community countries.

  Mr. Yeo
  CFC 113 is no longer produced in the United Kingdom. Enforcement of the controls on its importation is carried out by HM Customs and Excise. No officers are exclusively engaged on this work which is carried out alongside their enforcement of other prohibitions and restrictions. I have no information on staff involved in other member states.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to establish an information hotline to advise on emissions of ozone-depleting substances.

  Mr. Yeo
  None.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to ensure that all products made with or containing any ozone depleting substances are clearly marked.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government strongly support the European Community eco-labelling scheme which looks at all the effects of products on the environment. There are no plans to have a separate scheme for products containing or made with ozone-depleting substances.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce a more rigorous regime of fines and penalties for the emission of ozone depleting substances.

  Mr. Yeo
  None. The disposal of waste ozone-depleting substances by releasing them to the atmosphere is an offence under section 33(1)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The penalties available to the courts for that offence are, on summary conviction, up to £20,000
  560
  fine or six months' imprisonment or, on conviction on indictment, an unlimited fine or up to two years' imprisonment.

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, by local authority ward, the numbers of jobs created by the Leeds development corporation in each year since its creation.

  Mr. Baldry
  Official statistics for employees in employment are made available for local authority wards and aggregations of them by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The area covered by the Leeds development corporation does not coincide with ward boundaries.

  Information on the numbers of jobs created within the area covered by Leeds development corporation is compiled by the development corporation. The numbers of jobs created within its development area in each year since its designation are:

  Year

  Number

  1988–89

  1,526

  1989–90

  2,458

  1990–91

  2,320

  1991–92

  210

  1992–93

  830

  Science and Technology
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will designate one of his Ministers to be responsible for his Department's contribution to the Government's science and technology "Forward Look."

  Mr. Yeo
  Paragraph 2.37 of the recent White Paper "Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology" describes the preparation of the Forward Look by the Office of Science and Technology, and the participation of Government Departments through the existing, well-established machinery of the official and ministerial Cabinet Committees on Science and Technology.

  Natural Environment Research Council
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to draw up a concordat of co-operation between his Department and the Natural Environment Research Council.

  Mr. Yeo
  As the recent White Paper "Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science and Technology" makes clear, a new system of research councils will come into effect on 1 April 1994. The Government have proposed that each of these new research councils should work with the Government Departments with which they have a significant policy connection to draw up and publish concordats.

  Near-market Research
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what his Department's policy is with regard to the funding of near-market research.
  561
  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 2.20 to 2.22 of the White Paper "Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology".

  Planning Appeals
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) pursuant to his answer of 8 June,Official Report, column 197–98, concerning planning appeals, if he will name each project listed.

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 8 June, Official Report, column 197–98, concerning planning appeals, if he will list the parliamentary constituencies in which the projects were located;

  Proposed development

  Planning permission given (Y)es (N)o

  Parliamentary constituency

  1986–87

  Microwave radio station—Chichester

  Y

  Chichester

  Residential development—Hayle

  Y

  St. Ives

  Residential development—Bramcote

  N

  Broxtowe

  Residential development—Alcester

  N

  Stratford upon Avon

  Residential development—Maidstone

  Y

  Maidstone

  Residential development—Pinner

  N

  Harrow West

  Commercial development—St. Albans

  N

  St. Albuns

  Residential development—Bromley

  Y

  Lewisham West

  Change of Use of land to playing fields—Stafford

  Y

  Stafford

  Residential development—Welwyn Garden City

  N

  Welwyn Hatfield

  Sheltered dwellings—Horsham

  N

  Horsham

  Residential development—Backwell, Avon

  N

  woodspring

  Office development—Bromley

  Y

  Ravenborough

  Retail warehouse, garden centre—Peterborough

  Y

  Peterborough

  Residential development—Colchester

  N

  South Colchester and Maldon

  Residential development—Calderdale

  Y

  Calder Valley

  Residential development—Calderdale

  Y

  Calder Valley

  Residential caravan site for gypsy families—Berkshire

  N

  Reading East

  Retail development—Benson, Oxon

  N

  Henley

  Residential development—Weybridge

  N

  Chertsey and Walton

  Retail stores—Cobham

  Y

  Esher

  Industrial development—Rayleigh

  Y

  Castle Point

  Showroom and office development—Westminster

  Y

  Islington North

  Hypermarket—Nottingham

  Y

  Nottingham East

  Commercial development—Cambridge

  N

  Cambridge

  Commercial development—Cambridge

  N

  Cambridge

  1987–88

  Residential development—Totton, Hants

  N

  Romsey and Waterside

  Residential development—Monks Park, Avon

  N

  Bristol, North West

  Retirement homes, warden accommodation—Horsmonden, Kent

  N

  Tunbridge Wells

  Restaurent and petrol station—Brentwood

  N

  Brentwood and Ongar

  Restaurant and petrol station—Brentwood

  N

  Brentwood and Ongar

  Residential development—Fareham

  N

  Fareham

  Retail superstore—Luton

  N

  North Luton

  Retail industrial and warehousing—Doncaster

  Y

  Doncaster, Central

  Residential development—Hexham

  Y

  Hexham

  Residential development—Exminster

  Y

  Tiverton

  Offices development—Lambeth

  Y

  Vauxhall

  Offices development—Lambeth

  Y

  Vauxhall

  Mineral extraction—County Durham

  Y

  North Durham

  Supermarket and filling station—Newcastle upon Tyne

  N

  Newcastle upon Tyne, North

  Retail food store—Newcastle upon Tyne

  N

  Newcastle upon Tyne, North

  Retail superstore—Gosforth

  N

  Newcastle upon Tyne, North

  Retail superstore—Milton Keynes

  N

  Milton Keynes, South West

  Residential dwellings—Alvanley, Cheshire

  Y

  Eddisbury

  1988–89

  Development of a business park—Crawley

  N

  Crawley

  Business, retail park and residential development—Crawley

  N

  Crawley

  Residential development—Hanham

  N

  Wansdyke

  Residential development—Edenbridge, Kent

  N

  Sevenoaks

  562
  (3) pursuant to his answer of 8 June, Official Report, column 197–98, concerning planning appeals, how many and which of the projects went ahead; and in which parliamentary constituency each was situated.

  Mr. Baldry
  The following information is given for the 113 planning appeals decided by the Secretary of State between 1 April 1986 and 31 December 1992 following a local inquiry and contrary to the recommendations of the planning inspector. It is not possible to say whether the projects listed went ahead but the nature of the decision made is indicated. Aggregate data on the outcome of earlier planning appeals has been included in successive reports of the chief planning inspector (copies of which are placed in the House Library) but details of those individual projects could be provided now only at disproportionate cost.
  563

  Proposed development

  Planning permission given(Y)es/(N)o

  Parliamentary constituency

  Residential development, nursing homes and residential care homes—Formby, Lancashire

  N

  Crosby

  Residential development—Alton

  N

  Winchester

  Residential development—Weybridge

  Y

  Chartey and Walton

  Residential development—Weybridge

  Y

  Chartey and Walton

  Residential development—Weybridge

  Y

  Chartey and Walton

  Re-alignment of link road and residential development —Hart, Hampshire

  N

  Aldershot

  Residential development—Kempston, Bedfordshire

  N

  Mid Bedfordshire

  Residential and retail development—Bramley, Hampshire

  N

  Basingstoke

  Residential development—Bramley, Hampshire

  N

  Basingstoke

  Service buildings and offices—Waterloo, SE1.

  Y

  Vauxhall

  Residential development—Cleveleys

  Y

  Wyre

  Residential development—Cleveleys

  Y

  Wyre

  Residential development—Long Ashton, Avon

  N

  Woodspring

  Retail warehouse and garden centre—Coventry

  Y

  Coventry, North East

  Residential development—North Morley, Yorkshire

  Y

  Morley and Leeds, South

  1989–90

  Trunk-Road Service Area—Swanley, Kent

  N

  Sevenoaks

  Industrial development—Guildford

  N

  Guildford

  Industrial development—Guildford

  N

  Guildford

  Industrial development—Guildford

  N

  Guildford

  Residential, leisure and industrial development— Stratford upon Avon

  Y

  Stratford upon Avon

  Residential development—Codnor, Derbyshire

  N

  Amber Valley

  Residential development—Rochester, Kent

  Y

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  Minerals extraction—Thatcham, Berkshire

  Y

  Newbury

  Residential development—Dawlish

  Y

  Tiverton

  Leisure development—Stevenage, Hertfordshire

  Y

  Stevenage

  Leisure development—Stevenage, Hertfordshire

  Y

  Stevenage

  Leisure development—Stevenage, Hertfordshire

  Y

  Stevenage

  Leisure development—Stevenage, Hertfordshire

  Y

  Stevenage

  Office development—Islington, EC1

  N

  Hackney South and Shoreditch

  Offices development—Windsor

  N

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Offices development—Windsor

  N

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Retail development—Test Valley, Hampshire

  N

  Romsey and Waterside

  Hotel development—Hendlip, Worcestershire

  Y

  Mid Worcestershire

  Residential development—East Sussex

  N

  Hastings and Rye

  Residential development—East Sussex

  N

  Hastings and Rye

  Retail development—Staines

  N

  Spelthorne

  1990–91

  Housing, leisure, warehouse development—Ashford, Kent

  N

  Ashford

  Mobile homes and caravans—Milton, Cambridgeshire

  N

  South East Cambridgeshire

  Petrol station and restaurant—Northamptonshire

  N

  Northampon South

  Retail development—Northamptonshire

  N

  Northampton South

  Retail development—Thame, Oxfordshire

  Y

  Henley

  Residential and industrial developments—Westbere, Kent

  N

  Canterbury

  Retail and residential development—Amberside, Cumbria

  N

  Westmorland and Lonsdale

  Business park—Oxfordshire

  N

  Henley

  Retail development—Bromley

  N

  Ravensborough

  Retail development—Feltham, L.B. Hounslow

  N

  Feltham and Heston

  Leisure development—Near Swindon, Wiltshire

  N

  Swindon

  Residential development—Downton, Wiltshire

  N

  Salisbury

  Hotel development—Ardeley, Oxfordshire

  N

  Banbury

  Hotel development—Ardeley, Oxfordshire

  N

  Banbury

  Hotel development—Ardeley, Oxfordshire

  N

  Banbury

  Residential development—Cookham, Berkshire

  N

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Residential development—Peacehaven, East Sussex

  N

  Lewes

  1991–92

  Residential and Office development—Datchet, Berkshire

  N

  East Berkshire

  Residential development—Bognor Regis.

  N

  Chichester

  Industrial development—Vale Royal, Cheshire.

  Y

  Tatton

  Industrial development—South Bedfordshire.

  N

  South West Bedfordshire

  Retail development—Greenwich

  N

  Greenwich

  Residential and industrial development—Kent.

  N

  Canterbury

  Hotel development—Wilmslow, Cheshire.

  N

  Tatton

  1992–93

  564 565

  Proposed development

  Planning permission given (Y)es/(N)o

  Parliamentary constituency

  Industrial development—Reading.

  N

  Reading East

  Industrial development—Fareham.

  N

  Fareham

  Retention of caravan—South Norfolk.

  N

  South Norfolk

  Industrial development—Cinderford, Gloucester.

  Y

  West Gloucestershire

  Leisure development—Bromley.

  N

  Ravensbourne

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 8 June,Official Report, column 197–98, concerning planning appeals, what proportion of the total number of public inquiries the figures represent.

  Mr. Baldry
  The following is the information:

  A

  B

  C

  D

  Year

  Total number of appeal decisions following an inquiry

  Of which decisions by Secretary of State following inquiry

  Of which decisions by Secretary of State contrary to the Inspector's recommendation

  Proportion of column C to column B per cent.

  1979

  2,599

  861

  17

  2·0

  1980

  2,786

  845

  15

  1·8

  1981

  2,913

  919

  34

  3·7

  1982

  2,723

  596

  20

  3·4

  1983

  2,257

  370

  13

  3·5

  1984

  1,551

  253

  16

  6·3

  1985–861

  2,114

  362

  25

  6·5

  1986–872

  2,098

  451

  26

  5·8

  1987–88

  1,960

  356

  18

  5·1

  1988–89

  2,204

  267

  19

  7·1

  1989–90

  2,347

  299

  21

  7·0

  1990–91

  1,960

  172

  17

  9·9

  1991–92

  1,808

  99

  7

  7·1

  1992–933

  1,505

  166

  5

  3·0

  1From 1 January 1985 to 31 March 1986

  21986–87 and subsequent years are 1 April to 31 March

  3Data available to 31 December 1992

  Benomyl
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what investigations are being carried out into the impact of the use of Benomyl and related products on the environment.

  Mr. Yeo
  Benomyl and related fungicides are used on a wide variety of crops to prevent certain fungal diseases. They have been used for many years without any detrimental effects on the environment being observed. The pesticide will be reviewed in due course at European Community level under the new Pesticides Directive, 91/414/EEC.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the outcome of the recent consultation exercise on the next phase of the Government's rough sleepers initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Under the first phase of the rough sleepers initiative, from 1990–91 to 1992–93, the Government provided resources of £96 million to assist people sleeping rough in central London.
  566
  Independent research, funded by this Department, into the effectiveness of the rough sleepers initiative, shows that it has been a success. Through the initiative, several thousand people with a history of sleeping rough have been provided with accommodation. The number of people sleeping rough in central London has fallen by more than a half, from estimates of over 1,000 before the initiative began, to around 420 at a count in November 1992.

  The Government have made available a further £86 million over the next three financial years, 1993–94 to 1995–96, to continue the rough sleepers initiative in central London. On 18 January 1993 I issued a discussion paper, "The Rough Sleepers Initiative: The Next Three Years". It contained a range of proposals, based on recommendations from the independent research, aiming to ensure closer targeting of resources on central London's street homeless.

  Almost 100 organisations responded to the paper. There has been a broad measure of support for the main thrust of our proposals. In the light of those responses, I am today issuing a strategy document that outlines the way forward for the rough sleepers initiative over the next three financial years until 1995–96, to assist our aim to make it unnecessary for people to sleep rough in central London.

  We will continue to concentrate on funding permanent accommodation in houses and flats, with outreach work and resettlement support from voluntary organisations, to allow people sleeping rough to make a successful transition to a settled life. To ensure the better targeting of resources we are concentrating help on a limited number of specialist agencies with referral rights into RSI permanent accommodation; making referral agencies responsible for upholding the eligibility criteria; focusing some of the resources on zones, commencing with the Strand, with particular encouragement for consortia to come forward with proposals to reduce significantly the numbers sleeping rough in a specific area; and reducing the number of housing associations to develop permanent move-on accommodation under the initiative. Also, we are aiming to move towards a more contractual relationship with agencies, in the form of grants with tight, clearly-defined objectives. This, along with regular counts of the number of people sleeping rough in central London, will assist the better monitoring of the initiative.

  The further £86 million made available for this initiative, and the proposals in the strategy document to target resources more closely on those in need, will ensure that people sleeping rough in central London will continue to be helped to start a new life away from the streets. I am keen that this initiative should make a further significant impact on the problem of people sleeping rough in the capital.

  I have arranged for copies of the strategy document to be placed in the Libraries of this House and the other place.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Bail Hostels
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of(a) residents of bail hostels and (b) people remanded in the community for a similar range of offences have been convicted subsequently of an offence committed while they were on remand, in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information is not available in the form requested. RPU report 65 "Offending while on bail; a survey of recent studies" is available in the Library. However, this report does not give detail on bail hostels alone; no such study has been published.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding current measures to deal with persistent juvenile offenders.

  Mr. Maclean
  Representations have been received from a wide range of agencies and individuals. Since 2 March 1993, when my right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), made his statement at columns 139–42 in which, inter alia, he outlined the Government's proposals for a new secure training order, most representations have agreed with the Government's conclusion that the existing arrangements are unsatisfactory and have given general support to the new measures which we have proposed.

  Firearms Control Board
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to make a statement as to the date that the Firearms Control Board will be set up.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No decision has yet been taken on whether to establish a new civilian firearms control board. My right hon. and learned Friend will make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Drugs-related Offences
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drugs-related offences were reported in the Metropolitan police area in January-December 1992; and how many resulted in prosecutions and convictions respectively.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1992 is not yet available. Information on drug seizures and offenders dealt with in 1992 will be published later this year in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Statistics of drugs seizures and offenders dealt with, United Kingdom, 1992" (area tables), a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  New Age Travellers
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to introduce measures to deal with serious types of illegal trespassing and threats to the public by new age travellers.
  568
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The proposals which were announced on 31 March to strengthen section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 and to give the police new powers to deal with illegal rave parties will be introduced as soon as a legislative opportunity arises.

  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constables of the forces involved on the cost of the police operation code-named Haystack over the recent bank holiday weekend to control convoys of new age travellers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Operation Haystack was the police operation mounted by Gloucestershire constabulary to deal with the activities of new age travellers in its area over the May bank holiday. I understand from the chief constable that the cost of the operation, including the deployment of officers who would have been on duty anyway, was approximately £200,000.

  Police, Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many policemen there are in each Welsh police authority indicating(a) the number from ethnic backgrounds, (b) who are Welsh speakers and (c) in total; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on numbers of officers who speak Welsh is not held centrally. The other information requested is set out in the table.

  As at 28 February 1993

  Total police officers

  Officers from ethnic minorities

  Dyfed-Powys

  961

  Nil

  Gwent

  1,004

  9

  North Wales

  1,366

  1

  South Wales

  3,175

  22

  TOTAL

  6,506

  32

  Paul Malone
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what costs were incurred by the West Yorkshire police in carrying out the first investigation into allegations of a possible miscarriage of justice concerning the case of Paul Malone.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This is a matter for the chief constable of the West Yorkshire police.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what costs have been incurred to date by the Metropolitan police in carrying out the current investigation into allegations of a possible miscarriage of justice concerning the case of Paul Malone.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Police Retirements
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the reasons for the retirement of(a) Chief Superintendent McQuoid of the West Yorkshire police and (b) detective chief inspector Howard Jones of the Metropolitan police force.
  569
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  These are matters for the individual officers. Under the terms of the Police Pension Regulations 1987 a police officer may retire with full pension rights payable immediately after 30 years pensionable service. Both officers had completed 30 years service with the police at the time of their retirements in March 1990 and May 1993 respectively.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement detailing the policies relating to retirement of senior police officers during lengthy internal police investigations; and what consideration is given to potential retirements when appointing particular officers to inquiries.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  These are matters for police authorities and chief officers in individual cases.

  Table A

  Number and percentage of 'known offenders' (those cautioned and found guilty) in the Metropolitan police district (including the City of London) by age group and offence 1991

  Aged 10 to under 17

  Aged 17 to under 21

  Offence group

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Indictable offences

  Vehicle crime1 indictable

  511

  5

  679

  4

  Summary

  1,117

  3—

  1,225

  3—

  TOTAL

  1,628

  3—

  1,904

  3—

  Drug offences

  894

  8

  4,397

  25

  Robbery

  353

  3

  400

  2

  Violent crimes2

  1,327

  12

  1,652

  9

  Other indictable

  7,550

  71

  10,328

  59

  Total indictable offences

  10,635

  100

  17,456

  100

  1 Includes the indictable offence of stealing a motor vehicle (Theft Act 1968 Section 1); and the summary offences of stealing and unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle (Theft Act 1968 Section 12(1) as amended by Criminal Justice Act 1988 Section 37).

  2 Includes indictable offence groups 'Violence against the person' and 'Sexual offences'.

  3— Not applicable.

  Table B

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates courts and convicted at all courts in the Metropolitan police district (including the City of London) by age group and offence 1991.

  Aged 10 to under 17

  Aged 17 to under 21

  Offence group

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Indictable offences

  Vehicle crime1 indictable

  185

  132

  705

  484

  Summary

  459

  324

  1,336

  1,070

  TOTAL

  644

  456

  2,041

  1,554

  Drug offences

  130

  86

  1,631

  1,405

  Robbery

  471

  236

  636

  400

  Violent crimes2

  718

  395

  1,974

  1,144

  Other indictable

  2,546

  1,694

  10,213

  7,706

  Total indicable offences

  4,050

  2,543

  15,159

  11,139

  1 Includes the indictable offence of stealing a motor vehicle (Theft Act 1968 Section 1); and the summary offences of stealing and unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle (Theft Act 1968 Section 12(1) as amended by Criminal Justice Act 1988 Section 37).

  2 Includes indictable offence groups 'Violence against the person' and 'Sexual offences'.

  Crime Statistics
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences in the Metropolitan police area were committed by(a) juveniles up to the age of 16 years and (b) young people aged 17–20 years in January to December 1992; what proportion of total offences were (i) car-related, (ii) drugs-related, (iii) robbery, (iv) violent crimes and (v) other; and how many resulted in prosecutions and convictions respectively.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information is not collected centrally on the number of offences committed by offenders.

  Table A shows the number and percentage of "known offenders" (those cautioned and found guilty) by age group in the Metropolitan police district (including City of London) for the offences listed in 1991. Table B shows the number of defendants prosecuted and convicted in the Metropolitan police district (including City of London) for the same offences by age group in 1991.

  Data for 1992 will not be available until the autumn.

  Domestic Violence
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of domestic violence were reported in the Metropolitan police area in January to December 1992; and how many resulted in(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions, respectively.

  Mr. Maclean
  Provisional figures provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis show that there were approximately 9,800 incidents of domestic violence reported in the Metropolitan police district in 1992. Information on prosecutions and convictions is not available.

  Police (Racial Discrimination)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received on the subject of racial discrimination within the police authorities over the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None.

  Notifiable Offences
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many notifiable offences in total were recorded in the Metropolitan police area in 1963, 1970, 1979, 1990, 1991 and 1992; what proportion the offences were per thousand population respectively; and what has been the percentage change in notifiable offences since 1963 and 1979 respectively.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of offences recorded in the Metropolitan police district and the number per thousand population is contained in the following table. The percentage increase between 1963 and 1992 was 412 per cent. and between 1979 and 1992 it was 169 per cent.

  Number of offences and number per 1,000 population Metropolitan Police District

  Year

  Number of offences

  Number per 1,000 population

  1963

  229,107

  29

  1970

  321,156

  42

  1979

  557,378

  76

  1990

  834,324

  115

  1991

  926,203

  128

  1992

  942,878

  130

  Car-related Offences
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many car-related offences were reported in the Metropolitan police area in January to December 1992; and how many resulted in prosecutions and convictions respectively.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information on notifiable offences relates to vehicle crime which includes offences of theft of and from a vehicle and aggravated vehicle taking. In the Metropolitan police district in 1992, there were 241,437 recorded offences.

  Information on the number of defendants prosecuted and convicted in 1991 is given in the following table. Data for 1992 will not be available until the autumn.
  572

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts for vehicle crime offences in the Metropolitan police district1 1991

  Offence

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Theft of a motor vehicle2

  3,177

  2,324

  Theft from a motor vehicle

  1,126

  794

  Aggravated vehicle taking3

  4—

  4—

  Vehicle crime

  4,303

  3,118

  1 Including City of London.

  2 Including stealing a motor vehicle (Theft Act 1968 Section 1); and stealing and unauthorised taking of a vehicle (Theft Act 1968 Section 12(1) as amended by Criminal Justice Act 1988 Section 37).

  3 The Aggravated Vehicle Taking Act 1991 came into force on 1 April 1992.

  4 Not applicable.

  Security Firms
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names of all the private security firms currently employed by his Department, the number of employees for each firm on the contract, the total value of each contract and the total value of all contracts for each financial year since 1987.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The following private security firms are currently employed by the Home Office:

  Airline Security Consultants Limited

  Burns International Security Services Limited

  Group 4 Court Escort Services Limited

  Group 4 Remand Services Limited

  Group 4 Total Security Limited

  Grundig International Limited

  Harlow Security Systems Limited

  Lisburn Security Services

  Maritime Aviation Security Services

  Reliance Security Service Limited

  SDA (1979) Limited

  Securicor Security Services Limited

  Securiguard Services Limited

  Security Wales Limited

  UK Detention Services Limited

  The value of each contract is a matter of commercial and contractual confidentiality. Information about the total value of such contracts for each financial year since 1987 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information about the number of staff employed on each contract is also not readily available; in some cases the number varies from day to day according to operational requirements.

  Strip Searching
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the amount of drugs and explosives detected for each of the past five years as a result of(a) strip searching of convicted and remand prisoners and (b) strip searching of other people.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested in part(a) of the question was collected centrally only from mid November 1990. Information prior to that date could be gathered only by a manual search at disproportionate cost. Additionally it is not possible to give the quantity of drugs found, only the number of occasions when drugs were found on a prisoner's person.

  The total numbers of such incidents are as follows:

  573

  Drug finds (incidents)

  19901

  59

  1991

  269

  1992

  289

  19932

  184

  1 From mid November 1990.

  2To end May 1993.

  There are no recorded incidents of explosives being found as a result of the strip searching of convicted and remand prisoners.

  I regret that the information requested in part (b) of the question is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Fire Service, Wales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will visit(a) Queensferry fire station, Deeside and (b) Buchley fire station, Clwyd;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the future of the fire service in (a) Clwyd and (b) Wales;

  (3) if he will visit Clwyd county council headquarters, Mold to discuss the future of the fire service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to visit Clwyd. Our proposals for the future structure of the fire service in Wales are set out in the White Paper on the future of local government in Wales (Cm. 2155), which was published on 1 March 1993, and on which we are still receiving comments.

  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 June,Official Report, column 182, how many awards of between £550 and £799 were made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in each year since 1986–87.

  Mr. Maclean
  The published reports of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board do not give data about numbers of awards in the band requested. The following table accordingly summarises data about the nearest equivalent bands.

  Awards

  £500–599

  £600–799

  Below £750

  £750–999

  1986–87

  2,3622

  3,479

  —

  —

  1987–88

  2,271

  3,428

  —

  —

  1988–89

  3,499

  5,275

  —

  —

  1989–90

  3,179

  5,085

  —

  —

  1990–91

  3,096

  5,886

  —

  —

  1991–92

  n/a

  n/a

  3,893

  8,685

  Voting Rights
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to publicise the extension of voting rights in European and local elections of EC nationals resident in this country once the Maastricht treaty has been ratified prior to the deadline for inclusion on electoral registers for voting in the European elections of 20 April 1994; and if he will make a statement;
  574
  (2) what was the outcome of his most recent meeting with electoral registration officers to discuss the arrangements for the extension of voting rights to EC nationals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My officials have had an informal discussion with some electoral registration officers on the practicalities of implementing the new voting rights provided by the Maastricht treaty. We shall bring forward legislative proposals to give effect to the new voting rights once the Maastricht treaty has been ratified in all the member states. We shall take steps to publicise the new voting rights at that time.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will issue updated guidance notes to electoral registration offices on the use of alternative sources of information for the purposes of cross-referencing the draft electoral register subsequent to the abolition of the community charge register; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Electoral registration officers use a number of different sources of information to assist them in their task of drawing up registers of electors. We regularly issue guidance for electoral registration officers but have no plans to issue advice following the replacement of the community charge.

  Prisoners (Costs)
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost per week, month or year of keeping a prisoner in the various categories of prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, dated 16 June 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General, Mr. Lewis, from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the cost of keeping a prisoner in the various categories of prison.

  The average weekly cost of keeping prisoners in the financial year 1991–92—the latest year for which information has been published—was as follows:

  Weekly cost

  Type of establishment

  £ per prisoner per week

  Local prisons and adult remand centers

  437

  Dispersal prisons

  807

  Category B training prisons

  438

  Category C training prisons

  363

  Open adult prisons

  316

  Closed youth establishments

  452

  Open youth establishments

  551

  Female establishments

  629

  All operational establishments

  442

  Ticket Touts
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement with respect to his policy on the introduction of legislation to outlaw ticket touting at sporting and entertainment events.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 14 June 1993]: The Government are committed to implementing the Taylor report's recommendation that there should be a new criminal offence of ticket touting at football matches. This is because of the implications such touting may have for public order and public safety. We intend to introduce the appropriate legislation when there is a suitable opportunity in the parliamentary timetable.

  More generally we believe that, although some may find touting objectionable, it would not be appropriate for the criminal law to prohibit people from re-selling tickets which they have lawfully obtained, any more than it would be appropriate to forbid people to sell their other possessions. Such an offence would in any event be unenforceable. Neither would it be appropriate for the Government to attempt to regulate the price at which tickets may be resold. It is, however, already an offence for touts to deceive their customers as to the type of tickets they are selling, or obtain tickets by theft, fraud or intimidation. It is also open to the organisers of sporting or other entertainment events to impose contractual conditions on the sale of their tickets, forbidding resale and invalidating the tickets if they are sold on to third parties.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  School Meals
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the level of public expenditure on the school meal service in each year since 1979 in cash and real terms.

  Mr. Ancram
  Net expenditure on school meals and milk (figures for which are not recorded separately) is as follows:

  Financial year

  Cash £000

  AT 1992–93 prices £000

  1978–79

  17,031

  47,538

  1979–80

  19,670

  47,056

  1980–81

  18,088

  36,568

  1981–82

  17,381

  32,044

  1982–83

  19,152

  32,961

  1983–84

  21,572

  35,484

  1984–85

  22,417

  35,094

  Date

  Prison

  Sentenced or Remand

  Drugs found

  18 April 1990

  Belfast

  Remand

  Cannabis

  22 November 1990

  YOC

  Sentenced

  Cannabis Resin

  22 November 1990

  YOC

  Sentenced

  Cannabis Resin

  22 November 1990

  YOC

  Sentenced

  Cannabis Resin

  13 December 1990

  Belfast

  Remand

  Cannabis Resin

  15 March 1991

  Belfast

  Sentenced

  Cannabis Resin

  3 August 1991

  YOC

  Sentenced

  Cannabis

  6 August 1991

  Magilligan

  Sentenced

  Cannabis

  27 September 1991

  Belfast

  Sentenced

  Cannabis Resin

  30 September 1991

  Belfast

  Remand

  Cannabis

  3 January 1992

  YOC

  Sentenced

  Cannabis

  576

  Financial year

  Cash £000

  AT 1992–93 prices £000

  1985–86

  24,739

  36,724

  1986–87

  25,580

  36,789

  1987–88

  23,950

  32,650

  1988–89

  22,318

  28,361

  1989–90

  23,865

  28,456

  1990–91

  24,152

  26,663

  1991–92

  26,564

  27,494

  1992–93

  127,110

  27,110

  1 Actual expenditure not available: figure relates to approved expenditure.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average price of a school meal in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in cash and real terms in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is available only for fixed price meals and is as follows:

  Primary

  Secondary

  Year

  Cash (Pence)

  Real Terms (Pence)

  Cash (Pence)

  Real Terms (Pence)

  1979

  25

  60

  25

  60

  1980

  35

  71

  35

  71

  1981

  45

  83

  45

  83

  1982

  50

  86

  50

  86

  1983

  55

  90

  55

  90

  1984

  55

  86

  55

  86

  1985

  60

  89

  60

  89

  1986

  60

  86

  60

  86

  1987

  70

  95

  75

  102

  1988

  75

  95

  80

  102

  1989

  80

  95

  85

  101

  1990

  85

  94

  90

  99

  1991

  90

  93

  95

  98

  1992

  90

  90

  100

  100

  Strip Searching
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the amount of drugs and explosives that have been detected for each of the past five years as a result of(a) strip searching of convicted and remand persons and (b) strip searching of other people.

  Mr. Mates
  Only prisoners are full-searched within the Northern Ireland prison service. Records of finds of drugs and explosives in prisons in Northern Ireland have not been maintained for the whole of the past five years or in such detail as to quantify amounts of various items detected. The following list details only those finds of drugs clearly identified as resulting from full searches. No explosives have been detected. Other illicit items found in full searches are not included.
  577

  Date

  Prison

  Sentenced or Remand

  Drugs found

  3 January 1992

  YOC

  Sentenced

  Cannabis

  21 February 1992

  YOC

  Sentenced

  Amphetamine Sulphates

  21 February 1992

  YOC

  Sentenced

  Amphetamine Sulphates

  4 July 1992

  Maze

  Sentenced

  Alcohol

  2 August 1992

  Belfast

  Sentenced

  Cannabis

  6 August 1992

  Belfast

  Sentenced

  Cannabis Resin

  20 August 1992

  Magilligan

  Sentenced

  10 Tablets

  28 August 1992

  Belfast

  Remand

  Cannabis Resin

  27 September 1992

  YOC

  Remand

  Methylamphetamine Cannabis 42 Tablets

  30 October 1992

  Maghaberry

  Sentenced

  45 Capsules

  19 December 1992

  YOC

  Remand

  Cannabis

  23 December 1992

  Belfast

  Remand

  Cannabis

  23 December 1992

  Belfast

  Remand

  Cannabis

  5 January 1993

  Magilligan

  Sentenced

  Cannabis

  9 February 1993

  Belfast

  Sentenced

  Cannabis Resin

  26 March 1993

  Belfast

  Sentenced

  Cannabis

  GP Practices
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many single-handed general practitioner practices there are in Northern Ireland; and what is their average patient holding.

  Mr. Ancram
  At 1 May there were 85 single-handed general medical practices in Northern Ireland, with an average patient list size of 2,014.

  Health Authorities and Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) health authorities and (b) trusts were in existence in Northern Ireland on 1 April; and what is his forecast of the number on 1 April 1994.

  Mr. Ancram
  On 1 April there were in existence in Northern Ireland four health and social services boards and six HSS trusts and I do not expect there to be any change in the number of authorities purchasing services on behalf of their resident populations by 1 April 1994. However an additional four units have already been approved for trust status and it is intended that they, together with any units which make successful applications in the current third round, will be established to come into operation on 1 April 1994 when necessary changes to the law have been made.

  Innovation Support
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to improve the ease of access to innovation support programmes by small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1992 the Government published a regional research and development strategy for Northern Ireland "Innovation 2000". That strategy specifically recognised the need to promote research and development, collaboration and innovation in small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Government also established the industrial research and technology unit (IRTU) which provides single door access to an extensive range of support facilities for industry. These facilities include access to the SMART and teaching company schemes, product development programmes and EC support 578
  mechanisms for SMEs. IRTU also provides technical and scientific support services and delivers a programme of promotional initiatives designed to increase competitiveness and innovation. The recently published IRTU corporate plan emphasises the particular importance of technology transfer, awareness programmes and collaboration at local, national and international level.

  Near-market Research
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his Department's policy is with regard to the funding of near-market research.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 2.20 to 2.22 of the White Paper "Realising Our Potential—A Survey for Science, Engineering and Technology".

  Research and Development
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to improve the take up of grants and other incentives for research and development by small and medium enterprises.

  Mr. Atkins
  Given their importance in the region's economy, Northern Ireland's research and development strategy and the corporate plan and activities of its industrial research and technology unit are focused on increasing innovation and competitiveness in small to medium enterprises. A range of consultancy and technology transfer services are available; there is a programme of support for research and development, including the SMART awards and product development; and sustained promotional and awareness raising initiatives are undertaken. The SMART awards and teaching company scheme have been particularly successful in the region.

  Science and Technology
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will designate one of his Ministers to be responsible for his Department's contribution to the Government's science and technology "Forward Look."

  Mr. Atkins
  Paragraph 2.37 of the recent White Paper "Realising Our Potential—A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology" describes the preparation of
  579
  the Forward Look by the Office of Science and Technology and the participation of Government Departments through the existing, well-established machinery of the official and ministerial Cabinet Committees on Science and Technology.

PRIME MINISTER

  THORP
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has had on the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations.

  LINK Scheme
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of the LINK scheme budget is being transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  The Prime Minister
  LINK is an interdepartmental mechanism for promoting collaborative, precompetitive research involving industry and the science base. As such there is no distinct LINK scheme budget. The Department of Trade and Industry, like other participating Departments, uses money from its overall research and development budget to support LINK programmes and projects where these provide a way of meeting its departmental objectives. The Department's financial commitment to LINK will continue to be substantial and is unaffected by the transfer of responsibility for the LINK steering group and its secretariat to the Office of Science and Technology.

  Teaching Company Scheme
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Prime Minister if lead responsibility for the teaching company scheme is being transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  The Prime Minister
  At present, no single Department of state or research council has lead responsibility for the teaching company scheme and no decision has been taken to change this arrangement.

EMPLOYMENT

  Market Testing
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evaluation he has made of the effect on the number of jobs on Merseyside of the introduction of market testing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  The information requested on the effect of the Government's market testing programme on the number of jobs on Merseyside can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  As far as the Employment Department group is concerned, the current market testing programme affects a total of about 118 staff in Merseyside county, 108 based at the Health and Safety Executive's site in Bootle, and about
  580
  10 Employment Service staff involved in the delivery of job clubs on Merseyside. There will be opportunities for both private sector companies and in-house teams to bid for the departmental work concerned. This will encourage enterprise and the economy generally and Merseyside will benefit from this as much as anywhere else.

  EC Social Fund
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) men and (b) women were on European social fund training courses in each of the regions of the United Kingdom at the latest available date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Comprehensive details of the breakdown of European social fund applicants are not readily available at regional level and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment pursuant to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, columns 95–96, what were the voting figures for each member state recorded in the meeting of the European Community Social Affairs Council held on 1 June.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No formal votes were taken at this Council meeting.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each constituency(a) the latest unemployment figures, (b) the latest figures for those who have been out of work for at least one year and (c) the latest figures for those who have been out of work for at least five years; and if he will give the percentage rates for each category by travel-to-work area.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information showing unadjusted claimant unemployment by duration and as a percentage of the total work force can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Industrial Injury
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of working hours lost as a result of industrial injury in 1992.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The figures for 1992 are not available. An estimate of absence from work due to workplace injury is available for the year 1989–90 from the special supplement of questions on accidents to the 1990 Labour Force Survey. An estimated 23·2 million days absence occurred in Great Britain in 1989–90. This figure is equivalent to about 170 million hours lost for a five day working week of 37 hours.

SCOTLAND

  Health Authorities and Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) health authorities and (b) trusts were in existence in Scotland on 1 April; and what is his forecast for 1 April 1994.
  581
  Mr. Stewart
  On 1 April 1993 there were 15 health boards, and 17 NHS trusts in Scotland. There are no plans to change the number of health boards but a further 23 hospitals units have applied to become NHS trusts on 1 April 1994. These applications have been released for public consultation.

  GP Practices
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many single-handed general practitioner practices there are in Scotland; and what is their average patient holding.

  Mr. Stewart
  There were 228 unrestricted principals in single handed practices in Scotland at 1 October 1992, the latest date for which information is available centrally. Their average list size was 1,440.

  Islands (Subsidies)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the Halcrow Fox report on Government subsidies to the Scottish islands.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Once the final report on the findings and conclusions of the ferry subsidies impact study has been completed and submitted to the Scottish Office by Halcrow Fox, St. Andrews Economic Consultants and PA Cambridge Economic Consultants, my right hon. Friend will arrange to have a copy placed in the Library of the House.

  Housing, Edinburgh
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish available details of Scottish Homes' major Edinburgh initiative to stimulate existing and new housing suppliers to produce new homes for the private rental market.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Homes has recently approved 143 houses for market rent in Edinburgh. Its total investment to the end of 1992–93 was around £.1·3 million.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many housing association tenants in Scotland have now vacated housing association tenancies under the tenant's incentive scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since April 1990 a total of 267 tenants have received a grant under the tenants incentive scheme.

  Shared Equity Housing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress Scottish Homes has made with the development of its share equity pilot; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Homes is examining a number of new ways of promoting low cost home ownership, including the possibility of shared equity arrangements. It hopes to run a pilot later this year.

  Public Transport
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking on the Scottish Consumer Council's recommendations following the recent survey of the facilities for babies and children travelling on public transport.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for the relevant transport operators to consider the Scottish Consumer Council's recommendations. The Government are, however, committed to the development of a fully accessible transport system and are concerned that account should be taken of the particular need for adequate and safe facilities for babies and children.

  Housing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums have been(a) spent in 1992–93 and (b) committed in 1993–94 by Scottish Homes to (i) the provision of furnished accommodation, (ii) the development and piloting of lead tenancies and (iii) the promotion of the tenant's incentive scheme.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table:

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–941

  Furnished accommodation2

  0·110

  0·850

  Lead tenancies3

  —

  0·043

  Grants paid under the tenants incentive scheme

  1·336

  1·500

  1 Estimated expenditure.

  2 1992–93 expenditure covers Scottish Homes' own stock only: estimated expenditure for 1993–94 covers own stock and grants to housing associations.

  3 Covers only development costs, not funding of actual units.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of housing associations and housing co-operatives funded by Scottish Homes have agreements whereby local authorities have 50 per cent. nomination rights.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Performance standards for housing associations, issued jointly by Scottish Homes and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, requires associations and co-operatives to seek nomination arrangements with district councils in whose area they operate but details of individual arrangements are not held centrally.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether(a) research on housing matters and (b) professional postgraduate courses related to housing are funded from the housing or the education budget.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 June 1993]: The Scottish Office environment department funds research on housing matters; and student support for postgraduate diplomas in housing is shared between the Scottish Office environment department and the Scottish Office education department.

  Criminal Justice System
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to improve the operation of the Scottish criminal justice system.
  583
  Mr. Lang
  The first report of the groups which have been reviewing court programming under the chairmanship of Sheriff Principal Gordon Nicholson, QC and Sheriff Graham Cox was published on 11 June. Copies of the report, which contains proposals for improving court programming mainly within the existing legislative framework, have been placed in the House Libraries. Copies have also been sent to the various interests and comments requested by the end of September.

  The Government have also been considering measures which would involve statutory change and is publishing today a report entitled "Review of Criminal Evidence and Criminal Procedure", together with a consultation paper seeking the public's views on the proposals in the report. Copies of both have also been placed in the House Libraries.

  The proposals in the report aim to secure a substantial reduction in the time wasted by both civilian and police witnesses in attending court for trials which do not take place and in giving evidence which is not contested. They include pre-trial hearings to ensure cases are ready to go to trial; more active management of the pre-trial period; a new form of disclosure of the prosecution case; and the possibility of reduced sentences for those who plead guilty early. The results would include a better deal for thousands of civilian witnesses and more police time released for other duties. The consultation period will last until 30 September and I look forward to receiving views on the proposals from a wide range of interests.

  The publication of this report marks the first stage of the process. Later in the year the Government intend to embark on a second round of consultations. This will look at the function and verdicts of the jury in criminal trials, the way in which appeals against conviction and sentence in the criminal courts are dealt with and any matters arising from the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice which have implications for the Scottish criminal justice system. Any proposals for legislative change will be formulated in the light of responses to these two wide-ranging consultation exercises.

  Shetland Oil Spill
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made by the ecological steering group he announced on 26 January in relation to the Shetland oil spill.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The steering group expects to make an interim report on 17 June. I shall arrange for copies to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for de minimis thresholds for white collar compulsory competitive tendering.

  Mr. Stewart
  Current compulsory competitive tendering activities under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988 are subject to de minimis thresholds. Where the amount of work falls below these thresholds, authorities are not obliged to seek competitive tenders, though they can do so voluntarily if they wish.

  The Government accept the principle that de minimis arrangements should apply to CCT activities for
  584
  professional and corporate services. We also accept that a local authority needs to perform adequately the core client roles which may not be suitable for competitive tendering and that de minimis arrangements should address these issues.

  It is our view that different de minimis thresholds may be appropriate for different services and that different bases for calculating these thresholds may be appropriate. For instance for some services a threshold based on the total value of the service may be appropriate, for others one based on the number of staff employed or a combination of the two may better meet authorities needs. The details of the arrangements to be applied will form part of the current discussions with local authority interests on the implementation of CCT extension. Further announcements will be made in due course.

  As with the existing services, local authorities will of course be free to tender services below threshold levels voluntarily.

  Prisoners
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost per week, month or year of keeping a prisoner in the various categories of prison.

  Mr. Lang
  The approximate cost per year of keeping a prisoner in the various main categories of prison in Scotland for 1992–93, calculated as total current expenditure, divided by average prisoner numbers, was as follows. For the remand category, the figure was £22,500, for the secure young offenders institution category, £23,000 and for adult secure prisoners the figure was £24,550. This compared to a figure of £31,000 for open and semi open adult prisons and £31,500 for the open and semi open young offenders institution category.

  Shipping Services
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pusuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) of 26 May,Official Report, column 589, on shipping services to Scottish islands, what consideration will be given in his review to the need for public sector support for private sector investment.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 June 1993]: The Government remain committed to continuing to support essential shipping services to the Scottish islands whether these services are provided by public or private sector operators. The shipping subsidies review will consider a range of different financing and ownership options.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) of 26 May,Official Report, column 589, on shipping services to Scottish islands, whether his review will include bulk shipping services.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 June 1993]: Yes.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) of 26 May,Official Report, column 589, on shipping services to Orkney and Shetland, what plans he has to extend the principle of giving additional

  585
  assistance to P & O Scottish Ferries Ltd. to enable net tariffs of users of the service to remain unchanged to services to islands provided by other operators.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 June 1993 ]: My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, announced that he intended to make available a further £1·934 million in the current year to increase the amount of subsidy available for services provided by P&O to Orkney and Shetland. The additional assistance is to be provided to P&O Scottish Ferries Ltd. to enable it to maintain the present level of roll-on/roll-off services in respect of passengers and cars. I have no plans to increase further the level of support for shipping services in the current year.

  Conservation Sites
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by habitat category, sites which in the opinion of Scottish Natural Heritage qualify for designation as special protection areas under the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC); which of these are awaiting designation; and if he will indicate a timetable for their designation.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 June 1993]: The information is set out in the table. The sites have not been selected by reference to any habitat category but to their ornithological importance. The Government are working closely with Scottish Natural Heritage with a view to accelerating the rate of designation of special protection areas and to completing the designation programme as soon as possible.

  List of sites which in the opinion of Scottish Natural Heritage qualify for special protection area status

  Site

  Local Authority

  North Rona and Sula Sgeir

  Western Isles

  Flannan Isles

  Western Isles1

  St. Kilda

  Western Isles1

  Shiant Isles

  Western Isles1

  West Sound of Harris

  Western Isles

  Monach Islands

  Western Isles

  Loch Druidibeg/Loch a' Machair

  Western Isles1

  South Uist Machair and Lochs

  Western Isles

  West Sound of Barra

  Western Isles

  Mingulay and Berneray

  Western Isles

  Pentland Firth Islands

  Highland

  Orkney

  The Peatlands

  Highland

  Caithness Lochs

  Highland

  Caithness Cliffs

  Highland

  Cape Wrath

  Highland

  Handa

  Highland1

  Priest Island

  Highland1

  Rum

  Highland1

  Balranald

  Western Isles

  Baleshare and Kirkibost

  Western Isles

  Loch Scadavay

  Western Isles

  Inverpolly, Loch Urigill and Nearby Lochs

  Highland

  Loch Maree

  Highland

  Loch Ruthven and Nearby Lochs

  Highland

  Central Highland Hills and Glens

  Highland

  Lewis Peatlands

  Western Isles

  North Harris Mountains

  Western Isles

  Assynt Lochs

  Highland

  Loch Stack, Loch Nam Brac and Nearby Lochs

  Highland

  Loch Shin and Nearby Lochs

  Highland

  Loch Eye

  Highland1

  Moray Basin Firths and Bays

  Grampian

  Highland

  Beinn Dearg

  Highland

  Ben Wyvis

  Highland

  586

  Site

  Local Authority

  Glangarry Lochs

  Highland

  Loch Tarff and Nearby Lochs

  Highland

  North Inverness Lochs

  Highland

  Hermaness and Saxa Vord, Unst

  Shetland

  Ramna Stacks and Gruney

  Shetland

  Fetlar

  Shetland

  North Roe and Tingon, Mainland Shetland

  Shetland

  Papa Stour

  Shetland

  Foula

  Shetland

  Noss

  Shetland

  Fair Isle

  Shetland

  West Westray

  Orkney

  Papa Westray (North Hill and Holm)

  Orkney

  Marwick Head

  Orkney

  Lochs of Harray and Stenness

  Orkney

  Hoy

  Orkney

  Copinsay

  Orkney

  Sule Skerry and Stack

  Orkney

  Loch Spynie

  Grampian1

  Loch of Strathbeg

  Grampian

  Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Lochs

  Grampian

  River Spey-Insh Marshes

  Highland

  Cairngorms

  Highland

  Grampian

  Loch of Skene

  Grampian1

  Fowlsheugh

  Grampian1

  Lochnagar

  Grampian

  Drumochter Hills

  Highland

  Tayside

  West Mainland Moors

  Orkney

  North Mainland Coast

  Orkney

  South Westray Coast

  Orkney

  East Sanday

  Orkney

  Croussa Field and the Heogs

  Shetland

  Mousa

  Shetland

  Rousay (part)

  Orkney

  North Ronaldsay Coast

  Orkney

  Southeastern Stronsay

  Orkney

  Eday

  Orkney

  Troup, Pennan and Lion Heads

  Grampian

  St. Cyrus

  Grampian

  Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast

  Grampian

  Sumburgh Head

  Shetland

  Monadhliath

  Highland

  Alvie

  Highland

  Ben Alder

  Highland

  Abernethy Forest

  Highland1

  Kinveachy

  Highland

  Creag Meagaidh

  Highland

  Lochs of Spiggie and Brow

  Shetland

  Mill Dam, Shapinsay

  Orkney

  Rosehearty to Fraserburgh Coast

  Grampian

  Orphir and Stenness Hills

  Orkney

  Keelylang

  Orkney

  Loch of Isbister

  Orkney

  Blackpark and Gutcher, Yell

  Shetland

  Loch Oire

  Grampian

  Loch Vaa

  Highland

  Glen Tanar

  Grampian

  Muir of Dinnet

  Grampian

  Moorland Areas, Central Shetland

  Shetland

  West Burrafirth, Shetland

  Shetland

  Hill of Colvadale and Sobul

  Shetland

  An Socach-Carn a Gheoidh

  Grampian

  Loch Lomond

  Strathclyde

  Central

  Tiree and Coll

  Strathclyde

  Treshnish Isles

  Strathclyde

  Gruinart Flats, Islay

  Strathclyde1

  Bridgend Flats, Islay

  Strathclyde1

  Laggan Peninsula, Islay

  Strathclyde1

  Eilean na Muice Duibhe, Islay

  Strathclyde1

  Glac na Criche, Islay

  Strathclyde1

  Feur Lochain, Islay

  Strathclyde1

  Rhinns of Islay

  Strathclyde

  Islay; the Oa

  Strathclyde

  Inner Clyde Estuary

  Strathclyde

  587

  Site

  Local Authority

  Rhunahaorine Point

  Strathclyde

  Machrihanish and Tangy Loch

  Strathclyde

  Ailsa Craig

  Strathclyde1

  Loch Ken and Dee Marshes

  Dumfries and Galloway1

  Lochinch and Torrs Warren

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Wigtown Bay

  Dumfries and Galloway

  North Colonsay and Western Cliffs

  Strathclyde

  Sanda

  Strathclyde

  Castle Loch Lochmaben

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Caenlochan

  Tayside

  Grampian

  Montrose Basin

  Tayside

  Loch of Kinnordy

  Tayside

  Loch of Lintrathen

  Tayside1

  Tay-Isla Valley

  Tayside

  Loch Leven

  Tayside

  Firth of Tay

  Tayside

  Fife

  Cameron Reservoir

  Fife

  Eden Estuary, Tentsmuir Point and Abertay Sands

  Fife

  Tayside

  Forth Islands

  Lothian1

  Fife

  Flanders Moss and Lake of Menteith

  Central

  Gladhouse Reservoir

  Lothian1

  Fala Flow

  Lothian

  Westwater

  Borders

  St. Abb's Head to Fast Castle

  Borders

  Greenlaw Moor and Hule Moss

  Borders

  Hoselaw Loch

  Borders1

  South Tayside Goose Roosts

  Tayside1

  Firth of Forth

  Lothian

  Fife

  Central

  Upper Solway Flats and Marches

  Dumfries and Galloway1

  1 Indicates designated site.

  HIV/AIDS and Drug Abuse
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out the criteria used by him in allocation resources to health boards for their work in(a) HIV/AIDS and (b) drug misuse including the criteria in respect of (i) education and (ii) prevention in these areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 7 June 1993]: Allocations to assist health boards in responding to the extra burdens imposed by HIV and AIDS are being made in 1993–94 by means of service agreements with the management executive of the national health service in Scotland. The agreements take into account the number of HIV and AIDS cases in each health board area and the estimated costs of treatment and care. For prevention activity, including public education campaigns, the allocations include an amount calculated according to weighted capitation principles. HIV and AIDS allocations may also be used for relevant activities to counter drug misuse; but in addition some £2·4 million is being made available in 1993–94 specifically for drug misuse purposes. Of this amount, some £1·3 million has been allocated to four health boards in support of specific projects. The remainder has been divided among all health boards on the weighted capitation basis.

  Social Housing (Transfers)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the organisations awarded grants to help those in the social housing sector to move from one area to another, the sums awarded in each case, and the nature of the work that each grant will pay for.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 June 1993]: Grant is given to HOMES—Housing Organisations Mobility and Exchange Services—which is a national organisation acting as a clearing house for public sector tenants who wish to move between one local authority area and another. It operates two schemes—a national mobility scheme under which members agree to commit 1 per cent. of their net lettings in any one year to mobility applicants, and a tenants exchange scheme which facilitates swaps between council tenants. Grant is provided by the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, and the Scottish contribution in 1993–94, calculated on a formula related to the activity taking place in Scotland, will be a maximum of £121,015.

  This grant will facilitate national mobility scheme moves and exchanges involving moves of tenants within, or to and from, Scotland, and will also assist towards funding of a development worker for Scotland who is to be appointed during the course of 1993–94.

  Housing and Community Care
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those projects awarded a grant for 1993–94 which promote or develop effective links between housing services and community care, and the amount awarded to each.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 June 1993]: Support for projects combining housing and community care will come from a number of Government programmes in 1993–94. Grants totalling £514,000 have been awarded through the mental illness specific grant, to projects designed to increase community based mental health facilities, including special housing. In addition, £15 million of bridging finance has been made available to health boards for community care projects, some of which may well involve housing. Grants totalling £5·978 million have already been made under the urban programme for hostel and other accommodation, day care services, and home care for the elderly; and further grants may be made during 1993–94. A total of £135,000 has been made available to voluntary housing bodies for community care, including provision for the elderly.

  In addition, Scottish Homes makes grants to housing associations which promote effective links between housing and community care including in particular grants made under the new revenue funding arrangements known as the special needs allowance package (SNAP) to meet the additional housing management costs involved in providing for people with special needs. It is estimated that SNAP grants in 1993–94 will amount to around £4 million.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) who are the members of the review body currently considering the further sale of assets of the Forestry Commission; and when she expects the review body to report;

  (2) what consideration is being given to the further sale of assets of the Forestry Commission; and if she will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 June 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 20 April 1993 at column 89.

  In respect of current disposals, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on 1 April 1993 at column 392.

  Prescribed Process Regulations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 19 May,Official Report, column 218, what prosecutions have been undertaken resulting from breach of the prescribed process regulations since 31 July 1992.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 June 1993]: The results of a survey on the operation of local authority air pollution control in Scotland during its first year (1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993) are currently being analysed. From 54 returns so far received from the 56 district and islands councils, the survey indicates that no prosecutions were undertaken during that period.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the radiological and economic consequences of the spillage of radioactive thorium at building D1203 at the nuclear power development establishment at Dounreay on 27 March.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 June 1993]: The spillage of radioactive thorium at building D1203 at the AEA technology plant at Dounreay on 27 March was contained entirely within the plant. It did not result in any increased radiation exposure of plant personnel and had no environmental effects.

  The economic consequences of the incident are a matter for the management of AEA Technology.

EDUCATION

  Special Needs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to continue to make provision for local education authorities to plan and review the education of all children with special needs within their area.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education Bill currently before Parliament would strengthen provision for all pupils with special educational needs in an area. It would put duties on the funding agency and on the local education authority to take account of the need for making suitable SEN provision where they have responsibility for planning 590
  school places in an area. It provides for further co-operative arrangements between the sectors over local SEN provision

  Responsibility for making provision for the majority of pupils with SEN rests with school governors, who will be required to formulate and report on their policies for children with SEN. Schools' performance will be systematically inspected against their policies by independent inspectors. The Bill would require the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice to which local education authorities and all maintained school must have regard in respect of pupils with SEN. It provides for local education authorities to make available SEN support services to grant-maintained and local education authority-maintained schools to assist governors.

  The duties of local education authorities towards pupils who may need an assessment and a statement and their duty to review all the arrangements for pupils with SEN are reinforced in the Bill.

  Teachers (Clerical Support)
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much money was spent in each of the last five years on clerical support for teachers in schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Information is collected centrally only for schools' expenditure on administration and clerical staff combined. For the five years up to 1991–92, the latest year for which information on actual spending is available, this expenditure was as follows:

  Local education authority-maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools England

  Year

  Total expenditure1 £ thousand

  1987–88

  196,520

  1988–89

  219,020

  1989–90

  260,678

  1990–91

  335,181

  1991–92

  2404,267

  1 Total expenditure on administrative and clerical staff, cash, £ thousands.

  2 Provisional.

  Note:

  "Administrative and clerical staff' includes such staff as school secretaries, clerks, typists, receptionists and telephonists. Details on premises related staff (caretakers, etc.) and education support staff (such as laboratory technicians) are collected separately.

  London School of Economics (Fees)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received on the plans by the London School of Economics to charge fees for university tuition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 14 June,Official Report, column 420.

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1992 and
  591
  indicate, in each case, whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision, or whether the service was contracted out.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department's market tests listed in Cmnd. 2101 for completion by 30 September 1993 are still in progress.

  Science and Technology
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he will designate one of his Ministers to be responsible for his Department's contribution to the Government's science and technology "Forward Look."

  Mr. Boswell
  Paragraph 2.37 of the recent White Paper "Realising Our Potential—A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology" describes the preparation of the "Forward Look" by the Office of Science and Technology, and the participation of Government Departments through the existing, well-established machinery of the official and ministerial Cabinet Committees on Science and Technology.

  Industrial Research
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether the Higher Education Funding Council for England will take industrially relevant research into account in future research assessment exercises.

  Mr. Boswell
  Universities and colleges were free to submit evidence of the full range of their research in the assessment exercise undertaken last year by the Universities Funding Council. This included research related to the needs of industry. The White Paper "Realising our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology" indicates that the Government will expect research relevant to industrial and other users to be taken into account in future assessment exercises.

  Near-market Research
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what his Department's policy is with regard to the funding of near-market research.

  Education SSAs and Education budget figures for 1992–93 (in £ million)

  Local education authority

  Budget

  Education SSA

  Difference

  Percentage difference

  Corporation of London

  2·12

  0·65

  1

  225

  Camden

  70·04

  64·92

  5

  8

  Greenwich

  105·98

  107·46

  -1

  -1

  Hackney

  112·93

  117·39

  -4

  -4

  Hammersmith

  61·19

  57·75

  3

  6

  Islington

  85·07

  86·45

  -1

  -2

  Kensington

  47·22

  38·33

  9

  23

  Lambeth

  132·04

  139·39

  -7

  -5

  Lewisham

  112·63

  114·07

  -1

  -1

  Southwark

  103·23

  112·36

  -9

  -8

  Tower Hamlets

  118·55

  123·69

  -5

  -4

  Wandsworth

  105·83

  100·62

  5

  5

  Westminster

  77·25

  55·93

  21

  38

  Barking

  66·26

  61·55

  5

  8

  Barnet

  110·16

  113·29

  -3

  -3

  Bexley

  77·33

  86·54

  -9

  -11

  Brent

  125·90

  134·22

  -8

  -6

  Bromley

  93·29

  97·61

  -4

  -4

  Croydon

  132·56

  129·40

  3

  2

  592
  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 2.20 to 2.22 of the White Paper "Realising Our Potential —A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology". Funding for research through the Higher Education Funding Council for England is intended to support mainly basic and strategic research.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the real increase in education expenditure on matters within the responsibility of local education authorities since 1979, in money and percentage terms; and what is(a) the level by which LEAs in total and (b) the extent to which each individual LEA currently spends beyond its education standard spending assessment SSA, according to the latest expenditure figures available, in money and percentage terms.

  Mr. Forth
  Total local authority expenditure on education in England has increased by £3,197 million or 17·6 per cent., in real terms between 1979–80 and 1991–92, the latest year for which data are available. This comparison does not allow for the transfer or responsibility for about £900 million—in 1992–93 prices —of expenditure on local authority higher education to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council from 1 April 1989.

  Information on LEAs' budgeted expenditure is taken from returns to the Department of Environment. The figures for English LEAs' education budgets for 1992–93, both individually and in total, together with the figures for their overall education standard spending assessments and the differences in cash and percentage terms, are set out in the table.

  For several reasons, it is necessary to be cautious about drawing conclusions from the figures. Education SSAs are not spending targets as LEAs are free to determine their own spending priorities. The budget figures were provided at the beginning of the 1992–93 financial year. Outturn expenditure may well be different. LEAs may also not recognise the budget figures because their budget returns have been adjusted by the Department of Environment to make them comparable with their education SSAs.
  593

  Local education authority

  Budget

  Education SSA

  Difference

  Percentage difference

  Ealing

  122·72

  130·81

  -8

  -6

  Enfield

  115·86

  113·70

  2

  2

  Haringey

  96·20

  103·80

  -8

  -7

  Harrow

  80·81

  79·91

  1

  1

  Havering

  89·57

  89·17

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  87·97

  88·11

  0

  0

  Hounslow

  86·55

  90·25

  -4

  -4

  Kingston

  50·16

  46·18

  4

  9

  Merton

  61·47

  59·31

  2

  4

  Newham

  111·28

  133·21

  -22

  -16

  Redbridge

  90·02

  92·45

  -2

  -3

  Richmond

  44·56

  44·36

  0

  0

  Sutton

  55·39

  61·32

  -6

  -10

  Waltham Forest

  100·55

  104·85

  -4

  -4

  Birmingham

  428·05

  485·14

  -57

  -12

  Coventry

  132·46

  122·99

  9

  8

  Dudley

  117·67

  108·75

  9

  8

  Sandwell

  128·19

  125·30

  3

  2

  Solihull

  73·29

  72·26

  1

  1

  Walsall

  106·39

  107·18

  -1

  -1

  Wolverhampton

  112·80

  110·65

  2

  2

  Knowsley

  74·56

  78·89

  -4

  -5

  Liverpool

  206·93

  214·97

  -8

  -4

  St· Helens

  76·65

  73·34

  3

  0

  Sefton

  110·25

  110·45

  0

  0

  Wirral

  132·23

  135·67

  -3

  -3

  Bolton

  105·87

  105·65

  0

  0

  Bury

  68·74

  63·93

  5

  8

  Manchester

  198·76

  203·67

  -5

  -2

  Oldham

  95·63

  94·07

  2

  2

  Rochdale

  84·40

  86·46

  -2

  -2

  Salford

  87·54

  89·33

  -2

  -2

  Stockport

  105·97

  99·82

  6

  6

  Tameside

  82·69

  85·35

  -3

  -3

  Trafford

  78·55

  77·58

  1

  1

  Wigan

  124·23

  116·64

  8

  7

  Barnsley

  77·08

  80·67

  -4

  -4

  Doncaster

  121·43

  119·05

  2

  2

  Rotherham

  104·55

  101·40

  3

  3

  Sheffield

  190·79

  180·80

  10

  6

  Bradford

  213·28

  221·85

  -9

  -4

  Calderdale

  77·61

  77·24

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  153·04

  157·65

  -5

  -3

  Leeds

  267·68

  261·96

  6

  2

  Wakefield

  120·62

  114·54

  6

  5

  Gateshead

  80·07

  72·77

  7

  10

  Newcastle

  104·88

  99·42

  5

  5

  North Tyneside

  75·25

  73·66

  2

  2

  South Tyneside

  63·62

  60·54

  3

  5

  Sunderland

  113·41

  118·37

  -5

  -4

  Isles of Scilly

  1·36

  1·30

  0

  4

  Avon

  350·59

  315·24

  35

  11

  Bedfordshire

  220·25

  222·71

  -2

  -1

  Berkshire

  272·03

  287·14

  -15

  -5

  Buckinghamshire

  255·58

  259·97

  -4

  -2

  Cambridgeshire

  249·28

  242·20

  7

  3

  Cheshire

  370·99

  359·37

  12

  3

  Cleveland

  253·42

  247·82

  6

  2

  Cornwall

  170·01

  175·42

  -5

  -3

  Cumbria

  183·70

  173·35

  10

  6

  Derbyshire

  370·13

  329·86

  40

  12

  Devon

  347·72

  343·10

  5

  1

  Dorset

  203·35

  200·12

  3

  2

  Durham

  234·13

  223·95

  10

  5

  East Sussex

  224·66

  216·96

  8

  4

  Essex

  557·99

  580·81

  -23

  -4

  Gloucestershire

  192·54

  183·41

  9

  5

  Hampshire

  576·19

  562·64

  14

  2

  Hereford and Worcester

  241·87

  241·88

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  383·25

  370·18

  13

  4

  Humberside

  361·53

  341·30

  20

  6

  Isle of Wight

  46·24

  47·54

  -1

  -3

  Kent

  539·75

  568·13

  -28

  -5

  Lancashire

  563·79

  553·25

  11

  2

  Leicestershire

  361·69

  344·49

  17

  5

  Lincolnshire

  219·32

  221·98

  -3

  -1

  Norfolk

  261·97

  260·61

  1

  1

  594 595

  Local education authority

  Budget

  Education SSA

  Difference

  Percentage difference

  North Yorkshire

  252·93

  243·84

  9

  4

  Northamptonshire

  225·98

  223·80

  2

  1

  Northumberland

  119·79

  111·40

  8

  8

  Nottinghamshire

  402·22

  383·42

  19

  5

  Oxfordshire

  201·34

  187·52

  14

  7

  Shropshire

  164·61

  154·01

  11

  7

  Somerset

  172·71

  159·23

  13

  8

  Staffordshire

  380·42

  374·64

  6

  2

  Suffolk

  229·66

  215·27

  14

  7

  Surrey

  327·78

  326·54

  1

  0

  Warwickshire

  182·07

  172·77

  9

  5

  West Sussex

  225·49

  236·04

  -11

  -4

  Wiltshire

  210·12

  202·44

  8

  4

  Total

  18,536·21

  18,352·70

  184

  1

  Notes:

  1 Information on budgeted expenditure is taken from Local Authorities' returns to the Department of Environment on forms RA92/93 and RA(SG)92/93. Figures have been repriced to outturn.

  2 The education budgets for Inner London authorities have been adjusted so as to exclude expenditure funded through education grant for Inner London authorities, and make them comparable with education SSAs. Inner London education grants are paid to provide, through the support of expenditure on education, transitional help to local tax-payers in Inner London boroughs and in the City of London where the authorities inherited responsibility for the education service from the Inner London Education Authority.

  3 Figures on budgets and education SSAs have been rounded to 2 decimal places.

  Further and Higher Education Funding Councils
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the names of the members of the regional committees of the further education and higher education funding councils who have already been nominated, together with the regional committees to which no appointment has yet been made and the date on which any outstanding appointment will be made; which organisations were consulted on the appointments; and what was the form and nature of any such consultation.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend announced on 14 April the appointment of the chairmen of seven of the nine regional advisory committees of the Further Education Funding Council. The chairmen are:

  Greater London:—Mr. Trevor Thomas CBE

  Northern:—Mr. Haydn Biddle

  North West:—Mr. Peter Blount

  Yorkshire and Humberside:—Mr. Terry Bramall

  East Midlands:—Dr. Eric Cliffe

  Eastern:—Councillor Paul White

  South East:—Mr. Harry Morris CBE

  The chairmen of the West Midlands and the South West regional committees will be announced shortly.

  My right hon. Friend intends that there should be 12 members of each regional committee, who will be appointed in a personal capacity apart from the two members of each committee who will be representatives of the training and enterprise councils in each region. The membership will be announced as soon as possible.

  Suggestions for members have been received from a variety of sources, including a number of bodies which were invited to suggest candidates from a business, local authority, special educational needs and adult learners' background, in order to supplement the names already submitted. These bodies were the CBI, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Engineering Employers Federation, the local authority associations, SKILL, the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities, and the National Institute of Adult and Continuing Education.

  The Higher Education Funding Council for England does not have regional committees.
  596
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what remuneration is to be paid to the chairmen and members of the regional committees of the further and higher education funding councils.

  Mr. Boswell
  There is no salary or fee for the chairmen and members of the Further Education Funding Council's regional committees. Travelling and subsistence allowances are paid by the Funding Council under the usual arrangements. The Higher Education Funding Council for England does not have regional committees.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on maintaining physical education as an integral part of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The importance of physical education in our schools is not in doubt. As a foundation subject of the national curriculum physical education is compulsory for all pupils aged five to 16 in maintained schools in England and Wales.

  EC Education Council
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the outcome of the Council of EC Education Ministers which met on Friday 11 June.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Council adopted a resolution on vocational education and training in the 1990s; the Council and the Ministers of Education meeting within the Council adopted conclusions on co-operation in higher education, agreed to extend by a year the mandate of a sub-committee of the Education Committee concerning long-term arrangements for the European Schools, exchanged views on the entry of all young people into working life and society, and discussed the Commission's guidelines for Community action in the field of education and training.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Structural Steel
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the dumping of structural steel in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Whilst I have received representations about the dumping of steel in the United Kingdom I have received no representations about dumping of structural steel from countries outside the Community.

  Ceramic Industry
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what negotiations in the current general agreement on tariffs and trade round affect the ceramic industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The ceramic industry is primarily affected by the market access negotiations on reductions in customs duties. My Department was made aware of the industry's interests at an earlier stage of the negotiations, in particular as regards the very high duties on some imports into the United States, and these are being addressed by the European Commission in the negotiations.

  Fuel Cell Research
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all the projects supported by his Department since 1990 involving research into fuel cell technology giving the amount of money involved in each project.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since 1990 the DTI has supported 16 projects on advanced fuel cells worth over £4 million in total. They are:

  £

  Composite Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) Membrane Development

  910,000

  System Integration Study for SOFC Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Systems

  64,000

  Internal Reforming on SOFC Anodes

  219,000

  Evaluation of Integral Planar SOFC Concept—Phase 1

  49,000

  Evaluation of Fuel Cell Components

  85,000

  Development of Membrane Electrode Assemblies

  216,000

  Experimental Studies on Low Cost Solid Polymer Fuel Cells (SPFCs)

  2,000,000

  Development of Cathode Material for SOFCs

  79,000

  Development of High Temperature Bonds for SOFCs

  50,000

  Scale up of Components for SOFCs

  70,000

  SPFC Applications Study

  50,000

  SOFC Design Study

  62,000

  Initial Studies on MEAs

  127,000

  Fuel Cell Membrane Testing

  13,000

  SPFC Design Study

  51,000

  Implications of Design, Materials and Fabrication for SOFCs

  55,000

  A further 13 projects, worth about £5 million in total, are currently being considered.

  In addition, the DTI has funded several consultancy studies related to fuel cells.

  Export Control
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to ensure that the policy described in the British Overseas Trade Board's forward plan published on 9 June will take into account current export control regulations on sensitive technology and equipment exports.

  Mr. Needham
  The opportunities outlined in the British Overseas Trade Board's "Forward Plan" take full account of current export control regulations. On page 84, exporters are reminded of export controls and are encouraged to contact the DTI's Export Control Organisation to ensure that they are not breaching any current regulations. Copies of the "Forward Plan" are available in the Library of the House.

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1992 and indicate, in each case, whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision, or whether the service was contracted out.

  Mr. Eggar
  In my Department's current market testing programme no market tests, involving competition between the existing in-house service providers and the private sector, have been completed as yet. However, invitations to tender are now beginning to be issued.

  Export Promotion
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what role and responsibilities he envisages for the 100 business people he plans to recruit from the private sector to assist with export promotion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Needham
  I expect the export promoters recruited from business to go out and encourage companies throughout the country to take advantage of opportunities to export. With their business skills and experience, and their first-hand knowledge of specific overseas markets, the export promoters will be able to offer informed advice and assistance which will add to and complement our existing export services. I am sure they will help us to deliver our best ever service to British exporters.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many of the 100 business people he plans to recruit from the private sector to assist the DTI with export promotion have been secured; and when he expects to have completed the recruitment process.

  Mr. Needham
  We now have 31 export promoters on secondment from the private sector, including a few who are still in the process of joining my Department. In addition more than 20 other candidates are currently under consideration, and more offers come in every day. We have also received assurances from a number of companies that they are actively identifying high-calibre people to put forward as they become available. We intend to complete the recruitment process by the end of the year.
  599
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent initiatives he has undertaken and intends to take to assist the promotion of British exports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  In addition to policies to improve the climate for business, such as the deregulation initiative, we have taken a number of steps to improve the already excellent services the Government offers businesses wishing to export.

  Under the newly created post of director general of export promotion, we have set up two new divisions concentrating solely on promotional work. They will have up to 60 extra staff to allow individual coverage of the United Kingdom's top 80 export markets. We are also recruiting 100 men and women from the private sector on secondment to bring their skills and experience to assist these divisions in their export promotion work.

  Under the overseas projects board, we are establishing sector task forces chaired by senior business people to co-ordinate our efforts to secure the business that flows from major overseas projects. The Government have also made available to United Kingdom exporters more than £2 billion of additional export credit cover for key markets over the next three years, and ECGD has reduced its premium rates by an average of more than 25 per cent. over the last year.

  These initiatives will build substantially on the current matrix of support available to help our exporters under the joint DTI and FCO overseas trade services operation worldwide, to ensure that ever greater numbers of United Kingdom exporters get the additional support they deserve to help them win in world markets.

  Lumsden Machine Co.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what monitoring has been carried out by the insolvency service since receivers were called in to the Lumsden Machine Co., Gateshead; and whether the receiver has subcontracted work in the company back to enterprises in which the original beneficial owners of the company have an interest.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department's insolvency service has no power to intervene in the day to day conduct of receiverships and does not, therefore, monitor such cases on an individual basis.

  In this case, officials have spoken to the receiver's office who have confirmd that one of the company's contracts which remained incomplete at the date of the receiver's appointment required a small amount of further work involving specialised equipment. The receiver has confirmed that he sub-contracted this work to an associated company, but the sub-contract was on a commercial basis and at a proper market price and enabled the expeditious completion of the contract for the benefit of the receivership.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement regarding developments in the Government's policies relating to the coal industry since publication of the White Paper on coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  Subsidy. The Government indicated in the White Paper "The Prospects for Coal" that it was willing 600
  to offer financial support to both British Coal and private sector coal producers who could secure a genuinely additional market for United Kingdom underground coal for electricity generation at world-related prices where this was consistent with the relevant European Community provisions.

  Evidence received by the coal review, and the separate review conducted by the Trade and Industry Select Committee, argued that there was potential for an additional market for coal for electricity generation, and that a subsidy related to the difference between world-related prices and production costs could offer the United Kingdom coal industry the chance to secure that market.

  The Government have offered to enable the industry to explore this opportunity by being prepared to offer such a subsidy. It is now up to the United Kingdom coal industry to demonstrate that it can achieve additional sales.

  We invite underground coal producers, and prospective coal producers who are seeking licences for closing British Coal pits, to provide us with firm evidence of the additional sales for electricity generation they believe they can secure, and the amount of subsidy they require. This should be backed by supporting information including a comparison of the proposed price with world market prices, expected production costs etc. Once we have had time to assess the information provided we shall make a further announcement on arrangements for the subsidy.

  Generators' Coal Stocks

  The Government have issued directions under section 34 of the Electricity Act 1989 to National Power and PowerGen, requiring them to hold stocks of coal at power stations sufficient to enable normal electricity supplies to be maintained for a period of nine months in the event of a complete interruption of supplies from British Coal. In 1992–93 the stock levels required varied from some 10 million to 20 million tonnes depending on the time of year. The stocks held by the two electricity generators at the end of May 1993 stood at approximately 31 million tonnes.

  The Government are reviewing the required stocking level for 1993–94 and subsequent years with the electricity generators.

  Working Practices
  Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908
  The White Paper "The Prospects for Coal" announced the Government's intention, subject to a consultation process, to remove the impediment to efficiency represented by the limits placed on undergound working hours by the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908. The Department issued a consultation document inviting representations by 28 May 1993. The Department expects to make its decision known in the course of the summer.
  150 Man Limit
  In the White Paper "The Prospects of Coal", the Government set out their intention to legislate, as soon as opportunity allowed, to remove the restriction in section 36(2) of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 under which British Coal is only able to license mines at which the number of persons employed to work below ground is at no time likely to exceed, or greatly to exceed, 150. The Government's present intention is that such legislation should enable this restriction to be lifted, where

  601
  appropriate, in respect of licences that are in existence at the time the legislation comes into force as well as future licences.
  Matters Consequent on Privatisation
  The White Paper "The Prospects for Coal" reaffirmed the Government's intention to bring forward the legislation necessary to privatise the coal industry as rapidly as possible, and set out the Government's proposal to establish a new public sector body, to be known as the Coal Authority, which would be responsible for licensing all coal mining activity, including that in existing British Coal mines and all current and future private sector mining operations, but which would itself be prohibited from mining.
  The Government's present intention is that licences issued by British Coal under current legislation, and the associated agreements, should be allowed to run their term, with the terms materially unchanged except by agreement. The coal authority would take over British Coal's role as licensor under these licences and its title to the land, property, coal mines and coal reserves concerned. Where British Coal has rights and obligations as mine operator in relation to licensees in respect of interaction between mines the Government's present intention is that those rights and obligations should attach to whoever is licensed by the coal authority to operate the British Coal mine concerned—which might for a time continue to be British Coal.

  Refractory Industry
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what grounds he has changed his policy on the EC anti-dumping action with regard to the importing of sintered magnesite refractory materials from China; what studies he has made of the effect of his change in policy on the British refractory industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 15 June 1993]: My Department is currently consulting interested parties in the United Kingdom about a European Commission proposal for a definitive anti-dumping duty on dead-burned (sintered) magnesite from China. I shall then decide the United Kingdom's response to the proposal.

  PA Management Consultants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the projects undertaken by PA management consultants for his Department in the last three years.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 15 June 1993]: The consultancy contracts awarded by the DTI to PA Management Consultants over the last three years are as listed.
  List of projects undertaken by PA Management Consultants for the DTI in the last three years

  Telecommunications Market Advisor

  Visiting Engineers scheme

  Esprit—CIME support services

  Study of washing machine: drafting specification for ECO label

  Evaluation of Regional Selective Assistance

  Eureka response handling unit ADW's successor

  Successful purchaser/suppliers relationships studies portfolio

  Cleaner Technologies stage 11 study

  Environmental legislation: future of batteries and fuel cells

  602

  Micromechanics: invitation of Eureka projects

  Enterprise Counsellor training sessions

  Evaluation of Regional Selective Assistance—second stage

  Evaluation of Task Force programme

  Environment Northern seas conference

  DTI communications strategy study

  Personnel management strategy study

  Evaluation of NPL programme on conformance

  ITS Quality management services (QMS) project

  Departmental IS strategy study

  IS strategy scoping study in DTI's regulatory business area

  Business seminar for DTI/ITS staff

  United States biotechnology report

  Study to measure, monitor and evaluate the open systems phase 2 programme

  Regional policy research

  Audit of communications study

  Support to UK Eureka unit

  New managing '90s lead booklet

  Materials Matter 11: Thematic proposal: stereo lithography

  Feasibility study—Factory of the future

  Update of the report manufacturing into the 90's Emerging generic technologies

  Quality initiative in the services Eastcote computer centre BS5750 certification

  Network security study

  Wan development project

  Activities for generic technologies pilot study

  ITS quality management services (QMS) project—second stage

  Support and assistance in the production of a series of six videos

  Market advisor to Telecommunications and Posts division of DTI

  Resource account for DTI

  Market testing of DTI's central training function

  Barriers inhibiting the development and growth of small and medium sized businesses and identification of research gaps

  Study on the requirements for calibration of Coordinate measuring machines

  Future of Warren Spring Laboratory

  Eureka feasibility study

  Review of client management systems

  Report of Warren Spring investigation

  The figures do not include contracts issued by those executive agencies which have delegated authority to engage consultants.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Servants (Directorships)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what conditions or guidelines have been set down relating to the appointment of former civil servants, on or shortly after taking early retirement, to non-executive directorships of executive agencies.

  Mr. David Davis
  No special conditions or guidelines have been set down concerning the appointment of retired civil servants as non-executive members of executive agency boards. The normal scheme of rules relating to payments made under the principal civil service pension scheme (PCSPS) in the event of re-employment would apply as appropriate.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will give details for each of the services provided externally as a result of market testing(a) the

  603
  cost saving, (b) the quality of service charges and (c) the change in the number of people employed, compared with the in-house provision of the service;

  (2) how many market-testing initiatives have (a) now been completed, (b) are currently under way and (c) are planned; and if he will give details of the initiatives in each category;

  (3) if he will give details of the results of the market-testing exercises undertaken to date; and whether each testing exercise indicated that the service should be provided in-house or externally.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Comprehensive information is not held centrally. But when the current market testing programme for the period to September 1993 is completed, I shall publish aggregated results for the civil service as a whole in line with the citizens charter principle of providing more information on Government activities.

  Research Councils
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who will conduct the study he is commissioning of the detailed allocation of responsibilities between the new research councils.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have asked Sir David Phillips to conduct the study, backed by the full resources of the Office of Science and Technology. He will be working closely with the research councils, other Government Departments, and representatives of industry and the scientific community.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to ensure that more research council staff are recruited from industry.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The recruitment of more senior staff from industry will be a matter in due course for individual research councils, having regard to their charter obligations and mission statements.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to encourage industrially oriented research organisations to strengthen their links with their local business communities.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I and my officials are in frequent contact with members of the Association of Independent Research and Technology Organisations (AIRTO). I am impressed by their current links with local business communities. AIRTO members are fully behind the plans for a network of one stop shops being progressed by the President of the Board of Trade and are also actively engaged in the postgraduate training partnerships which have strong local links.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to appoint the Director General of Research Councils; and if the appointment will be the subject of advertisement and open competition.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The post of director general of the research councils will be advertised and the appointment made in due course through open competition.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to announce the membership and remit of the Director General of Research Councils expert group.
  604
  Mr. Waldegrave
  An announcement will be made at the appropriate time, following appointment of the director general.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the posts of chairman and chief executive of the new research councils will be subject to advertisement and open competition.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I shall inform Parliament in due course of the arrangements made for these appointments.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if advice tendered by the Director General of Research Councils expert group will be made public.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I will discuss the best way of structuring the relationship between the director general and his expert group with the former, when he is appointed.

  Science and Technology
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to announce the membership and remit of the new Council for Science and Technology.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In due course.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide additional funds for his science and technology public awareness campaign in addition to money supplied from existing budgets.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government have made clear that they will continue to allocate public resources on the scale necessary to finance the policies in the White Paper.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster under what circumstances he expects reports of the Council for Science and Technology to be withheld from publication.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Reports generated by the council will normally be made openly available. The need to respect commercially sensitive information would be one factor which might prevent this.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what criteria he uses for the commission of external advice on science and technology matters.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Commissioning external advice is considered on a case-by-case basis when policy decisions on science or technology issues would benefit from an informed contribution from high-quality independent experts.

  Scientists and Engineers
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what research was commissioned by his office on the future supply of and demand for scientists and engineers qualified to PhD level prior to the publication of the White Paper, "Realising our Potential".

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A list of the research studies which informed the White Paper on the supply of scientific manpower is provided in section G of the bibliography.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to announce the membership and remit of the new co-ordinating committee for the science and engineering research base.
  605
  Mr. Waldegrave
  In due course.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the component parts of the science and engineering base as defined in his recent White Paper, "Realising our Potential", and their level of funding in each year since 1979 in cash terms and at constant prices.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The science and engineering base of the United Kingdom may be considered in terms of the research and postgraduate training capacity of:

  (a) Universities and colleges of higher education (HEIs),

  (b) Research councils and their institutes and units,

  (c) Research Council central facilities available to researchers,

  (d) Internationally-based Research Council-supported facilities available to researchers

  Tables 1 and 2 provide information on the basic funding provided to the separate components of the science and engineering base from the science budget and the block grants from the higher education funding councils. It has been necessary to group items (b) and (c) in the tables as disaggregated data is not consistently available over the time period requested.

  Universities and research councils also receive significant funding from other sources including charities, Government Departments, industry and the EC.

  Table 1: Funding of the science and engineering base (£m)

  Universities and HEIs:1

  Research Councils, Institutes and central facilities:1

  Research Council support for international facilities

  Block funding2

  Science Budget3

  Science Budget3

  Science Budget3

  1979–80

  4359·2

  125·5

  147·7

  44·6

  1980–81

  4441·3

  158·7

  182·4

  42·3

  1981–82

  4494·7

  173·5

  223·5

  42·3

  1982–83

  4600·0

  186·0

  237·7

  45·1

  1983–84

  4616·0

  201·2

  247·5

  54·3

  1984–85

  563·5

  217·4

  257·5

  59·5

  1985–86

  598·3

  230·8

  274·5

  65·9

  1986–87

  655·0

  246·4

  282·8

  73·8

  1987–88

  695·0

  276·0

  291·5

  90·4

  1988–89

  754·9

  292·8

  317·5

  93·8

  1989–90

  758·2

  353·4

  367·0

  93·6

  1990–91

  788·7

  402·7

  400·4

  100·7

  1991–92

  880·8

  414·2

  406·2

  105·5

  51992–93

  895·9

  519·5

  426·9

  107·7

  51993–94

  857·3

  618·4

  430·9

  114·0

  1Research Council Institutes and HEIs also receive fundingb from other sources including charities, EC, Government Departments and industry.

  2Source: Annual Review of Government-funded Research and Development 1992.

  Note that the resources assigned to research are based on an estimated split of universities' spending between research and other activities; the uncertainties inherent in this process mean that the figures can only be regarded as accurate to within ±10 per cent.

  3Source: Annual accounts/Supply Estimates.

  4Figures include humanities research—disaggregated data is not available prior to 1984–85 when £66·4 million was attributed to humanities research.

  5Estimate.

  606

  Table 2: Funding of the science and engineering base at constant (1991–92) prices (£m)6

  Universities and HEls:1

  Research councils, institutes and central facilities:1

  Research council supper for international facilities:

  block funding2

  science budget3

  science budget3

  science budget3

  1979–80

  4829·6

  289·8

  341·1

  103·0

  1980–81

  4861·9

  310·0

  356·3

  83·8

  1981–82

  4881·8

  309·3

  398·0

  75·4

  1982–83

  4998·3

  309·5

  395·5

  75·0

  1983–84

  4979·3

  319·9

  393·5

  86·3

  1984–85

  852·5

  328·9

  389·6

  90·0

  1985–86

  858·4

  331·1

  393·8

  94·5

  1986–87

  909·7

  342·2

  392·8

  102·5

  1987–88

  915·7

  363·6

  384·1

  119·1

  1988–89

  927·4

  359·7

  390·0

  115·2

  1989–90

  873·5

  407·1

  422·8

  107·8

  1990–91

  840·9

  429·3

  426·9

  107·4

  1991–92

  880·8

  414·2

  406·2

  105·5

  51992–93

  865·6

  501·9

  412·5

  104·1

  51993–94

  1806·5

  581·7

  405·4

  107·2

  1 Research Council Institutes and HEls also receive funding from other sources including charities, EC, Government departments and industry.

  2 Source: Annual review of Government-funded research and development 1992.

  Note that the resources assigned to research are based on an estimated split of universities' spending between research and other activities; the uncertainties inherent in this process means that the figures can only be regarded as accurate to within ±10 per cent.

  3 Source: Annual accounts/supply estimates.

  4 Figures include humanities research—disaggregated data is not available prior to 1984–85.

  5 Estimate.

  6 GDP deflators used are as follows:

  Year

  Percentage

  1979–80

  43·3

  1980–81

  51·2

  1981–82

  56·1

  1982–83

  60·1

  1983–84

  62·9

  1984–85

  66·1

  1985–86

  69·7

  1986–87

  72·0

  1987–88

  75·9

  1988–89

  81·4

  1989–90

  86·8

  1990–91

  93·8

  1991–92

  100·0

  1992–93

  103·5

  1993–94

  106·3

  Foresight Programme
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to announce the membership of the foresight programme steering group.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In due course.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what will be the relationship between the panels of experts of the foresight programme and sector advisory bodies of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Office of Science and Technology and the Department of Trade and Industry will work
  607
  closely to ensure that the technology foresight programme receives technological and market information from technical experts and from the industrial sectors sponsored by the Department.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the reports of the foresight programme steering group and the panels of experts will be made public.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes.

  Postgraduate Research
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to encourage industrial and academic partnerships in the provision of postgraduate research and training.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government would like to see more research students undertaking work in industrial and commercial settings. There are already a number of initiatives promoting such industrial and academic partnerships, including CASE awards, postgraduate training partnerships and engineering doctorates, and the White Paper encourages these developments.

  Public Research Establishments
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who is to undertake the Government's review of the public research establishments; what the timescale of the review will be; and if the review will be made public.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The scrutiny of public sector research establishments will be undertaken over the coming months by the efficiency unit, in conjunction with Government Departments. It is normal for efficiency unit reports to be published.

  Research and Development
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the total Government expenditure on research and development in each year since 1979 in cash terms and at constant prices.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The table lists the expenditure (in cash and constant prices) by Government on research and development as defined in the annual review of Government funded research and development 1992. Information on expenditure on this basis is not available before 1982–83.

  Year

  Cash (£ million)

  Constant prices1 (£ million)

  Deflator (per cent.)

  1982–83

  3,476·0

  5,783·7

  60·2

  1983–84

  3,725·0

  5,920·1

  62·9

  1984–85

  3,960·0

  5,989·8

  66·1

  1985–86

  4,248·3

  6,093·2

  69·7

  1986–87

  4,258·0

  5,916·7

  72·0

  1987–88

  4,304·6

  5,669·9

  75·9

  1988–89

  4,382·0

  5,380·1

  81·4

  1989–90

  4,629·4

  5,333·3

  86·8

  1990–91

  4,826·8

  5,148·4

  93·8

  608

  Year

  Cash (£ million)

  Constant prices1 (£ million)

  Deflator (Per cent.)

  1991–92

  5,069·7

  5,069·7

  100·0

  1992–93

  25,394·3

  5,211·9

  103·5

  1993–94

  35,442·0

  5,117·3

  106·3

  1 Base year 1991–92.

  2 Estimated otturn.

  3 Planned expenditure.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Royal Family
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the application of the value added tax regime to(a) members of the royal family, (b) transactions relating to private residences of the royal family and (c) transactions relating to royal palaces.

  Sir John Cope
  Members of the royal family, their private residences and royal palaces are subject to value added tax like private citizens and other buildings with the exception that gifts to reigning monarchs are relieved from tax on importation.

  Relocation and Amalgamation
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the sections and organisations within his Department for which there are plans for relocation or amalgamation.

  Mr. Nelson
  There are no current plans permanently to relocate any part of the Department. The organisation of the Treasury is kept under regular review and new sections are created and existing ones amalgamated from time to time.

  Monetary Policy
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes in monetary policy he plans in the light of recent discussions at the OECD; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government have no such plans.

  The United Kingdom's monetary policy is set to meet the Government's objective of keeping underlying inflation within the range of 1 to 4 per cent. and to bring it down to the lower part of that range by the end of the current Parliament. The level of base interest rates is consistent with sustainable growth and the Government's inflation objective.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each year since 1980–81 the level of the PSBR; what was the contribution of the sale of assets in each year; and what were the main sources of these asset proceeds.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  609

  PSBR (£ million)

  Including privatization proceeds of: (£ million)

  Main contributors

  (£ million)

  1980–81

  12,519

  210

  National Enterprise Board

  83

  British Aerospace

  43

  1981–82

  8,631

  493

  Cable and Wireless

  181

  Amersham International

  64

  1982–83

  8,904

  455

  Britoil

  334

  Associated British Ports

  46

  1983–84

  9,678

  1,139

  BP

  543

  Britoil (2nd instalment)

  293

  Cable and Wireless

  263

  1984–85

  10,134

  2,050

  BT

  1,358

  Enterprise Oil

  384

  National Enterprise Board

  168

  1985–86

  5,622

  2,706

  BT (2nd instalment)

  1,246

  Cable and Wireless

  577

  Britoil

  426

  British Aerospace

  347

  1986–87

  3,559

  4,458

  British Gas

  2,570

  BT (3rd instalment)

  1,081

  British Airways

  435

  1987–88

  –3,406

  5,140

  British Gas (2nd instalment

  1,758

  Rolls-Royce

  1,029

  BP

  863

  BAA

  534

  British Airways (2nd instalment)

  419

  1988–89

  –14,657

  7,069

  BP (2nd instalment)

  3,030

  British Gas

  1,555

  British Steel

  1,138

  BAA (2nd instalment)

  689

  1989–90

  –7,932

  4,219

  BP (3rd instalment)

  1,363

  British Steel (2nd instalment)

  1,289

  British Gas (debentures)

  800

  Water

  496

  1990–91

  –456

  5,345

  Electricity (E&W)

  3,134

  Water (2nd instalment)

  1,487

  1991–92

  13,731

  7,923

  Electricity (E&W) (2nd instalment)

  2,329

  BT

  1,666

  Water (3rd instalment)

  1,483

  Electricity (Scotland)

  1,112

  Electricity (debentures)

  1,106

  1992–93

  36,527

  8,116

  BT (2nd and 3rd instalments)

  3,487

  Electricity (E&W)

  1,460

  Electricity (Scotland)

  899

  Debt Auctions

  1,337

  Sterling
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the effect of the depreciation of sterling against the ecu since September 1992 on the sterling value of European Community funding for regional and social policy initiatives; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The main sources of funding for the Community's regional and social policies are the structural funds. Structural fund allocations are made in ecus; and the depreciation of sterling against the ecu since September 1992 is likely to result in a higher level of sterling receipts than otherwise would have been the case.

  Mr. Peter Clowes
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the latest position with regard to the Government's litigation against Mr. Peter Clowes and Mrs. Pamela Clowes.
  610
  Mr. Nelson
  On 8 June, the High Court granted in favour of the Government an order for damages awarded against Mr. and Mrs. Clowes to the sum of £31 million. This meets the Government's claim against them for damages in full; the Government will pursue all available assets to meet the claim by all means available.

  The Government continue to pursue vigorously any claims which show the prospect of reducing the cost to the taxpayer of the ex-gratia payments scheme for Barlow Clowes investors.

HEALTH

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) births and (b) abortions took place for women aged (i) under 16 years and (ii) between 16 and 19 years in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table:

  611

  Live births, Stillbirths and Abortions and Conceptions in England and Wales 1980–1992

  Year

  Age

  Live births

  Stillbirths

  Abortions

  Conceptions2

  1980

  under 16

  1,281

  8

  4,143

  8,580

  16–19

  59,473

  500

  37,120

  108,672

  1981

  under 16

  1,180

  12

  3,949

  8,561

  16–19

  55,380

  444

  36,623

  106,611

  1982

  under 16

  1,169

  8

  4,343

  8,999

  16–19

  54,266

  389

  36,694

  104,933

  1983

  under 16

  1,249

  17

  4,566

  9,369

  16–19

  52,810

  380

  36,512

  102,982

  1984

  under 16

  1,323

  10

  4,609

  9,649

  16–19

  53,185

  385

  38,492

  108,579

  1985

  under 16

  1,402

  7

  4,427

  9,406

  16–19

  55,527

  354

  39,105

  109,861

  1986

  under 16

  1,366

  13

  4,240

  9,194

  16–19

  56,040

  354

  39,897

  109,583

  1987

  under 16

  1,305

  10

  4,075

  9,135

  16–19

  56,240

  310

  38,482

  114,017

  1988

  under 16

  1,261

  12

  3,804

  8,782

  16–19

  57,480

  324

  40,840

  111,927

  1989

  under 16

  1,317

  6

  3,576

  8,382

  16–19

  54,226

  319

  38,821

  109,117

  1990

  under 16

  1,306

  5

  3,622

  8,634

  16–19

  54,235

  327

  37,950

  106,421

  1991

  under 16

  1,426

  9

  3,317

  n/a

  16–19

  50,970

  269

  33,401

  19921

  under 16

  1,314

  11

  n/a

  n/a

  16–19

  46,547

  216

  Conception figures for 1991 and 1992 and abortion figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  1 The figures given for 1992 include 17 stillbirths of 24 to 27 weeks gestation which occurred between 1 October and 31 December. On 1 October 1992, the legal definition of a stillbirth was altered: from a baby born dead after 28 weeks of completed gestation or more, to one born dead after 24 completed weeks gestation or more.

  2 The number of conceptions to girls under 16 is greater than the number of births and abortions to girls under 16, because many girls who become pregnant at age 15 will have the birth or abortion at age 16. Further, a conception in one calendar year can lead to a birth or abortion in the next calendar year.

  Consultant Psychiatrists
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of consultant psychiatrists in each region and in London; and what is the number per head of population.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The regional information requested is shown in the table. In inner London there were 205

  Numbers of hospital staff in accident and emergency in the Inner London area and Thames regions–30 September 1991

  Inner London

  North West Thames

  North East Thames

  South East Thames

  South West Thames

  SHAs

  House Officer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Senior House Officer

  141

  140

  147

  108

  89

  0

  Registrar

  8

  6

  7

  4

  4

  0

  Senior Registrar

  n.a.

  4

  6

  5

  3

  1

  Assistant Specialist

  1

  0

  5

  6

  2

  0

  Staff Grade

  3

  9

  6

  3

  2

  0

  Consultant

  13

  20

  19

  14

  12

  1

  TOTAL

  166

  179

  190

  140

  112

  2

  Notes:

  (a) An element of duplication may exist in the above figures since doctors are entitled to hold contracts in more than one region.

  (b) The number of senior registrars in accident and emergency in inner London is not available-contracts held at a regional level only.

  (c) The consultant data for inner London do not include Newham and Haringey district health authorities, for which contracts are held at
  612
  consultant psychiatrists at 30 September 1991, or 8·8 per 1,000 population. These figures do not include data for the Newham and Haringey district health authorities, for which consultant data are not available, and exclude consultants working in the special health authorities.

  Numbers of consultant psychiatrists by region England–30 September 1991

  Consultant psychiatrists

  Consultants per 100,000 population

  Northern

  116

  3·8

  Yorkshire

  101

  2·8

  Trent

  184

  3·9

  East Anglia

  87

  4·1

  North West Thames

  197

  5·7

  North East Thames

  200

  5·3

  South East Thames

  165

  4·5

  South West Thames

  157

  5·3

  Wessex

  107

  3·6

  Oxford

  111

  4·3

  South Western

  131

  4·0

  West Midlands

  176

  3·4

  Mersey

  98

  4·1

  North Western

  149

  3·7

  SHAs

  88

  n/a

  ENGLAND

  2,025

  4·2

  Notes:

  (a) Figures calculated using unadjusted population figures.

  (b) Since consultants are entitled to hold contracts in more than one region, an element of duplication exists in the above regional figures, in a element of duplication exists in the above regional figures, ie a consultant psychiatrist can be shown in more than one region. The England figures does NOT include any such duplications.

  Accident and Emergency Departments, London
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health

  how many house officers, senior house officers, registrars, senior registrars, associate specialists, staff grade and consultants are working in accident and emergency departments in London and each of the Thames regions.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table.
  613
  regional level only.

  (d) Thames regions figures include inner London figures.

  (e) Pre-registration house officers are not contracted to work in accident and emergency departments.

  Acute Psychiatric Beds
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of acute psychiatric beds, by region and in London.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is shown in the table. Psychiatric beds are classified as short or long stay rather than acute or non-acute.

  Average daily number of available short stay beds, psychiatric wards 1991–92

  Number

  England

  22,159

  Northern RHA

  1,610

  Yorkshire RHA

  1,750

  Trent RHA

  1,964

  East Anglian RHA

  790

  North West Thames RHA

  1,350

  North East Thames RHA

  1,786

  South East Thames RHA

  1,366

  South West Thames RHA

  1,509

  Wessex RHA

  1,186

  Oxford RHA

  906

  South Western RHA

  1,735

  West Midlands RHA

  2,263

  Mersey RHA

  1,323

  North Western RHA

  2,156

  Special health authorities

  466

  London

  3,9831

  1 Figure also included in Thames RHAs.

  Regional totals may not add up to the England total due to rounding.

  Sports Remedial Therapists
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances fund-holding general practitioners may refer patients for treatment to sports remedial therapists who are not registered practitioners.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General practitioner fund holders are free to make referrals, within the scope of the scheme, provided they are satisfied that the practitioner to whom the referral is made is suitably qualified.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each regional health authority, the national health service units that will not have trust status after the fourth wave of applications.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of units not applying for trust status in the fourth wave is shown in the table. The precise number of directly managed units remaining after the fourth wave will depend on the number of fourth wave candidates approved.

  Number of directly managed units (DMUs) by region not applying for trust status in the fourth wave

  Region

  Number

  East Anglian1

  0

  Mersey1

  0

  Northern1

  0

  North East Thames

  16

  614

  Region

  Number

  North West Thames

  2

  North Western1

  0

  Oxford1

  0

  South East Thames

  10

  South West Thames

  5

  South Western1

  0

  Trent

  7

  Wessex1

  0

  West Midlands

  3

  Yorkshire

  1

  1 All remaining DMUs have submitted applications for the fourth wave.

  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what study she has made of the results of the closure of psychiatric hospitals in the United States of America; and what plans she has to modify Government policy in the light of this study.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government are aware and keep abreast of mental health developments in the United States of America and other parts of the world and takes account of relevant experience in formulating policy.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much, in real cash terms, was available to councils in the Northern region, for spending on personal social services in 1979; what is the amount provided for 1993–94; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The system employed for the distribution of central Government support for local authority services has changed substantially since 1979; it is not possible therefore to give comparable figures on how much was available in that year and the current year. Expenditure in 1978–79 by local authorities in the northern region, and resources available for 1993–94, including community care, are shown in the table. Increases over the 15-year period will have been subject to population and boundary changes. For the region as a whole, the increase in expenditure reflects that for England and demonstrates the Government's commitment to the development of personal social services.

  Local authority personal social services—Resources

  £ million

  1978–79 Outturn

  1993–94 Standard spending1

  Real terms increase (per cent.)

  Cleveland

  12·8

  62·9

  71·3

  Cumbria

  8·2

  46·6

  98·1

  Durham

  12·1

  62·6

  80·4

  Gateshead

  5·3

  24·8

  63·2

  Newcastle

  11·4

  37·6

  15·0

  Northumberland

  5·7

  28·0

  71·3

  North Tyneside

  5·1

  22·4

  53·1

  South Tyneside

  4·4

  19·5

  54·5

  Sunderland

  7·9

  32·7

  44·3

  Total

  72·9

  337·1

  61·2

  1 Including community care.

  615

  Hospital Beds, Durham
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement on the implementation of the patients charter waiting time guarantee in the City of Durham;

  (2) how many people are currently waiting for a hospital bed in the City of Durham.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Waiting time information is collected centrally by health authority rather than metropolitan area. The North Durham health authority has been extremely successful in meeting the waiting time commitments in the patients charter. None of its patients have to wait more than two years for any in-patient or day case treatment or 18 months for hip or knee replacement or a cataract operation. Latest figures for 30 September 1992 show that 89 per cent. of North Durham patients had been waiting for less than a year.

  Dentistry, Durham
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many courses of dental treatment were carried out in the Durham area under the NHS in 1979; and what were the equivalent figures for the last 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table.

  Courses of treatment carried out in the Durham Family Health Services Authority area under the General Dental Service during 1979 and 1992–93

  Year

  Under 181

  18 and over

  Total1

  1979

  103,630

  153,160

  256,790

  1992–93

  42,476

  269,315

  311,791

  1 Under the new dental contract introduced on 1 October 1990, most child treatment is undertaken under capitation where no separate course of treatment is identified. These figures are therefore not comparable.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the availability of NHS dental treatment in the Durham area.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are advised that patients in the Durham area have had no difficulty in registering with a national health service dentist.

  Lung Cancer
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the difference in percentage terms, in lung cancer in women living in Liverpool compared with the national average; what money her Department has made available for the study of the causes of Liverpool's lung cancer cases; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Statistics on the prevalence of particular forms of cancer are not calculated. The mortality rate from a malignant neoplasm of the trachea, bronchus and lung —International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision code 162—in women normally resident in Liverpool is approximately 80 per cent. greater than the rate in England as a whole. The Department has not funded any studies of the causes of lung cancer in Liverpool. Nationally, at least 80 per cent. of deaths from lung cancer are caused by smoking.

  Patient Deaths
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients died while on the waiting list for cardiac surgery in each of the last two years for which figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for State—my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville)— gave to her on 14 April at column 608. The waiting list information requested is not available centrally.

  Urgent Operations
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to place specific maximum waiting times on specific urgent operations; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None at present. As part of the 1993–94 waiting time initiative, the national health service management executive is holding discussions with the medical professions about procedures and protocols for prioritising waiting list conditions. The usefulness of setting maximum waiting times for specific operations is an option which will be explored at these meetings.

  Ambulances
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ambulances were operating in each health authority in England in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Traffic Casualties
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been paid to the NHS under section 158 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Staff (Holidays)
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many statutory and public holidays, in addition to bank holidays, are enjoyed by employees of the national health service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Staff employed on national health service Whitley terms and conditions of service are entitled to two additional days paid holiday each year.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner fund holders in the Yorkshire region overspent their budgets in(a) 1991–92 and (b) in 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Five out of the 34 fund-holding units in Yorkshire region overspent their budgets in 1991–92. Information for 1992–93 is not yet available.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 7 June,Official Report. column 44, what was the Government's position on the Commission's directive on advertising of tobacco products.

  Mr. Sackville
  At the Health Council meeting on 27 May, the Government restated their position that adoption of the draft European Community directive on tobacco advertising is not necessary for the completion of the internal market.

  Benomyl and Carbendazim
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what data exist within the Department as to the effects of Benomyl and Carbendazim—related products on women immediately prior to childbirth;

  (2) what links have been established between the use of Benomyl and Carbendazim in fungicides and the incidence of anophthalmic and microphthalmic conditions in humans;

  (3) what proposals the Government have for scientific inquiries into the use and effects of Benomyl and related products; and what inquiries have taken place so far.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Data on the metabolic effects on animals of pesticides are produced from experiments using laboratory animals and evaluated by the independent and Government scientists who advise Ministers before any pesticide is approved for use. I refer the hon. Member to the reply the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) —gave the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) on 8 February at columns 478–79, for an explanation of the approval process and the assessment of the data seen.

  The data available to the Department do not indicate that Benomyl and Carbendazim-related products used as fungicides in the United Kingdom are likely to cause any adverse health effects to women or to their unborn children immediately before childbirth or throughout their pregnancies. Nor has the Department seen or been notified of any scientific reports that indicate that these products are causing adverse health effects on women or on children.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 20 May at column 259, which stated that the Department is commissioning research into the incidence of anophthalmia in Great Britain from the environmental epidemiological unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The results of this work and the research now being undertaken by Moorfields hospital will be very carefully considered and any necessary action taken.

  Alcohol Problems
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether generic monitoring of the implementation of community care will include the gathering of information on services for people with alcohol problems.

  Mr. Bowls
  Yes.

  Benlate
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has held with Dupont in the United Kingdom on the payment of the Dupont Company of compensation in the case of damage to users of Benlate.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Such matters should be resolved between an individual and the relevant manufacturer.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Eastern Bloc (Training)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources are currently being devoted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's financial sector scheme for extending work experience and training in the United Kingdom and other OECD countries to assist in modernising the financial services industry in ex-eastern bloc countries; and if he will list Britain's financial services industry organisations participating in the scheme and the locations of current secondees and the lengths of their approximate periods of secondment.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 14 June 1993]: The sum of £9·3 million is allocated to the scheme covering selection costs, air fares, induction training in Britain and British Council management charges. Training is not offered outside the United Kingdom and the scheme is limited to participants from the former Soviet Union and the Baltic states.

  I am placing a list with the further details the hon. Member requested in the Library of the House.

  United Kingdom Know How Fund Chancellor's financial sector scheme

  Host companies

  Town

  3I plc

  London

  Abbey National plc

  Milton Keynes

  Bank of Scotland

  Edinburgh

  Bank of Wales

  Cardiff

  Barclays Bank

  London

  Baring Brothers and Co. Ltd.

  London

  BDO Binder

  London

  Beachcroft Stanleys

  London

  Bradford and Bingley Building Society

  Bingley

  Close Brothers Ltd.

  London

  Clydesdale Bank plc

  Glasgow

  D. C. Gardner Group plc

  London

  D. K. Ray and Co.

  Beaconsfield

  Deutch Bank AG

  London

  Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd.

  Cheltenham

  Equitable Life Assurance Society

  Aylesbury

  Equity and Law Life Assurance

  High Wycombe

  Ernst and Young

  London

  Financial Research Associates

  London

  Friends' Provident Life Office

  Dorking

  Girobank plc

  Bootle

  Heart of England Building Society

  Warwick

  Herbert Smith

  London

  Hogg Robinson Financial Services Ltd.

  Reading

  Invesco MIM Holdings Ltd.

  London

  Italian International Bank plc

  London

  Kingston Smith

  London

  Lazard Brothers and Co. Ltd.

  London

  Legal and General Group plc

  London

  Linklaters and Paines

  London

  Lloyds Bank plc

  London

  Maclay Murray and Spens

  Edinburgh

  Marsden Building Society

  Nelson

  619

  Host companies

  Town

  Martin Currie Investment Management Ltd.

  Edinburgh

  Mercury Asset Management Ltd.

  London

  Midland Montagu

  London

  Morgan Grenfell and Co. Ltd.

  London

  N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd.

  London

  Nabarro Nathonson

  London

  National Provincial Building Society

  Bradford

  National Provident Institution (NPI)

  Tonbridge Wells

  National Westminster Bank plc

  London

  Nationwide Building Society

  Northampton

  Newcastle Building Society

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Northern Rock Building Society

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Norton Rose

  London

  Principality Building Society

  Cardiff

  Rabin Leacock Lipman

  London

  Royal Bank of Scotland plc

  Edinburgh

  RYDEN

  Edinburgh

  Scottish Equitable Life Assurance Society

  Edinburgh

  Sedgwick Group plc

  London

  Shoosmiths and Harrison Solicitors

  Northampton

  Singer and Friedlander Ltd.

  London

  Slaughter and May

  London

  Smith New Court Securities

  London

  Sphere Drake Underwriting Management Ltd.

  Brighton

  Standard Chartered Bank

  London

  Stephenson Harwood

  London

  Sun Alliance Group

  London

  SunLife Assurance Society plc

  London

  Svenska Handelsbanken

  London

  Swiss Bank Corporation

  London

  Tods Murray WS

  Edinburgh

  Touche Ross

  London

  Woolwich Building Society

  Bexleyheath

  Wragge and Co.

  Birmingham

  Geographical distribution of current CFSS participants

  Town

  Count of town

  Aylesbury

  2

  Beaconsfield

  1

  Bexleyheath

  1

  Bootle

  2

  Bradford

  1

  Brighton

  1

  Cardiff

  1

  Cheltenham

  1

  Edinburgh

  3

  620

  Town

  Count of town

  London

  18

  Milton Keynes

  2

  Nelson

  1

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1

  Northampton

  2

  Reading

  1

  Average lengths of current CFSS attachments

  Duration range

  Count of duration range

  3 months

  8

  4–6 months

  8

  6–12 months

  22

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Dartmoor
  Ms Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the new arrangements for the management of three field monuments on Dartmoor which are in the guardianship of English Heritage.

  Mr. Brooke
  Yes. I am fully satisfied with the terms of the proposed agreement under which management responsibility for Grimspound, Hound Tor medieval village and Merrivale prehistoric site will be transferred to the Dartmoor National Park Authority from 1 July. These sites are the first to be transferred to local management under English Heritage's forward strategy. The park authority, with its proximity to the monuments, specialised knowledge and volunteer network, is well placed to provide the best care for these evocative sites and the best value for public money. This well illustrates the potential benefits of local management in appropriate cases.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what percentage of the national insurance fund has been paid out in national insurance rebates, tax reliefs and other incentives in respect of personal pensions contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme for 1992–93; and what is the equivalent expected percentage for the years 1993–94 and 1994–95;

  (2) what was the cost of the national insurance rebates, tax reliefs and other incentives paid in respect of personal pensions contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme for 1992–93; and what are the equivalent expected costs for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table. Tax relief is not a cost to the national insurance fund and has not been included in the figures. The percentages are the estimated cost of the rebates and incentives as a percentage of the estimated gross contribution income to the national insurance fund.

  Personal Pensions

  Year

  Cost (£ billion)

  Per cent.

  1992–93

  2·50

  7

  1993–94

  2·65

  7

  1994–95

  1·80

  5

  Source: Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the average annual earnings of those who have contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme(a) via an occupational pension scheme and (b) in favour of a personal pension plan.

  Mr. Hague
  Information on those contracting out of the state earnings related scheme via an occupational pension scheme is not immediately available. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is. Such information as is available is that the average earnings of members of occupational pension schemes (including those which are not contracted out of the state earnings related scheme) in calendar year 1991, were £16,200 per annum. Average earnings of personal pension optants in the tax year 1990–91 are estimated to be £10,300 per annum.

  Sources: Occupational Pension Schemes—General Household Survey. Personal Pension Schemes—1 per cent. of National Insurance contributors.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his oral statement of 7 June,Official Report, column 23, how many of the post offices referred to receive remuneration for work carried out in addition to the basic flat-rate payment.

  Mr. Hague
  A number of the approximately 2,700 sub-postmasters referred to may additionally receive some 622
  small one-off payments for minor items of business which occur only intermittently and on a small scale, such as payment for the issue of concessionary bus passes. The numbers receiving such payments fluctuate considerably, but because of their intermittent nature, no central record is kept of the total number of sub-postmasters who receive them at any given time.

  Alcohol Residential Centres
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to whom housing benefit payments should be made for alcohol residential centre clients.

  Mr. Burt
  The same provisions governing direct payment of housing benefit apply to alcohol residential centre clients as to all other tenants. Usually the benefit is paid to tenants, although it must be paid direct to landlords if a tenant has eight weeks or more rent arrears or direct payments of income support are being made. Local authorities may also pay housing benefit direct with the claimant's consent, or if it is in the claimant's best interests to do so, or if a claimant has left a property owing rent.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) new disability living allowance claims and (b) top-up claims have been refused, broken down by the reasons for refusal, in each month since February 1992 at each disability benefit centre and for the country as a whole.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard the chief executive of the benefits agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 15 June 1993.

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many (a) new disability living allowance claims and (b) top-up claims have been refused, broken down by the reasons for refusal, in each month since February 1992 at each disability benefit centre and for the country as a whole.

  Firstly, it may be helpful for me to say at this stage that new Disability Living Allowance (DLA) claims are dealt with by the regional Disability Benefit Centres (DBCs) and top-up claims are dealt with by the Claims Conversion Unit (CCU).

  Annex A shows a breakdown of the number of DLA claims that have been refused, and the reasons for refusal by DBC since February 1992.

  A breakdown of refusals on top-up claims by DBC is not available. However, Annex B details the number of top-up claims that have been refused by the CCU, and the reasons for refusal.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.
  623

  Annex A: Refusals on new claims for DLA by DBC February 1992

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Edinburgh

  5

  0

  32

  0

  37

  Newcastle

  57

  0

  35

  0

  92

  Leeds

  19

  0

  54

  0

  73

  Manchester

  10

  0

  32

  0

  42

  Bootle

  3

  0

  34

  0

  37

  Birmingham

  17

  0

  16

  0

  33

  Bristol

  7

  0

  26

  0

  33

  Cardiff

  11

  0

  13

  0

  24

  Wembley

  33

  0

  61

  0

  94

  Sutton

  21

  0

  56

  0

  77

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dlau Warbreck House

  1

  0

  3

  0

  4

  Other MUs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Great Britain

  184

  0

  362

  0

  546

  March 1992

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Edinburgh

  206

  0

  122

  0

  328

  Newcastle

  498

  0

  179

  0

  677

  Leeds

  282

  0

  334

  0

  616

  Manchester

  239

  0

  146

  0

  385

  Bootle

  129

  0

  141

  0

  270

  Birmingham

  194

  0

  1

  0

  195

  Bristol

  171

  0

  157

  0

  328

  Cardiff

  194

  0

  128

  0

  322

  Wembley

  263

  1

  374

  0

  638

  Sutton

  406

  1

  368

  0

  775

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dlau Warbreck House

  3

  0

  17

  0

  20

  Other MUs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Great Britain

  2,585

  2

  1,967

  0

  4,554

  Annex A: Refusals on new claims for DLA by DBC April 1992

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Edinburgh

  412

  0

  87

  0

  499

  Newcastle

  1,263

  1

  134

  0

  1,398

  Leeds

  459

  0

  207

  0

  666

  Manchester

  715

  0

  138

  0

  853

  Bootle

  280

  0

  120

  0

  400

  Birmingham

  225

  0

  58

  0

  283

  Bristol

  330

  0

  141

  0

  471

  Cardiff

  254

  0

  86

  0

  340

  Wembley

  695

  3

  305

  0

  1,003

  Sutton

  628

  0

  237

  0

  865

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dlau Warbreck House

  8

  0

  5

  0

  13

  Other MUs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Great Britain

  5,269

  4

  1,518

  0

  6,791

  May 1992

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Edinburgh

  552

  1

  107

  0

  660

  Newcastle

  1,087

  0

  64

  0

  1,151

  Leeds

  631

  0

  156

  0

  787

  Manchester

  810

  0

  126

  0

  936

  624 625

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Bootle

  528

  1

  73

  2

  604

  Birmingham

  356

  0

  161

  0

  517

  Bristol

  340

  0

  143

  2

  485

  Cardiff

  641

  0

  110

  2

  753

  Wembley

  704

  1

  163

  1

  869

  Sutton

  404

  2

  149

  0

  555

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dlau Warbreack House

  3

  0

  9

  1

  13

  Other MUs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Great Britain

  6,056

  5

  1,261

  8

  7,330

  Annex A: Refusals on new claims for DLA by DBC June 1992

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Edinburgh

  928

  0

  298

  3

  1,229

  Newcastle

  1,002

  0

  77

  0

  1,079

  Leeds

  1,661

  2

  159

  2

  1,824

  Manchester

  1,114

  1

  104

  3

  1,222

  Bootle

  657

  0

  130

  0

  787

  Birmingham

  978

  1

  201

  0

  1,180

  Bristol

  559

  0

  135

  0

  694

  Cardiff

  801

  0

  170

  0

  971

  Wembley

  895

  3

  180

  0

  1,078

  Sutton

  843

  4

  168

  4

  1,019

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dlau Warbreck House

  31

  0

  75

  0

  106

  Other MUs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Great Britain

  9,469

  11

  1,697

  12

  11,189

  July 1992

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Edinburgh

  1,979

  2

  253

  5

  2,239

  Newcastle

  1,450

  1

  67

  1

  1,519

  Leeds

  1,579

  3

  151

  2

  1,735

  Manchester

  1,864

  2

  93

  3

  1,962

  Bootle

  1,071

  0

  141

  3

  1,215

  Birmingham

  1,296

  1

  338

  0

  1,635

  Bristol

  872

  0

  81

  1

  954

  Cardiff

  1,345

  0

  129

  1

  1,475

  Wembley

  1,431

  5

  229

  1

  1,666

  Sutton

  2,333

  11

  192

  14

  2,550

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dlau Warbreck House

  105

  0

  91

  1

  197

  Other MUs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Great Britain

  15,235

  25

  1,765

  32

  17,147

  Annex A: Refusals on new claims for DLA by DBC August 1992

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Edinburgh

  1,086

  2

  195

  2

  1,285

  Newcastle

  1,253

  2

  51

  0

  1,306

  Leeds

  1,864

  6

  117

  1

  1,988

  Manchester

  2,838

  5

  117

  2

  2,962

  Bootle

  1,567

  0

  111

  1

  1,679

  Birmingham

  1,423

  3

  305

  2

  1,733

  Bristol

  895

  4

  68

  2

  969

  Cardiff

  1,396

  1

  68

  1

  1,466

  Wembley

  1,449

  5

  194

  4

  1,652

  626 627

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Sutton

  1,717

  17

  141

  4

  1,879

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  DLAU Warbreck House

  180

  1

  76

  3

  260

  Other MUs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Great Britain

  15,668

  46

  1,443

  22

  17,179

  September 1992

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Edinburgh

  2,020

  0

  206

  4

  2,230

  Newcastle

  1,505

  0

  73

  0

  1,578

  Leeds

  2,123

  6

  146

  5

  2,280

  Manchester

  2,343

  10

  111

  0

  2,464

  Bootle

  1,774

  3

  95

  1

  1,873

  Birmingham

  2,918

  3

  265

  6

  3,192

  Bristol

  1,115

  5

  78

  6

  1,204

  Cardiff

  2,227

  2

  147

  0

  2,376

  Wembley

  1,964

  11

  242

  8

  2,225

  Sutton

  1,539

  4

  179

  3

  1,725

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  DLAU Warbreck House

  190

  1

  78

  2

  271

  Other MUs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Great Britain

  19,718

  45

  1,620

  35

  21,418

  Annex A: Refusals on new claims for DLA by DBC October 1992

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Edinburgh

  4,316

  3

  193

  6

  4,518

  Newcastle

  1,194

  2

  58

  1

  1,255

  Leeds

  2,270

  10

  118

  1

  2,399

  Manchester

  2,051

  5

  90

  3

  2,149

  Bootle

  2,034

  2

  107

  0

  2,143

  Birmingham

  3,473

  12

  255

  5

  3,745

  Bristol

  1,102

  4

  83

  5

  1,194

  Cardiff

  1,423

  4

  116

  2

  1,545

  Wembley

  1,960

  22

  153

  2

  2,137

  Sutton

  1,578

  4

  164

  8

  1,754

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dlau Warbreck House

  520

  2

  97

  4

  623

  Other M Us

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Great Britain

  21,921

  70

  1,434

  37

  23,462

  November 1992

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Edinburgh

  2,618

  11

  154

  6

  2,789

  Newcastle

  1,239

  2

  67

  1

  1,309

  Leeds

  1,781

  4

  107

  1

  1,893

  Manchester

  1,780

  4

  102

  1

  1,887

  Bootle

  1,287

  2

  119

  4

  1,412

  Birmingham

  2,412

  8

  224

  4

  2,648

  Bristol

  549

  4

  100

  0

  653

  Cardiff

  969

  1

  63

  0

  1,033

  Wembley

  1,395

  16

  140

  3

  1,554

  Sutton

  1,216

  5

  145

  5

  1,373

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dlau Warbreck House

  394

  1

  63

  3

  461

  Other MUs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  628 629

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Great Britain

  15,642

  58

  1,284

  28

  17,012

  Annex A: Refusals on new claims for DLA by DBC December 1992

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Edinburgh

  2,853

  2

  161

  5

  3,021

  Newcastle

  786

  0

  33

  0

  819

  Leeds

  1,870

  6

  88

  2

  1,966

  Manchester

  1,121

  8

  70

  2

  1,201

  Bootle

  1,048

  5

  79

  0

  1,132

  Birmingham

  2,149

  18

  167

  8

  2,342

  Bristol

  666

  5

  43

  0

  714

  Cardiff

  1,009

  2

  70

  0

  1,081

  Wembley

  1,083

  8

  87

  3

  1,181

  Sutton

  1,165

  5

  105

  2

  1,277

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  DLAU Warbeck House

  535

  3

  45

  2

  585

  Other MUs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Great Britain

  14,285

  62

  984

  24

  15,319

  January 1993

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Edinburgh

  1,932

  2

  104

  3

  2,041

  Newcastle

  862

  2

  50

  1

  915

  Leeds

  2,272

  8

  87

  0

  2,367

  Manchester

  1,582

  9

  115

  0

  1,706

  Bootle

  1,425

  1

  98

  0

  1,524

  Birmingham

  1,883

  10

  145

  4

  2,042

  Bristol

  650

  6

  56

  0

  712

  Cardiff

  1,229

  0

  96

  0

  1,325

  Wembley

  1,223

  6

  261

  0

  1,490

  Sutton

  1,196

  8

  127

  5

  1,336

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  DLAU Warbeck House

  943

  4

  99

  8

  1,054

  Other MUs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Great Britain

  15,197

  56

  1,238

  21

  16,512

  Annex A: Refusals on new claims for DLA by DBC February 1993

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Edinburgh

  1,010

  6

  78

  4

  1,098

  Newcastle

  851

  0

  62

  0

  913

  Leeds

  2,419

  7

  195

  2

  2,623

  Manchester

  1,624

  10

  96

  0

  1,730

  Bootle

  1,569

  1

  139

  2

  1,711

  Birmingham

  1,937

  7

  312

  2

  2,258

  Bristol

  841

  10

  51

  3

  905

  Cardiff

  1,109

  2

  94

  2

  1,207

  Wembley

  1,564

  8

  138

  0

  1,710

  Sutton

  1,410

  7

  117

  6

  1,540

  Glasgow

  1,093

  0

  56

  1

  1,150

  DLAU Warbreck House

  2,379

  23

  464

  5

  2,871

  Other MUs

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Great Britain

  17,809

  81

  1,802

  27

  19,719

  630 631

  March 1993

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Edinburgh

  1,042

  5

  89

  5

  1,141

  Newcastle

  974

  2

  51

  1

  1,028

  Leeds

  2,707

  8

  172

  5

  2,892

  Manchester

  1,893

  14

  89

  1

  1,997

  Bootle

  1,799

  5

  148

  1

  1,953

  Birmingham

  2,467

  10

  266

  3

  2,746

  Bristol

  1,030

  2

  67

  2

  1,101

  Cardiff

  1,775

  2

  90

  3

  1,870

  Wembley

  2,078

  16

  209

  1

  2,304

  Sutton

  1,454

  7

  185

  3

  1,649

  Glasgow

  1,827

  2

  86

  0

  1,915

  DLAU Warbreck House

  1,080

  13

  257

  8

  1,358

  Other MUs

  13

  0

  0

  0

  13

  Great Britain

  20,139

  86

  1,709

  33

  21,967

  Annex A: Refusals on new claims for DLA by DBC April 1993

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Edinburgh

  1,015

  2

  68

  1

  1,086

  Newcastle

  940

  0

  64

  0

  1,004

  Leeds

  2,375

  6

  131

  1

  2,513

  Manchester

  1,519

  7

  85

  2

  1,613

  Bootle

  1,728

  1

  115

  1

  1,845

  Birmingham

  2,546

  14

  216

  2

  2,778

  Bristol

  882

  1

  63

  1

  947

  Cardiff

  1,298

  0

  76

  2

  1,376

  Wembley

  1,601

  17

  170

  3

  1,791

  Sutton

  1,617

  7

  142

  3

  1,769

  Glasgow

  1,623

  0

  61

  0

  1,684

  Dlau Warbreck House

  274

  13

  92

  4

  383

  Other MUs

  9

  0

  0

  0

  9

  Great Britain

  17,427

  68

  1,283

  20

  18,798

  May 1993

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Edinburgh

  868

  0

  52

  1

  921

  Newcastle

  960

  1

  59

  2

  1,022

  Leeds

  2,228

  3

  115

  2

  2,348

  Manchester

  1,414

  4

  63

  1

  1,482

  Bootle

  1,453

  2

  71

  0

  1,526

  Birmingham

  2,003

  3

  182

  4

  2,192

  Bristol

  729

  4

  67

  1

  801

  Cardiff

  2,136

  1

  98

  1

  2,236

  Wembley

  1,529

  15

  147

  2

  1,693

  Sutton

  1,758

  5

  127

  3

  1,893

  Glasgow

  1,990

  0

  63

  0

  2,053

  Dlau Warbreck House

  103

  1

  42

  0

  146

  Other MUs

  11

  0

  0

  0

  11

  Great Britain

  17,182

  39

  1,086

  17

  18,324

  Annex A: Other refusals during 19921

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Edinburgh

  1,021

  3

  46

  2

  1,072

  Newcastle

  746

  1

  23

  0

  770

  Leeds

  918

  5

  44

  0

  967

  Manchester

  973

  4

  30

  0

  1,007

  Bootle

  675

  1

  30

  1

  707

  Birmingham

  971

  5

  51

  1

  1,028

  632 633

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Bristol

  441

  3

  28

  1

  473

  Cardiff

  668

  1

  29

  0

  698

  Wembley

  806

  11

  57

  2

  876

  Sutton

  791

  8

  50

  3

  852

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dlau Warbreck House

  112

  4

  13

  4

  133

  Other MUs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Great Britain

  8,122

  46

  401

  14

  8,583

  1 These cases were decided in 1992 but the exact month is not known.

  (Figures are for cases cleared by a scan of the database during December 1992.)

  Annex A: Cumulative up to end of May 1993

  Lay grounds

  Medical grounds

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Total

  Edinburgh

  23,863

  39

  2,245

  47

  26,194

  Newcastle

  16,667

  14

  1,147

  7

  17,835

  Leeds

  27,458

  74

  2,381

  24

  29,937

  Manchester

  23,890

  83

  1,607

  18

  25,598

  Bootle

  19,027

  24

  1,751

  16

  20,818

  Birmingham

  27,248

  95

  3,163

  41

  30,547

  Bristol

  11,179

  48

  1,387

  24

  12,638

  Cardiff

  18,485

  16

  1,583

  14

  20,098

  Wembley

  20,673

  148

  3,110

  30

  23,961

  Sutton

  20,078

  95

  2,652

  63

  22,888

  Glasgow

  6,533

  2

  266

  1

  6,802

  Dlau Warbreck House

  6,861

  66

  1,526

  45

  8,498

  Other MUs

  36

  0

  0

  0

  36

  Great Britain

  221,998

  704

  22,818

  330

  245,850

  Reasons for refusal on lay grounds are:

  (a)—on grounds of age.

  (b)—on grounds of residence and presence.

  (c)—other reasons.

  Annex B: Refusals on top up claims for DLA for Great Britain

  MobA Beneficiaries

  AA Beneficiaries

  Month

  Medical Grounds

  Lay Grounds

  Medical Grounds

  Lay Grounds

  Month

  Age

  Other

  Total

  1992

  February

  11

  0

  4

  0

  0

  15

  March

  106

  0

  62

  8

  0

  176

  April

  478

  0

  100

  1

  0

  579

  May

  1,240

  3

  211

  1

  2

  1,457

  June

  2,597

  19

  393

  1

  7

  3,017

  July

  3,882

  22

  523

  4

  4

  4,435

  August

  5,896

  5

  736

  18

  2

  6,657

  September

  5,690

  7

  713

  1

  2

  6,413

  October

  4,441

  18

  905

  9

  10

  5,383

  November

  2,592

  8

  578

  1

  2

  3,181

  December

  2,269

  7

  356

  4

  2

  2,638

  Others1

  1,813

  5

  481

  82

  3

  2,384

  1993

  January

  1,907

  6

  446

  58

  0

  2,417

  February

  2,073

  18

  425

  35

  1

  2,552

  March

  2,215

  27

  480

  19

  4

  2,745

  April

  1,869

  25

  581

  25

  5

  2,505

  May

  1,055

  0

  315

  14

  1

  1,385

  TOTAL

  40,134

  170

  7,309

  281

  45

  47,939

  1 These cases were decided in 1992 but the exact month is riot known.

  Figures are for cases cleared by a scan of the database during December 1992.

  634
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) whether the Benefits Agency has now completed its report on the differences in adjudication standards between disability benefit centres;
  635
  (2) what steps the Benefits Agency has taken to ensure consistency in adjudication decisions on disability living allowance between disability benefits centres.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Sir John Hannam, dated 15 June 1993.

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking (i) whether the Benefits Agency has now completed its report on the differences in adjudication standards between Disability Benefits Centres and (ii) what steps the Benefits Agency has taken to ensure consistency in adjudication decisions on Disability Living Allowance between Disability Benefits Centres.

  A study concerning standards of adjudication in Disability Benefits Centres is still in progress and findings are not expected to become available until late August 1993. Thereafter, recommendations will be carefully analysed before any changes are implemented.

  The aim of the study is to assess standards of adjudication, including variations, across the Disability Benefits Centres and the main Disability Living Allowance Unit(s) at Blackpool. It includes a physical examination of casework, research among staff and an analysis of data arising from Review and Appeals activities.

  I hope that you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has as to how many people below the basic rate income tax threshold will pay more national insurance contributions during the 1994–95 financial year as a result of the changes announced in the Budget.

  Mr. Hague
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 June 1993, column 140]: The following information was incorrect:

  "It is estimated that in 1994–95 about million people whose earnings fall below the basic rate income tax threshold will pay slightly more in national insurance contributions."

  The correct information is as follows:

  It is estimated that in 1994–95 about 2¼ million people whose earnings fall below the threshold for basic rate income tax of 25 per cent. will pay slightly more in national insurance contributions.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Human Rights
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support proposals for an international human rights tribunal.

  Mr. Hurd
  The world conference on human rights will review the range of international mechanisms for the protection of human rights. We understand that there may be a proposal for an international human rights tribunal. We will give careful consideration to this, and to all other matters before the conference.

  Israel
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what indications he has received from Arab countries about their willingness to call off the Arab trade boycott of Israel.

  Mr. Hurd
  The response by Arab countries to numerous approaches on this subject—including an EC demarche—has been uneven. There has been no collective formal response. But there is evidence that some relaxations have been made and the Kuwait Government have this month signalled their intention to discontinue the application of the boycott to third countries. We shall continue to press Arab Governments on this.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to meet the Israeli Foreign Minister to discuss matters pertaining to the peace process.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no immediate plans to meet the Israeli Foreign Minister.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Governor of Hong Kong to discuss relations with China.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We keep in the closest touch with the governor of Hong Kong about our discussions with the Chinese authorities on Hong Kong. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I will next meet the governor when he comes to London on 30 of June for one of his regular visits for consultations. As is customary, the governor will also have discussions with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as well as other Ministers and senior officials.

  South Africa
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards the holding of multiracial elections in South Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Negotiating Council has agreed on an election date of 27 April 1994, subject to ratification by the larger negotiating forum on 25 June.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with parties involved in constitutional negotiations in South Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs held useful talks with Nelson Mandela and Chief Buthelezi during their recent visits to London.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from the Pakistani authorities concerning the progress of the police investigations into the murder of Mohammed Afzal in Juarah village, Pakistan, on 4 October 1992.
  637
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The high commission in Islamabad has still not had a full report from the Pakistan authorities about the murder of Mohammed Afzal. It has, however, been told by the Pakistan police that the men accused of the murder have been declared "permanent absconders". The high commission will stay in close touch with the Pakistan authorities.

  Angola
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government have taken to put pressure on UNITA to abide by the terms of the Bicesse accord and the Angolan election results.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have actively supported United Nations efforts to secure a dialogue between UNITA and the Angolan Government leading to a ceasefire and full implementation of the Bicesse peace accords.

  Mongolia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals he has to improve relationships between the United Kingdom and Mongolia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Relations with Mongolia are very good. January marked the 30th anniversary of the establishment of our diplomatic relations. Last year saw the introduction of a bilateral aid programme for Mongolia of £2·7 million over three years. This is aimed at helping the Mongolians with their economic reform programme, which is being carried out in the face of considerable hardship.

  A bilateral cultural exchange programme, renewed on 11 June, will facilitate cultural and academic contacts and exchanges, English language teaching and joint research projects. Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal, accompanied by Commander Timothy Laurence, RN, will visit Mongolia from 11 to 14 July. A bilateral round table meeting is scheduled to take place in Britain this October.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the political situation in Cambodia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We welcome the successful holding of elections in Cambodia last month and congratulate UNTAC on its preparation and conduct. The result is a clear sign that the Cambodian people want to decide their own future. We are encouraging the successful parties to work together constructively to facilitate the emergence of a new Government after a constitution has been adopted.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Cambodia following the elections.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The high turnout of the Cambodian electorate (89 per cent.) in the elections to the Constituent Assembly last month is a clear sign that the Cambodian people want to decide their own future. We are committed to recognising the results when they are certified as free and fair. Under the terms of the Paris agreements, the 638
  newly elected Constituent Assembly will draft and approve a new constitution before transforming itself into a legislative assembly which will form a new Cambodian Government. This is due to take place within three months. Meanwhile we are encouraging the successful parties to work together constructively to facilitate the emergence of a new Government.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his proposals to secure an end to the conflict in Bosnia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Washington agreement of 22 May set out the immediate steps to be taken by the international community to effectively tackle the conflict in Bosnia. It is intended to help establish conditions for a lasting and equitable settlement, in accordance with the principles of the Vance-Owen peace plan, to the appalling conflict in Bosnia. Some of these steps have already been achieved, for example the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolutions on safe areas in Bosnia and the creation of a war crimes tribunal. Action continues within the United Nations and NATO to follow up other elements of the Washington agreement. Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg are continuing their negotiations with great determination.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is proposing to take to restore the territorial integrity of Bosnia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  United Nations Security Council resolution No. 836 reaffirms the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the responsibility of the Security Council in this regard. The principles of the Vance-Owen peace plan for Bosnia provide the framework for securing this.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what means, following the Washington agreement, he envisages the implementation of the Vance-Owen plan for Bosnia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The principles contained within the Vance-Owen peace plan provide the framework for securing a political settlement to the conflict in Bosnia. The Washington agreement of 22 May established a series of immediate steps to alleviate the suffering on the ground while work continues to find a lasting and fair political settlement.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to President Izetbegovic in respect of Bosnian Muslim breaches in the ceasefires and the destruction of Croat villages by his forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 14 June 1993]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Bosnian President Izetbegovic on 14 June. One of the issues that they discussed was the recent Bosnian-Muslim offensive in central Bosnia, particularly around Travnik. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State underlined our concern at reports of Muslim brutality and ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Croats,

  639
  and urged President Izetbegovic to order an end to this offensive and begin implementation of the Vance-Owen peace plan.

  Global Security
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit the United Nations to discuss global security.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs expects to visit the United Nations to attend the United Nations General Assembly general debate in September. No dates have yet been fixed.

  Exports Promotion
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will detail measures his Department takes to promote United Kingdom exports overseas.

  Mr. Goodlad
  It is a key objective of the Department to promote United Kingdom exports. Seventeen per cent. of frontline diplomatic staff and 48 per cent. of senior locally engaged staff working in 196 missions overseas are employed full-time on this task. In total, nearly a quarter of frontline diplomatic staff time (calculated on the basis of regular returns from posts) is expended on commercial work.

  Middle East
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards peace in the middle east.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Another round of bilateral negotiations between the parties is beginning in Washington this week. There were encouraging signs at the end of the last round in May that the Israelis and Palestinians were beginning to address in detail issues of substance. We continue to urge on all parties the urgent need for further progress.

  Social Chapter
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EC counterparts about the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The social chapter has not featured in recent discussions with other member states.

  Iraq
  Chisholm
  33. Mr. To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to review the policy of imposing sanctions on Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Security Council reviewed the sanctions in force against Iraq on 24 May. The Council concluded that Iraq had not complied with United Nations resolutions, and that there was therefore no justification for change.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Austin Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the impact of sanctions against Serbia on other countries of the former Yugoslavia and neighbouring countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  United Nations sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro place a significant economic burden on neighbouring states. The recent visits of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to Bulgaria, Macedonia and Romania enabled him to discuss this issue with the Governments of those most acutely affected. The international financial institutions are best placed to assess the needs of those affected and provide appropriate support to help these countries develop a suitable policy response.

  Iran
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response Her Majesty's Government have made to the proposal put to foreign Ministers of the European Community member states by the United States Secretary of State on 9 June relating to trade and export restrictions on Iran.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We shall be considering carefully the issues discussed by the EC and United States foreign Ministers with our EC partners. We shall continue to support international efforts to promote a harmonised approach to effective controls on the export of dual use goods to countries of particular concern, including Iran.

  Kurdistan
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Turkish Government to cease all military operations in Kurdistan and accept the Kurdish PKK's unilateral ceasefire, and work towards a political solution.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 28 April at column 440.

  We regret the PKK's decision to end the ceasefire, and condemn the recent upsurge of violence in south-east Turkey. We frequently make clear to the Turkish Government the importance we attach to combating terrorism within a legal framework and with full respect for human rights.

  Captain John Bashforth
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indonesian authorities regarding the murder by pirates of Captain John Bashforth; and with what result.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised the
  641
  death of Captain Bashforth with the Indonesian authorities when he visited Indonesia at the beginning of April. Also Her Majesty's Embassy in Jakarta has been in frequent touch with the Indonesian authorities. Since April they have obtained further evidence from the Indonesian authorities which we have passed to the coroner in Buxted for the inquest on 21 June.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the human rights committee of the European Parliament on the issue of Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None. However, together with our European Community partners, we have emphasised to the Indian Government the importance of respecting human rights in Kashmir.

  Eritrea
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy towards the new independent state of Eritrea.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We recognised Eritrea as an independent sovereign state on 14 May. We have had a warm relationship with the former provisional Government, now the Government of Eritrea, and have proposed entering into diplomatic relations. We have committed £12 million of humanitarian aid since January 1992 and also run a modest bilateral aid programme.

  Royal Family
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 82–83, what was the cost to his Department of each of the visits by the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh; and what were the sums involved in categories of expenditure within the cost of each visit.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 14 June 1993]: The costs to date to the Department of the overseas visits undertaken by the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh during the financial year 1992–93 at the request of Government Departments are as follows:

  Country

  Date

  £

  France

  12 May

  nil

  Malta

  27 to 31 May

  26,900

  France

  9 to 12 June

  47,600

  United States of America

  13 to 14 July

  nil

  Germany

  19 to 23 October

  82,700

  Dominica, Montserrat,

  Anguilla,

  British Virgin Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands

  11 to 20 March

  nil

  It is not possible to provide details of each category of expenditure without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, columns 82–83, if he will list the official engagements undertaken on each visit by (a) Princess Alexandra, (b) the Duke of Kent, (c) the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and (d) Princess Margaret.
  642
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 14 June 1993]:The main official engagements undertaken during these visits were as follows:

  a. Princess Alexandra

  USA

  60th anniversary celebrations of Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington.

  Reception to honour cooperation between UK and US armed forces.

  Columbia lighthouse for the blind.

  Corcoran gallery of art.

  Trinidad and Tobago, Grenada

  Red Cross headquarters

  Centre for physically handicapped children.

  Fort King George and fine arts centre.

  Newlo children's rehabilitation centre.

  Workshop for the blind.

  b. The Duke of Kent Japan

  Priority Japan campaign—export promotions visits in Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya including visits to department stores, meetings with local government, tour of airport, visits to factories, visit to exhibition, meetings with senior businessmen and British Chamber of Commerce, visit to research laboratories and meetings with politicians and members of Japanese Royal family.

  Italy

  Columbus 1992 ships and the sea exhibition.

  Genoa metro project.

  Germany

  Munich Electronica Trade Fair.

  c. The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester

  Belgium

  British Chamber of Commerce in Belgium.

  1992 Britain in Brussels festival:

  —Industrial design exhibition;

  —Scottish silver exhibition.

  d. The Princess Margaret

  Netherlands

  International garden festival, Zoetermeer Het Loo (Palace).

DEFENCE

  Defamation Cases
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by number and title the actions for defamation brought by or against serving members of Her Majesty's armed forces in each year since 1989 in which the Department has provided all or a contribution to one or both sides' legal costs and damages; and at what total cost in each case.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since 1989 there has been only one such case. It involved the legal costs of a junior NCO who was the subject of an action for defamation arising from a
  643
  report he made to the military police about alleged assaults on him by another soldier. The full costs of the case are not yet known.

  Hercules
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the route flown at low level by Hercules XV193 on 27 May was a standard route established for use by RAF Hercules.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Hercules fleet do not fly fixed or standard low-flying routes.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) by what means are potential fixed low-flying routes for training of RAF Hercules aircrew surveyed prior to adoption;

  Birdstrikes to RAF Hercules 1980 to 1992

  Category

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1 and 2

  32

  47

  37

  53

  51

  60

  50

  67

  61

  33

  36

  37

  46

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  32

  47

  37

  53

  51

  61

  50

  67

  61

  33

  36

  38

  46

  Note: Breakdown of damage in categories 1 and 2 is not available.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the minimum authorised altitude for the low-level training sortie undertaken by Hercules XV193 on 27 May.

  Mr. Hanley
  It was 250 ft.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum flying experience required from an RAF Hercules captain to fly the aircraft at(a) 500 ft minimum separation distance, (b) 250 ft minimum separation distance and (c) 100 ft minimum separation distance.

  Mr. Hanley
  After at least six months service on operational Hercules squadrons, crews are trained, in preparation for specific operational commitments, to fly aircraft at 500 ft minimum separation distance (MSD); the training requires four sorties, totalling 12 flying hours. Subsequently, after six months service on tactical support squadrons, crews are selected for training to fly at 250 ft MSD; the training comprises 20 sorties, totalling 41 flying hours. Approximately six months after qualifying to fly at 250 ft MSD crews undergo a further course of five sorties lasting 12 hours in total. Of these crews, a very small number of specifically selected crews are permitted to fly below 250 ft MSD.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the areas in which RAF Hercules are authorised to fly at less than 250 ft.

  Mr. Hanley
  Fixed-wing flying below 250 ft in the United Kingdom low flying system is restricted to three sparsely populated areas in northern Scotland, central Wales and the Borders which are designated as tactical training areas.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further precautionary measures have been adopted in the operation of the RAF Hercules fleet since 27 May.
  644
  (2) how many fixed low-flying routes in the United Kingdom are currently in use by the RAF Hercules fleet; and what is the established periodicity for reviewing and changing any such fixed low-flying routes.

  Mr. Hanley
  The RAF Hercules do not fly fixed low-flying routes.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many bird strikes have occurred to RAF Hercules aircraft in each year since 1980; and how many were in each of the damage categories 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. Hanley
  There is no reason to doubt the validity and safety of current operating procedures and thus no further precautionary measures have been adopted.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum bank angle permitted for turns by RAF Hercules flying at(a) 500 ft minimum separation distance, (b) 250 ft minimum separation distance and (c) 100 ft minimum separation distance.

  Mr. Hanley
  The maximum permitted bank angle for RAF Hercules flying is 60 deg subject to the aircraft maintaining its authorised minimum separation distance.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF Hercules sorties at less than 250 ft were authorised in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Hanley
  The numbers of movements authorised into the tactical training areas for flying below 250 ft by Hercules aircraft are as follows:

  Number

  1980

  1

  1981

  2

  1982

  10

  1983

  17

  1984

  28

  1985

  0

  1986

  15

  1987

  13

  1988

  7

  1989

  9

  1990

  28

  1991

  16

  1992

  9

  11993

  4

  1 To 30 April.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the route flown at low level by Hercules XV193 on 27 May was also flown by the other aircraft in the formation.
  645
  Mr. Hanley
  On 27 May Hercules XV193 flew the first part of the low-level element of its route in formation with other aircraft. As planned, the aircraft then broke formation to fly different routes for the final stage of the sortie.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the design bird strike impact strength of the windscreen of the RAF Hercules; and what measures have been introduced to increase the protection of Hercules aircrew against bird strikes since the aircraft's entry in service.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information on the design bird strike impact strength is not available within my Department. In 26 years of service in the RAF no Hercules crew member or passenger has been injured a a result of bird strikes. As a result no measures to increase the crew's protection have been introduced since the aircraft entered service.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) sorties and (b) flying hours are devoted to low-level flying training in the training syllabus of No. 242 Operational Conversion Unit and in the continuation training programmes of operational Hercules squadrons.

  Mr. Hanley
  No. 242 Operational Conversion Unit is now 57 (Reserve) Squadron. After six months' service on tactical support squadrons, crews are selected for a five-week low-level flying course comprising 20 sorties and totalling 41 flying hours. Approximately six months after initial qualification crews undergo a further five-day low-flying course comprising five sorties and 12 flying hours.

  Explosive devices
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many bombs have been removed or rendered harmless on the coast of England and Wales by the Royal Navy in 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  A total of 19 bombs, some of which dated back to the second world war and earlier, were recovered from the coast of England and Wales by the Royal Navy in 1992.

  Royal Clarence Yard, Gosport
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to ensure that the gate of the Royal Clarence yard at Gosport is maintained in a state appropriate for its historical importance.

  Mr. Hanley
  The gate to Royal Clarence yard is being examined by consultants to determine what renovation work might be required.

  Horse Guards Parade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the Life Guards and Blues and Royals attending the Horse Guards parade ceremony on Thursday 27 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Guidelines covering the presentation of new standards, guidons and colours to regiments of the Army are contained in The Queens Regulations for the Army 1975. It is customary that the Sovereign personally 646
  presents new standards or colours to the regiments of the Household Divisions in the case of the Household Cavalry on Horse Guards Parade. The men, horses and armoured cars participating in the ceremony on 27 May did so at no extra cost to the defence budget. The cost of transportation of troops to the ceremony was approximately £3,000.

  Shells (Uranium)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at which sites his Department has tested armour-piercing shells tipped with depleted uranium.

  Mr. Aitken
  Since the programme was first authorised and announced to the House,Official Report, 8 March 1979, cols. 777–78 and 25 January 1980, col 395, all United Kingdom depleted uranium firings, with the exception of a few small calibre rounds trialled at West Freugh in the late 1980s, have taken place at the Eskmeals and Kirkcudbright ranges. My Department has also test-fired DU armour-piercing shells at White Sands, New Mexico and Aberdeen proving ground, Maryland in the United States of America and at Gramat in France.

  Science and Technology
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will designate one of his Ministers to be responsible for his Department's contribution to the Government's science and technology "Forward Look."

  Mr. Aitken
  Paragraph 2.37 of the White Paper "Realising Our Potential—A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology" describes the preparation of the "Forward Look" by the Office of Science and Technology, and the participation of Government Departments through the existing, well-established machinery of the official and ministerial Cabinet Committees on Science and Technology.

  Near-Market Research
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's policy is with regard to the funding of near-market research.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 2.20 to 2.22 of the White Paper "Realising Our Potential—A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology".

  Belize
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration was given by his Ministry prior to the decision to withdraw British forces from Belize being taken, to basing Gurkha regiments being transferred from Hong Kong in Belize rather than the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hanley
  We have no current plans to increase the number of Gurkha battalions stationed in the United Kingdom as a result of the rundown of the Hong Kong garrison. A Gurkha infantry battalion from Hong Kong will, however, be deployed to Belize on a six-month tour in October.

  German Units (Repatriation)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those units due to be repatriated from Germany as a result of "Options for Change" that have not yet been found facilities in which to be based in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hanley
  Accommodation, in one case albeit only temporary, has been identified for all the units redeploying to the United Kingdom from Germany. In some cases the exact nature of unit and location has not yet been decided.

  Lumsden Road Estate, Portsmouth
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the sale price of the Lumsden Road estate, Portsmouth, to European Developments; and what was the net total value of the bid submitted by Swaything Housing Society and Portsmouth Housing Association taking into account the value of nominal rights given back to the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Hanley
  This information is commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the reasons for his decision to dispose of the Lumsden Road site in Portsmouth to European Developments; and what precautions he has taken to ensure that the land is made safe for future use.

  Mr. Hanley
  The marketing of the Lumsden Road site involved the full disclosure of the site's history to all potential purchasers. The decision was taken to sell to European Developments because it submitted the highest compliant bid. It is now a matter for European Developments and Portsmouth city council to ensure that the site is suitable for the purpose for which it will be used.

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the United Kingdom Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force bases that(a) have been made redundant and (b) are due to be made redundant as a result of "Options and Change".

  Mr. Hanley
  A list of the defence estate which has become, or could become, redundant as a consequence of the "Options for Change" is set out.

  Alternative defence uses are sought in all cases where an activity ends at a defence establishment and this search continues until the site is disposed of. It does not necessarily follow, therefore, that all the sites listed will be disposed of.

  RN Diesel Repair Depot Blackbrooke Farm

  HMS St Vincent (Furse House)

  Royal Navy Stores Depot Lathalmond

  HMS Daedalus

  Royal Navy Armaments Depot Trecwn

  Oil Fuel Depot Invergordon HMS Nelson Gunwharf

  Royal Navy Stores Depot Exeter (Top Site)

  HM Naval Base Portland

  Royal Navy Hospital Stonehouse

  Royal Navy Air Yard Wroughton

  HMS Royal Arthur

  Oil Fuel Depot Rosyth

  Royal Navy Stores Depot Copenacre—Closure of all underground storage

  648

  Uniake Barracks, Harrogate

  Richie Barracks, Kirknewton

  Kings Barracks, Kirkcudbright

  41 District Workshop Strensall

  Royal Artillery Barracks Woolwich

  Simpson Barracks Northampton

  Old Park Barracks, Dover

  Kitchener Barracks, Chatham

  Oakington Barracks

  Albermarle Barracks, Ouston

  Queen Elizabeth Barracks Strensall

  Sir John More Barracks Shorncliffe

  Gamecock Barracks, Bramcote

  Queen Elizabeth Barracks Guildford

  RAF Hospital Ely

  RAF Stanbridge

  RAF Harrogate

  RAF Swanton Morley

  RAF Hullavington

  RAF Swinderby

  RAF West Raynham

  RAF Church Fenton

  RAF Brawdy

  RAF Hospital Halton

  RAF Hereford

  Central Stores Depot Swanmore

  Proof and Experimental Establishment Inchterf

  Proof and Experimental Establishment Cold Meece

  Land Sales
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances, when disposing of publicly owned land, he will not accept the highest bid.

  Mr. Hanley
  When disposing of surplus property on the open market it is the Department's policy to accept the highest bid, provided that we are satisfied that the bidder is capable of honouring the conditions of the sale.

  Directorate General of Defence Accounts
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Directorate General of Defence Accounts for 1993–94.

  Mr. Hanley
  Under the terms of the agency's framework document, a range of revised targets for 1993–94 has been set which will ensure continuing improvements in the quality of service that the agency provides to its customers, as well as reflecting the continuing need to secure economies in defence spending.

  The targets for the period 1993–94 are:

  a. to complete the Agency's planned workload, as agreed with our customers, within the funds allocated for this purpose and to cope with any unforeseen requirements in the year;

  b. to maintain the Agency's quality of service as defined in the Service Level Agreements and secondary targets;

  c. to seek further efficiencies in the use of resources to the advantage of the Agency and its customers, thereby making efficiency savings of at least 1·5 per cent. of the total cash budget (excluding those savings arising directly from centrally managed efficiency measures);

  d. to compete for payroll work offered through the Government's Market Testing programme and to win all that is competed for;

  e. to carry out a study into the incidence of cost in the Agency so that fixed costs and variable costs are clearly and separately identifiable, with the further aim of reducing fixed costs.

WALES

  House Prices
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing(a) average house prices paid by all buyers, (b) percentage changes in cash prices in prices relative to the preceding year and (c) percentage changes in prices relative to the preceding year after allowing for the effects of retail price inflation in Wales in each year from 1979.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on average house prices for the years 1979 to 1991 is published in "Welsh Housing Statistics and Housing and Construction Statistics", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Health Authorities (Administration)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for the most recent year that figures are available(a) the percentage of total revenue expenditure on health services that each health authority spent on headquarters' administration and (b) the actual expenditure that each health authority spent on headquarters' administration.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The amount that each health authority spent on headquarters administration in 1991–92 together with its percentage share of total revenue expenditure was as follows:

  Expenditure on headquarters administration

  Expenditure on headquarters administration as a percentage of total revenue expenditure

  Health authority

  £ thousands

  Per cent.

  Clwyd

  2,581

  1·6

  East Dyfed

  2,997

  2·7

  Gwent

  1,557

  0·9

  Gwynedd

  2,050

  2·1

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,385

  1·1

  Pembrokeshire

  478

  1·1

  Powys

  1,955

  3·4

  South Glamorgan

  6,542

  3·1

  West Glamorgan

  2,036

  1·3

  Source: Summarised accounts of health authorities in Wales.

  Notes:

  (1) 1991–92 data is latest available.

  (2) The figure for expenditure on headquarters administration is taken to be that covering authority administration and purchasing expenses.

  (3) Excludes special health authorities (Welsh Health Common Services Authority and Health Promotion Authority for Wales) and family health services authorities which, by the nature of their functions, are not comparable with the above.

  GP Practices
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many single-handed general practitioner practices there are in Wales; and what is their average patient holding.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  At 1 October 1992 there were 126 single-handed general practitioner practices in Wales. The average list size for this type of practitioner was 2,015 as at 1 April 1992 (the latest date for which data are available).

  Health Authorities and Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) health authorities and (b) trusts were in existence on 1 April; and what is his forecast of the number on 1 April 1994.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There were nine health authorities, eight family health service authorities and 14 NHS trusts in Wales on 1 April 1993. The creation of further trusts will depend on decisions due to be made later this year, following public consultation on formal applications submitted for NHS trust status from April 1994.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to tackle unemployment in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Redwood
  It is the job of Government to create the right conditions in which business might thrive, and a wide range of measures designed to create a self-sustaining market economy and thereby help unemployed people find work is already in place. Our strategy for growth is bearing fruit with four consecutive monthly falls in unemployment.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many acute beds have been lost in Wales since 1979, expressed by number and as a percentage;

  (2) how many (a) hospital beds and (b) acute hospital beds there were in Wales in (i) 1979 and (ii) at the latest date for which figures are available; and what is (ii) as a percentage of (i);

  (3) how many hospital beds have been closed since 1979.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is as follows:

  Average daily beds in NHS hospitals

  Change

  1979

  1991–92

  Number

  Per cent.

  Acute beds1

  10,133·3

  8,834·7

  -1,298·6

  -12·8

  All hospital beds

  23,456·1

  18,640·3

  -4,815·8

  -20·5

  Acute beds as a percentage of all beds

  43·2

  47·4

  —

  —

  Inpatient cases treated

  349,695

  500,336

  150,641

  43·1

  1 Excludes geriatric, maternity, mental handicap and mental illness beds.

  Adoption and Fostering
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to encourage more people to become foster parents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Guidance has been given to local social services authorities on recruitment of foster parents at paragraphs 3.7–3.11 of volume 3, "Family Placements", in "The Children Act Guidance and Regulations" series (HMSO). A copy is in the Library of the House.

  Grant is given to the Wales Centre of the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering Organisation, one of whose activities is to run an annual "Find a Family" campaign in co-operation with local social services authorities.
  651
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children have been(a) adopted and (b) fostered in each year and in each county in Wales since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The total number of adoption orders made each year in England and Wales since 1979 is

  1. Number of children placed under private foster arrangements in Wales1

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glam

  Powys

  South Glam

  West Glam

  Wales

  1979

  21

  14

  3

  2

  22

  2

  30

  —

  94

  1980

  28

  10

  3

  4

  17

  29

  40

  1

  132

  1981

  24

  4

  3

  7

  19

  26

  17

  3

  103

  1982

  9

  4

  12

  6

  17

  4

  12

  3

  67

  1983

  15

  6

  13

  5

  21

  4

  14

  1

  79

  1984

  7

  6

  6

  5

  17

  2

  18

  2

  63

  1985

  8

  6

  9

  2

  13

  1

  15

  1

  55

  1986

  15

  6

  6

  6

  16

  1

  17

  —

  67

  1987

  12

  11

  8

  9

  13

  —

  16

  —

  69

  1988

  16

  4

  11

  14

  —

  1

  16

  —

  62

  1989

  18

  12

  6

  6

  1

  2

  11

  —

  56

  1990

  15

  6

  8

  5

  —

  6

  6

  —

  46

  1991

  15

  8

  5

  7

  1

  3

  4

  —

  43

  1 At 31 March each year.

  Data for 1979 and 1980 relates to children in foster homes supervised under the Children Act 1958.

  Data for 1981 onwards relates to private fostering arrangements supervised under the Foster Children Act 1980.

  2.Number of children in local authority foster care in Wales1

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Clwyd

  245

  269

  258

  245

  229

  219

  200

  227

  227

  224

  207

  220

  210

  Dyfed

  143

  146

  139

  155

  130

  134

  128

  128

  134

  151

  172

  175

  214

  Gwent

  292

  288

  278

  301

  308

  297

  291

  302

  307

  325

  323

  377

  341

  Gwynedd

  134

  134

  141

  166

  176

  179

  176

  181

  173

  173

  178

  162

  155

  Powys

  271

  310

  347

  372

  355

  363

  377

  389

  393

  386

  377

  423

  378

  Mid Glamorgan

  33

  33

  41

  50

  54

  44

  29

  30

  35

  35

  46

  36

  33

  South Glamorgan

  288

  307

  299

  306

  292

  303

  330

  354

  341

  352

  301

  306

  316

  West Glamorgan

  213

  222

  221

  228

  255

  258

  266

  280

  295

  326

  293

  295

  303

  Wales

  1,619

  1,709

  1,724

  1,823

  1,799

  1,797

  1,797

  1,891

  1,905

  1,972

  1,897

  1,994

  1,950

  1 At 31 March each year.

  Cardiac Centre
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to announce the establishment of a second cardiac centre in south Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The option appraisal dealing with cardiac services in south Wales has been completed and an announcement will be made very shortly.

  Timber
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much board feet of timber has been harvested from Welsh forests in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The volumes of timber harvested from Welsh forests since 1979 are shown in the following table, in thousands of cubic metres. The quantity of sawn wood produced from this timber would depend on the end-use and the efficiency of the conversion process, but each cubic metre is likely to produce about 220 board feet of sawnwood.
  652
  published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in its series FM2 "Marriage and Divorce Statistics" (HMSO). A copy is in the Library of the House.

  The following tables show the numbers of children entering fostering arrangements by country in Wales since 1979.

  Year

  Volume ('000 m3)

  1979

  560

  1980

  630

  1981

  680

  1982

  730

  1983

  760

  1984

  780

  1985

  840

  1986

  930

  1987

  960

  1988

  905

  1989

  925

  1990

  920

  1991

  975

  1992

  1,020

  Spine Cancer
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales died from cancer of the spine in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of deaths to residents of Wales where the underlying cause was cancer of the spine is not available separately. However, the number of deaths where the underlying cause was cancer of the vertebral column (main part of the spine), excluding sacrum and coccyx and the number of deaths where the
  653
  underlying cause was cancer of the pelvis and the lower part of the spine (pelvic bones, sacrum and coccyx) are given in the following table:

  Residents of Wales

  Main part of spine1

  Lower part of spine and pelvis2

  1987

  4

  4

  1988

  1

  2

  1989

  1

  3

  1990

  2

  3

  1991

  2

  3

  1992

  0

  2

  1 170.2.

  2 170. 6

  Source:

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  International Classification of Diseases (9th revision).

  Mature Students
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many mature students entered into full-time or part-time education in Wales for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The numbers of mature students who commenced full or part-time courses at maintained and grant-aided further and higher education colleges in Wales and at the University of Wales each year since 1981 are shown in the following table. Comprehensive information for earlier years is not available.

  Mature students1 entered first year of course2

  Year3

  Full-time4

  Part-time5

  1981

  5,500

  16,400

  1982

  5,400

  16,900

  1983

  5,200

  19,600

  1984

  5,200

  19,700

  1985

  5,500

  21,100

  1986

  5,800

  24,000

  1987

  5,800

  26,700

  1988

  5,900

  30,300

  1989

  6,900

  35,500

  1990

  7,900

  37,400

  1991

  10,600

  40,400

  1992

  not yet available

  1 Students aged 21 or over at at 31 August preceding the academic year except in the case of postgraduates where the age taken is 25 or over.

  2 All courses regardless of level and including those of a recreational nature.

  3 Student count at December for University of Wales, November for other colleges.

  4 Includes sandwich students.

  5 Includes part-time day, block release, evening only and open/distance learning.

  Sources:

  Further Education Student Record and Universities' Statistical Record.

  Investment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what work is currently undertaken by his Department to attract increased levels of investment into Wales by venture capital houses.

  Mr. Redwood
  Every encouragement is given to venture capital houses to increase their investment in Wales.654
  Through the financial services initiative and other means, my Department and the WDA have regular contact with providers of finance and their representative bodies, and all possible support is given for them to take advantage of the excellent investment opportunities available in Wales.

  Corporate Jets
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions his Department has had with potential bidders for Corporate Jets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  All such matters are commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit the Corporate Jets factory, Broughton, Clwyd.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no current plans to do so.

  Central Heating Grants
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from Maplewood avenue in Alyn and Deeside about the introduction of grants for the installation of central heating.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  South Llanelli
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what percentage of the total(a) receipts arising out of and (b) expenditure incurred on the development of south Llanelli has fallen to the Welsh Development Agency;

  (2) what has been the total (a) expenditure incurred and (b) receipts by the Welsh Development Agency in respect of its joint venture with Llanelli borough council for the development of south Llanelli.

  Mr. Redwood
  A provisional figure for WDA expenditure in respect of the re-development of south Llanelli up to the beginning of May 1993 is £14·1 million. Income due to the WDA for the same period is around £188,000. I am not in a position to advise on the borough council's income and expenditure as it is a matter for the local authority.

  Enterprise in Wales
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to designate 1994 as a year for enhancing enterprise in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  My policy is that every year is a year for enhancing enterprise in Wales.

  In the last 10 years, the number of self-employed people in Wales has risen by over a third.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to develop a Welsh enterprise foundation; and what efforts are currently undertaken by his Department to encourage an enterprise culture within Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department works closely with a range of bodies including the WDA, DBRW TECs, local
  655
  enterprise agencies, colleges and schools to promote enterprise in Wales. I am considering the Institute of Welsh Affairs' report "Wales 2010" including its proposal that the institute should act as the catalyst in establishing a Welsh enterprise foundation.

  Cancer
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cancer cases diagnosed among people living in Gwynedd were analysed by the various indentifiable categories of cancers for the latest available period; and if he will publish corresponding figures for five, 10, 15 and 20 years previously.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest available data on cancer registrations in Wales are for 1988 and are published at health authority level in table 9·03 of "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for Wales, No 19, 1992". Reliable data on cancer registrations in Wales are available only from 1974. Data for Gwynedd for 1974 to 1983 are contained in table 2·8 of "Cancer Registration in Wales: 1974–84". Data for 1984 to 1986 are contained in table 1 of "Cancer Registration in Wales: 1984–86". Each of the above publications is available from the Library of the House.

  Flu Vaccinations
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to encourage people in Wales to receive flu vaccinations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In September of each year the Chief Medical Officer reminds all doctors of those groups of patients for whom immunisation against influenza is recommended. Further details are given in the 1992 edition of the Memorandum "Immunisation Against Infectious Disease" which is issued to all doctors in Wales. Posters are also issued to family health services authorities and health authorities for display in surgeries and other relevant patient areas.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to tackle the problem of solvent abuse in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Initiatives in Wales to combat drug misuse, including solvent abuse, are undertaken locally by the health authorities and county councils. Nationally the Health Departments' anti-solvent campaign launched in February 1992 is still providing material to support the local campaigns.

  The prevention working group of the advisory council for the Misuse of Drugs is currently examining the whole area of volatile substance abuse and hopes to make recommendations during the course of next year.

  Tourism
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many recognised visitor attractions there are in Wales; and how many of them are located in Clwyd.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Wales tourist board knows of 421 tourist attractions in the Principality of which 53 are located in Clwyd. However there is no requirement for visitor attractions to be formally recognised.

  Research and Development
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what steps he is taking to improve the take up of grants and other incentives for research and development by small and medium enterprises;

  (2) what steps he is taking to improve the ease of access to innovation support programmes by small and medium sized enterprises.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office carries out a range of promotional activities, working with other bodies including the training and enterprise councils, the Welsh development agency, the Design Council and the Development Board for Rural Wales, to encourage small and medium sized companies in Wales to take advantage of the support available for research and development both from the United Kingdom Government and the European Commission.

  The climate for innovation and take-up of grants for research and development are encouraged through the work of local initiatives such as information technology Wales and the Welsh medical technology forum.

  In addition my officials are now working closely with the Welsh relay centre which will play a central role in ensuring the results emanating from the EC's framework research and development programme are used effectively, particularly by small and medium enterprises.

  In order to build effectively on these and other initiatives to encourage innovation, we are consulting on how best to improve access to and delivery of business services in Wales.

  Forward Look
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will designate one of his Ministers to be responsible for his Department's contribution to the Government's science and technology Forward Look.

  Mr. Redwood
  Paragraph 2.37 of the recent White Paper "Realising Our Potential—A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology" describes the preparation of the Forward Look by the Office of Science and Technology, and the participation of Government Departments through the existing, well-established machinery of the official and ministerial Cabinet Committees on Science and Technology.

  Near-market Research
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his Department's policy is with regard to the funding of near-market research.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraphs 2.20 to 2.22 of the White Paper "Realising Our Potential—A Strategy for Science, Engineering, and Technology".

  Incomes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) men and (b) women aged over 16 years have an income of less than £75 per week.

  Mr. Redwood
  Estimates from the "New Earnings Survey" and "Employees in Employment" at April 1992
  657
  are that, in Wales, 1,500 full-time male and 2,000 full-time female employees on adult rates had gross weekly earnings below £75 per week. Comprehensive information for part-time employees is not available.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales aged over 16 years who work(a) part-time and (b) full-time have an income of less than £75 per week.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is estimated from the "New Earnings Survey" and "Employees in Employment" at April 1992 that, in Wales, 3,500 full-time employees on adult rates had gross weekly earnings below £75. Comprehensive information for part-time employees is not available.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Viral Haemorrhagic Disease
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of viral haemorrhagic disease there were in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Soames
  Since 1985 there have been four recorded cases of viral haemorrhagic disease of rabbits in Great Britain, all of which occurred in 1992.

  Agriculture and Food Research Council
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she is taking to draw up a concordat of co-operation between her Department and the Agriculture and Food Research Council.

  Mr. Jack
  As the recent White Paper "Realising Our Potential—A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology" makes clear, a new system of research councils will come into effect on 1 April 1994. The Government have proposed that each of these new research councils should work with the Government Departments with which they have a significant policy connection to draw up and publish concordats.

  Near-market Research
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what her Department's policy is with regard to the funding of near-market research.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 2.20 to 2.22 of the White Paper "Realising our Potential—A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology".

  Science and Technology
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether she will designate one of her Ministers to be responsible for her Department's contribution to the Government's science and technology Forward Look.

  Mr. Jack
  Paragraph 2.37 of the recent White Paper "Realising Our Potential—A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology" describes the preparation of the Foward Look by the Office of Science and Technology, and the participation of Government Departments through the existing, well-established machinery of the official and ministerial Cabinet Committees on Science and Technology.

  Benomyl and Cardendazim
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what formulations related to Benomyl or Cardendazim have been withdrawn from the market over the last 12 years.

  Mr. Soames
  Formulations of pesticide products are commercially sensitive. However, two products containing benomyl and 53 products containing carbendazim have been withdrawn since 1981. The benomyl products were Benlate T and Polycote Pedigree 3.

  Those containing carbendazim were Derosal 50 per cent. WP, Kombat, Delsene Flowable, Delsene 75, Midox Carbendazim, Battal WP, Bolda, CME 10288, Cosmic, Konker, Bavistin M, Bavistin WG, Mastiff, Corbel Duo, Cosmic FL B, Cosmic FL C, Fisons Garden Disease Spray, Focal Flowable (00910), Focal Flowable (03927), Septal, Septal Flowable, Focal WDG, Starlate, Carbate, Bio One-Shot for Diseases, Multi W, Multi W Flowable, Systemic Fungicide (carbendazim), Gammalex Liquid, Mystic Systemic Garden Fungicide, Mystic General Garden Insecticide/Fungicide, Chafer Carbendazim 511, Headland Suppress Plus, Tripart Defensor WP, Hispor 225L, Mantle 370 FW, Clifton Carbendazim, H115, DKB Tecnazene/Carbendazim Dust, Ashlade Carbonil, Ashlade M, Cosmic FL A, Ashlade Carbendazim Flowable, Ashlade Mancarb FL, Delsene M Flowable, Compo Carbendazim, Maximate, Sheen 362 SW, Arena Plus, Ashlade Mancarb Plus, Murphy Zap Cap Vegetable Care, 200 Plus and Bayfidan BM.

  In all cases the products were withdrawn or approval allowed to lapse because of commercial considerations.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what labelling arrangements apply to the use of Benomyl-related products indicating whether precautions should be used by pregnant women.

  Mr. Soames
  All pesticide products, including those containing benomyl and related active ingredients, are approved on the advice of the independent advisory committee on pesticides, only if the Government are satisfied that they can be used without risk to the public—whether users, consumers of treated produce, or those in the vicinity of the spraying operations. Labelling arrangements are covered by the approvals process and labels of benomyl products include warning to keep off skin, to wash after use and, for the home garden product, to store away from children. They do not include specific precautions to be taken by pregnant women.

  Clenbuterol
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 30, if she will make a statement on the abuse of clenbuterol outside Great Britain.

  Mr. Soames
  I am aware of reports from other member states which allege that clenbuterol is being used illegally for growth promotion purposes. Ministers spoke to their counterparts in the Irish and Belgian Governments about these reports at the time and received assurances that every effort was being made to stamp out the misuse of this substance. The authorities concerned can be confident of our full support in their efforts to this end.
  659
  Nevertheless surveillance for clenbuterol in imported meat has been increased this year as indicated in my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) on 2 March 1993 at columns 78–9.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the number of recorded incidents of clenbuterol abuse in each EC member state for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Soames
  In the United Kingdom over the past three years, 1,780 random samples taken under the national surveillance scheme from cattle, sheep and pigs have been analysed for the presence of clenbuterol. No positives have been found under this scheme for clenbuterol in Great Britain, but as indicated in my reply to the Member for Glandford and Scunthorpe on 7 June (Official Report, column 29–30), two clenbuterol positive samples were reported in 1992 from samples taken under the separate arrangements directed at retail and wholesale premises.

  In Northern Ireland three positives were found in 1991 (two in 1992) under the national surveillance scheme random sampling arrangements. In addition under intensive meat sampling procedures which have operated in Northern Ireland since 1991, and which are capable of detecting residue traces up to 120 days after administration has ceased, 965 suspect animals were detained and tested in 1991 (1,482 in 1992) of which 68 were found positive (112 in 1992) involving 28 producers (32 in 1992) out of a total of 36,000 producer herds. All levels detected were below the maximum residue level and thus presented no risk to human health. Nevertheless all carcases were condemned as the drug was used in unlicensed form.

  I regret that comparable information from other member states is not available from the EC Commission.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many incidents of clenbuterol abuse in meat imported into Britain from non-EC countries were recorded in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Soames
  Ongoing surveillance in Great Britain for clenbuterol in imported meat is carried out under a scheme, co-ordinated by the working party on veterinary residues in animal products, which is directed at retail and wholesale premises. All of the samples taken under the scheme since it was established in January 1990, from meat imported into Britain from non-EC countries and tested for the presence of clenbuterol, have proved to be negative.

  Benlate DF
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what imports have taken place into the United Kingdom of Benlate DF over the last 12 years.

  Mr. Soames
  We have no record of any imports of Benlate DF.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the names of those persons who sit on the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and their sponsoring or employing organisations.
  660
  Mr. Soames
  The members of the advisory committee on pesticides and their sponsoring or employing organisations are as follows:

  Chairman

  Professor Sir Colin Berry:—DSc, MD, PhD, FRCPath, FFPM, Professor of Morbid Anatomy, Consultant in Histopathology and Director of the Pathological Institute at the Royal London Hospital.

  Deputy Chairman

  Professor Geoffrey Sagar:—CBE, BA, MA, DPhil(Oxon), Professor of Agricultural Botany and Vice Principal of the University College of North Wales.

  Independent Members

  Dr. Andree Carter
  —BSc, MlSoilSci, MIWEM, Principal Research Scientist and Laboratory Manager, Soil Survey and Land Research Centre, Cranfield Institute of Technology.

  Professor Nicola Cherry:—BSc, MSc, MPhil, PhD, MD, Senior Lecturer, Centre for Occupational Health, University of Manchester.

  Professor Anthony Dayan:—BSc(Hons), MD. FRCP, FRCPath, FFPM, FIBiol, Professor of the DH Toxicology Laboratory, St. Bartholomews Hospital Medical College, University of London.

  Professor Gareth Jones:—BSc, MSc, PhD, DSc, MIBiol, FhS, Professor of Microbiology and Director of Research, Portsmouth University.

  Mr. John Leahy:—MA, CChem, MRSC, General Manager of Severn Trent Laboratories.

  Professor Donald Lee:—BSc, PhD, FIBiol, FRSA, Professor of Agricultural Zoology, University of Leeds.

  Dr. Alexander Proudfoot:—BSc(Hons), MB, ChB, FRCPE, Consultant Physician, Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and Director of the Scottish Poisons Information Bureau.

  Mr. Roger Tayler:—BSc(Agric), Postgrad Dip Agric (Reading), NDA, CBiol, MIBiol, Senior Tutor in the Faculty of Agriculture and Food and Senior Lecturer in Crop Production, Department of Agriculture, University of Reading.

  Professor Paul Webster:—BSc, PhD, FBIM, FRSA, Head of Department, Department of Agricultural Economics, Wye College, University of London, Ashford, Kent.

  Members are reminded at the start of every committee meeting of the necessity for them to disclose any interests they may have (personal or nonpersonal, specific or non-specific) or financial in any item under discussion. Members with interests may only participate in so far as the chairman will allow by way of answering questions.

  THORP
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to the public responses received by 23 January in response to draft discharge authorisations for the BNFL thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield; and how many were(a) against and (b) in favour of granting such authorisation.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend is currently considering a report on the representations received in response to consultation on draft radioactive discharge authorisations for BNFL Sellafield. 64,514 responses were against issuing the authorisations as drafted and 19,217 were in favour of granting them.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions she has had with, and what representations she has received from, senior management at BNFL on draft authorisations for BNFL's thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  In dealing with this matter the Minister and the chief inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of
  661
  pollution act jointly under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 in regulating radioactive discharges from sites licensed under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. They have therefore received detailed applications from BNFL for new radioactive discharge authorisations for Sellafield, including THORP. BNFL has since written to emphasise the commercial importance it attaches to reaching a decision on the draft discharge authorisations 'without undue delay.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the application from BNFL 662
  for authorisation for proposed new radioactive discharge limits from the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield fulfils the requirements of environmental assessment; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The information supplied by BNFL in support of its application for new radioactive discharge authorisations for Sellafield, including the thermal oxide reprocessing plant, has been sufficient for the purposes of the radiological assessments carried out by this Department.

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

M.4 Widening
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to announce details of their proposal to widen the M.4 between junctions 5 and 12.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport hopes to start public consultation for the improvement of the motorway later this year.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that many people whose homes are likely to be affected by road widening have been completely unsettled by the delay in consultation? Is he further aware that widening the M.4 to eight lanes and in part to 14 lanes will cause enormous traffic difficulties to an area which is already over-trafficked? By not widening the area the Government could save a great deal of the £25,000 million which is being spent on road improvements.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government are aware of the concerns of local people about the start of public consultation and are sympathetic to them. However, careful development takes time and the proposals are not quite ready for consultation. The need for relief of congestion is already urgent on some parts of the M.4.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware of what the Secretary of State for Transport said when he opened the beginning of the new Severn Bridge? He said that the M.4 would double its present capacity. The thought of that is quite terrifying and, as the Financial Times said, we are reaching the stage when the area around London will become a huge tarmacadam desert.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, improving the M.4 will relieve the congestion and prevent traffic diverting onto unsuitable local roads, thus avoiding adverse environmental impact on communities.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does not the noble Viscount agree that the widening of the M.4, to cater for what is only a limited number of hours per day, is a waste of money which could be spent on alternative forms of transport, particularly public transport? It will attract more traffic into an area which already has great difficulty in dealing with present traffic flows.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the proposals are based on existing need and traffic flow forecasts. To do
1560
nothing would lead to increased congestion which would be bad for the environment as well as the economy.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, will my noble friend give the House an assurance that, when and if the work begins, the disturbance to those of us who have to continue to use the motorway while the work takes place will be kept to the minimum?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we aim to find techniques that will limit disruption. It will also include, where appropriate, major maintenance within the widening to avoid two bites at the cherry.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, in his statement the Minister said that widening of the motorway will help to prevent congestion; but what is he going to do about the congestion that will arise from the traffic pouring from the motorway into central London?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the M.4 is a strategic trunk motorway connecting London with the West. The demand for it is shown by the levels of congestion. It is needed and the only appropriate course of action is to improve the route so as to improve the congestion on the motorway itself.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I asked the noble Viscount what he intended to do about the congestion arising from the traffic that pours off the motorway.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, if people want to come into London there is not much that we can do to prevent them.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, but it is not always wise to assist them, is it?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, existing congestion is extremely serious. It badly affects people's convenience, the economy and the environment. Something needs to be done to relieve it.

Belize: British Presence
2.41 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the renewed political uncertainty in Guatemala, they will reconsider their decision to withdraw the British presence in Belize.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we have no plans to alter our decision gradually to reduce the British military presence in Belize. We are glad that constitutional rule has been restored in neighbouring Guatemala.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the decision to withdraw from Belize was based on the fact that President Serrano of Guatemala recognised Belize for the first time in a history of over 100 years? Since then he has escaped to Mexico or Panama and there have been three presidents in one

1561
week in Guatemala. Does not that indicate a degree of instability? In that volatile situation, should not the people of Belize—total population 180,000—have some protection from the possible invasion by Guatemala with a population of 9 million?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's anxieties but I would refer him to the statement made by the Belizean Prime Minister, George Price, on 17th May, which in full—I can put it in the Library or send it to the noble Lord—expresses very clearly Belizean acceptance of our decision and the way in which it is being done. The Belizean Government have accepted our plans. George Price described them as inevitable. But we can take heart from the resolution of the crisis in Guatemala with the election of the former Human Rights Ombudsman, Ramiro de Leon Carpio, as president. That seems to us to be a very stabilising matter for Guatemala and will help relations between Guatemala and Belize.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how easy it would be to send troops to support Belize if necessary; and would those troops be fully jungle trained, which I think would be necessary?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it would depend entirely on when it would be necessary to send troops. We hope that it will not be. Certainly the 100 or so British troops who remain in Belize would be jungle trained and those who go there on rotation would have similar training. We plan to continue the programme of assistance to the Belize defence force. I do not believe that the changes that we announced last month in this House and in another place in any way lessen our support for Belize or our ability, should it be necessary, to take troops in there speedily. But I do not believe that it will necessarily be necessary.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that recently a delegation from the United Kingdom branch of the CPA went to Belize and met representatives of the army? In view of the present disturbed situation in Guatemala, which is likely to continue, would it not be in the best interests of the United Kingdom for British troops to remain there?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that stage has now passed. We recognise that there was the territorial dispute between Belize and Guatemala, but I believe that that will be brought to a full and final settlement in due course. I see no reason why the decision which we took should affect the continuing improvement of relations. I hope, too, that, though the military threat may be said to remain, the new government in Guatemala under the new president will honour the commitment to a peaceful settlement of differences. They show every sign of doing so at the present time.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is not just jungle training that is of great value to our troops but stability in that area? Any instability could accentuate the dangers from the drugs trade which travels up the isthmus into the
1562
United States and from there all over the world. We are making a very valuable contribution, but does this not show that we have already cut our forces too far? Could not the Government negotiate with the United States which has a great interest in stopping the drugs trade? Perhaps the United States could make a financial contribution or some other contribution so that we can remain and help steady and stabilise the area.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, with due respect to my noble friend, I do not see that there is a need to go back on our decision. We have the closest possible liaison with the United States Drug Enforcement Agency. We work with it not only on the mainland, through Belize and Guatemala; we also work with it on the Caribbean islands and in the north of South America itself. We shall continue to take every opportunity that we can to interdict drug traders and bring them before the law in co-operation with all the other powers working in the area.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there are some on this side who warmly welcome the new constitutional president and the new hope that this will bring to the stability of the area? Is she further aware that if she had announced a different decision about Belize it might have been gravely misunderstood in Guatemala which has for so many years suffered a very disturbed and insecure situation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: For once, my Lords, the noble Lord and I are in very great agreement on this matter. When the Belizean Prime Minister, George Price, was in London a week ago he met the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and my colleague in another place, Mr. Heathcoat-Amory. He was given reassurance of our continued support. He will get that. But it is not necessary to continue to garrison so many men in Belize in order that Belize has the support which it already has and which it will continue to have.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the straitened circumstances in which the Ministry of Defence, and, for that matter, Her Majesty's Government generally, now find themselves, it really is important that we do not deploy our forces, as we do in Belize, except to those places where there is a significant United Kingdom interest, which, to say the least, is somewhat slender in Belize, despite the important and relevant points which have been made this afternoon? Will she therefore understand that the decision to withdraw, or at least to slim down, our garrison in Belize is to some of us very welcome?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. But I do ask your Lordships to remember that we are not abandoning Belize in any sense. We are making a sensible and fitting response to the changed circumstances that now exist.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Baroness realise that there is considerable support for the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne? At a time when we are running a deficit of £50 billion and

1563
our Army is desperately overstretched, should we not be grateful that we can withdraw troops from Belize knowing that under the Monroe Doctrine the United States would, if there was great trouble, no doubt intervene?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan. He is absolutely right in what he says. But we seek to continue to work closely with the United States, not only as regards defence issues, but also in the all-important drug enforcement area of which we spoke a little earlier.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Ennals, I was delighted to hear the Minister welcoming the presidential appointment of the former Human Rights Ombudsman in Guatemala to the presidency. Can she tell the House what plans the Government have for contact with the new regime there? Can she say how the UK Government might support the new president in his transparent aims to establish a stable democracy in Guatemala, particularly as regards an aid and development programme?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, perhaps I may first point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that Ramiro de Leon Carpio was elected and not appointed. That is very important as we go around trying to encourage democratic processes in the world. Secondly, given that he was elected only on 5th June it is a little early for me to describe any distinct plans to assist. Given that the political crisis seems to be finally resolved by constitutional means, we shall be able to look at what we can most appropriately do, but always remembering that in Guatemala it is for that government, together with its neighbours, to tackle its own problems and to be assisted by us in whatever small ways we can. As my noble friends said earlier, it is not an area of main concern for this country.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, in view of the contribution which British forces make to the economy of Belize, does the Minister agree that withdrawal will have serious effects on its economy? Can I have an assurance from the Minister that her ODA budget will provide some kind of compensation for that withdrawal? While we all welcome the election of the new president of Guatemala, does the Minister agree that that country has presidents who come and go and that the army is the element in Guatemala which will probably determine what direction that country takes?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot speculate on what may or may not happen in future. I simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that there have been wildly varying estimates about the effect of the running down of the garrison in Belize. I do not believe that the effects will be as significant as they have been written up. We shall continue to take into account the economic impact of the changes when we consider the level of our bilateral aid to Belize.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that the withdrawal of our troops from Belize is supported by the United States Government?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, at this moment I cannot. I shall look into what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has asked and I shall write to him.

Organophosphate Sheep Dips
2.53 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What practical support and advice are being provided by the National Health Service to patients suffering the chronic effects of exposure to organophosphates used in sheep dips and to their general practitioners and consultants.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Government's Chief Medical Officer wrote in 1991 to all doctors in the United Kingdom alerting them to the schemes in operation for reporting incidents of exposures to pesticides and to certain veterinary medicines such as sheep dips. The letter further advised them that advice on poisoning was available from the Employment Medical Advisory Service and the Department of Health book, Pesticide Poisoning: Notes for the guidance of medical practitioners.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Is she aware that while GPs may ask patients about enzootic diseases, they very rarely think of chemicals? That is my own experience as well as that of a great many other people. Is the Minister further aware that because they do not look at the signs and symptoms of organophosphate poisoning, many patients are being mistreated? Particularly if they display psychological signs, they are put into mental hospitals. In one case a young man was locked up for two years, given electrical treatment and then, when it was discovered that he was suffering from organophosphate poisoning, he was discharged with absolutely no support. That is happening over and over again. Is the Minister aware in addition that such an event happened to a 12 year-old boy just a few months ago and he was told that he was shamming? It is a very distressful situation for people suffering from organophosphate poisoning. Please can the Minister do as much as she can to alert the medical profession to the problems?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government have sympathy with the view expressed by the noble Countess. The Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Executive of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate together are going to write to all doctors (which includes GPs and consultants working in the NHS and the private sector) to draw their attention to the potential hazards.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that support and advice may be required for those noble Lords who are beginning to show symptoms and signs of repeated exposure to these questions on sheep dip?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Countess has fought a vigorous and determined campaign. I believe that it is producing results.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us do not regard poisoning by organophosphates as a laughing matter? Is she further aware of the scientific opinion that the dipping of sheep with organophosphates has brought us no nearer to the eradication of sheep scab than when the compulsory dipping began in 1973? If that is the case, can the Minister say why farmers and farm workers are still being exposed to these extremely dangerous substances instead of using other less toxic materials?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, an enormous amount of research is being undertaken at this moment on the subject by the London Poisons Unit, the West Midlands Poisons Unit, the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh, the Institute of Occupational Health in Birmingham and the Health and Safety Executive Field Consultant Group, which is doing some fieldwork on the subject. In addition, Professor Peter Blain, Dr. Martin Johnston and Dr. Huw Rees are examining this subject with further research. All this research is due to come to the Government within the year, or at least within the next two or three years. When we know the results of that research we shall want to take definite action.
Lord Carter: My Lords, would it not be sensible to ban the use of these materials until the results of this research are available?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is important that any action which the Government take is based on solid research. As I have said, some of that research is coming to fruition by the autumn and then the results will be considered.

Sea Fishing: Limits
3.57 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a limit of 80 days at sea each year for fishing vessels will conserve fish stocks; and what effect such a limit will have on fishermen's livelihoods.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the Government are not proposing a limit of 80 days at sea. Some fishermen have indeed been given a minimum provisional allocation of 80 days, but they have been encouraged to apply for additional days to reflect their actual time at sea in 1991. We must conserve fish stocks to safeguard fishermen's livelihoods, and effort control will contribute to this important objective.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. I believe I am correct in saying that 80 days, or 160 half-days, was in the provisional allocation. Can my noble friend say why that figure was specifically chosen? Such an aggressive figure was hardly likely to achieve the co-operation of the fishermen because the viability of their boats would be in danger. Will my noble friend consider whether the conservation policy would be better served by reducing the capacity of the fleet by a more wide-ranging commissioning and decommissioning policy than that which the Government are at present adopting?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the aim behind the 160 half-day minimum allocation was to provide a basic entitlement to all fishermen, but without leaving too much slack since that would be a threat to conservation, including conservation of non-quota stocks. However, I stress that it is only a minimum and that all fishermen can bid for more. As regards my noble friend's second question, we plan to spend £25 million to complement the days-at-sea regime. The scheme has now been made and laid before Parliament. I also ask my noble friend to accept that decommissioning alone will not guarantee a conservation result whatever the size of the scheme.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that our fishermen really feel that they are getting a raw deal from this Government, and hence have organised the port blockades? Is he further aware that as regards sea-time restrictions, this Government are treating our fishermen worse than any other Common Market government are treating their fishermen? Further, is it not the fact that the Sea Fish Industry Authority estimates that there will be cuts in individual earnings of £1,500 per year? What compensation will be forthcoming? What is the possibility of a better, more financially attractive, decommissioning scheme? Finally, the £25 million which the Minster has mentioned is to be spread over three years, whereas the French Government have spent £25 million in the past 12 months to help their fishermen.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my right honourable friend Mrs. Shephard recently met the NFFO, and she hopes to meet the Scottish fishermen in due course. In her discussions, there was agreement on the need for the conservation of stocks, and we agreed to look at the anxieties which were expressed. It was a useful meeting. My honourable friend Mr. Jack will be meeting fishermen tomorrow in Brixham, and the Government will be interested to hear their views and suggestions. The noble Lord compared our situation with that of other member states. Perhaps I may point out that we are still at the very beginning of a four-year programme. The United Kingdom does not yet have restrictions in place; and other member states are in the same position, except for the Dutch who already have a time-at-sea regime. As to the effect on fishermen's livelihoods, the restrictions on days at sea will not affect the ability of fishermen to catch their

1567
quotas and should not therefore have an effect on their livelihoods. Fishermen will be able to fish at least as much as they did in 1991.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us how many fishing days other EC countries are allowed to have?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I have just mentioned, the Dutch have a days-at-sea regime. That scheme is particular to that country. One cannot generalise about the number of days at sea because I understand that each vessel has its own allocation. If I am wrong in that, I shall write to my noble friend. It remains to be seen whether other member states also adopt such a regime; but it is our view that they will be obliged to do so.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that these severe restrictions have been imposed not because of over-fishing of British waters by British fishermen, but because of over-fishing by foreign fishermen? Would he not also agree that he is being rather complacent about the effect on our fishermen and their attitude towards the scheme, bearing in mind that for the first time ever British fishermen have blockaded ports and occupied a government building? Finally, will the noble Earl, and other noble Lords who are interested in this matter, note that I have a Motion on the Order Paper which I hope the Chief Whip will give me time to debate? All those who are interested will be welcome to participate in that debate.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we take fishermen's anxieties seriously, which is why my right honourable friend has recently had a meeting with fishermen's organisations. Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord that by far the most significant area for key stocks of haddock and cod is the North Sea; and the United Kingdom has around 70 per cent. of the total haddock quota and about 40 per cent. of the total cod quota in that area. It really is up to us to implement our own measures to conserve those stocks in our own interests.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the fishermen's quota; but would he agree that the critical point for fishermen is the amount of the quota? If 80 days at sea is sufficient for them to catch their quota, that is more or less fair; but if it is not, it is grossly unfair. Is the amount that fishermen at different ports can catch in 80 days in relation to their quota taken into account when they apply for extra days at sea?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I stress to my noble friend that the 80-day figure is only a provisional allocation. We are encouraging fishermen to submit evidence if they feel that it is an inadequate allocation in relation to the time that they spent at sea in 1991. Any reasonable evidence which a fisherman considers supports his claim will be given careful consideration. It is our intention to be as flexible as we can without of course leaving too much room for abuse.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Earl give us some of the comparative figures for which he was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange? Are our figures average? Are we less than average or more than average? The noble Earl should be able to say that.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I must emphasise that even member states which are achieving reductions by decommissioning will be required to limit overall fishing effort. Only the Dutch have so far implemented a scheme, so I cannot be more precise.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that the fishermen of other member countries are sticking to their quotas?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lady with an answer on that question.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government have confirmed that the fishing records for 1991 are incomplete although those are the records on which the number of tie-up days is supposed to be based? As the Minister said, fishermen are now required to make an individual case for an increase in allocation; but if the records are incomplete, what evidence will the Government use to decide whether fishermen should have an increase in their allocations?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have said that we shall accept any reasonable evidence—for example, port or harbour logs kept by Her Majesty's coastguards; voluntary returns to sea fisheries committees or to MAFF; business plans to banks or in support of grant applications; or business records of any kind, including sales notes or even fuel bills.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, would the Minister like to assure the House that when he said that the number of days at sea would enable fishermen adequately to catch their quotas, that will not involve fishermen taking excessive risks by going out in bad weather and staying out for 24 hours out of 24?
Earl Howe: My Lords, there will be no restrictions on when days at sea may be used, so fishermen will be free to manage their time at sea and will not be forced to go out in dangerous conditions.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to inform the House that the Unstarred Question standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull will not be taken this afternoon.

Dawat-e-Hadiyah Bill (formerly Dawat-e- Hadiyah (England) Bill)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Elton: My Lords, on Second Reading I drew your Lordships' attention to the unusual nature of this piece of legislation and to the possibly unprecedented language in which it was expressed. My concern was with the theological assertions contained in the language which might not be understood or subscribed to by other than the members of the denomination of Islam known as the Dawoodi Bohra community, who stand to benefit from the legislation. Since I said that your Lordships would want to look at this on Third Reading, I intervene now only to thank the committee for removing the features of the Bill which caused me that concern. I have no further objection to it.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am naturally extremely grateful to the noble Lord. He was anxious about the Bill and we ensured that he received all possible information about it. We have amended it extremely heavily in the Unopposed Bill Committee, and I hope that it is now in the good shape in which he finds it to be.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I do not want to waste the time of the House by pettifogging, and I am sorry that I came across the points that I wished to raise only at lunch-time today. I apologise to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for the short notice that I have given him about my questions.
First, is the individual named Dr. Burhanuddin—I cannot pronounce it—a British subject, and can a non-British subject promote a Bill? That is my first question. The second relates to the semantic distinction between meaning and naming. A name does not mean anything; it just identifies a person. It is a proper noun. However, a compound noun—that is, the title of something such as the Institute of Cancer Research—not only identifies an individual but also means something, so that if the institute started breeding racehorses instead of doing cancer research, the courts could take notice of the name of that organisation as part of its meaning and decide whether its directors (or whatever) had behaved ultra vires. I am a bit concerned that we do not have any kind of interpretation clause in the Bill, so that compound names (which I cannot pronounce) which may mean something in Arabic have an official translation into English which would in case of need allow the courts to interpret what they mean.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl is having a problem with the Bill. I had hoped that the preamble adequately explained the unpronounceable—I have to agree with the noble Earl—and possibly incomprehensible names. Dr. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin is obviously an individual. The next name that presents complications is Dai al-Mutlaq. That is the office. I suppose that I should be in deep trouble with the Bishops' Bench if I were to try to translate that into an equivalent in the established Church of this country.
1570
The next name, Dawat-e-Hadiyah, is that of the mission. The final name that may present difficulties is the Dawoodi Bohra Community. I do not believe that any further explanations would greatly assist the courts. This is a simple, straightforward Bill designed only to cause the holder of the office to be a corporation sole. I hope that the noble Earl will be satisfied with that explanation.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I have made the point. I do not wish to pursue it further.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

The Countryside
3.11 p.m.
Lord Middleton Lord Middleton rose to call attention to changes in the countryside and to the part played by organisations connected with the countryside; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying how pleased I am to see that the noble Earl, Lord Spencer, and the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, are taking part in the debate, and how much I look forward to hearing them speak for the first time in the House.
Rather more than two years ago, I presented to your Lordships the report of the European Communities Committee entitled The Future of Rural Society. That followed our inquiry into a European Commission paper with the same title. The subsequent debate concentrated on identifying policies for sustaining the economies of the rural areas, especially in the UK. Because little has changed since then —if anything the problems have become worse—I shall try to avoid covering the same ground, and to focus on administration of the countryside.
In the foreword to the consultation document Agriculture and England's Environment which the Minister of Agriculture issued this spring he wrote this:
"The English countryside is one of our great national treasures. Its character, landscape and wildlife have been shaped by farmers who have for generations cared for the land.
"Today farming still accounts for over three-quarters of England's total area and farming practices are crucial to the well-being of the rural environment, our countryside."
I could add that farming practices are also crucial to the economical production and marketing of food.
I suppose that techniques have evolved more rapidly during the 47 years in which I have been involved in farming than in any comparable period, and those have changed the face of the countryside in a way not seen since the planting of hedges under the Enclosure Acts 150 to 200 years ago—hedges that, in some cases, have been removed again to make bigger fields to accommodate modern machinery.
If, however, one travels anywhere west of a line from, say, Scarborough to Southampton, the

1571
countryside is very much the same as it was 50 years ago except for urban and motorway encroachment. The public, however, perceive farmers as destroyers of the countryside and of nature; so it has become politically necessary in the European Community as well as in the UK to exert more and more control over farming practices. The use of stick and carrot to regulate farming practices is not new—stick in the form of legislation, regulation, by-laws, restrictions, guidelines and so on; carrot in the shape of grants and payments of various kinds.
What I should like to suggest to your Lordships is that while every measure (whether it be a constraint or an incentive) can on its own be amply justified, yet the sheer number of them, issuing from a diversity of local government, central government and government-funded bodies, is creating a very complicated bureaucratic system which is beginning to divert farmers away from their primary role as food producers.
There is legislation which applies to all businesses. In addition, for agriculture there is legislation, accepted by farmers as necessary, to prevent mischief of all kinds arising from new technology. There are strict health and safety rules covering the use and construction of farm buildings, plant and machinery, chemicals, the handling of livestock and the working conditions of farm staff. Those are enforced by the Health and Safety Commission and its officers. There are regulations for the composition of feedstuffs and of chemicals. There are rigorous regulations for the disposal of dead stock. There are anti-pollution measures, and rightly so, designed mainly to keep out of our watercourses the residues from intensive livestock farming. These are monitored and enforced by the NRA. Farmers may not pollute the air by burning straw.
Local authorities exert planning control over farm buildings and those are very much tighter in national parks. Local authorities too are responsible for public rights of way over farm land and for enforcing footpath legislation. Long distance footpaths are set up, however, by the Countryside Commission which has an overall responsibility over public access. The successor bodies to what was the NCC, create and enforce the protection of 3,700 SSSIs and 140 nature reserves in England alone. Most wild animals and birds are protected by law, including badgers which have more protective legislation than do our children. The DOE has designated 23 per cent. of the land of England as areas of outstanding natural beauty. That imposes certain constraints on farming activity in those areas.
The DOE is the parent ministry for English Heritage, which designates and supervises the protection of ancient monuments and archaeological sites. The estate which I and my son manage has no fewer than 43 scheduled ancient monuments. Many of those can only be detected from the air, but woe betide us if we interfere with one, even if we are unable to see it. DOE sees to the listing of some 800,000 buildings for their better protection but, with only a few exceptions, at the expense of, and with little regard to the financial imposition on their owners. No one can
1572
quarrel with the principle of preserving our architectural heritage, but there are anomalies and there is no system of appeal when they occur.
The NRA supervises the quality of the water supplied by the many private water supplies, mostly spring fed, which exist in the remoter areas. It is right that the public should be protected from pollution in water, but what constitutes pollution is a matter not wholly agreed between the Commission and the UK. We now have the EC nitrate directive. Sub-committee "D" inquired into nitrates in water in 1989 and reported to this House. I shall not repeat the European Select Committee's strong reservations and criticism of EC water policy, but farming practice in many areas of England is likely to be constrained to comply with European legislation. Moreover, that was based on inadequate scientific advice that in some respects is not endorsed by our own scientists who are expert in this field.
You may not cut down trees in the countryside without permission; neither can you plant them. I shall return shortly to the question of forestry. The camel's back was thus well-loaded before the huge amount of paperwork required to be done this spring for MAFF to ensure that CAP support and subsidies are correctly allocated. Every piece of land, if it is to get CAP support has had to be recorded and mapped to an accuracy of two decimal points of a hectare. This is an exercise which has had no equivalent in depth and complexity since the compiling of the Doomsday Book. It has been extremely time-consuming for farmers.
In addition to the recording of arable land, a similar exercise is required for land to be grazed by beef cattle. Furthermore, in order to receive the not particularly generous beef support payments, every male beef animal has to have a cattle identification document which comes in three different colours and follows the animal for the rest of its life. The enormity of the task of checking hundreds of animals and hundreds of forms at a busy cattle market can be imagined. What happens to all the bits of paper when the animal is dead I cannot guess.
I doubt whether any backs will be broken by this additional load except perhaps those of the unfortunate MAFF officials who have to administer it. British farmers see it as necessary if taxpayers' money is not to be misapplied or, indeed, misappropriated. They do, however, have grave doubts about any comparable administrative rigour in some member states. Are they to believe that equally demanding procedures and documentation will be performed in Greece, Portugal, France, and Italy?
I have an Italian friend; a landowner and a benevolent one at that. Even for him to visit some of his estates in Italy and Sicily in person would be extremely hazardous. One can imagine the fate of a zealous Italian bureaucrat attempting to record the details of land-holdings required by the Commission, let alone enforce the new CAP rules. I am told, though I do not know whether it is true, that Spanish farmers are not allowed maps lest the security of the state be endangered.
Those, then, are some of the restrictive measures and some of the procedures now imposed upon farmers. One might perhaps be led to conclude that, while land nationalisation may now be off the political agenda, the nationalisation of land use has taken its place. The incentives—welcome as they are—are multifarious and from diverse sources. MAFF makes payments to farmers in environmentally sensitive areas and in nitrate sensitive areas. It operates a farm woodland premium scheme. English Nature makes payments to farmers for SSSI management. The Countryside Commission operates a countryside stewardship scheme, which I believe to be wholly beneficial, and it pays out incentives towards tree planting and new hedgerows. MAFF also operates the HLCAs, which supplement the incomes of hill farmers, without which the uplands, much of which are of great natural beauty, would be abandoned and uncared for. The Rural Development Commission makes grants towards conversion of redundant farm buildings. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth has to say.
I can applaud the policy objectives behind all these incentive schemes; including the seven new ones recently announced by MAFF in response to the EC Agri-Environmental Directive. Yet taken together with all the controls and restraints, some of which I have described, the whole package must warrant close examination so that some kind of order can be produced from what seems to me to be a growing administrative ragbag.
I return to forestry to illustrate my point. If nothing else is done we must have a sensible forestry policy in this country. The Government's fiscal policy is working directly against their countryside policy so far as trees are concerned. I believe that a reversal of the last Administration's changes in tax treatment for woodlands would do far more to encourage planting and the maintenance of trees—at any rate in lowland Britain—than the meagre grant aid now available through the Forestry Commission.
From neither a policy nor an administrative point of view can it be efficient to have five different bodies trying to control forestry activity. I refer to the Forestry Commission, the Countryside Commission, MAFF, local authorities, and to a lesser extent English Nature and its equivalent bodies in Wales and Scotland. To add to the confusion, the efforts of all these bodies are being criticised by the pressure groups such as the CPRE, the RSPB, the ramblers, the Royal Forestry Society, the Timber Growers Association and the CLA.
There is great ignorance about forestry. It is expensive and difficult to establish and maintain woodlands—especially hardwoods. Forestry is a very skilled occupation. Too often we hear about schemes to plant up land and even to establish whole new forests in England. We are not told who is to carry out the demanding and skilled tasks required to maintain them after they have been planted. There is no clear thinking even about what trees are for. Are they to
1574
provide timber to close the enormous trade gaps in forest products, or are they just there for the public to look at?
These points are made ad nauseam whenever your Lordships debate forestry but I believe that whatever strategy is devised for woodlands their administration must be simplified and rationalised under one instead of five separate bodies. If I could afford to do so in Ascot week I would place my bet on the forestry authority as being the one best able to do it.
Forestry provides just one example of administrative problems which beset the countryside but the problem goes much wider. There is a need for much better integration in the development of policies for the countryside. Too many government departments and agencies currently have a finger in the pie, often pulling in rather different directions. Too often the competition engendered is confusing rather than constructive.
With the need for integrated rural policies first championed by the Country Landowners' Association 10 years ago and now well and truly accepted, the time has come to consider pulling together countryside management under one Ministry —a real Ministry of Rural Affairs. Some who have gone down this road have thought in terms of a third Ministry separate from the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment. I believe that that would be a recipe for disaster. Not only would such a fledgling Ministry be squeezed in the nutcracker of the two older departments of state but the need is for a combination of the expertise in MAFF and the Department of the Environment to form a department truly capable of understanding and promoting the interests of the countryside as a whole. To the agricultural expertise and regional delivery mechanism of MAFF should be added—could be added—those parts of DoE dealing with the environment and, possibly, water. No doubt some would see difficulties in such an approach but I put it to your Lordships as something to ponder over and perhaps to debate.
Finally, the countryside can only thrive if farming prospers. Farmers will be harder and harder pressed as the present CAP structure crumbles, as crumble it will. The danger lies in this: that, in trying with the most laudable of motives to control and encourage environmentally benign farming, we may be creating a hydra; a many-headed bureaucratic monster that will obstruct and divert the farmer from pursuing his primary task of satisfying our home market for food and of finding and capturing markets overseas.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.29 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I am delighted to open the debate on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. I thank my noble friend Lord Middleton for initiating it. It is a subject about which this House has a great deal of knowledge. That is why I particularly welcome the two maiden speakers; namely, the noble Earl, Lord Spencer, and my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. I very much look forward to the remainder of the debate and

1575
I know that both myself and my noble friend Lord Howe and our respective departments will have a great deal to discuss when it is over.
We sometimes caricature the contrasts between urban and rural life like the town mouse and the country mouse: the former cosmopolitan, hectic, ever-changing; the latter relaxed, stable, perhaps a little stick in the mud. Many of us might subscribe to the truth of much of that comparison but, on reflection, we would concede that none of our national myths is stronger than that of the unchanging rural idyll. Yet almost 200 years ago Cobbett wandered irascibly across southern England fulminating at the decay of traditional rural society and the spread of urban influences. A century ago, Hardy was lamenting a Dorset more in his memory than reality. Change has always been a part of the countryside and we delude ourselves if we think otherwise. But if there is something which has not changed through the ages, it is the manner in which successive generations have contributed to the natural beauty and diversity of Britain's countryside. The cornerstone of this Government's policy is to ensure that those who come after us recognise our contribution to maintaining that priceless inheritance.
In striving towards that aim, this Government recognise two equal, indeed complementary, objectives—the continuing development of the rural economy and thriving rural communities and the conservation and enhancement of the scenic beauty and wildlife of the countryside. I refute any claim that those objectives are not compatible. Only a prosperous countryside will provide the resources to protect the natural inheritance, and we must strike a sensible balance between encouraging the rural economy while protecting that which we most value and which gives the countryside its irreplaceable character. In meeting those objectives this Government have been remarkably successful.
A characteristic which has distinguished our countryside in recent years from that of many of our European partners is the desire of so many people to live and to work there. Rural depopulation hardly exists any longer in Britain. Between 1981 and 1991 rural areas grew more rapidly in population than the country as a whole. Even so-called "remote" rural areas experienced an increase in the numbers of people moving into them—sometimes reversing trends over a century old.
Inevitably, new people bring new ideas and new opportunities. Rural areas are already one of the most dynamic sectors of the economy and recent years have seen a growing diversification in the structure of the rural economy. High-tech businesses have grown rapidly and service industries are now the main employers in the countryside. Prosperity is reflected in the fact that only four of the Rural Development Commission's priority rural development areas have unemployment above the national average.
Rural areas are especially well placed to take advantage of many of the developments in the economy as a whole. Modern telecommunications can overcome traditional problems of isolation, and we have already seen the emergence of so-called
1576
"teleworking" as working from home becomes a possibility for more and more people. The increasing consumer interest in "green" products, too, should give some rural firms a competitive edge as the market for goods with a distinctive "local flavour"—in every sense—widens.
The demands to use the countryside for recreation have never been greater. A walk in the country remains the most popular of outdoor pursuits, but recently we have seen a multitude of new activities—orienteering, hang gliding, wargaming—as well as the expansion of many older ones. There are new pressures, of course, but tourism is the main industry in a number of rural areas. If there is a common theme to these successes it must be the importance which all those who come to live, work and play in the countryside attach to the rural environment.
I believe that no country has a better claim than ours to the effectiveness with which we have conserved the attractiveness of our countryside. Some 30 per cent. of England and Wales, for example, now lies within at least one national designation affording protection for its landscape or wildlife qualities. Over the last decade, since the passing of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, we can point to a significant strengthening in the protection of our wildlife and their habitats.
We have also had some significant successes in discharging our international obligations, as for example under the EC Birds Directive and under the Ramsar Convention governing wetlands of international importance. In the last 12 months we have designated 24 special protection areas under the Birds Directive and listed 12 Ramsar sites. On 8th June my honourable friend the Minister of State announced the designation of two SPAs—at Hamford Water in Essex and at Lower Derwent Valley—thereby bringing the running total to 72. Both the latter are also Ramsar sites, and with the further site in Wales, Crymlyn Bog, also announced on 8th June, our listings under the convention now total 66, more than any other contracting party. Nor shall we rest on our laurels. More announcements will follow from our accelerated programme of designations.
I know that the protection of birds is dear to the hearts of many noble Lords. Many British species which in the past have shown alarming declines in their range and populations are now recovering. The red kite, widespread in the 19th century, was almost reduced to near extinction by persecution. At one time there were only five breeding pairs in mid-Wales. Now the Welsh breeding population has risen to about 80 pairs and thanks to the reintroduction programme run by the RSPB and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, are breeding in England and Scotland for the first time in a century.
Many other species are due to benefit from English Nature's species recovery programme launched in 1991 with strong support from the Government. Some 20 species of native plants and animals—including the lady's slipper orchid, the dormouse, the red squirrel and the natterjack toad—are to be targeted to save them from extinction and achieve their long-term sustainable survival. We have already seen how the

1577
large blue butterfly, extinct in the UK in 1979, has been successfully reintroduced, while our protection of bats is an example which we now hope will be adopted by other countries through the new European Bat Agreement.
Species recovery is closely related to the removal of pollution, and here, too, we have had other successes which my noble friend Lord Middleton mentioned. Between 1990 and 1991 the National Rivers Authority reported a very significant drop—some 60 per cent.—in the number of major water pollution incidents from agriculture. Overall, pesticide use has fallen by some 20 per cent. between 1980 and 1990 and one result has been a significant contribution to the increase in the range and number of otters throughout Scotland, Wales and South-West England.
Inevitably there are problems. Change is rarely to the benefit of all. Traditional industries are in decline and some may feel under threat when the needs of local groups can seem to take second place to the demands of increasing numbers of people seeking to use the countryside as a place where they can relax, away from the pressures and cares of urban lives. In some villages there is a shortage of affordable housing for people on low incomes; in others those without access to a car may find it difficult to get to schools or shops, which are increasingly concentrated in the towns. Sometimes we forget, however, how many of these problems and pressures are the results of success—the very pressures of demand on the countryside.
We shall continue to address those problems and others as they arise. We will strike the right balance between development and conservation; meeting the demand for housing for long-standing rural residents as well as those new to the countryside; and building roads to make rural businesses more accessible to markets while respecting the environment through which they pass. There are many ways of dealing with the problems of the countryside; legislation is only one of them. What our policies have proved over the past 14 years is that working closely with local people, within the legislative framework, has created the successful environment which we all desire.
There are many ways to carry forward our policies in the countryside—local authorities, the countryside agencies, the great range of voluntary bodies at both national and local level and, most importantly, all those who live and work in the countryside. The Government have always emphasised their belief that the best stewards of the countryside are those who live and work there and especially those who own and manage the land. So much of what we love best about our countryside can be traced to the long-established and continuing tradition of care passed down through successive generations.
Government set the framework of policy and this Government will continue to build their policies on a framework which ensures that the economy of rural areas will thrive, that our most beautiful landscapes will be protected, that the abundance and variety of our wildlife and their habitats will be conserved and that responsible public participation in caring for the rural environment will be promoted. We will
1578
continually keep those policies under review and we will take further action when and where necessary to secure the delivery of those objectives.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for tabling the Motion and, indeed, for the eloquent way in which he introduced it. Together with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I, too, look forward to hearing the maiden speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Spencer, and the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard.
At the outset of the debate, I should perhaps declare a personal interest. I am president of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales. Although that is an honorary position, and although CPRW is a purely non-party political body, nevertheless I thought it best to make clear to the House that I hold the position. However, what I say from this Dispatch Box does not necessarily reflect CPRW policy; it reflects the policy of the Labour Party.
The debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, follows two previous debates in the House this year: one on the social and economic needs of rural areas on the 3rd March; and, the other, on an Unstarred Question tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, on the CAP's agri-environment legislation. I have little to add to what my noble friends Lord Carter and Lord Gallagher said on the first occasion and to what my noble friend Lord Carter said on the second occasion.
As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, pointed out, the subject that we are dealing with is very wide. Indeed, there were times—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, will excuse me if I say so—when I thought that he was, perhaps, concentrating rather less on the Motion that he put before the House than on general complaints about the European Community or the Government. I should like to address myself to the Motion before the House which was moved by the noble Lord.
There is, of course, a difficulty of definition. Perhaps I may just note that difficulty by saying that the expression "countryside" has an environmental flavour to it, but the expression "rural areas" has a slightly economic flavour to it. I propose not to follow my noble friend Lord Carter on the economic and social needs of rural areas which he discussed with your Lordships on the 3rd March; I propose to adopt the environmental approach. I shall not follow the Minister entirely down the road of the natterjack toad, but, nevertheless, I shall join him in trying to speak a little about the environmental side of the countryside and how we should be dealing with it.
We must admit that there is a difficulty. That difficulty was clearly put by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in his opening address for the Government. Inevitably, the countryside changes over the years; indeed, it has changed and will change over the years. Intensive farming methods, increased tourism and people who want to enjoy the facilities of the countryside—and with rising incomes will want

1579
continually to do so—represent what I would call "creeping suburbanisation". In other words, as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said, more and more the home counties are becoming a refuge for people who want to get out of the towns and live in the suburbs. Therefore, they have to occupy land. As we know, in that sense, it is an overpopulated area of the country. To a certain extent I would say that there are some defects in our planning regulations. That is particularly so in Wales (where I come from) where some of our district planning committees are, in my view, simply not up to the job of organising and properly undertaking a development plan.
Having put that difficulty before your Lordships, I must point out that it is not our policy to want to preserve a countryside in aspic. The countryside must develop. The rural areas have their own requirements. Therefore, I accept that difficulty. Having accepted it, I then pass to the question of how we should manage the countryside—and here I join with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—in the best interests of all those who are in the countryside and those who wish to visit the countryside, given that there is a serious and possibly unmanageable conflict between the two.
In the debate of 3rd March, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred (Hansard col. 702) to Planning Policy Guidance Note 7. That set the tone for the development of government policy. I hope to hear from the noble Earl when he responds to the debate how the monitoring facilities which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, indicated were in place are in fact working on PPG7. I am sure that the noble Earl will want to give your Lordships the benefit of that guidance.
Thus far we agree with what the Minister said: there is a need to keep the countryside as a living organism; it will change but, nevertheless, there is a contrary and necessary confrontational need to keep it environmentally safe and proper for people who wish to enjoy its benefits.
In practice, where are we now? I believe that we are still working out the consequences of the reform of the common agricultural policy in 1992. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the words of Mr. John Gummer. At the time he said:
"I am especially glad that the agreement"—
that is, the agreement to reform the CAP—
"makes significant steps towards bringing environmental issues into the heart of the CAP".
I shall return to those words as I move on. Then, as your Lordships will remember, we had EC regulation 20/78/92 (known in Euro-jargon as the "agri-environment regulation") which has been translated by MAFF into a proposal document on how to implement that regulation. It contains a variety of different initiatives which are allowed; for example, aid to farmers undertaking actions that are environmentally positive and particularly measures to improve the training of farmers. So far I can say so good, but we have to note that the funding that is available to put into practice the requirements of that regulation is, frankly, inadequate. As I understand the position—perhaps the noble Earl will correct me when
1580
he replies if I am wrong—in the United Kingdom there is £30 million available over three years for new measures up to 1995–96.
Then there is set aside. We understand that £150 million this year will be used to pay farmers for set aside. I do not want to go into all the arguments for or against set aside because I am sure noble Lords will discuss that matter during the debate. However, I would say that in our view set aside does not tackle the major problem. Europe's major problem is not that there is too much agricultural land but that farming is too intensive on the land that is in agriculture. In other words, too much food is produced from agricultural land. If we could, in the context of the common agricultural policy, design a system which would reduce the amount of food which is produced from agricultural land, the need for set aside would be correspondingly reduced.
In environmental terms set aside—environmental bodies will confirm this—is not a happy event in terms of the management of land. Rotational set aside is an even worse measure as a wildlife habitat will not emerge and birds and plants—the Minister referred to this—will not stay on the set aside land if that land is farmed the following year or the year after. There seems to be a problem with the set aside both in terms of the environment and in terms of the agricultural community.
What needs to be done? I suppose there is a case for a fundamental review of land use policies. I believe that there is always a case for a fundamental review of land use policies. Any noble Lord can ask for a fundamental review of almost anything. I shall not pursue that route. There is, as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, pointed out, a number of different organisations that run a number of different programmes. A rather substantial bureaucracy has grown up around them. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, that there may well be a good case for rationalising what is going on.
I speak from my experience in mid-Wales. My neighbouring farmer had absolutely no idea how to fill in the forms that he was required to fill in by 15th May. He asked me about the relationship between a hectare and an acre. I consulted my Economist diary and calculated that relationship for him. My neighbour is a hill farmer in mid-Wales who farms 170 acres. How is he to be expected to fill in these forms? I accept that there is a need for rationalisation in this matter and the forms that I have mentioned should be more farmer friendly.
If the Government are serious in their commitment to environmental matters, we need to move forward with a number of pieces of legislation which have been promised and which apparently will not now be introduced in the immediate future. It is rumoured that the environment Bill will not be introduced in the next Session of Parliament. There was a Bill to deal with the protection of hedgerows but that has now fallen. Apparently no Bill on that matter will be introduced by the Government in the foreseeable future. I hear that the implementation of the habitats directive will be carried out by order rather than by

1581
primary legislation. Orders are, of course, unamendable. No doubt the noble Earl will wish to comment on that matter when he replies to the debate.
National parks legislation has been promised in the 1987 Conservative Party manifesto and in the 1992 manifesto. If the Secretary of State for Wales has his way, Wales will find itself next year implementing a local government organisation which will throw the whole of the national parks in Wales into confusion. In the 1987 Conservative Party manifesto there was an assurance that legislation would be introduced on the matter of common land on the basis of the recommendations of the Common Land Forum. We are now in 1993 and we are still waiting for that legislation.
We are told time and time again that there will be legislation when legislative time permits. However, I must ask noble Lords on the Government Front Bench whether they are really serious about environmental legislation. I have referred to five measures which have been promised, or which are obligatory, and which apparently are to be postponed.
The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has referred to organisations in the Motion. I have no further comments to make on the European Economic Community in this context. I have a few comments to make on the United Kingdom Government but I shall make them in a moment. As regards the statutory bodies, I can only speak with any experience of the Countryside Council for Wales. I am bound to say that I believe that that body has got off to a good start. I initially had my doubts about whether the body would in any sense be effective. However, I believe that it is a robust and expert body which is prepared, when necessary, to approach the Secretary of State and inform him that it disagrees with what the Government are doing.
As regards voluntary bodies, I do not wish to speak about the CPRW or its sister organisation, the CPRE. I accept, however, that there may be too many voluntary bodies. There is a plethora of voluntary bodies. I was pleased to note that the CPRW had made a submission to the Secretary of State for Wales which consisted of a joint effort between the CPRW, the RSPB, the Farmers Union for Wales and the Welsh branch of the National Farmers' Union. That was an example of bodies coming together to make a submission. The prime example of that principle is the Wildlife and Countryside Link which brings together a number of bodies which may have different approaches to problems but which speak in the end with one voice. I hope that process will continue.
It is necessary for voluntary organisations to accept—this is a prime principle—that we cannot any longer simply concentrate on the environment without having regard to the agricultural community. As the Minister said, farmers and environmentalists must work together. I believe that they have interests in common.
Finally, I come back to the question of commitment on the part of the Government. Five legislative measures for environmental reform have been promised by the Government. None of those
1582
measures will be introduced, unless the noble Earl can say otherwise when he replies to the debate. The Minister may have commented on the natterjack toad but one has to question the Government's commitment to this issue when it is a matter of introducing legislation in your Lordships' House. Unless that commitment is honest and sincere no amount of silver words will do. Action is what is required.
The Government have to choose whether they are prepared to follow their own proclaimed environmental convictions or are going to cop out when it comes to legislation to promote them. In my view the Government must make that choice. They should be seen to be not merely in office but in power.
4 p.m.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for initiating this important debate on the countryside. The timing of the debate is perfect. Here we are in the last week of spring, and it has rained a great deal. Summer starts next Monday: let us hope that we shall have good weather for the next few months.
Many years ago I had the privilege of being a member of a panel in Merionethshire. There were four of us—one from each political party in Wales. We were asked questions on the countryside, Welsh language, culture and agricultural policy. Every one of us answered the questions to the best of our ability. As many politicians do during a campaign, we promised them everything. However, I remember that at the end of the session, when the chairman was about to propose a vote of thanks, an elderly gentleman at the back of the hall got up. He was well into his 80s. He had listened all evening. He said: "I have listened with interest to every one of you. You have all promised to do the best that you can for the countryside, for the language and the culture. But I am going to ask you one question before you leave. I don't want you to answer tonight. The simple question is: who owns Wales?" Perhaps before the end of the debate someone will give me the answer. Perhaps the Minister will say who owns England and who owns Scotland. I remember that we were all clean bowled when we were asked who owns Wales.
As a practical farmer myself I shall pay tribute to my fellow farmers. They deserve a great deal of praise for what they have achieved over the years. Farmers have been the custodians of the countryside. They are the custodians of the countryside, and I am convinced that they will continue to be the custodians of the countryside in decades to come. We are very few when one considers the enormous task in front of us. Less than 2 per cent. of the population looks after that vast area, which is so green these days. In the past 50 years I have never seen so much growth as I have seen this year. We are the custodians.
There are two matters that I should like to raise at the very beginning. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said that we have a forestry policy. I agree with him entirely. I believe that unless the government of the day do something soon about the future of the

1583
Forestry Commission and forestry policies there will be an acute shortage of timber in this country within 20 years.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that the set-aside policy is not working well. I agree with him. However, I do not disagree that in the short term it was the only alternative. But I believe that Ministers here in Britain, and in Europe, should look once again at the policy of set-aside in this country.
Before I turn to the question of Europe I should like to say a little about the planning regulations. We are talking about the countryside and we want young people to be able to settle down and live there. However, the planning regulations are causing a great deal of concern to many people. Many of us believe that local planning authorities are concentrating their efforts on building too many houses in the towns and large villages and that more people should be allowed to build homes in the countryside in the truly rural areas in the heartland of Wales. We need people to look after those areas. Unfortunately many applications to reinstate old farmhouses which have been there for generations but have fallen into disrepair have been turned down. It is a great pity that the authorities do not give permission for those houses to be rebuilt. I live on the edge of a national park and I believe that national parks have too much power in relation to planning matters. I should like the Government to consider that matter urgently.
We also need many other things in rural areas. I urge the Minister to persuade his colleagues in the Cabinet that we must retain the train services in rural Wales whatever happens. We are very fortunate that we still have a few railways in Wales, although not many. There is one in the heartland of Wales. The other goes from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth and up the Cambrian coast. If we lost those railway lines it would be a retrograde step for those living in rural areas. We also need buses for the benefit of those who are not as fortunate as many of us who have cars to travel to the towns.
I should like to make a plea in your Lordships' House, as I did so often in the other place. The Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland have full responsibility for agriculture in those two countries. Their record in attending meetings in Brussels on behalf of the farmers they represent is well known. I do not believe that they have gone there more than once in five or 10 years. The Minister is shaking his head, but I know that on this occasion I am right. I know that the Secretary of State for Wales—not the present one, because he has been in office only a week and we must have fair play, but his predecessor—went to Brussels only once, if at all, on behalf of the Welsh agriculture industry. I beg the Minister to persuade his colleagues to do what I have suggested and go to Brussels on behalf of farmers in Wales and Scotland.
There is another matter which is causing a great deal of anxiety. It has not been raised by speakers in the debate as yet but I am sure that it will be. It concerns the coming tenancy agreement. There are many tenant farmers in Wales and in various other parts of Britain. Perhaps I disagree with the views of
1584
many people in relation to the tenancy agreement between a landlord and a tenant. I have always held the view that that is a matter between two people—the landlord and the tenant. It is up to them to decide whether the landlord will let his property for three years, five years, 10 years, 20 years or 100 years, as the case may be. When legislation is introduced we should make sure that it is a matter between two people—the landlord and the tenant.
As many of your Lordships are aware, I am a sheep farmer. There are quite a few sheep in Wales—millions of them. I am proud to be a hill farmer. I believe that it is one of the best occupations in the land, especially when one is also a part-time politician. However, the past few years have been difficult for the agriculture industry. We have come to terms with radical changes in the whole structure of farming. It is the end of an era. It is the end of 50 years of steady growth and guaranteed prices.
Some noble Lords may remember that 50 years ago there was a well-known Englishman in Aberystwyth looking after the Welsh plant breeding station. His name was Dr. George Stapledon. He made this statement during the war:
"It is our duty at the Welsh plant breeding station to produce two blades of grass where there is now one".
Over the years we have achieved that. In many parts of Britain farmers have tilled the land and developed the hill areas. We have produced for the needs of others.
I do not know what is wrong, but with the best will in the world we should be producing food for people who are less fortunate than ourselves throughout the world. We can argue for a long time the merits and demerits of the case. But for those of us who confess that we are Christians, I believe that there is a will and a way to produce food for those who are less fortunate than ourselves.
Our future lies with Europe. Indeed, it is Europe which has saved our agricultural industry from disaster and will continue to give us the impetus to survive and develop. It is as well that many among us are dedicated Europeans who have encouraged enlightened discussions about the way ahead rather than inventing bogeymen and creating difficulties.
It is my strong belief that we now need to concentrate on our export market. We should be developing the live trade with continental Europe where our product is highly regarded. I applaud the way in which Welsh Lamb Enterprise is encouraging that trend in Wales; and it deserves every support.
As a sheep farmer I should like to pay tribute to another organisation—the Meat and Livestock Commission. Not only has it invested heavily to encourage the meat-eating habit at home, spending some £1.9 million on the (M)eat to Live campaign; it has also spearheaded the export of British meat. Current figures indicate that exports in 1992 were 22.8 per cent. up in value and 16.9 per cent. in tonnage over 1991. As noble Lords may know, 50 per cent. of our excellent Welsh lamb is now being exported. Some may say that that is a pity. An estimated 380,000 sheep are exported alive. It is a wonderful achievement in a short period of time in a free market economy.

1585
The Meat and Livestock Commission also offers excellent and expert independent advice and assessment regarding lambs in the livestock auctions, at which some 70 per cent. of lambs are sold. I would advise any sheep farmer to sell his sheep in those auctions. That is where they can learn and compare their own produce with the best available. Such auctions, too, have excellent auctioneers up and down the land. Those people have made a significant contribution to the development of the meat and livestock trade over the years.
All the members of the Meat and Livestock Commission are farmers and involved with the meat trade. However, I make a plea to the Government on behalf of the auctioneers in this country who have been responsible for marketing the produce from the land. Will the Minister seriously consider ensuring that one of the leading auctioneers in this country is elected to serve on the Meat and Livestock Commission within the next year or so?
Noble Lords will have gathered from my remarks that I do not believe that we should be pessimistic about the future of sheep farming in this country. In fact, the reverse. I make a plea to young farmers. They should not on any account be despondent in 1993. If they really wish to go into sheep farming I say this to them: they can have a great future. But as one who is probably old enough to be allowed to give a little advice to his juniors—I do not include Ministers—perhaps I may make four points to those young sheep farmers and other young farmers in the country. When you have secured your piece of land you should first learn how to be a shepherd, a cowman or a tractor driver. Secondly, school yourself in the discipline of specialist sheep breeding, always aiming for quality. Thirdly, learn the discipline of management. No modern farmer can afford not to understand the principles of good management. Finally, learn the value of good marketing. It is no use having an excellent product if you do not know when to sell it.
I am glad that your Lordships have listened because I am a sheep farmer and I have always said that the backbone of the hill areas of Scotland, Wales and England is the sheep farmers who live on those hills. May they stay there for generations to come. I beg the government of the day to look after their interests because they are important people in society.
4.16 p.m.
Earl Spencer: My Lords, it seems a pity to punctuate a good debate with a maiden speech. I therefore ask for your tolerance and patience while I seek to get through it.
I feel slightly qualified to talk on the countryside, not because I am directly involved but because my family have been dependent on the countryside for 600 years. In fact, in this House in 1620 my ancestor, the newly ennobled Lord Spencer, was taking on King James I for abuse of royal prerogative. The Lord Arundel of the day decided to put the young whippersnapper in his place. He stood up and said, "My Lord Spencer, when these things were going on, your family were rearing sheep", to which my ancestor
1586
replied, "Indeed, my Lord. At the same time your family were committing treason". Lord Arundel ended up in the tower so that he could cool off. I doubt that I shall raise any such passions today.
However, perhaps I may say a few words on public access, bringing to bear a few experiences that I and my family may have in that area. My family's estate lies three miles from Northampton, at a place called Althorp. We are fortunate in having a block of coniferous woodland between us and the town. The town has grown from 130,000 inhabitants to, I believe, 180,000 in the past 20 years. People in the town of course want access to the countryside. If one goes to that woodland on a Saturday or Sunday one will see thousands of people exercising their children, their dogs or their more basic instincts in the woodland. Often they will be using the public footpaths or bridleways. But we do not make them keep to the paths because we wish them to use the area as an amenity. As a family or as a farming unit, it does not affect us to have people using that piece of land. It does not invade our privacy; it does not affect our income. Therefore they are welcome to use it.
Of course, with thousands of people using one piece of land one has damage and vandalism. We have experienced everything from fences being pulled down and burned to animals being killed, devil worshipping, motor-bike racing and anything else that people might do in any area. However, we prefer to condense such activity in one easily reached area just outside a major town.
It works well for us to encourage people to go to one particular place. I am fortunate in having an area that I can almost hand over for public use and abuse in such a way. I appreciate that hill farmers and landowners with medium-sized or lesser-sized holdings may not have such an amenity to hand over. However, I believe that there is a lesson to be learnt from the example that I have given. If one allows and encourages people to use the bridleways and pathways to which they are entitled, one has them where one wants them and where they are legally entitled to be and not where one does not want them, which is everywhere. No one wants to be a park keeper, whether unpaid or receiving a few subsidies, but I think this arrangement is an effective compromise. I also think that, to make it more attractive to them so that their income and their privacy do not suffer, landowners should be encouraged, through grants, to make over more land in this way.
A final point I should like to make is that I believe that people who act in this responsible way are depriving the more politically zealous organisations—which sometimes seem to be more engrossed in pushing forwards their rights and powers than in doing anything for the delicate balance of the countryside—of their foot soldiers and adding respect for good stewards of the land. Thank you.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Shuttleworth: My Lords, it falls to me to have the privilege of congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Spencer, on his speech, not just from these Benches but, I suspect, on behalf of the whole House. In

1587
addition to informing us, he made us laugh with the skills of an experienced broadcaster. The House will benefit from hearing from him on many occasions to come.
Also, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Middleton for initiating the debate. Again, at the outset, I have to declare an interest as chairman of the Rural Development Commission, one of those organisations which, in the words of the Motion, is "connected with the countryside". It is not, though, I am proud to say, concerned in the slightest with imposing any regulations upon it. We are primarily concerned with the people who live and work in the countryside of England. That is now a far-from-insignificant one-fifth—20 per cent. of our population.
Having heard a bit about Wales already today, though I never resent any grant going to the countryside, I cannot help feeling a little jealous that my opposite number there receives grant-in-aid per head of rural population, a very great deal more than I do.
The commission is encouraged by the continuing attention being shown to rural areas—including such examples as the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in your Lordships' House earlier this year—recent expressions of anxiety about the future of rural post offices (happily assuaged by the Government) concern about rural crime; and last week of course the "Open Space" TV programme about the difficulties faced by small farmers, presented by the noble Duke, the Duke of Westminster.
With a statutory duty to advise government on all matters affecting the economic and social development of rural England and to take action to further such development, the Rural Development Commission very much characterises itself as the agency for the people in the countryside. I have to say that without recognising the value of those people, the people who care for the countryside, no amount of care for the landscape, flora or fauna will be worth while.
But today, I do not want to dwell over-long on the commission's executive role, but to draw on its advisory role, to offer your Lordships some analysis of recent and prospective changes in the countryside and to speculate a little about their implications. I shall therefore speak briefly about the rural economy and then about rural communities, before indicating how the commission sees its own role developing.
Despite some frequent changes of personnel—for example, during three years as chairman of the Rural Development Commission, I have been answerable to three different countryside Ministers, and indeed no fewer than four Secretaries of State at the Department of the Environment—government policy has stated consistently in the White Paper, This Common Inheritance, in 1990 and in the Action for the Countryside programme announced in 1992, that the best way to care for the countryside is to have a healthy and broadly based rural economy. But we do have to set that constant theme against changing circumstances, and that is what I wish to refer to today.
1588
As the Minister reminded us, during the 1980s there were many favourable developments in the rural economy. Employment in rural areas grew much faster than in urban areas: by 15 per cent. as against 8 per cent. This growth was not in traditional rural industries, such as farming, quarrying or mining, but in manufacturing and services. The decade saw a startling shift of manufacturing from urban areas to the countryside. For example, high technology firms grew by 12 per cent. in the rural counties compared with a fall of 16 per cent. in the urban areas.
The shift of manufacturing employment from urban to rural areas has been mirrored by greater employment growth in rural small businesses than has been happening in the towns. The countryside has shown a higher propensity to generate new firms. The research has also shown a higher level of innovative activity by rural firms. It is clear, too, that many people set up small businesses in the country for environmental and lifestyle reasons. More interestingly, there is evidence that the majority of new rural businesses are founded not by local people but by incomers to the area.
As a result of these trends, the economic structure of the countryside is now much more similar to that of urban areas. Rural areas now have the same proportion of activity in manufacturing industry as do urban areas, so we should no longer talk of a rural economy as something different, but as just that part of the national economy which happens to be located in the countryside. Perhaps we shall even reach the ultimate recognition of that truth—when those Members of your Lordships' House who wish to debate the rural economy are in future advised to do so, not during an environment or a countryside debate, but during a debate on the national economy.
However, significant problems remain. The broad picture of success conceals wide variations at a local level in the dynamism and success of rural areas. Mainly south of a line from Bristol to the Wash, some areas are dynamic and will continue to prosper in the years ahead. Others, particularly those affected by remoteness, poor communications and a heavy dependence on declining industries, such as farming, fishing, defence related activities and mining and quarrying, are not so dynamic. They will need assistance to adjust to changing circumstances. The commission designated many of these as rural development areas in 1984 and is currently reviewing the designations in the light of the changing circumstances.
Looking at the recent research for the commission and others, it appears that the main economic trends in the 1990s which will be relevant to policy are likely to be as follows. First, economic growth will resume, but at a significantly lower rate than in the 1980s. This may check the rate of dispersal of economic activity from urban to rural areas. Secondly, there will be further convergence in economic structure between urban and rural firms; but those in the more accessible rural areas will benefit the most.

1589
Apart from existing assistance with matters such as workspace and finance, small firms in remoter areas will require more investment in modernising production processes and more management training.
Thirdly, growth in the service sector, including tourism and leisure activities, is likely to be slower in the future. However, changes in technology will continue to provide opportunities for further growth of manufacturing and specialist business services in rural areas, though I fear that their contribution to employment growth is likely to be small.
Fourthly, the ability of the countryside to create new businesses will continue to depend considerably upon the level of in-migration of people with business skills and capital. This has clear implications for the planning and social policies pursued in rural areas. Fifthly, some forecasts suggest that the improvement in the unemployment rates in rural areas relative to England as a whole, which we have been experiencing, may not continue through the next decade. Again, this has a bearing on the balance to be struck between urban and rural policies.
From all this, at the commission we draw the conclusion that most of the accessible rural areas will continue to be well placed to take advantage of the economic opportunities but there will still be rural areas, particularly though not exclusively the remoter ones, which will remain disadvantaged, especially where they are affected by long-term structural adjustment. It is these areas which will continue to require selective assistance in managing change and in developing their economies.
We also conclude that small firms will continue to be essential to the economic success of rural areas and the kind of assistance we and others provide will continue to be needed. There is no shortage of start-ups, but there is a high failure rate—about one-third within the first three years—and the contribution of small businesses to economic development is therefore most likely to be maximised by helping existing and expanding small firms to overcome any major restraints on their growth.
The importance of adequate housing and other services, and of local planning policies to enable the necessary economic and social developments to take place, cannot be over-estimated.
I turn now to the changes that rural communities are experiencing. For the past 30 years the population of England's larger towns has been declining, while that of smaller towns and villages has been increasing. There are important variations within that overall trend, but it is there. However, nearly all rural areas suffer from below average numbers of 16 to 24 year-olds and above average numbers of pensioners. I believe that that may explain in some degree the comparative unemployment figures to which the Minister referred.
The rural population may continue to grow at perhaps twice the rate for England as a whole. But the numbers of the very elderly will grow very rapidly, causing pressure on health and social services. There is likely to be a continuing out-migration of young adults to seek work and accommodation in urban
1590
areas. The size of households is also likely to continue to decline, putting pressure on housing and other services.
The changes in population interact with changes in the provision of housing and services. There has been in recent decades a general decline of rural services all over the countryside. The commission's survey of services in all parishes in 1991—which has been quoted by noble Lords in previous debates—has provided a benchmark against which we can assess future trends.
It therefore seems likely that financial pressures on rural services, whether public sector or private sector pressures, will continue, and demands on some of them will increase, especially those concerned with supporting and caring for the elderly. These trends and changes in population lead us to the conclusion that a further skewing of the composition of rural communities in the direction of particular age and social groups will interact with the continuing cost and organisational pressures on services with potentially adverse consequences.
The countryside needs a resident workforce to manage and staff local businesses, to provide services and to maintain the environment. Where a bias develops, facilities and services may disappear, while the capacity of communities to be self-reliant is undermined. There is a danger that communities will become increasingly polarised between those who are affluent and can obtain access to services in towns and those who have lower-paid jobs and rely more on the local services. These issues must be addressed across the countryside as part of a concerted approach to ensuring the well-being of its inhabitants.
As I said at the start of my remarks, I have concentrated on the economic and social changes affecting the countryside, and I have purposely not dwelt on the detail of what the Commission as a countryside organisation does. We shall publish soon the results of our policy review and set out a strategy for the year ahead. We shall be very much guided by the points that I have made today. Our task is to assist in the management of inevitable change in the countryside. We must ensure that the diversification and strengthening of the rural economy continues. We must give support for disadvantaged groups in the countryside, especially where their problems are compounded by the rural location. We must encourage adequate provision of and access to services for rural people. Finally, at the commission we shall strengthen our advisory role to ensure that the needs of people and small businesses in the countryside are taken fully into account in the policies of government and other organisations.
4.34 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich: My Lords, perhaps I may first associate myself with the thanks expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, to the noble Earl, Lord Spencer, on his maiden speech. To speak in this House is the most enjoyable of experiences. It is the most courteous House. But a maiden speech is always daunting, and the noble Earl coped with that with great aplomb. He

1591
has many years to serve this House and to bring the benefit of his wisdom. The House will look forward with great pleasure to his many contributions.
The fact that the countryside is changing is incontrovertible. It is not of any concern in itself, for the countryside has always been changing. Anyone who has doubts about that needs only to go to some of the areas in my own county, Suffolk, which are still preserved patches of ancient woodland.
The countryside is—and I am grateful to noble Lords who have already referred to this point—principally a place where people live and work and from which they get their living. I wish to concentrate my remarks on those people, and particularly on the voluntary bodies in the countryside. There are many such bodies holding particular concerns in particular areas, and the need for them to co-operate with each other is very clear.
One of the voluntary bodies which is very considerable in the countryside is, of course, the Church. By that I mean, in these ecumenical days, the Churches; for in many country villages now there is one church, be it a Free Church chapel or a Church of England church, or in Wales or Scotland a church of another denomination. Certainly those are now ecumenical bodies in that normally there is not more than one church, and those who attend represent many denominations. That is to be welcomed.
The members of those voluntary groups very often make up more than 10 per cent. of the population, which is a very considerable membership—far greater, I believe, than any other voluntary body would seek to claim. Those good people do not only worship God, which of course is primarily what the Church exists for; they maintain the buildings for the benefit of the whole community, a task to which an enormous amount of energy is given and for which I wish to express heartfelt thanks. The work is done by a relatively small number of people on behalf of the whole community. As an aside, I should like to inform the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that in Suffolk 75 per cent. of our 500 churches now provide domicile for the bat. Those communities exist not simply for those two reasons. They turn their attention not simply to those two occupations but also to the service of the community as a whole, perhaps as a leaven within the wider community. In the countryside there is an advantage and opportunity for a sense of community to exist which is much more difficult to establish in the urban areas.
Very often the contribution that is made is hidden. The Arthur Rank centre which exists at the Royal Agricultural Show ground in Warwickshire in order to provide a nucleus for good working relationships between the Churches and the countryside, is at the moment organising a competition to discover what is going on in the Churches in terms of community service for the disabled. I have no doubt that it will discover many things.
Perhaps I may illustrate from my own experience a point which I believe is significant. Recently I launched an initiative in my own diocese (in my own county) to encourage joint co-operation between the parochial church councils, which are the church
1592
committees, and the parish councils to look at village profiles: to get a picture of how a village was, what its situation was, what were its resources and challenges, and so forth. I had two kinds of encouraging response. One was from parish council secretaries who said, "Yes, Bishop, what a good idea. We would like to operate with that. Let's get on with it". The other equally encouraging, though rather different, response, was from secretaries who wrote and said, "Bishop, thank you for the idea. There is really no need for us to co-operate because our membership is virtually the same anyway".
However, there are instances in which this voluntary community serves the wider community which I should like to illustrate in two particular examples. The first relates to the still (very sadly) high suicide rate among farmers. Noble Lords will be well aware of that. It is still twice the national average. It is still only below the suicide rate among doctors, vets and pharmacists, which speaks of course of easy access. And it is a matter of grave concern. The reasons are varied and affect farmers in some parts of the farming industry more than in others. I suspect that it is associated sometimes with massive debt and sometimes it is associated with uncertainty. It is associated very often with the loneliness of some farmers now in the farming industry, who find themselves working in tractors all day without anyone to talk to.
However, the awareness of this as a problem which has to be dealt with has led, in my own diocese, to the publication of a leaflet, which I initiated in association with the National Farmers' Union and other organisations, to draw the attention of farmers to helplines which are available, I believe, in all the rural parts of England. I cannot speak for Scotland or Wales but I know that similar helplines of one kind or another have been established in many places.
I should also like to take the opportunity to draw the attention of your Lordships and of the noble Earl the Minister to one particular problem which has emerged as a result of this. As regards the MAFF officer to whom farmers will turn for advice, now that there has been privatisation the farmers actually have to pay a fee for the advice that they are given. I have no problem with that: that is not the issue. The issue, so far as I am concerned, is that if farmers go first to their GP and then, with a GP's note, to MAFF for advice that fee is waived. On the other hand, farmers who are already burdened perhaps by massive debt or gravely troubled about the great weight that is coming down on them and perhaps are already feeling suicidal may not necessarily see the matter in the logical sequence that I have described. It is perhaps a minor factor but I think that attention could be drawn to it as it may be of help to some suicidal farmers.
The other example I would give of the Church's involvement in the community in this way relates to affordable housing. We are all aware of the need in rural communities for young people to be able to stay, if they wish, in the community in which they were born and brought up and we all know of the difficulties which have existed for a number of years now in relation to that. There was a debate in the Church of

1593
England General Synod in February 1992, calling upon us to do what we could as a Church to make affordable housing available. I am glad to say that during the months since then, in association of course with the housing associations, the local planning departments and so forth, the Church has played its part in the establishment of something like 200 housing units. That, I know, is small beer compared to the massive need, although it is still not clear what the figures of actual need are. However, it is a contribution.
I believe that the relationship of the wellbeing and future of the countryside and the wellbeing of those who live and work in it is a very complex one. There are many people and bodies who, quite rightly, have a stake in it. The Government certainly have a stake in it. I should like to make two comments as regards the Government stake, the first of which relates to sub-post offices. Reassurances have been given, for which I know many people are grateful, that the drawing of pensions will continue through sub-post offices. In country areas that is particularly significant and important for the elderly and those not able to travel. That I welcome. However, I wonder whether any thought is being given—I put this forward out of ignorance—to the diversification of sub-post offices to meet other local needs.
My second comment concerns a minor matter but, I think, a significant one relating to parish halls. Parish hall communities are already the executive committees of parish halls, serving the community not simply in terms of entertainment but helping it to cohere. They are already very stretched, and the addition of VAT to fuel bills will make a significant difference, especially on oil bills, as oil is the fuel which is most used in rural communities.
I am very grateful for this debate and for the seriousness with which it is being addressed. I would simply say that the participation of the whole community, voluntary and statutory, together with the many groups which have a stake in the countryside, is to be welcomed. They all need to be considered and heard.
4.45 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, before I start I should like to declare an interest. I am the owner of a West Highland deer forest with fishing and sheep ranching. It is on the island of Mull. At our family home in Kent we have a raptor centre which cares for and rehabilitates injured hawks. The Highlands of Scotland is, I believe, the largest wilderness area in Europe and, indeed, this is now widely appreciated. Various bodies are busy in the areas of conservation and research there, with active government help and assistance.
The four areas I am briefly going to touch upon are trees, deer, grouse and salmon. As we all know, a great deal of uneconomic and unsuitable planting of conifers has been done in the past but I believe that these past errors have now been recognised. The move now is towards planting the indigenous trees. There are also moves to re-establish parts of the original
1594
Caledonian forest. This is highly laudable and should be given every encouragement by this Government and succeeding governments over the very long term, as it will take several generations for our efforts to make any real impact on the devastation wrought by our forefathers.
The only slightly disturbing facet of all this is the deeply hostile attitude towards the deer by the foresters. The stag, like the grouse, has the misfortune to be regarded as a "class" animal and therefore gets a disproportionate amount of blame for the damage done to young trees. The fact that there are in the Highlands almost 10 million heavily subsidised and uneconomic sheep, compared to 300,000 deer (which everybody wants to reduce to 200,000) is conveniently forgotten. I should like to suggest that when the new plantations are reasonably mature the deer ought to be allowed access to what is, after all, their natural habitat, but the sheep should continue to be excluded, as they are such destructive and close grazers. The continual re-establishment of the Caledonian forest will hopefully eventually help the deer, which after all are our largest indigenous mammals and who are also a steady, if unspectacular, foreign currency earner.
The grouse, however, are of very considerable help in our balance of payments and to the Scottish hotel trade. This bird is found only in the British Isles and in restricted parts of Scandinavia. Sportsmen come from all over the world to shoot and, as your Lordships no doubt know, it is not cheap. The grouse have been in relentless decline over the past few years, so that foreign shooting parties have often had to be cancelled. A lot of scientific work has been done on the grouse recently to try to discover the cause of this decline.
In my opinion, one major reason is the recent reappearance of all the major raptors at full strength on the grouse moors. Now that anything with a hooked beak is protected there is nothing the hapless owners and their employees can do to prevent these various hawks causing tremendous damage to their moors. For instance, a peregrine will kill just for the pleasure of it and will quite often take several grouse from a covey but eat only part of one.
Years before the conservation lobby got going, there was a tacit agreement that the raptors would be left alone and at full strength on the West Coast of Scotland but that when they started to expand east and south and reached the grouse moors they would, quite rightly, be regarded as vermin and culled accordingly. It seems extraordinary to me that the law does not allow this and that the Scottish economy and Scottish employment prospects are being damaged accordingly.
Lastly, I should like to say a word on the next great Scottish resource, the salmon. That is also in relentless decline. I believe that each salmon caught on rod and line is worth £2,500 to the Scottish economy. The Government have recognised that to a great degree, and there is a continuing movement to buy out netting rights; long may it continue. That has largely been brought about by the extremely successful advent of the salmon farms, which have brought down the price

1595
of salmon so that it is now no longer a luxury food. The salmon farms are also a considerable source of employment in the Highlands.
I mentioned earlier that, despite the quantity of nets being taken off, the salmon and sea trout are still in decline. Why is that? The fact that the grey seal population has grown from around 20,000 before protection to the current 100,000 odd has a great deal to do with it. Dr. Rae of the Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen shot three seals to inspect the contents of their stomachs and found up to 12 pounds of salmon in each. That would be the intake on a single day. On the other hand, Scottish National Heritage did an analysis of seal droppings and concluded that they lived exclusively on sand eels. However, that research was fatally flawed in as much as the droppings were taken from dry land just before the moult, when the animals are in general decline and not hunting. Even if the seals lived on sand eels, which they do not, they would still be competing with the sea trout, which are also in decline. It is therefore my contention that some proper and serious scientific research should be done into the damage that seals are doing to the salmon and sea trout stocks and the damage that raptors are doing to the grouse stocks.
With regard to grouse, the very presence of hawks circling above a moor will prevent the birds being driven properly and ruin the day. Likewise, the presence of seals in a river will panic the salmon and spoil any chance of fishing. I realise that the idea of culling raptors and seals could be abhorrent to urban man, but everything has its place, not only in nature but also in the financial scheme of things. Raptors are glamourous but murderous, and seals, which are regarded as aquatic labradors by the conservationists, are in fact successful and ruthless predators which are costing jobs throughout Scotland.
In conclusion, the interaction, both as regards the balance of nature and the legitimate aspirations of the Highland economy, should be seriously considered. It is no good being sentimental about attractive animals; they all have their place. To take the argument to England, why are there not packs of wolves living off our sheep and cattle? After all, the wolf is one of our oldest indigenous predators. We all know the answer—common sense and economic considerations have won the day. Perhaps the grouse and salmon of Scotland should also be given the same considerations. After all, they are considerable foreign currency earners and employers of labour in an area of wilderness where there are no other alternatives.
4.53 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, it is my pleasant task on behalf of the Whole House to congratulate the noble Viscount on his speech. I am not sure that it is uncontroversial in some terms, especially when there are conservationists in the House this afternoon. But perhaps we can take issue on another occasion. I remember with particular pleasure the contributions which his father made to many environmental debates. We miss him very much and it is a special pleasure to welcome the noble Viscount in his place.
1596
The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has given us an excellent opportunity to speak on almost anything that concerns the countryside. We have recently had debates on the economy and I therefore propose to limit myself to the environmental aspects. Your Lordships will remember that the present statutory framework for farming still largely reflects the perceptions that existed in the wake of the Second World War —the need to strive for national self-sufficiency in food production and the presumption that farming was an essentially benign and natural use of land in the countryside, needing only minimal control by mechanisms such as town and country planning. In more recent years we have had to adapt that statutory framework to deal with surpluses and with the recognition that modern farming methods can sometimes be environmentally destructive. Farmers can be pardoned therefore if they now have some sense of bewilderment about what is required of them.
I understand the economic problems facing farmers today. The noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, tended to suggest that in future the difference between the town and the country would be blurred. I wonder whether, even in the present economic climate, farmers would wish that to happen. My feeling is that if they had wanted to be urban dwellers, then they would be, but in fact they wish to keep the difference.
The present problems, which have grown so much in recent years, require a degree of co-operation between farmers, conservationists and planners which we have perhaps not had to achieve before. The growth of problems in the countryside is matched only by the growth in the number of organisations and agencies attempting to deal with them, as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said. I made a search of government publications in advance of the debate and found at least 10 statutory agencies in the United Kingdom, not including the advisory services. There is an equally bewildering array of designations for various sites. It is perhaps worth listing them. They include, areas of natural beauty; environmentally sensitive areas; special protection areas; national heritage areas; sites of special scientific interest; national nature reserves; marine nature reserves; marine conservation areas; national scenic areas; heritage coast and green belt. The latest addition from English Nature—only last week—is natural areas. That is a new designation with which farmers will have to come to terms. At this stage I can only give it a cautious welcome. It is a purely voluntary approach and crosses local authority boundaries. However, I have doubts about how effective it can be in the long run.
The United Kingdom is signatory to a number of international conventions—Bonn, Berne and Ramsar—all of which require a positive approach to the protection of internationally important wildlife sites. We have shortly to implement the habitats directive but have not yet embarked on the legislation. I was a little disturbed to hear from my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel that no legislation is intended; that

1597
it is felt that regulations will suffice. I hope not. I hope that we will have a proper opportunity to discuss the legislation and amend it if necessary.
We are fortunate in having a large number of non-governmental organisations which make an enormous contribution to the protection of our environment. Many of your Lordships are actively involved with those organisations, as I am. Perhaps I can say at this stage that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, deeply regrets his absence this afternoon. However, he wishes to be associated with this part of my speech, which we have discussed.
Many voluntary bodies contribute in a practical way to helping countryside protection. The British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, of which the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, is president, is approaching the planting of its 2 millionth tree. It has 63,000 volunteer work days a year. That is a formidable achievement. BTCV volunteers plant trees, manage precious habitats and keep open public rights of way. It is inconceivable that that work could be done if a commercial value was attached to it.
Another practical body is the Tree Council. Its warden scheme is a link between volunteers and local authorities and every year its "national tree week" raises the profile of the importance of trees and woodlands in our environment. The Woodland Trust, another voluntary body, buys and manages woodlands on the public's behalf.
The Royal Society for Nature Conservation/Wildlife Trusts Partnership, through its county-based wildlife trusts, is leading the way in local nature conservation management throughout the country. An excellent example of community environmental action is its new magazine Grassroots which details more than 30 examples of superb local activities by local people, supported by their local Wildlife Trust or urban group. The aim of Grassroots is one we should all aspire to—and I am sure that it has inspired and will continue to inspire many thousands of people.
The RSPB, with its membership of 850,000—I should declare that I am a council member of the RSPB though I have no financial interest; quite the contrary—combines practical management of important bird habitats with an effective policy function. It enjoys a reputation for sound research and is the lead organisation in this country for Birdlife International.
That brings me to those bodies which do not own or manage land or carry out practical conservation on the ground but whose function is just as important. The Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Council for National Parks are both good examples of bodies which have achieved much positive change in the countryside through influencing policy. I was disappointed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, say that national parks had too much power. I hope that that is not the view of other noble Lords on those Benches. I understand that many of them are working actively to give even more power to the national parks.
The Council for National Parks never fails to remind us of the importance of our national parks, which now cover around 10 per cent. of our
1598
countryside. It is only weeks ago that we were regretting the fact that there is unlikely to be legislation this autumn to strengthen national parks. I hope we can, with CNP's help, still persuade the Government of the importance of this legislation, which has the backing of, among many others, the Association of County Councils. It is vital to get the timing right on the legislation so that the independent parks authorities, to which the Government are committed, are ready to operate as soon as the new local authority structures are announced.
Finally, I should like to mention, as my noble friend Lord Williams mentioned, the Wildlife and Countryside Link, which plays a valuable role in helping to co-ordinate the activities of the many bodies involved in the countryside. The task of co-ordination is too great on many occasions even for Wildlife Link. With so many elements working in different ways on countryside affairs it is no wonder that farmers and landowners sometimes feel confused, overwhelmed and often irritated at having to thread their way through the crowd. As I said at the beginning, it is essential that we achieve co-ordination and co-operation. Above all—I make a special plea for this—we need a strategy to guide the different agencies involved so that time, effort, money and good will are not dissipated in needless conflict or on projects without a viable future.
Only the Government can provide this strategy. It may be by way of a single ministry, which the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, suggested, or there may be another way of doing it. But we have to achieve that single strategy. I beg the Government to get on with it before it is too late.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Barber of Tewkesbury: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for initiating a debate of such wide interest. I should like to use the debate as an opportunity to draw attention to what I see as the absence of some important national perspectives in our countryside use and the effect that it has on change in the countryside.
In the present state of play I find myself, in company with some others, with a rather peculiar and anguished attitude. Having spent most of the past 25 years, first of all trying to create the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group, then chairing the governing body of the RSPB and going on to chair what was then the Countryside Commission for England and Wales for 10 years in the 1980s, I am now uneasy about the balance of the environmental arguments on the farmland scene.
It is not that we want to hear less from the conservation side; perish the thought. It is simply that, in the interests of fairness and the facts, there is a requirement to present better the commercial face of farming and to influence widely held—yes, widely held—segments of public opinion which regards farmers as tiresomely expensive creatures, polluting the good earth, and that if it were not for them, the foresters and the politicians, we could all wander happily in Arcadian fields at will at the weekends.

1599
I believe that there is an enormous amount of honest confusion apparent on every hand about countryside policy. And I make the suggestion that before we can consider with any realism the changes taking place and the role of all those bodies which operate in a variety of ways in the countryside, it is essential to pose and answer a number of questions.
The most fundamental question of all—because of the farming industry's place as prime user—is: do we want a cost-effective, competitive UK agriculture, environmentally benign—or perhaps environmentally inoffensive is a better, more practical term—geared to beat the opposition in our home market, in Europe and in some world markets? If the answer is yes, then many things fall naturally into place.
First, we cannot have a competitive industry if we continue to impose more and more supply management measures such as "extensification", "lower intensity" and the rest of the panaceas being proposed by people who want to improve the farmland environment and farming stability. It comes from both sides.
Farming, like every other industry, is concerned with the most efficient use of resources and there is always an optimum point where the input and output relationship provides the highest return. Moreover, as we all know, there is a very direct relationship between yield and profit. If we meddle too far along the route of imposing yet further interference through artificial funding in the shape of more and more grants for going against the commercial grain, we will end up not with a competitive agriculture but with an emasculated one.
The second question is: how should we be trying to fashion a policy which provides us with a farming industry which does compete and at the same time provides a full range of environmental benefits? Alas, it is difficult to avoid the impression that set-aside is now firmly embedded in tablets of stone within the Berlaymont building in Brussels. How could it be otherwise? Given the social objectives of the common agricultural policy, the ease with which set-aside can be imposed and manipulated and the much greater political tensions which would arise from freeing market forces, we are living in Alice in Wonderland if we assume that set-aside's days are numbered.
Yet supply management in any form is bad for the commercial purpose, and particularly bad for the most efficient producers. For it is manifest that in the long run it can only undermine competitiveness, reduce market share and erode the commercial sustainability of the industry. If this great multi-billion pound industry is to survive as economically viable in a post-GATT world there is one policy which should be promoted night and day. That is to move away steadily from supply management, over a period, and to replace it with progressive price reduction; and at the same time to decouple—to separate entirely—environmental care policies and social and rural economy needs from all farm support mechanisms. Thus you would remove what is best described as fudge and encourage the most efficient producers to compete.
1600
It is perhaps worth mentioning that these basic policy points are derived from a report published in November 1991 by the Royal Agricultural Society of England which was the work of a study group that I had the honour of chairing. During our labours it was a considerable comfort to find that the sixteenth report of the Select Committee on the European Communities, derived from Sub-Committee D, then chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, came precisely to those same major conclusions. It is pie in the sky for the moment but surely these are points that we should be proposing and pushing on the public scene.
A further question for clarification is to ask whether protecting the incomes of existing members of the farming community is a prime policy objective. It may be a brutal question and, to some, an offensive one, but it must be answered if we are to be clear on what we are talking about. A good example of the dilemma arose in the recent discussions on potato policy in your Lordships' House and elsewhere. Do you sweep away quotas and frameworks of regulation so that the most efficient producers have a better chance of stemming the rising import tide; or do you continue to regulate so that some 7,000 producers who might be squeezed out in an open market remain in business? Or do you look to the retirement bond options to ease the reduction in the number of farmers? Those are questions which we have not faced up to and answered with any degree of detail and purpose.
There are many issues arising from these and similar questions, the answers to which have profound influence on countryside change. If, as an illustration, we had enunciated more clearly some years ago that we did need to cherish a front-line farming industry, that of necessity we needed to recognise that we were in exactly the same position as Denmark and Holland and had to export or retract, that we should be talking wholeheartedly of dominating the European food market, then we might have attacked more vigorously those straitjackets of dubious, non-scientific origin, dressed up thinly in health-care clothes but in reality food surplus controls.
A paragraph from a recent and little discussed report of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology says what scientists have been saying for years. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, referred to it. In view of the likely departure of large areas of some of our most productive land from food production through the nitrate sensitive areas scheme, it is worth quoting:
"At the very least it appears that the priority given by the current regulations to remove nitrates and pesticides is misplaced and the given expenditure would have much greater potential benefit to health if devoted to reducing the exposure to lead".
To say the very least, what an interesting set of challenging perspectives are conjured up by those few words of authority.
In addition, I wish to quote two other people. The first is Professor Ames of Berkeley, California. We got him over here to give a paper in London last November. I now quote from that paper:

1601
"there are more carcinogens in a cup of coffee than pesticides ingested in a year. Pesticides just cannot be important, the amounts are too tiny. Spending enormous amounts of money to try and get rid of that last little bit will make fruits and vegetables more expensive and so [with less healthy food eaten] you are going to increase cancer rates".
I now refer to one of our own internationally-known agricultural scientists who is at the moment the senior person undertaking biological control of insects and pests. He wrote quite recently in one of the scientific journals:
"A recent report of the Health and Safety Executive … demonstrates the largely trivial nature of pesticide misuse.
In addition, we have introduced into agriculture an enormous drain on resources because of the new legal requirements, and all this based on misconceptions regarding hazards of insecticides. This in the long term is bad economics".
Health and safety are paramount and nobody is talking about that. But when one reads these quotations, it is difficult to believe that we have not become a little too emotional and a little less practical and scientific over the whole question of agrochemicals in agriculture.
How, given the acceptance of a viable industry, do we cater for wildlife and landscape needs in a practical fashion on our farmland? The first problem is one of terminology. What do we mean by a "green" agriculture? To some it means giving overall priority to "greenness" by emphasising less intensive farming systems everywhere. To others, it means sophisticated, high-class farming through which are threaded all kinds of environmental benefits, landscape and wildlife features and sympathetic farm practices.
I bow to no one in the degree of active support I would wish to give to those conservation bodies who cry out for a greater proportion of public money flowing into the countryside to be channelled into direct environmental benefits as far as physical features are concerned. I support them wholeheartedly in making better set-aside rules. But I find it impossible to accept those proposals which seek to turn the industry on its head by interfering with commercial realities to an even more fundamental extent than the common agricultural policy does. That has the appearance to me of a step down the road of all Britain becoming a large park, financed by the taxpayer, to portray unreality in the form of rural timewarps.
Moreover, there is a connected and perhaps subtle point. By such action one inevitably blunts the cutting edge of science and technology development on which we and the whole world ultimately depend.
Perhaps I may make a comment or two about the voluntary bodies and the public agencies. When, in 1987, three of us laid down the first seeds of what was to become the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group, now flourishing 26 years later and most happily supported by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, our concept was that wildlife and landscape could be catered for within successful commercial farming provided the techniques could be explored and put into practice. The group has never wavered in this concept and has had enormous influence throughout Britain. It has wrought miracles of blending high-class
1602
production with green features of every kind. It deserves a permanent place in the pantheon of good rural influences. We should hear more about it. It is doing absolutely magnificent work without turning the industry on its head.
There are two intimate points which I feel are important and I hope that the conservation bodies will take them kindly. I believe that the first lesson they have learnt in recent years is that government Ministers can be very good allies and that the skills of diplomacy need cultivating to that end. The confrontations of the 1970s and early 1980s have served their purpose. The second is still being learnt: that they must fully acknowledge the practical interests of the farming and forestry industries and the needs and aspirations of the local rural communities. That can only come about as a result of the staffs—many of them bred in urban situations—of the voluntary bodies striving to obtain a subtle "feel" for husbandry and a proper understanding of commercial imperatives.
When they came to me I always used to tell them what they really needed to do when they came fresh to our kind of work at the RSPB from the town: "You must get to appreciate the smell of the good earth being turned over by cultivation in the spring". I believe that it did some good.
There is an addendum to this point: many workers in the voluntary bodies do not believe that a free market economy can deliver environmental objectives. Hence some obvious political stresses and strains arise which might be better relieved if exposed.
And so to the public agencies; and perhaps I may follow some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. When I was a quango chairman and people from overseas came to see me, that was a great privilege and I enjoyed it very much. But I learnt that, when I tried to set out the intricacies of how we looked after the countryside, their eyes began to glaze after about two minutes. If they did not glaze after two minutes I knew that they were not understanding English and I had to go back to the beginning. But we had an extraordinary situation there as regards all the public agencies with which I was concerned.
The Countryside Commission—which at that time was for England and Wales—looked after landscape and access in the two countries. Scotland had its own similar commission. The Nature Conservancy Council, with its wildlife remit, had all Great Britain. The Rural Development Commission had different boundaries to its sister body, COSIRA—small industries in rural areas. The Forestry Commission was an entirely different beast, being a department of government without a Whitehall base. There was the Sports Council and so on.
But I am bound to say that it all worked rather well. The mosaic of responsibilities was discharged more effectively than might have appeared likely on paper. When changes came, they came because of the political realities of the time arising from the need for better national identities. Thus, Scotland and Wales have their own combined wildlife, landscape and access bodies, but England not so.

1603
And now questions are raised about the cavalcade of grants, some apparently overlapping, emanating from different bodies and attracting comment about the need for a simply tidying-up job and a consequent rationalising of the operations. If Scotland and Wales have weathered satisfactorily the amalgamation, why not England too?
But it would be a pity if zeal to tidy overcame the findings of a really close analysis. For England is different in terms of geography, the scale of urban and suburban pressure and density of population. Moreover, though I acknowledge happily that Wales has settled down with success under the new combined regime, there are considerable differences in the cultures of the two bodies. English Nature is a group of scientists with a crystal clear remit: the Countryside Commission is a much more free-wheeling organisation with very wide-ranging terms of reference. As far as staff are concerned, the two bodies are very different creatures. Unless there are significant housekeeping savings available under a marrying together, which one begs leave to doubt, let there be much thought, please, before one English cart is constructed for two horses of diverse outlook and background.
If, indeed, a tidying-up were to be contemplated, there may well be other partners on the scene than English Heritage for the commission. It was a thought which surfaced briefly in Whitehall in 1986. Some found it more attractive the longer they ruminated on the idea.
Finally, whatever we do in engineering change in the countryside there must be one thought uppermost in mind: the potential wealth generation through efficient resource use of agriculture and forestry, particularly in balance of trade terms, where the food and timber deficit is now around £12 billion annually and will rise—it is impossible that it will do other than rise—in the short term at least.
In a world of increasing economic instability, pressing buttons and anticipating economic cycles in capital cities around the globe does not seem to work quite as well as it once did. And as vast manufacturing giants arise out of the Pacific and elsewhere, and Europe's old joints tend to stiffen a trifle with age, we may have more need of these two industries—the one export-oriented, the other import-saving—to help fatten a slim public purse.
5.20 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord Middleton for instigating this debate. With all his experience, I do not think that any Member of your Lordships' House is more appropriate than he to do so.
In the past few years, there have been two great changes in the countryside. The first and foremost is so obvious that I hardly need mention it. I refer to the change in agriculture caused by the political decision to switch from maximum food production. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Geraint—I am sorry that he is no longer in his place—that the farmers did a marvellous job when they were called upon to produce extra food. They deserve full credit for that. However, we now have a different policy with
1604
much emphasis on limiting food production. All that, with the resulting changes in livestock payments, set-aside, the system of quotas and all the accompanying form-filling which is required, means, as my noble friend Lord Middleton said, that bureaucracy has almost run amok.
I was not going to mention hill sheep quotas. My noble friend Lord Howe on the Front Bench might breathe a sigh of delight about that because I have given him a bit of stick about it recently. Unfortunately for him, however, I was handed a copy of today's Scotsman as I came in. The headline is:
"Changes at ministry delay sheep quota legislation".
The article states:
"There is still uncertainty and confusion about sheep quotas, in spite of Government claims that clarification is on the way.
The recent changes at the Ministry of Agriculture"—
under this paragraph appears a large photograph of the Minister's right honourable friend the new Minister—
"mean that legislation has been postponed and a quota specialist gave warning yesterday that time may be running out for farmers without quota".
Perhaps my noble friend will be able to tell me whether that is true because, if it is, it certainly sounds bad news. I apologise for having digressed a bit.
The second change in the countryside, and one which very much ties in with the decline in agriculture, is the change in population in rural areas. One need only look around to see the number of second homes, holiday cottages, the blossoming of craft jobs and the number of townspeople commuting from or retiring to the country. Sadly, many of those people have a somewhat idealised vision of living in the countryside before they actually experience it. This can lead to a certain amount of conflict between them and the natives. They seem totally unprepared for the lovely smells of silage and farmyard manure which drift across the country from time to time. They also seem to become frustrated when they are held up on a country road by a herd of cattle or sheep being herded in. Not for them the pleasure of following a herd of milking cows when they are going to milk, with the steady plop, plop, plop as they go along the road. That seems to horrify the incomers. Very often also, they are not prepared for the cockerel which wakes them up at dawn, and complain bitterly about it.
Too often, they also suffer from what I describe as a "Beatrix Potter/Walt Disney syndrome", which appears to give them the idea that all wild animals are large, cuddly toys which talk to themselves and walk across the countryside, discoursing with each other and having almost human feelings. That tends to lead to a complete misunderstanding of some of the traditional country sports which are so important to many people who have lived in the countryside for generations. I shall not say very much about what I consider to be the very dangerous threats posed by the hunt, shoot and now, I hear, fishing saboteurs. Anyone who lives in the countryside is quite happy to have other people putting forward their point of view if they disapprove of some perfectly lawful form of entertainment, but when it leads to violence and in

1605
some cases to death it is an extremely worrying change and one to which I hope that the Government will pay attention.
All too often, those who move into the countryside also have a very NIMBY attitude. They seem to feel that they have bought their little bit of peace and quiet in the countryside (even if they complain about everything that goes on there) but they are damned if they see why somebody else should do the same thing.
So much for the changes in the countryside; I turn now to the organisations connected with them. Obviously, we have MAFF and the DoE. In addition, hovering somewhere like a huge black thundercloud —with respect to the right reverend Prelate, I sometimes think of it as a completely wicked and diabolical holy spirit coming down—is the CAP, which seems enormously to influence what happens in the countryside. After them, we have all the other various organisations about which we have heard a little today, including the Countryside Commission, English Nature, English Heritage, the National Rivers Authority, the Rural Development Commission and the Forestry Commission.
We then have local government. At the moment, there are three levels of local government in England: the county, district and parish councils. But even that is in the process of being changed by the Boundary Commission and may not last much longer. If one lives in the countryside, one may be in a national park, so that is yet another tier of authority that can influence one's life. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, who is in his place and to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who is not, for talking about England. The various bodies are, of course, different in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But that is what happens in England—and those are only the statutory bodies.
We have also heard about some of the voluntary bodies which have a great deal of influence on people who live in the countryside. I should like to get in a plug for two which probably no other noble Lord will mention in this debate. I refer to two very longstanding country bodies: the Women's Institute and the Young Farmers' Clubs. I think that both do a marvellous job in the countryside. I understand that Women's Institute members no longer spend their whole time singing "Jerusalem" and making jam. I do not have any firsthand experience of what they actually do, but I am told that it is extremely good. I have been involved with the Young Farmers' Clubs at various levels for a number of years and although occasionally a number of their members go slightly over the rails—as do most young people from time to time—on the whole they do a marvellous job, producing a youth body which works in very isolated areas and provides a marvellous service.
Then we come to the plethora of designated areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, mentioned some. I am not sure whether my list agrees completely with hers, but there are the national parks, the AONBs, the SSSIs, and the ESAs. Now we have a new one, the nitrate sensitive areas, which are soon to become
1606
known as nitrate vulnerable zones, which sound terrifying. There are also the conservation areas, and many more.
All those bodies and designations are so very important in this age of grant-aided farming as farmers and landowners have to know whom to apply to for what grant. It must be puzzling. As the right reverend Prelate said, the suicide rate among farmers is high. A recent survey in North Yorkshire (where there is a high level of such suicides) showed that bureaucracy was one of the main worries facing farmers.
However, not all is gloom and doom. I should like to finish on a more positive note. As my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth said, there are advantages, and the incomers often produce many very welcome financial benefits for rural areas. They may also produce some useful new ideas, a great deal of enthusiasm and often new industry which helps a lot. Many of them go on to the local councils to represent the areas. They can be useful there, so long as they are sympathetic and tactful towards the locals and their needs.
With the accent no longer on maximum food production, there has been far more emphasis on what the countryside looks like. I do not want to use the term "agri-environmental" which is appalling, but the general greening of the countryside has been much to the fore in the past few years. A great deal of money has been paid under various schemes to farmers and landowners to care for the countryside. There has been more co-operation between MAFF and the DoE than there used to be, something which I welcome strongly.
One scheme that I like particularly—I must declare an interest here as a countryside commissioner, but for only the next fortnight after which my time comes to an end—is the Countryside Commission's countryside stewardship scheme. It is voluntary. It is open to farmers, tenant farmers, estate owners, voluntary bodies and local authorities. They can enter voluntarily into a tenure agreement applying to land in one or more of the following English landscapes: chalk and limestone grasslands; lowland heath; waterside landscapes; coastal land; uplands; historic landscapes; old orchards; old meadows and pastures; and the culm in Devon and Cornwall and Hereford and Worcester.
Needless to say, I am interested especially in the uplands where one can now obtain good grants for the restoration of heather moorland, the building of stone walls and that type of thing. If we have to subsidise non-farming—if I may call it such—I am sure that that is the right direction to follow. Set-aside has been a disaster, or, at any rate from the conservation aspect it has.
I was talking to an American lady last night. She is from an academic background. She told me that her father was a college lecturer, but that she grew up in one of the farming states of the US. She said that the trouble there when they followed the line of paying farmers not to produce things was that the farmers soon acquired the habit of thinking that the Government should subsidise them and owed them a living, and that they were not going to work. While the

1607
Government are looking seriously into some of the grants and benefits in other fields for people who may have become used to living in a society which relies upon them, it is not a good idea to encourage farmers to fall into the same situation. I am all for giving grants and subsidies for farmers and landowners to do something, but not for giving them grants not to do something.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, in an article in The Times today on the fall of Dr. Banda in Malawi, it was said of him that among various disagreeable traits, such as feeding his political enemies to crocodiles he had the virtue of not letting his country's rural economy disintegrate as had happened in many other African states, and that there was no mass influx into the towns with the resulting problem of shanties and public disintegration, as happened in many African states, many other states, and in the United Kingdom in the last century.
I do not claim that God's blueprint for the fertile parts of his world was identical to the state of Europe as it was between the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution, but I do say that, as a balance of living between town and country, it seems never to have been bettered. A land in which there are towns and cities which are not allowed to grow too large and which are fed, more or less, by the surrounding countryside—a pattern which I believe, for instance, is still true of Wales—seems to be a pattern in which human beings can lead a prosperous and satisfying life. It is that, surely, towards which we should be striving. I believe that it is far from being an impossible aim on the European scale. It would have been seen as impossible some 10 or 20 years ago, but today, as we begin to see the inevitability of ecological economics, we begin also to see a dawn of hope for that kind of living.
No longer will the world be able to afford the wasteful economics of free trade. Free trade is efficient only when the bottom line is measured in pounds and pence. When it is measured in renewable resources and human happiness, free trade can be, and often is, a disaster. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, when he opened the debate, for which we all are extremely grateful—I certainly am—said that a healthy countryside is a countryside that has a healthy agriculture. I agree. I go on to say that we can only have a healthy agriculture if agriculture, in this country or Europe as a whole—I should prefer Europe as a whole—is protected.
There can be, and there undoubtedly will be, an objection that such a state of affairs is unfair to the rest of the world. I do not believe that to be true. The whole world would be better off if countries were to concentrate on feeding themselves and to stop using their land to grow cash crops at bottom prices to export all over the world to pay for imports that they more or less do not need.
If it is to be said that I am looking back towards an unattainable past, I disagree with that also. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who said that a healthy countryside is a developing countryside. We
1608
should be moving towards a countryside with much smaller farm units, with a much larger rural population, living in a rural society which does not need specially subsidised buses and post offices because it is prosperous in its own right; a farming community in which farmers do not hang themselves every week because they are lonely, bankrupt and despairing, and where one is not offered, instead of bread, or the ability to provide bread, "a survey of rural stress" by the Government, which means filling in even more forms than those described by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. We should be moving towards a countryside where the obscenity of set-aside—it is very obscene—is got rid of in the interests of an extensive (as opposed to an intensive) agriculture; a countryside where the dangers of herbicides and pesticides are kept under control; and a countryside where natural treasures are absolutely preserved, because they are irreplaceable, and are not allowed to slip away, as they do today despite all our efforts, at a rate of 5 per cent. every year as is happening with the SSSIs.
Twenty years ago I should have said that what I am saying in my speech was impossible. I might even, God help me! have said that it was undesirable, so brainwashed was I in those days by the false certainties of free trade. I believe now that one can begin to see that it is not just desirable, which it clearly is, but that it is also possible. I would go further than that: I believe that it is not just possible, but that in many ways it is inevitable, and that all we have to do is to co-operate with the way that the world is turning.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, those of you who have recently been struggling with the IACS form, trying to fill it in and obtain the appropriate maps, will realise that we have reached a most important stage in the common agriculture policy. There will be a major change in the countryside during the next two years. I believe that it is a very worrying change because in the countryside we are returning to a kind of deficiency payment system for supporting agriculture. That system was found to be unacceptable to the taxpayers as long ago as 1964. I believe that as regards the system which the new forms herald we may be lucky to have a run of about two years of prosperous agriculture in the countryside before the majority of taxpayers demand a rethink of the system, as they did in 1964.
Some people may believe that Europe is moving closer to world prices for its food products. However, a totally free market in agricultural products will cause an unacceptable degree of social and economic dislocation. To the parts of Britain which cannot compete with near-world prices, financial help must be given to maintain and look after the rural communities. That help must be given for social and environmental reasons and for the encouragement of positive land use.
Many noble Lords will agree that the set-aside scheme needs substantial adjustment so that it can be more useful and environmentally helpful. The land

1609
should be allowed to grow crops for longer, to reproduce itself and to have a better future. It is not as bad a scheme as many people believe.
There has been much talk today of the need for a national strategy for the countryside against which the policy of all United Kingdom bodies can be judged. Many noble Lords have said that one government department should be charged with the lead task of defining an overall strategy for the countryside. I have no doubt that that department must be the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I was sorry to see in today's Daily Telegraph an article suggesting that for some time the Cabinet has been considering a Ministry for the countryside. I hate to disagree with my noble friend Lord Middleton, who suggested that we needed some overall department. I remind him that we were at Cambridge together in the days when Julian Slade produced his "Salad Days". We do not want a Minister for Parks and Pleasure. The environmental side of the countryside must remain with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
My noble friend Lord Swinton was right about the civil servants who believe that they have the right to tell landowners what to do. In listing the organisations and paying tribute to the Women's Institute I am sorry that my noble friend did not mention the Young Farmers' Club, of which he is president and which is the best marriage bureau in the country. He might have put that on the record.
We must take note of an article by Matt Ridley which appeared in the Daily Telegraph. It was headed "The Liquidation of the Landowners and Farmers". It dealt with the vast body of civil servants who are accountable to no one except the taxpayers. They believe that they have a right to override the existing knowledge and responsibility of landowners and farmers who have looked after this countryside for many years and who know a great deal more about it than many of the civil servants.
We must also look at some of the organisations and their effect on the countryside. I wish to refer in particular to English Heritage. The time has come when we must admit to the fact that English Heritage is embarrassed by its success in certain of its fields. We must draw the conclusion that a proper scientific policy must be worked out. There should be grounds and reasons for the control of some of the areas in which it has had such success.
The English countryside has evolved as a managed countryside which is rich and full of variety. However, we cannot continue with the current policy which is so favoured by today's "green" scientists of laissez-faire by way of a conservation policy. One cannot merely let nature take its course in a managed countryside and say that control and even killing has no place in those areas.
I wish to refer to three issues, two of which were so well dealt with by my noble friend Lord Massereene in his excellent maiden speech. I refer to his rampaging raptors; and they are rampaging. In 1960 there were 300 pairs of golden eagles and today there are 425. In 1960 there were 200 pairs of hen harriers and today there are more than 500 pairs in Scotland alone. The
1610
sparrow hawk was thought to be rare in 1960, but there are now 25,000 in England alone. There are 70,000 kestrels and more than 2,000 peregrines. There has been an explosion in the raptor population. As your Lordships know, one pair of sparrow hawks will eat 110 pigeons, 60 blackbirds and 2,000 sparrows in order to stay alive.
We must face up to an agreement on the density of avian predation in this country. We must look forward to a change of attitude in the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. We must face up to the fact that among most people in the countryside the RSPB is rapidly gaining the reputation as the most arrogant and intrusive of all the countryside bodies. We have the incredible case of a particular colony of terns whose breeding future was at the end of its tether. Some 80 pairs of terns had only five surviving young last year because of predation by kestrels. What did the species protection officer of the RSPB suggest should be done this year? He suggested the artificial introduction into the reserve of vast numbers of mice so that the kestrels will not kill the baby terns. That is a chaotic policy. We must face up to a difficult position and we must have an agreement on avian predation densities.
My noble friend Lord Massereene was so right about the seals. The map recently published by the sea mammal research unit at Cambridge shows that out of the population of 93,500 grey seals, 87,000 are sitting right across the run of salmon coming from Iceland to this country. We cannot complain about the Northumberland drift nets unless we face up to the necessity for proper scientific management of the seal population.
What about the saw bill ducks, cormorants and mergansers? They are predating heavily on all our inland fisheries. Cormorants and mergansers are sea birds and have no need to come inland and take fish from the inland fisheries. They should be protected only within three miles of the coastline. One begins to have little confidence in some of the bodies which issue licences for the control of saw bill ducks. Every year when fishery boards apply for a licence to kill mergansers and goosanders, the period for which the licence is issued is reduced because of "green" conservation pressures on the Ministry.
The countryside needs a review of the whole of its conservation policy. It is most important that such a review is carried out by the lead Minister. The Minister who should be in the lead is the Minister responsible for production in and viability of the countryside, and the livelihood and welfare of all those who live there.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for giving us the opportunity to bring to your Lordships' notice some changes that have taken place in the countryside.
I had the good fortune to be born in the north of Scotland in Caithness and I grew up appreciating the marvels of the countryside; for example, the wild orchid, scabias, harebells, the primula scottica—a rare primula which grows on the sand dunes—and the

1611
different kinds of heather, gorse, wild broom and pinks. It was hard work making hay in the short summer. The fields were ploughed by Clydesdale horses. Cows were milked by hand. The pace of life in the countryside was slow and the work hard but pride in good stock and the satisfaction of the harvest gathered in gave the farmer the sense of achievement that he needed at the end of his hard work.
With mechanisation the whole pace of farming changed. Increased use of chemicals and production increased but so did the pressures of modern-day competition and stress. Living in the Yorkshire Dales as I do now, I have seen a great change in the past few years. That has been due mainly to the increase of tourists and the movement of people from the towns, which is not always to the benefit of the local population.
On our estate in North Yorkshire we have a folly known as the Druid's Temple. It is a replica of Stonehenge and many people are drawn to it. It has been a favourite picnic spot and many people enjoy visiting it. But on several occasions there have been orgies when the gates have been torn off and used for bonfires. The police and the local keepers try to keep control but violence has been known with fights and stabbings. On one occasion my nephew went up to inspect the scene the day after one such incident had occurred and he found the remains of burnt court orders and probation orders. The troublemakers had come from Manchester on their motorbikes.
On a recent occasion my secretary, who had not visited before and was new to the area, went for a walk at the Druid's Temple taking a friend who was staying with her. To their horror they found sitting on the sacrificial altar a pig's head. Their peaceful weekend walk was abruptly interrupted. There seems to be an increase in devil worship and cults. What is it that people are looking for? Is that not connected with child abuse and all kinds of sexual perversion?
Last year my noble kinsman had twice to take out an injunction to try to stop new age travellers descending on some of our land which could in no way cope with so many people. They would have been a menace to local farmers who have sheep and a health hazard to the local population. I ask the Minister what legislation is to be introduced to protect the countryside from those problems.
Word had got around that there was to be a rave—a kind of party—to be held to celebrate a festival on a certain date. The police managed to divert the new age travellers but many young people arrived on the scene hoping to join the rave. The police found many of those young people with drugs. Cannabis, ecstasy and amphetamine seemed to be the most popular drugs. The increase in drug abuse is extremely evident in the North and the growth of the magic mushrooms around the area is abundant.
The ever growing use of drugs is no doubt a contributor to the growing problem of rural crime. The headline in the Darlington and Stockton Times last week on an article on crime was:
"Concern at country crime, with no village bobbies to block off the motorway rat run".
The article says:
1612
"Joining the thousands of holidaymakers heading for Spain this year will be some unlikely cargoes—tractors and combine harvesters stolen from northern farms".
Stone roof slates are stolen in the middle of the night as are fences, gates, garden ornaments, wrought iron gates, chainsaws and trailers. Some time ago I had 17 saddles stolen from a double-locked tackroom at our trekking centre. We now have lights and alarm bells. I ask the Government whether they have put into operation a think-tank with the Country Landowners' Association, the police and other responsible bodies. Something must be done.
Some years ago when I was speaking to a group of prisoners in prison they quite plainly told me, "We will go on committing crime so long as it pays us". When I meekly asked them whether they felt that they were wasting their lives in prison, it was evident that they did not believe that the punishment that they were receiving would stop their future criminal activities. I went away wondering what on earth could be done. Perhaps the prisoners meant that they should have their hands cut off.
One suggestion which came from a meeting with the CLA was to spray the underside of slates with indelible paint to prevent their resale. We should mark everything. If there were tolls on motorways that might slow down the escaping criminals. There is no doubt that people in the countryside have a great fear of crime as well as experiencing it. If asked, the local villagers and country people will say, "We want to see the restoration of village constables and the reopening of police stations in our smaller country towns". The police will say that roving police cars cover more ground and are more cost effective.
It is an immense problem as a county like North Yorkshire and other rural counties cover such large acreages. It takes a long time to travel from one part of the county to another. The North Yorkshire Police will say that they need more police personnel. It all gets back to money. Rising crime is, it seems, out of control.
We need a strengthening of farm watch schemes and more training and co-operation between the police and local people. Organised crime seems to be on top of the situation. The present laws do not really help. There have to be legal ways in which farmers and villagers can protect their own property which do not land them in trouble. As a humble Cross-Bench Peer, perhaps I may suggest to the Government that if they wish to win a few more votes, they must take steps to get the crime problem under control in rural areas.
Nothing that I can say can illustrate the full feeling of revulsion felt by horse-loving people as regards the unbelievable and sadistic acts to horses which have been carried out in rural areas in England. I ask the Minister what is being done to find the sick and debased culprit or culprits concerned in those acts of cruelty and mutilation which are beyond belief. They seem to have sexual connotations. How low can society fall? The added anxiety is that although there are watch schemes and people on the alert, those crimes continue.
In the countryside I have noticed ever growing crops of thistles and docks. Is that increase because of set-aside and because the grass verges on the sides of

1613
motorways are no longer cut? Or is it because farmers can no longer afford sprays? I am concerned also about ragwort which is poisonous to horses. Will the Minister give some advice about that? With horse crime, grass sickness and the new EVA virus which has come in from Poland, I should like to suggest on behalf of equine owners that there should be a debate on those worrying conditions. Should not EVA be a notifiable disease? One has to ask, what disaster will happen next? There seems to be so many of them.
Perhaps it was because of a personal involvement that I felt it necessary to add my name to the long list of speakers in today's debate. Some time ago, a tenant farmer on our estate committed suicide. He was the son of a devout Roman Catholic farmer. He was found hanging in a tree. I was asked to give the address in our little village Roman Catholic chapel. That was, perhaps, one of the most difficult things that I have ever had to do. A united family had to suffer one of their members, a fit young man, taking his own life.
It is well documented that farmers have one of the highest rates of suicide compared with people in other professions. In the Yorkshire Dales there is increasing concern that the quality of farmers' lives is being eroded by continual stress. Last autumn, the Farming Under Stress Working Party was set up to study stress among farmers in Swaledale and Arkengarthdale with representatives of the Yorkshire Rural Community Council, the Samaritans, the citizens advice bureaux, the National Farmers' Union, as well as a local doctor and minister.
The group sent out questionnaires to 96 hill farmers and recently published a report based on the answers that it received. The report shows that the main causes of stress are inclement weather, poor quality of land, loneliness and isolation. Their incomes are declining. Changes in government and EC policy have changed the sheep farmers' incomes. They live in fear of withdrawal of subsidies. Such problems of stress are caused by bureaucracy generated by the EC, national government, and the National Parks Authority. The report says that the influx of tourists, attracted by the beautiful scenery and the Herriot country label have left farmers unsure of their real role in the future of the Yorkshire Dales.
Farmers feel that there is a "them and us" attitude with the national park which should be talking to the farmers instead of just telling them what to do. Farmers feel threatened. The Minister who is to respond to the debate, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is a welcome visitor to North Yorkshire. Perhaps he and the Secretary of State for Agriculture will come to the Dales and discuss the findings of the report, along with MAFF and the NFU.
I serve on the FHSA (the family health service authority) for north Yorkshire. When I asked the question about rural suicides at a talk given by a doctor on public health, some of my fellow members looked rather surprised. I agree with Professor Fred Harper from the faculty of agriculture of the University of Seal-Hayne who said:
1614
"Rural health is a major national issue which has not been addressed seriously enough in the past".
However, not all is gloom and doom in our lovely countryside. I am happy to tell your Lordships that I have had the pleasure recently of opening some trails designed for disabled people. One was near a Cheshire Home in Yorkshire and was organised by the Countryside Commission. The other was at the Kielder dam in Northumberland which I think was organised by the Forestry Commission. Moreover, at Rievaulx Abbey, the National Trust has provided electric wheelchairs so that disabled people can be more mobile. It is good that those organisations are providing facilities to enable disabled people to enjoy the countryside more easily.
On the 8th June a Question was tabled in your Lordships' House asking:
"Whether people living in the Yorkshire Dales will be unable to receive BBC Radio 4 when, shortly, it is broadcast only on FM".
In his Answer the Minister said:
"There are always likely to be some small communities which, for reasons of topography and shortage of suitable frequencies, will be unable to receive particular services" —[Official Report, 8/6/93; col. 707.]
Radio 4 is the most important radio station. It gives farming news and excellent programmes. In this day and age, I think it wrong not to give that service to the whole country. That applies particularly to rural areas which are often cut off with no public transport. Moreover, some disabled people who live in rural areas do not even have helpful schemes like Dial-a-ride to enable them to get out and about. They will become even more cut off if they are unable to hear reports from Parliament and the programmes that bring them up to date with current affairs. The Government cannot wash their hands of their responsibilities. The BBC must, and should, cover the whole country.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for letting us remind different organisations that they have a duty to protect the interests of people who are living in the countryside and who need their support and help.
I should like to conclude on a happy note. In recent years there has been great growth and interest in crafts. There are now many craft sales and there is great interest in rare breeds of sheep; for example, there is a growing interest in the breeding of Shetland sheep which have a lovely selection of natural colours of wool. For the first time this year, there are classes for Shetland sheep at some of the local shows in Yorkshire. People are, once again, spinning their own wool. Moreover, the Japanese, who appreciate good quality, are interested in Shetland wool. All our native breeds of animals are part of our heritage; they are worth protecting and improving.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Middleton for tabling today's Motion. He made me ask myself two questions. First, has the countryside changed? My view is, not as much as most people suggest, thank God. Secondly, has the plethora of non-agricultural voluntary organisations connected with it been constructive? Apart from the welfare ones such as the WI, the Church and

1615
Crossroads, my answer again must be no. I have to say that, otherwise I would disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.
The reason why the countryside has not fossilised as much as many would like is because the major industry is, and will continue to be, agriculture. Certainly agricultural practices have changed and should be allowed to change, but they have always done so. My complaint is against those who try to stop that change, be it the removal of useless hedgerows or suggesting diversification as the overall cure for our countryside. Unless farmers are allowed to farm efficiently, the countryside will suffer socially, economically and, lastly, in beauty.
Farmers are not park keepers. That point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Spencer, in his excellent maiden speech. Their creed has been, and always will be, to farm efficiently. I was delighted to listen to the address of the noble Lord, Lord Barber, on that point. I personally hate the demoralisation caused by set-aside. Such a policy can only be temporary.
How have the countryside and farmers been helped or hindered by the many organisations that have been mentioned today by your Lordships? In my view, not very much at all. Many have deliberately denigrated the essential role farmers have played and will continue to play, to the point of persecution. Most, if not all, of them fail to understand the farmer's dedication to his farm. It always comes first in a farmer's family. That is the reason I find it difficult to pester my noble friend Lord Howe during lambing time. I would also receive very severe criticism from my wife for such behaviour. Perhaps I should alter that in deference to my noble friend Lord Massereene, whose maiden speech I much enjoyed.
Which, therefore, are these organisations that pester farmers, or should I be honest and say "me"? My noble friend Lord Howe may be surprised to hear me say that, at local level, MAFF is helpful and understanding. The Government have done a better deal in the European Community than I had expected. I am, however, concerned about the lack of practical experience in Whitehall, which, in my opinion, has resulted in such schemes as the beef special premium scheme. However, MAFF does not seem to go out of its way to persecute me. I hope I am not giving my noble friend Lord Howe the kiss of death because I cannot give the same accolade to the Department of the Environment and local authorities. Those bodies might start by looking at their planning departments. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, seemed to have similar concerns about that. Perhaps he will agree with me that planning departments delay and frustrate people. If they make decisions, at least 50 per cent. of them are wrong. The Government could make real savings if they adopted the premise of no planners at all. If that achieved nothing else, it would certainly cut down on corruption.
Such august bodies as English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales also come under the wing of the Department of the Environment. They try hard to achieve good results and they are sincere. Their staff are academically very knowledgeable. They try hard to get the various parties in this squabble
1616
—if I can call it that—to see each other's point of view. I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, refer to this point. However, I am concerned that the temptation is for the various organisations to empire build. Is it really in the brief of the Countryside Council for Wales to spend money on publicising an energy policy for Wales? What will it do next? Will it publish a defence and foreign policy for Wales? I do not think that is its job.
There is a myriad of voluntary bodies telling farmers and landowners how to manage their land. The great majority of people on those bodies wish to preserve the countryside as they consider it to have been when they were children. They do not earn their living in the country or off the land. They are NIMBYs. My noble friend Lord Swinton made that point. The people on those bodies have, I believe, taken on Lord Curzon's role of being very superior people. I was therefore pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Williams, accept the fact that these bodies should be rather less vicious in their criticism of farmers. I must tell my noble friend Lord Strathclyde that these are the people who have taken over the countryside and given it an appearance of prosperity.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I did not say that the CPRW or any other voluntary organisation has been less vicious. I said—I hope the noble Lord will accept this—that I thought voluntary organisations such as CPRW should co-operate with farmers' organisations such as the Farmers Union for Wales and the NFU and should not be vicious in any sense. Will the noble Lord confirm, as he said earlier in his speech, that he is speaking for himself?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have never spoken in this House other than by myself, for myself and with myself. Every noble Lord who knows me knows that that is the case. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that the bodies we are discussing should be more co-operative. If he reads my speech he will see I said that. If that is not the case, I apologise. I return to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who I believe I was having words with. It goes without saying that I would very much welcome in the countryside those business entrepreneurs that my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth mentioned. I could not understand why my noble friend Lord Strathclyde eulogised the birds and the bees. There were times when I wondered whether the countryside he envisages is the countryside I live in.
I accept that I have painted a sad picture of a persecuted farmer and therefore of a persecuted countryside. That is perhaps in line with the report of the noble Duke, the Duke of Westminster. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, understands that we feel somewhat persecuted. As so many noble Lords are so closely connected with the land, I hope they will understand why I have painted this sad picture. As the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, said, people connected with the land are in a minority in both central and local government. The majority of our urban or suburban population has no connection with the land.
My noble friend Lord Middleton proposed the establishment of a department of rural affairs. I do not

1617
know whether or not such a department would solve the problems. Like my noble friend Lord Kimball, I conclude that unless the bodies concerned with the countryside, including any future department of rural affairs, accept that the farmer and the landowner are the mainstay of a prosperous and therefore a beautiful countryside, they will not achieve any worthwhile objective. Indeed if they continue to denigrate and persecute both farmers and landowners, their efforts will be counter-productive.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I intend to talk about forestry. I apologise to noble Lords who have heard me preach the gospel of forestry in the House for repeating some of the arguments which I have used on previous occasions. We are discussing changes in the countryside, and the development and expansion of forestry has been a major factor in changing the appearance of the countryside.
It was discovered in 1918 that we were so short of timber in this country—having fought wars over the centuries and having been engaged in major timber-consuming new industries during the Industrial Revolution—that some of the coal mines could not produce coal during the First World War because there were no pit props available for the mines. Therefore the Government decided that there should be an active forestry policy to regenerate some of our woodlands. The Forestry Commission was created long before the nationalised industries and the Morrisonian doctrine had evolved. In fact the Church Commissioners were sent for and their constitution was examined. The Forestry Commission was modelled on the Church Commissioners.
The Forestry Commission was instructed to go out and plant trees. It buckled to and planted many trees. It has suffered a great deal of criticism because it carried out that mandate with great vigour. As a result, some of the earlier planting of trees was not sensitive to the need to maintain a diverse landscape. However, the Forestry Commission could only buy marginal land on which to plant trees. The Department of Agriculture would not allow forestry to be developed on land unless that land was rather useless and certainly marginal. The only tree crop that could be grown on marginal land was conifers. Hardwood trees could not be grown on exposed sites. The Forestry Commission acquired a bad name for being insensitive to good landscape planning.
The Forestry Commission performed its duty as a state agency but it also worked in close partnership with the private sector in developing forestry. It provided the research and training and helped the development of private forestry. An excellent partnership evolved, not as competitors but as co-operating elements in the development of our woodlands. I regret to say that in the current climate of privatisation that partnership is being destroyed. That is very sad.
The new forests that were created by the commission, and sometimes by the private sector, had
1618
a fairly uniform age profile. Young trees of the same species growing on a hillside are not always attractive. It is only when the woodlands begin to mature that some of the beauty, even of conifer forests, becomes apparent. People became alarmed and said that forestry was growing up all over the place and was making too great a change in the countryside. They failed to recognise that this country had been denuded of its woodlands. Even now only 10 per cent. of the surface of the countryside is under woodlands. The comparable figure for Germany is 30 per cent.; and for France it is 27 per cent. Therefore, people should not be alarmed about the growth and development of forestry and feel that it invades and covers the land.
Unfortunately, in the past few years the incentive for the development of this renewable resource has been severely curtailed as part of government policy, whether deliberately or not. Twenty years ago when I was chairman of the Forestry Commission, the commission planted 23,000 hectares and the private sector planted a similar number. Last year the Forestry Commission planted 5,000 hectares, and I see from its corporate plan for next year that only 1,000 hectares of new woodland will be planted by the Forestry Commission. That is a very serious matter from a number of points of view.
Forestry is not simply a device for producing uniform standard conifers. It has tremendous social implications and advantages for our countryside. Last year Forestry Commission woodlands welcomed 50 million day visitors, who took advantage of the forest trails and picnic sites. Nothing is more encouraging than to see families with knapsacks on their backs going into the forest at weekends and enjoying the access which Forestry Commission forests provide. Picnic sites, wildlife protection, bird hides and other facilities are all provided.
Indeed, mention has been made in this debate of the importance of national parks. The Forestry Commission has been running 14 national parks since 1936. The first national park is in Argyll. The Forestry Commission has considerable experience in catering sensitively for recreation and conservation.
I mentioned that there has been a dramatic drop in the forestry planting programmes. That is a very serious matter because we are only 13 per cent. self-sufficient in timber in this country. Every year we import more than £6 billion of timber and timber products. I should have thought that it was a matter of some concern for a country which is so deeply in deficit in its overseas trade balance that we are allowing the industry to decline before our very eyes while at the same time encouraging inward investment into the wood processing industries. In the past eight years wood processing industries have invested £1 billion in this country—in Wales and Scotland and areas of high unemployment.
However, we are not planting trees now to maintain adequate supplies of native timber for those new enterprises. That is not immediately noticeable, because forestry is a long-term industry. One starts thinning conifers in 10, 12, 15 or 20 years; and

1619
hardwoods have a 100-year rotation. Conifers are required for the wood processing industry; and we are allowing the planting programme to collapse.
I regard that as bad for the countryside. It is bad for the countryside because the countryside should be a living countryside. It is all very well for people to talk about the importance of wilderness areas, as the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, did; but the countryside is also beautiful when it is alive, when it is active and people have the opportunity to earn their living. Therefore, I suggest to the Government that they should become more worried about the rapid decline in opportunities for rural employment in forestry.
Incidentally, perhaps I may encourage the conservationists among your Lordships by pointing out that in the past year 45 per cent. of the new timber planted by the private sector was hardwoods. Because new and better land is becoming available to it, the Forestry Commission programme also offers greater diversity and greater opportunities for conserving areas of great ecological importance, such as in the restoration of the Caledonian forest.
What is happening in forestry? I have already mentioned the decline in planting by the Forestry Commission, which may or may not be deliberate government policy. Some 172,000 hectares of land have been sold off to the private sector. A creeping and deliberate privatisation by stealth seems to be taking place in forestry. If one denies the Forestry Commission resources it will die. It will still be an administrative government department authorising tree planting and felling, and so on; but the decline in the Forestry Commission is not being compensated for by any growth in private sector planting. Therefore, there is a total paralysis of the industry.
That industry is important to a living countryside, economically and ecologically, in the provision of recreation. Therefore, I beg the Minister to think again about making a serious contribution to the revival of this important industry.
6.28 p.m.
Viscount De L'Isle: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord Middleton for instigating the debate. I should like to express my regret at not having been able to take part in the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Carver, on 3rd March. I was chairing a conference about the countryside on that day and therefore was unable to be in the House.
I should also like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Spencer, and my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who is a neighbour of mine.
Planning law was introduced in the 1930s to prevent the spread of haphazard development and to protect the landscape, or to place a cordon sanitaire around the great conurbations—the so-called green belt. While there is no doubt that there must be some control of development, planning authorities often fail and, statutorily, do not have to take into account the economic needs of the rural community. It is safer to take a negative view rather than support an innovative scheme.
The countryside as we know it today has evolved
1620
because of the way our forebears shaped and used it, not only to produce food and raw materials, but sport and leisure as well. The engine which has driven that has been the landed estate, farms and rural businesses. Over the past 48 years, since the last war, we have seen agricultural production increase while the numbers employed in the industry have declined and a further 80,000 people are likely to have left the land by the end of the decade.
I support my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth by saying that the countryside is about people. Without people there would be no countryside. Therefore they have made it. Unless action is taken now, the countryside as we know it will be dead by the end of the next millenium. Nothing will be accomplished by merely paying lip service to the need for change. The decline of agriculture looks set to continue. One must hope that we do not experience the dereliction of the 1930s' agricultural depression. New life must be breathed into the countryside if a viable rural economy is to support the population and thus in turn the countryside. Evolution not revolution has always been the countryman's way of dealing with challenges.
In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to new technology and communications. Telematics —the use of computers with telecommunications—will enable a multitude of tasks to be undertaken in villages. The advantages stemming from the reduced need for travel to work and the bringing of services to the village are enormous. The larger indigenous population will benefit existing businesses such as the shop, sub-post office, garage and public house, and, I suggest, will increase the congregation in the parish church.
New businesses need a work place. Often redundant buildings can be converted into suitable class B1-use premises, conserving the past while creating the future. In many cases there is little difficulty in obtaining planning permission. However, some planning authorities regard such development with suspicion. Their angst is fuelled by the braying pack of vocal protesters—the so-called NIMBYs, about whom we heard earlier, and in addition, the NODAMs who continue to say, "No development after mine". Those two species of man use the village as a dormitory, enjoy the view over others' rolling acres, while voicing uninformed criticism, and walk their uncontrollable dogs off the lead through flocks of sheep, stifling any positive steps which might be made to improve the village economy. Having been a breeder of large white pigs, the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, will know, that in Yorkshire farmers say that one cannot educate pork; one can only cure it.
Planning decisions are often arrived at in isolation and measured against the narrow criteria within the local development plan. Those noble Lords who live in listed buildings surrounded by conservation zones and green belts or national parks will know the difficulties of obtaining permission for change of land use. Recently the Rural Development Commission, under the able chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth, has been promoting whole estate and whole farm plans. In effect, it is a management plan for the relevant property. The resources and

1621
enterprises on the estate are studied by a management plan team with the aim of identifying their importance and managing them appropriately for their retention and enhancement. Those will include topography, geology, soils, land quality, landscape, nature conservation and archaeology, coupled with existing farming, tourism and recreation, forestry, fishing, diversified enterprises, and housing and commercial uses. The role of the whole estate management plan should be similar to that of the local development plan. Both are seeking to convert and control land usage for a particular defined area for a period of 10 years.
The plan should be directed towards, first, the landowner so that investment and management decisions can be made in the full knowledge of the physical and financial consequences. Secondly, it should be directed towards the planning authority so that it is fully aware of the constraints on and opportunities for the estate and of any likely proposals for the change of land use over the next 10 years.
Discussions between the estate management plan team and the planning authority during the formulation of the plan will enable planners to have an early input. The advantages to both parties are clear: the owner can plan his business in the knowledge that his proposals for change of land use or diversification will be favourably viewed. The planning authority is able to have an input at an early stage. It will have a fuller knowledge of the background and will be able to take an overall view. The concept could or should be taken a step further and the estate management plan deposited with the authority as a background paper to the local development plan.
I would not wish to impose a statutory need for a whole estate management plan, but such a scheme would save much of the time, effort and resources which are currently being wasted by the combative approach in the making of and opposition to planning applications. A more proactive strategy by all parties would save resources, help to speed the much needed change of direction in the rural economy and allow our well loved countryside to continue its evolution unscathed.
6.36 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I must apologise for the fact that I came to the House late today and therefore was not present to hear the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. That is a matter of great regret because from all that I have heard from others it was an extremely good opening speech. However, I express my thanks to him for giving us the opportunity to debate this important matter relating to our countryside.
I have various declarations of interest to make. First, I am a chartered surveyor. I am also a member of the Country Landowners' Association and of the NFU. I am a hill farmer. I farm jointly with my wife 950 acres on Exmoor, almost all of it over 1,000 feet above sea level. We are custodians of some seven listed buildings and a number of ancient monuments. I say
1622
straight away that we regard ourselves as stewards of those resources for our lifetime only and see all that as something to hand on to the next generation. Also, by virtue of the fact that a large amount of our property is in a national park, we hope that it will be appreciated by a wider public.
However, I speak from experience when I say that our countryside is overlaid thickly with designations of every kind. I relate closely to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I could add several items to her list, even as amended by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton.
In addition to the large number of statutory and official bodies associated with the countryside, there are a considerable number of non-statutory bodies and a number of non-statutory land designations. I refer to such matters as special landscape areas, strategic gaps and sites of nature conservation interest, all of which have relevance in local plan terms and none of which has a statutory framework under which to work.
Many of the larger public agency bodies concerned with the countryside have unchallengeable powers. They have some fairly crude and bureaucratic approaches in a number of instances, although not all, and although their individual officers are well meaning and entirely honourable, the approach to countryside policy tends to be based on preconceived expediency and a preconceived idea of how the regulations are to be enacted.
The ever larger number of non-governmental organisations holds sway in many areas of our countryside with single issue objectives. Many are accorded a status as consultees in the planning process. I have experience of a number which assume rights to interfere covertly without any discussion with the owner or occupier of land in the decision-making process. That type of activity damages the valuable input made by many non-governmental organisations which carry out extremely valuable work. I should like to give credit to them, despite the examples set by some of their fellow organisations. However, there are too many agencies involved and the consultation process that takes place slows to a crawl many legitimate business activities that require some kind of notification or consent.
Grant aid is frequently mentioned as the carrot by which all the various regulations are rendered reasonable and satisfactory. But, as has already been pointed out, they distort the real economic picture. It is increasingly difficult to obtain grants for manifestly desirable objectives because of either misfunding or underfunding. There are no proper interrelationships between schemes and even within schemes, let alone between one scheme and another. There are glaring gaps in coverage. I also have the strong feeling that there is a degree of duplication in administration, and that is a matter of concern.
As the economy of the countryside has slipped, so the level of bureaucracy which attends countryside matters, has increased. A huge environmental business has grown up over recent years, particularly during the past 10 years. I feel that the countryside simply cannot support that overhead. Even if it could, I do

1623
not think that it could survive with what are often policies interpreted in an entirely negative fashion. Nor can it prosper with the uncertainty that is engendered by what can only be described as the creeping cancer of unnecessary and constantly changing regulation. That frustrates long-term development and investment and damages the confidence of the businessman in the business that he conducts in the countryside.
As a landowner, I should like to think that I could command total transparency and frankness from those bodies with which I have to deal in the countryside. Frequently, I do not get it. However, I give credit to the Country Landowners' Association and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I am a member of both organisations, and in each case they have attempted to foster what I believe is a thoroughly pragmatic and common sense approach, without trying to push overtly the specific interests of their members. Of course, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has no axe to grind, representing, as it does, the professional body of the chartered surveyors rather than a particular interest.
This may all sound rather pessimistic, but I am not pessimistic about the future of the countryside. On the whole, I am optimistic because we have now reached the stage where something simply has to be done about how we organise our affairs in the countryside and particularly formulate policies for the future. However, so long as there is an imbalance in our trade whereby we constantly import billions of pounds worth of temperate foodstuffs which could be grown in this country—and as has already been mentioned, timber products could equally be produced here—we deny our countryside an economic base. If we do that and do not replace it with something else, we have a recipe for nothing short of disaster over time.
I believe that the United Kingdom is still a green and pleasant land, and I have particular reason for saying so, having recently come back from Formentera. The rain here obviously adds to the atmosphere. It seems like a tropical rain forest by comparison with that Mediterranean island. That is something to be cherished. However, the countryside needs a long-term strategy, free from wasteful interference. It needs a future for the younger generation to retain an interest in the management techniques that are handed down from one generation to another in a countryside without which those skills will be lost. They cannot be learnt in a university or a college of further education. It does not happen that way.
We need to look towards an integrated analysis of the issues and a properly formulated rural policy for the long term. By the long term I mean 15 years plus because I believe that that is the kind of timescale over which the most minimal scheme has to be unfolded. For forestry, it is much longer.
We need better communication between those involved in countryside matters and less divisive activity by the reduction of opportunities for misunderstanding. I particularly point to the occasional misuse of statutory powers which takes place. There needs to be a better education of the
1624
urban public as to what they can do rather than what they simply cannot do in the countryside. There should be a concerted effort to free up the log jam which surrounds our public rights of way system in the countryside.
We need a clear rural economic policy and a related planning policy. We need to see whether growing foodstuffs and agricultural products or forestry products is the long-term future or whether it has to be something else. We need to plan for it and to make a decision to that end. We certainly need to end the use of non-recourse powers exercised by many statutory bodies, where there is no effective right of appeal or compensation for losses. That type of activity encourages evasion of the legal provisions and unlawful activities in the countryside. The onerous nature of some of those provisions should be addressed. I also point to the need for awareness that bureaucracies tend to feed themselves before they feed the needs of those aspects of the countryside with which they are charged to deal. We need to realise that public enjoyment of the countryside at the moment adds little to the income of those involved with the management and maintenance of the rural scene. Good management is a derivative of confident business activity and nothing more nor less than that.
We must accept that the countryside has a bundle of existing uses, as opposed to the rather hazy idea of a non-use which is known in planning terms as "white land". We have to recognise that those uses may change over time, both in their nature and in the quantity of the basket of uses within the same holding to a considerable degree. It is a matter of natural rotation. We need to recognise that there should be an end to the ideological argument between Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 7 and the earlier Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 2 which is long overdue for revision.
As was said earlier, we must accept that farmers and landowners have a great deal of knowledge which is daily taken to the grave and not passed on to the next generation. That such people are dictated to by those who, no doubt, have excellent academic knowledge is offensive.
My strong fear is that if we are not careful, we shall lose the good experienced management and particularly managerial commitment in the countryside. I should like to think that that loss could be arrested. Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I believe that there is a considerable level of agreement as to the objectives. We simply disagree in places on the way in which one might achieve them. There should be a much greater getting together by way of a forum to try to think the policies through.
In view of the time and the number of speakers, I feel that I have said enough. That is the gist of what I had to say and I am very grateful to noble Lords for listening.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Middleton for instigating the debate this afternoon. It is a wide-ranging debate and many different aspects have been covered by the noble Lords

1625
who have spoken so far. I shall focus my contribution on the seemingly escalating disruption, not to mention violence, which is occurring to legal country pursuits, and which has already been referred to briefly by my noble friend Lord Swinton.
First, however, I must congratulate my noble kinsman Lord Spencer and my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard on their excellent maiden speeches. I hope that it will not be too long before we hear from both of them again in this House.
I should also declare some interests, in that I am on the Oxfordshire committee of the British Field Sports Society and have in the past been a master of foxhounds and beagles. In addition, I am a member of the Country Landowners' Association; I also undertook a three-year estate management course at Cirencester.
Field sports are enjoyed and participated in by many thousands of people. Field sportsmen, be they hunters on horseback, on foot, in a car or on a bicycle, shooting people or fishermen, not to mention other sorts of field sportsmen, are now having their liberty limited by the activities of a few hundred extremists. Week after week these saboteurs set out to interfere with the recreation of those who choose to hunt, fish or shoot.
We live in a democracy, one of the strengths of which is that people have a right to protest. That right is not in question. What is in question, however, is where the line should be drawn between protest, demonstration and disruption.
To illustrate the growing seriousness of the situation I shall briefly mention some examples of what has occurred in the last year. Noble Lords will see from these examples that the saboteurs are now creating a real public order problem in the countryside. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I quote the examples from the speech which the director of the British Field Sports Society gave to the Standing Conference on Countryside Sports in April this year. It reads:
"Over 600 incidents or disruption to hunting and shooting took place last season. Saboteurs organised much larger "hits" against hunts, with the clear aim of overwhelming hunt supporters and the police. More and more, they came armed with weapons such as staves, wearing balaclavas, and openly showed real hostility, even towards animals involved in the sports—horses and hounds. All the indications are that well-meaning, if misguided animal lovers have been displaced by ruthless, extremist, professional agitators who care as little about animals as they do about attacking policemen…
"In September, a Cambridgeshire gamekeeper was attacked, receiving a serious head wound which required stitches. A hunt kennelman was assaulted and put in hospital for twenty-four hours.
"In October, a Hertfordshire farmer was taken to hospital after being beaten up. Ask trespassing saboteurs to leave your land and this is what happens.
"In November, a North Yorkshire Hunt Master was taken to hospital with broken ribs after he had been beaten up and kicked.
"In December, letter bombs were sent to a Cheshire Hunt Master and to the offices of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation.
"In January, in one of the worst incidents yet, 250 saboteurs descended on a pack of foxhounds in Essex and, unprovoked, attacked hunt staff and stewards with staves. A
1626
hunt steward was flown to hospital by police helicopter with serious eye injuries after a saboteur threw ammonia—not Antimate, or scented water, but ammonia—into his face.
"In February, 150 saboteurs hurled bricks, stones and bottles in an attack on a kennels in Sussex—after hunting had stopped. Hunt supporters were trapped and vehicles damaged.
"In March, 400 saboteurs forced the Hampshire Hunt to stop hunting in the biggest "hit" yet, despite the presence of 240 police.
"In only about half of these cases will criminal prosecutions arise.
"Attacks on shooting bring in new factors, not least a serious risk to safety, since guns are involved. During extensive disruption of grouse shooting last Autumn, saboteurs stood in front of and even grabbed guns. The damage to the rural economy which will be caused if investment in shooting declines because of saboteur attacks is another real concern.
"In December 1991 ten foxhounds in Norfolk needed veterinary treatment when saboteurs sprayed substances into their eyes".
Where does this leave those who wish to pursue their legal pursuits and recreations? It is apparent that the present law is totally inadequate to stop the ongoing campaign of disruption and violence. Trespass is a civil, and not a criminal, offence. Thus, when saboteurs invade private land it is not a matter for the police. Hunts and shoots have been forced to use trained stewards to remove trespassing saboteurs —a policy which is endorsed by the Association of Chief Police Officers. That should not be necessary and it is not without its drawbacks, causing saboteurs to respond with increased violence. We have seen in the papers only this week what can happen: prolonged disruption by saboteurs led to a hunt saboteur getting hurt and two hunt officials being charged.
Country people are mostly naturally law-abiding, and wish for nothing more than to be allowed to pursue their lives. They deeply resent being portrayed as the cause of trouble. A few country sports supporters have been driven to retaliation after a relentless campaign of provocation by saboteurs. This is understandable, but wrong. At the beginning of last season the Masters of Foxhounds Association issued a code of good hunting practice to all supporters. It states quite explicitly that hunt followers must resist the temptation to retaliate, whatever the provocation. That indeed is a firm commitment to the rule of law.
Section 5 of the Public Order Act makes it an offence to use,
"threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour",
which is likely to cause someone "harassment, alarm or distress". While that should be effective in stopping the saboteurs from insulting and harassing field sports supporters, in practice the provision is increasingly falling into disuse. Convictions are difficult to obtain and, when achieved, generally result in very low fines. The time has come to reform public order legislation so that it protects peaceful demonstrations but outlaws disruptive trespass on private land. As the director of the British Field Sports Society has declared,
"We do not seek the simple criminalisation of trespass, but a carefully drawn offence which prevents trespass where a group of people intend to disrupt a lawful activity."
In case there is any doubt that a change in the law is necessary, I quote from the speech given to the

1627
conference on countryside sports to which I have just referred by the chief police officer responsible to the Chief Constable of Essex for all operational policing in that county. It reads:
"On 23 January [1993] my Force experienced serious public disorder between over 250 antis and the hunt. Two years ago a protest in Cheshire resulted in a fatality and this month a 15 year old boy died under the wheels of a horse box at a Cambridgeshire hunt—the safety of all concerned is our paramount concern".
He goes on to say, at a later stage in his speech:
"While the Police Service will not intervene it would, in my view, be extremely helpful from the policing point of view, for the law to be re-examined and clarified. It is one thing for lawyers to argue the finer points of law in a court room or disagree on television and quite another for an officer to make instant judgements 'in the heat of battle' between opposing factions deep in the countryside".
To conclude, the Government have already acknowledged the seriousness of the situation which I have outlined. I should like to know from my noble friend Lord Howe how soon we can expect to see legislation to improve this position, bearing in mind that a proposal has already been submitted to the Government aimed at introducing a new offence of failing to obey a police direction to leave land when people have entered the land as trespassers with the intention of disrupting a lawful activity.
7 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I also am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for giving anyone who lives in the country or who is involved with country pursuits of any sort the opportunity to ride their own hobby-horses this afternoon. I am terribly biased. I come from Norfolk. That is an area that people do not go to and the BBC call it the top end of "Ea Stanglia". I also wish to declare other interests but I am not going to at this stage. I am talking very specifically about Norfolk, so if your Lordships do not recognise the place I am talking about or if it is not like yours, I am sorry.
Employment in agriculture in Norfolk inevitably, like everywhere else, went down steadily. The numbers decreased until about 10 or 15 years ago, when I felt they had probably bottomed out. At that stage those people who had become redundant in agriculture in any way or who were not recruited into agriculture, managed to find jobs in the relevant service industries, whether they went into selling seeds, fertilisers or working for Ross, British Sugar, Bird's Eye or whatever. So up to about 10 years ago the number of people actually involved in agriculture or agriculture service industries remained fairly constant. But with the present decline of farming and farmers, mainly I think due to the common agricultural policy and other uncertainties, there are definitely fewer people involved in the full range of agricultural activities.
This has led to higher unemployment. I am afraid that I do not recognise the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, about rural industries, high-tech industries and all the rest of it. I know that the Development Commission has put factories in such places as Fakenham and North Walsham. Those people who now live in the country work in Norwich. So far as concerns rural housing, of course fewer houses are needed and therefore, as fewer people live
1628
in each house, houses become occupied by people who are not involved in the agricultural industry. What has happened is that those people who have moved in seem to require a slightly different standard, for some unknown reason, because the idyllic country cottage, as has already been pointed out, is subject to various smells and things.
There is of course development in the county: indeed, there has been very considerable development there. When I was chairman of planning and transportation some years ago, over half the housing stock in the county had been built since the war, which gives some idea of the development that had taken place. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in Wales, we are very definitely experiencing creeping urbanisation. Those people who have come to live in the country from the towns expect to see street lights, 'phone wires or telephone lines, and place names written up on every street in every village, with Warboys-type signs on every corner and other totally inappropriate street furniture, which fits in with the lifestyle of the two-car family.
I am not saying that those people do not contribute to the life of the village: of course they do. But one of my main hobby-horses is that if we get any more development in Norfolk we will run out of water. We have a bore-hole at the end of our garden, which is monitored constantly by the AWA and the university. I believe that at the moment the level is some six feet lower than it has ever been, and that is after last winter's rain. There is simply not enough water in Norfolk to sustain the population growth that is taking place.
We like these people, but they also want road improvements for their two-car families, so by-passes get built round villages—not a bad thing at all—but as soon as you get a by-pass round a village suddenly it becomes essential to infill between the village and the by-pass with undesirable development. I think that is very sad. The other thing that happens is that roads get improved. I can tell your Lordships that the A.140, between Norwich and Cromer, has now been finished. It has been improved; and last year the accident rate went up by 65 per cent. It is a better, safer and more expensive road, and more people kill themselves on it. I would suggest—and I address the DoE at this particular moment—that all unclassified roads in the countryside should have a speed limit on them. There would be fewer accidents and it is hoped that there would be less appalling visibility splays every time any road joins another road.
The other hobby-horse I would like to talk about concerns roadside verges. On unclassified roads verges are a haven for wildlife. About 20 years ago it appears to have been the policy—presumably it is government policy—that these roadside verges should be cut. So mowers are produced at the right time of year to slaughter—I would not be biased and say partridges and pheasants—all ground-nesting birds. They are slaughtered during the first week in May, because that is the time the contractor moves in. We must find a compromise so that unclassified roads, especially those in conservation areas, are not cut. There is a delicate balance between safety and wildlife, I know. I

1629
do not mind visibility splays being cut, but cutting roadside verges for the sheer sake of doing it is vandalism. I shall publish a paper fairly soon, because I have been taking photographs of vandalism carried out by county council contractors in villages, in rural conservation areas and elsewhere. It is quite appalling, and an appalling waste of money.
Also there is a marvellous anomaly, which I can remember quite clearly from the time it went through your Lordships' House. It concerns rubbish. The county council or its contractors cut the verges and there are areas where it may have to do so. That is the moment when everything from Coca Cola cans to the packaging that McDonald's wraps its food in appears on the surface. It then blows around for days until the district council—someone quite different—collects it, if someone has told them that it is there. Surely there needs to be a little co-operation when it comes to tidying up the countryside especially when verge cutting—some of which is essential—is done.
A lot of people discussed designations and I am sure that we all understand them, so I will just read them out rather quickly. We all know words like SSSI, C sites, RSNC, AONB, ESA, NSA (which is about to change to something else), listed, scheduled, curtilage, conservation area and rural conservation area. Do we all understand all these things? I suspect that most of us here do, but do planning committees? Do parish councillors understand them when asked to take decisions? And why do Ministers so easily ignore them when the matter comes to appeal? Surely, if a designation is made we must be firm about it.
The other problem with designation is that if you designate somewhere as an AONB or a conservation area, it is almost like living down a by-pass, because next to it you must get everything—everything must be clustered right next to the AONB: not in it, but just out of it. I am not going to discuss wind farms because they are rather too topical for me at the moment. No one has mentioned them. Perhaps the Minister would like to tell us what he thinks about wind farms later.
Regarding those areas that I have just listed, we all know what they have in common. They are what the Countryside Commission will concentrate on once the national park legislation has been set up. There are about 40 bodies involved in the countryside in one way or another. There are 29 speakers on the list, and so I expected each one to mention about 1.6. I think that we are about par for the course. I have received grants from several of them. I will not name them all. It must be realised from my earlier remarks that I am involved with the CPRE and my wife is county chairman, but of course Norfolk, as they say there, "do different", and we call it the "Norfolk Society".
I had a shopping list for the Minister of various questions that I wanted to ask. Being the 21st speaker I am doing very well because most of them have already been asked. I shall therefore listen with great attention to his remarks. However, I should like to ask one question which has not yet been asked. In relation to set-aside payments, would the Minister care to
1630
comment on the suggestion that set-aside payments should not be made unless set-aside is managed in an environmentally friendly way?
I was deeply encouraged by my noble friend Lord Barber. Anyone of my age will have read his excellent book, Farming for Profits, which came out when I was a student. I do not think that he has changed a great deal and I do not think farming for profit has changed. The essential point about farming is to have a profitable farming enterprise and to decouple the rest, as the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said.
My noble friend Lady Masham asked many questions in regard to rural crime. That matter has arisen twice since and I shall listen with interest to the Minister's response. I conclude by warning the House that we have a new Secretary of State for Agriculture who, unfortunately for your Lordships, comes from the same county as I do. Rumour in the local paper that she comes from a long line of cattle dealers and smallholders is not strictly true. But I know that she is extremely sympathetic to conservation. It was in fact on an interpretation course that we first met some 25 years ago.
I am a passionate believer in the countryside. I am a firm believer in sustainable, safe agriculture. I believe in landscape conservation, not fossilisation. I believe that the countryside should be a place that is a joy to live in and to share with others.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I too should like to join in thanking my noble friend Lord Middleton for tabling the debate today. The full list of speakers shows how important the subject is to the House. I shall confine my remarks to calling attention to one organisation that fulfils the criteria of playing its part in the countryside to the full—from the preservation of England as it should be to the conservation of the countryside as we would like it to be. That organisation is the National Trust. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was unable to speak in today's debate, as I am sure he was.
The National Trust tries to fulfil the important criteria of a search for balance in the way in which it conducts its affairs. It protects and looks after its buildings and their contents by public donation, among other things, and attempts to conserve the countryside for which it is responsible by sympathetic farming. I believe that the National Trust demonstrates that it recognises farming practices as being what my noble friend Lord Middleton described as "crucial". That is an important feature, if not the most important feature, to come out of today's debate.
I should also like to draw the attention of the Government and your Lordships to the excellent National Trust report on Conservation and Management of the Red Deer in the West Country, which came out in March this year. It is a major contribution to our knowledge of deer. My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, in a fine maiden speech, discussed the problems of deer management in Scotland. There is no doubt that they are slightly

1631
different. But there is no doubt also that much of the research in the recent report would be of tremendous benefit in Scotland as well as in the West Country.
The report highlights the need to integrate the needs of wildlife with the economic realities of farming and forestry, along with the social cohesion in any one area of the countryside. It is a considerable report—well over 150 pages—and comes in three parts. The first part, written by Southampton University, is a remarkable piece of research into the red deer. It talks about numbers, and like any piece of research, probably raises more questions than it answers. There will be long discussions on the amount of deer and the numbers that need to be culled. But it also contains fascinating research on the damage that deer do to pasture land, fencing and crops, which would be as relevant to Scotland as it is to the West Country.
The second part of the report is a paper on the economic and social aspects of deer hunting on Exmoor and the Quantocks by the Centre for Rural Studies and the Royal Agricultural College at Cirencester. It is a unique report and well worth reading. I hope that the Government will take careful note of it. The third part is the main report and its conclusions.
Although the report did not consider any of the moral aspects towards deer hunting, it comes to exactly the same conclusion as the Scott Henderson Report of 1949 and indeed the Porchester Report of March 1977, which was submitted to the Secretary of State at that time by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. They both came to the same result as this report; that is, that stag hunting is a vital part of the way of life in that area. The report of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and Lord Porchester stated that,
"Whilst it may come as a surprise to some and prompt the wrath of others, it is undeniable that stag hunting on Exmoor operates as a force for conservation".
As he said, that may be unacceptable to some people; but it is nevertheless the truth.
I hope too that the Government will note the suggestions in the report that, first, the legislation on deer poaching and licences for game dealers need to be looked at once again. Secondly, that the legal status of deer management groups should be examined more closely by the Ministry of Agriculture.
I hope your Lordships will appreciate that one of the report's recommendations is to set up a deer management group in Exmoor. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that before the report came out there was an Exmoor and District Deer Management Group already operational. Those who live in the West Country are keen to implement the report to the best of their ability.
The only real criticism of the report came from another organisation—the League Against Cruel Sports—which condemned the report's findings within three hours of its being published. I find that of itself interesting because the report took me a whole weekend to read, yet that organisation managed to condemn it in three hours. It could be simply because the conclusion was against its policy. Of course, the League against Cruel Sports is a different kind of organisation. Although it claims to be in touch with the countryside, it does not welcome the hounds on its
1632
land, unlike 92 per cent. of the landowners in the West Country. It is also the only landowner that actively encourages deer to come onto its land by feeding them.
The organisation owns around 40 pieces of land, the largest of which is 200 acres, amounting altogether to 2,000 acres. They are advertised in league brochures as "sanctuaries", but in reality they are concentration camps for deer. Their purpose is to concentrate the deer in unnatural numbers. I should like to know what view my noble friend on the Front Bench has in relation to those sanctuaries, those areas where deer are concentrated by feeding them artificially. Are there any rules about the keeping of wildlife or encouraging it to settle in large quantities on land, particularly on land that has no water? It is an odd place to build a sanctuary where the deer each day have to cross and recross an "A" road to reach water. The result, as anyone who has been involved with deer will know, is a large increase in injured deer with a responsibility on the landowner to make sure that they are put out of their misery —a responsibility which is not at present being met.
A possible reason for the organisation being able to behave in that way—this is an important point—is that it is the only landowner which is not in the business of commercial farming. It makes no attempt to farm its land. Otherwise, it would realise that it is impossible to behave in that way, a way that is very distressing for the neighbouring farmers who are trying to earn a living on difficult pasture land—many of them sheep farmers, as the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, mentioned at the beginning of the debate. It would not be possible for them to allow deer on their land in the numbers that this organisation allows. For a commercial farmer it would be commercial death. Therefore these people are promoting what I think we can describe as a completely alien way of life.
Unlike the National Trust, and as my noble friend Lord Middleton pointed out, they do not see farming practices as crucial. That is fine. If an organisation wishes to behave in that way, there is no reason why it should not promote its ideas. But it should then allow and indeed encourage a general debate on the subject. It should allow a general debate on culling. If you allow large numbers of animals, which can cause considerable damage, on to the land, you must discuss and make public your policy on whether or not you are going to cull those animals.
Last year a deer was found dead which was later proved to have died of lungworm infestation, which, as your Lordships will know, only exists where large numbers of grazing animals get closely up together. We were unable to have any discussion to see whether the situation could be improved upon because the League Against Cruel Sports immediately issued writs to prevent this being discussed. This year we have had a tremendous controversy over injured deer which have not been put out of their misery as they should have been. Indeed, the league was obliged on two occasions to allow the stag hounds in to hunt those deer and bring them to bay, which they did very efficiently in a matter of hours.

1633
However, when the story got into the Sunday newspapers our stag hounds were immediately banned for political reasons—with a small "p"—the result being that at least two injured deer wandered around that land for weeks, which is a degree of incompetence and cruelty that no farmer would possibly tolerate. In other words, the League Against Cruel Sports, which portrays, in the words of my noble friend Lord Middleton, farmers as destroyers, is in many ways a destroyer itself. It panders to what my noble friend Lord Swinton described as the Beatrix Potter and Walt Disney school of wildlife management.
It is true to say that one of the big problems, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Swinton, is the enormous change in population. As the noble Earl, Lord Spencer, said in his excellent maiden speech, the subject of access to the countryside is very important. But if large numbers of people who do not know a great deal about the countryside wish, first, to have access to it, and, secondly, to live there, the people who really do know about the countryside, the real countrymen, must be allowed to have sway with their opinions. It must be accepted or understood that the traditional English countryside is one of our greatest assets and is indeed the envy of our European neighbours and the millions of tourists who come every year to enjoy our countryside. But they will only enjoy it if it is protected by real countrymen and not by those who do not know and do not understand it and are educated in a politically correct way which is damaging to the English countryside. That must not be allowed and must be guarded against.
I too noticed the article in the Daily Telegraph this morning about a potential Minister for the Countryside. I share the view of my noble friend Lord Kimball. It is vital that the countryside and its protection be left in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture. It is agriculture that must hold sway in the countryside and not green issues, which are really red issues.
7.24 p.m.
The Earl of Macclesfield: My Lords, I feel that I should start my speech by apologising to your Lordships' House for somewhat extending my maiden speech last month. Your Lordships will be pleased to know that I was sent for by the "headmistress" this morning and duly carpeted. For my speech this evening, I should like to deal with the subject of law and disorder in the countryside, and therefore I think that it would be wise if I showed some discipline, stuck to the point and got on with it.
When I first saw the subject of this welcome debate what first came to mind was, "I remember, I remember". Then earlier today we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the words "rural idyll". That was summarily dispatched by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, when the words were added, "the rogues, vagabonds, thieves, didicois and new age travellers", who have a far greater share of the level playing field than we do.
To come back to the level playing field, it would be nice to hear at the end of the debate a suggestion that
1634
we will go back to the kind of level playing field that I consider existed in times gone by when a local farmer had a certain difficulty with trespassers in a house. He merely put his men around the house, went off and found a local bobby—we had local bobbies in those days—and brought him back. PC 49 walked quietly up the path and tapped on the door. When the door was opened he simply said, "I am a busy man. I shall be going in 10 minutes. Shall you be coming?" That is my idea of a level playing field.
At the moment I think that we have something totally different, biased entirely in favour of those who do all the wrong things. It costs the countryside dear. When we had new age travellers at home, it cost us the little matter of around £750 plus VAT to evict them lawfully, all due to incompetent legislation on the part of the Government which I am very pleased to see is going quietly out of the window. I should like to join the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in asking whether we are going to get fair play legislation to take the place of what we have had up to now.
The other main problems that we face are litter and general vandalism. What is to be done about those problems? The first problem is a countryside matter; the second is a general matter. I do not feel that it is appropriate in this debate to go on about it. But the only way of putting right what is wrong in the countryside by way of a general disturbance is to re-educate the general public not in the ways of the countryside but in the ways of responsibility, discipline, good manners, good behaviour, respect for property and respect for elders and betters. Until those days come we shall find ourselves in the countryside with all these problems of ever-increasing magnitude as more people wish to come out into the countryside.
We have heard examples of vandalism. Some of them defy belief. We have had sugar put in the diesel tank of a tractor. Why? Someone had to find the tractor out in the woods, go home, get the sugar and put it in the tractor. It is mindless. Society has to do something about this. It is not for the Minister to say on behalf of the countryside what he is going to do about it, but it is a matter to take back to Government and say, "We are in real trouble—not just in the countryside but in the whole of the country. We will not put this country right until we start from that grass root". I have certain views on that but I do not propose to start on them now because those are matters for a different debate.
A subject that has not been mentioned which is to the detriment, in my opinion, of the countryside, is supermarkets. It is quite appalling that they are allowed to spring up in the countryside. They do immense harm. They break the local communities because they take out the local shops, which cannot compete. At the end of the day I do not believe that they are cheaper for a lot of people. They are more expensive in certain areas. There is, of course, the transport factor—people have to get to them. All right, those who have cars go to them. But those who go to them end up breaking the local shops and

1635
leaving a lot of people in the countryside, on low incomes and without transport, to fend for themselves to a large extent, all of which is very sad.
It will be very hard to do anything about that. It will not be possible to go backwards. But I should like to leave the House with this thought. Perhaps the stopping of planning applications for supermarkets in the countryside in future is one item which would help overall.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, over 30 years ago my first employers sent me on a selling course organised by Messrs George and Alfred Tack who operated near Victoria Station. The course lasted three days. My goodness it was effective! I learned more in those three days than I have learned in any other three days in my life. Basically, what one was learning was how to turn people's needs into wants as a salesman. I had no problem doing that because I knew that if there were not enough of a product to meet the wants which I had created the price system and the market forces would ration it.
The scope and the extent of the countryside, and thus its capacity, is limited. The risk is that people think that it is not. That is a particular risk with growing prosperity. In one way the shortage of countryside as regards what people might want to do with it, to it or in it, is recognised by the planning system and the elaborate system of designation; of the hierarchy of quality of landscape about which we have heard something this afternoon.
It has been a highly successful system which has lasted since the late 1940s. It is one of the great achievements of the Labour Government of that period. It has made us, as the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, pointed out, the envy of many European countries. It is something which I believe we have to teach other countries in Europe; namely, how we do our planning. They have done a great deal of damage to much of their countryside and to their coasts.
I wish to raise one point on the dreaded Maastricht. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to reassure noble Lords that subsidiarity will be a full protection for us being able to maintain our planning controls as we want them in this country and that there is no way in which Brussels may decide to draw up new rules concerning planning which will be set to the most acceptable standard of the rest of the Community. That would be a very bad thing indeed.
As I see it, the real problem for the countryside is not to turn needs into wants, but to relate wants to needs. It is really the opposite of what Mr. Tack was teaching me. If we are to retain our countryside the Government cannot seek to meet all the demands on it. The "predict and provide" approach to planning is unsustainable. I wish to take three areas by way of example. There are many others.
The first is housing. It is accepted that not everyone can have a cottage in the Lake District. But the Government seem to feel that they have an obligation to meet all demands for rural housing. Housing itself is responsible for half of the green fields which are lost each year. In my view we must balance more carefully
1636
the resources which we put into new settlements and housing in rural areas with the needs of inner cities. I believe that had we not built all those new towns after the war and those resources had been put into our inner cities, they would now be in a healthier and happier state.
Urban regeneration is one of the Government's policies. I hope that they will meet that particular dimension in their planning forecasts. The problem is that at the moment forecasts are generally top-down rather than bottom-up. One should start with the parishes. The right reverend Prelate referred to the importance of parish councils and of parishes knowing what they need. I believe that one would then find that the demographic changes which there have been and which are continuing, will show that there is an increasing need for small, single-person dwellings which are close to services and facilities. As my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth reminded us, there is a special need for affordable housing.
The Government's target of 855,000 houses required in the South East alone up to the year 2006, is going to put too much pressure on that area, particularly in counties like Hampshire which have done an enormous amount for rural conservation. I was speaking at a conference there last week and I was very impressed with what they are doing. They are very apprehensive that the Government have got the target wrong.
I wish to move to a second area where there is very real constraint. I refer to water which the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, spoke about. I so much agree with him. Again, the "predict and provide" approach is not sustainable; it is dangerous. It will lead to a fall in the water-table measured in the noble Lord's well. That is serious to trees and other vegetation. The loss of trees is increasing in the South East due to the synergistic effect of a falling water-table and the hurricanes which pulled out a lot of the roots, plus the effects of acid rain. That can have a very serious long-term effect on our landscape perhaps comparable to the loss of the elms. Luckily, the droughts of 1988–92 have made people think again. It is a particular problem in the South East and also in East Anglia.
My third example is transport. We know that we cannot meet all the wants for transport on the roads. It is simply not going to be possible. It is quite interesting that the Government's own predictions for the increase in road traffic is plus 126 per cent. by the year 2025, but the extra road space available under the Government's road programme will be only 2 per cent. so that problem is implicitly recognised already. But I do not believe that in all cases the policies are being carried out. Some noble Lords know that I regard the extra lane on the M.25 as being a great mistake. In a Written Question the other day I suggested tolls and particular rates of tolls.
The Answer which my noble friend Lord Caithness gave me was that the rates which I had suggested would divert a great deal of traffic from the M.25 to local roads. That is exactly what I was proposing. It is extremely expensive to spend £1 billion and to disrupt

1637
a very well planned road. The opportunity cost of that is very great in other areas totally outside the road areas. That is dangerous.
I recognise the need for by-passes for rural areas where there has been real deterioration in the local communities through the growth of traffic. We should certainly hesitate as regards the improvement of rural roads so that traffic can go faster. On the whole, I believe that that is more dangerous and causes a further deterioration in the quality of life.
I wish to emphasise how important it is that we focus not only on conserving the countryside, but on enhancing it. Perhaps I may give two examples about that. In some strange way which I do not understand, in practice garages seem to have escaped all the planning laws. However careful people are as to where buildings are put and so forth, the most hideous garages exist all over the place. It is about time that we started improving them and to require standards for the design of garages with limitations on the banners and advertisements which can be shown outside them. The standards should be comparable to those which apply to other buildings.
I have one other idea which is a pet desire of mine, as the noble Lord, Lord Barber, will know. It is the improvement of the landscape which can come from undergrounding low-voltage wires. As a member of the Eastern Electricity board, I managed to persuade it to put aside £200,000 a year. It has been undergrounding wires in conservation areas. That cannot be done with the high voltage wires because it is too expensive. But one can make an enormous difference with undergrounding the low voltage wires.
It has been very helpful to us all to be given this opportunity to speak this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. The Motion mentions the various advisory bodies concerned with the countryside. I wish to make two points which are crucial for bodies such as the Countryside Commission, English Nature and the others. They themselves must never become pressure groups. They are not pressure groups; they are not intended to be pressure groups. They are a source, if one likes, of civilian rather than civil servant advice to Ministers. If they did not exist, Ministers would have to depend on civil servants to advise them in all these matters. They provide an added dimension of advice which I believe leads to better government.
However, we should not talk too glibly about amalgamating such bodies because the amount of time that people can give to serve on them is limited. If the organisations are responsible for too wide a range of matters, they will not fulfil those responsibilities properly. English Nature, for example, is quite different from the Countryside Commission. I know that there have been special reasons for amalgamating such bodies in Wales and Scotland, but I can talk only about the examples of which I have personal knowledge. For the reasons that I have mentioned, I think that it would be a great mistake to try to amalgamate such bodies.
Another reason is that, to some extent, such bodies will often have contrary views—and justifiably so.
1638
Until recently, I was a member of the Rural Development Commission under my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth. It has responsibility for the rural economy. I also served on the Countryside Commission under the noble Lord, Lord Barber, and its responsibilities were different. It is not necessary or always possible to reconcile such conflicts at either official or commissioner level. That is the function of Ministers because it is ultimately a political decision.
I should like to say something about the crucial role of the private people of the realm who have to look after the land, who work on it, and who farm it. I agree with much of what has been said about the crazy set-aside system which I think will enervate and give bad habits to farmers.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, is not in his place, but he asked the interesting question: who owns the land? In one sense, the answer must be those who have a legal title to it. However, there is another dimension to land: the landscape. I believe that the landscape belongs to the community and that Ministers are responsible for it on behalf of the community. I should like to take this opportunity of saying how very glad and delighted I am that my own Member of Parliament, Mr. Gummer, has become the new Secretary of State for the Environment because I think that he will do a very good job in fulfilling that obligation.
7.42 p.m.
Viscount Hampden: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, on allowing us to speak on this wide-ranging subject. When I first became involved in rural affairs, the noble Lord was doing his stint as president of the Country Landowners' Association and I remember how impressed I was when he brought his team of officers down to the South-East on an officers' tour. Whether the noble Lord was quite so impressed with me is another matter because I got lost in Tunbridge Wells and kept him from his dinner. This evening I shall try not to keep him from his dinner for too long.
Everything that has been said this afternoon impinges on what I do. For the past nine years I have been my own land agent on my family estate of between 5,000 and 6,000 acres in the South-East of England. Two-thirds of the estate is situated on the South Downs and, with other people, I have fought to prevent the Sussex South Downs from becoming a national park, so far successfully. I was interested to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, about the national park in Wales. A South Downs Board of Conservation has now been set up. It is full of people from the area and is working well so far.
I also have a management agreement with the Nature Conservancy Council for SSSI status. The area does not have any fascinating toads, but at the last count it had a colony of 6,000 burnt orchids. That is another aspect of the countryside with which I am involved.
I was interested in the comments about set-aside that were made just now by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I put my home farm into set-aside some three years ago. On the 100-acre site, which everyone

1639
can see, there was the most wonderful display of poppies in the first summer—a new cash crop rivalling oilseed rape and linseed. It was so beautiful that many people came to photograph it. East Sussex County Council and the Nature Conservancy Council used photographs of those lovely poppies in their annual reports, claiming credit for what they were doing in the countryside. Sadly, after one annus mirabilis, the poppies have disappeared and I am afraid that the burdocks and the thistles now on that field are not so photogenic.
I turn now to another aspect of the countryside which has not been mentioned so far. I have a chalk pit which is about to finish its useful life. The local authority has been looking at it as a possible waste disposal dump. That is a great problem in the South-East of England. I am sure that the other inhabitants of the village will try to stop East Sussex County Council dumping waste on that site.
The estate is divided by the south coast railway from London to the Eastbourne and Sussex areas. Its unmanned station is of paramount importance to local people. I am glad that other noble Lords have mentioned local transport. It is particularly important in my village in that for many decades we have had a policy of providing reasonably priced accommodation for what used to be called the "agricultural working class". At the last count, only five people (including myself) from about 100 cottages put on a tie in the morning to go to work. Those people need local transport. They also need the local shop. Again, that belongs to me. It is an asset, but not an income-producing asset. The noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, also mentioned this point.
The noble Earl, Lord Spencer, in his excellent maiden speech, spoke about people. We welcome people because they bring money into the countryside, but too many of them are a menace—and some of them do not behave all that well. I lost a whole field of silage bales last summer. They were bounced down the hill because someone wanted to drive his Land-rover, with a paraglider behind it, across the field. One of the bullocks in the area was beaten to death. It is a "hobby"—if I can use that word—for some people to come out at night and to drive across the downs in their cars chasing the cattle.
Finally on that subject, in late August last year I came round a bend in the road in my Land-rover and found an open van with two men inside and a third man with a rifle trying to take pot shots at young pheasants in the stubble field. I do not know how many laws that man was breaking, but it is extraordinary that it never occurred to me to go anywhere near the police because I thought that I would be wasting their time as well as mine. I thought that the best thing that I could do would be to give the gamekeeper the registration and description of the vehicle so that he could keep an eye out for it. Other noble Lords have talked about the law and policing, and I am sure that the Minister will reply on that point.
From what I have said, it sounds as though the countryside has nothing but problems. I do not think that that is quite the case. Yesterday afternoon I made
1640
a farm visit to the Sussex Weald where I have other farms. Leaning on a five-bar gate, talking to an 86 year-old farmer who took out an agricultural tenancy with my family at Michaelmas 1944, I discussed old farming methods and watched his Guernsey cows chewing away at the buttercups—we still have buttercups in East Sussex. He said to me, "You get a good view of your estate from here, don't you?". He was dead right.
7.48 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, first, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord Middleton for initiating this debate. Secondly, perhaps I may say that I have farmed and been involved in the countryside for most of my life.
As the Government seek to address the myriad problems of the countryside, their policies and mechanisms for doing it grow ever more complex. There are now at least 100 different schemes aimed at farmers and others in the countryside. Their range and diversity are now so great that there is an overwhelming need for clearer national direction and co-ordination in order to ensure that funds are used more efficiently and bureaucracy is reduced; that all schemes are evolved within a set of clearly defined national objectives; that the range of schemes is more intelligible to farmers and others, and that contradictions and overlaps are eliminated as much as possible. Achieving the direction and co-ordination that is needed demands the establishment of a clearer, and published, national strategy.
Several different departments and numerous agencies are involved in the formulation of countryside policy. The countryside is a complex place, and the involvement of so many different organisations and government departments is, perhaps, inevitable. But where is the lead? A useful parallel is the position on inner cities, an area in which eight government departments are involved. To ensure co-ordination there is a lead inner city Minister. In the same way, there is a need for a lead Minister for countryside policy.
There is also a need to rationalise the enormous range of countryside schemes and grants now available. It is perhaps instructive that Switzerland, which previously had 24 different schemes, has now simplified them into just two. That may not be feasible in the UK, but we should be exploring how we can arrive at a simplified structure which most people can understand.
Around the world, governments are increasingly recognising the economic and environmental importance of forests. Here, funding of incentives for forestry remains inadequate. In 1992, the total sum paid in England in grant aid for private forestry was £11 million. That contrasts starkly with the £12 million which Birmingham City Council spent in 1992 on cutting its grass. Or compare investment in forestry with a recent decision by BR's InterCity service to spend £12 million on an airline-style ticket system which has, besides other factors, caused concern about the future of through travel via the Tube.

1641
What is needed is a common rural policy that reflects the reality of what is happening on the ground and what needs to happen in the future. Such a policy must be characterised, above all, by flexibility. The needs of farmers in the UK and the pressures on the countryside in the UK are different from those in, say, Greece. The concept of subsidiarity must be followed through in the rural sphere to allow policies to be evolved that respect the diversity and differing requirements of member states.
With your Lordships' permission, perhaps I may put forward an idea as an example of possible policy change through flexibility. Let us take three important and topical aspects of the countryside; namely, forestry, conservation and tourism, and recreation and public access, which I group together. In forestry, we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that Britain is one of the least afforested countries in Europe, where, because of a shortfall in production, the cost of importing timber and timber products in 1991 was £6.3 billion. It is fair to say that that may well provide much needed revenue to many developing countries, but we must look to ourselves.
Secondly, let us take conservation, where greater recognition of the importance of nature and landscape conservation is essential. Thirdly, let us take tourism, recreation and public access. Tourism is a leading growth industry in Britain, and the countryside has a vital part to play in its development. Let us take those three together and produce a package that has incentives for the farmer and landowner and for the landlord and tenant, and, at the same time provides benefits to the public and reduces the shamed face of visual rotational set aside, of which there were some 383,000 acres in the United Kingdom in 1992. That can also be fully supported by Brussels and the CAP.
Under the scheme the farmer or landowner would opt for a package that I will call long-time co-operative set aside, whereby a group of farmers in the same district would place collectively several parcels of land which would otherwise be separate into a block of land suitable for afforestation, conservation or an amenity park, especially when within striking distance of a town or city. They would be called zonal plans, which the European Commission seems to regard as optional. And all that could be done under a 20- or 30-year all-embracing management agreement which would qualify for grants towards costs incurred in the preparation of the plan and qualify landowners for capital and Schedule D tax relief, thus taking a percentage of the 15 per cent. rotational set aside, or surplus agricultural land, to provide major new opportunities for the expansion of forestry and amenity woodlands.
Small parcels of land on their own do not represent a viable proposition for the landowner or farmer, but collectively the package is immediately enhanced. I say that with respect to the woodland grant scheme and the woodland grant premium scheme. Those important opportunities must be reflected in the reallocation of funds from support for food production to schemes designed to produce environmental benefits.
1642
In conclusion, when one considers how beneficial it was to be able to move milk quota around but still maintain a production ceiling, should it not be possible in many cases to group together a certain percentage of set aside land for the benefit of all? As long-term co-operative set aside land could be supported by the CAP, the United Kingdom and the county concerned, we would all benefit. Existing resources dedicated to the countryside must be redistributed from agricultural price support to a range of broader objectives. Is not that socially and environmentally correct?
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, we are all deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for raising this subject for debate. I cannot remember a Motion in which the terms were so wide that every aspect of rural life has been able to be raised. That is a great benefit, because all the aspects of rural life are interrelated when one looks at the countryside.
Some Members of your Lordships' House concentrated on the CAP and the reforms. A great deal has been said about the set-aside scheme. We all agree that the set-aside scheme will reduce employment in rural areas. Job losses in the next 10 years are predicted to be as high as 60,000 to 100,000. Set-aside, in particular, rotational set-aside, is unlikely to help with employment in rural and vulnerable areas. A possible 20-year set-aside scheme is now being discussed. I believe that it is much more likely to deliver long-term environmental benefits. It is important that that scheme should be designed essentially for environmental purposes, and not used solely as a measure of production control.
However, farmers must live. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware of the system that has been introduced in Germany of creating compensation payments linked to environmental benefits. The objective of the system is to give compensation to the farming community, which is tied to essential environmental objectives. It is similar to our countryside management agreements.
It is an interesting scheme. By awarding points for maintaining or adopting specific farming practices it enables farmers to participate. For instance, if one abandons the use of pesticides or takes other steps of environmental interest one receives so many points. Each point is worth a certain sum of money per hectare. We might look at such a scheme for this country.
There is another aspect which I greatly welcome in the latest announcements from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It recently announced an increase in the number of environmentally sensitive areas. I strongly support that. An area recently put out to consultation is the upper Thames tributaries. As I live in the area I was invited to attend the consultation process. The area covers the rivers feeding into the Thames, one of which is the River Glyme on which I happen to live. Everyone living along that tributary is in favour of it being made an environmentally sensitive area.

1643
I was then involved in a public inquiry into a bypass as regards Woodstock. I am sorry to be personal but I believe that the matter is of interest. Woodstock is sited in the Glyme Valley. There were public meetings and a great deal of opposition to the bypass but many local people were in favour of it. After the public inquiry the matter went to the Department of Transport and it was recommended that the bypass should be built. The department's letter stated:
"In consideration of the effects of the bypass upon the countryside and upon footpaths and bridleways, the Inspector concluded that whilst the value of the Glyme Valley to local residents is clear, it is a matter of recognition that neither the Valley nor any other part of the countryside which would be crossed by the bypass is of such merit as to require protection".
Does the Ministry of Transport ever talk to MAFF or to the Department of the Environment? I believe that it is contradictory and wrong that those two documents were issued within 10 days of each other.
We have agreed today that agricultural decline has had and will have a serious effect on most rural communities. While the number of villages, the majority of whose population is in agriculture, is small they tend to be in rural and remote areas. The remaining village population is likely to be elderly and therefore there will be heavy calls on health and social services and transport. What have we done during the past few years about rural communities and village life? Village services have declined frighteningly. There are no longer many village shops and post offices, and local village schools have closed. Furthermore, there are tremendous problems with public transport. Until we put those things right the village communities will not thrive. It is a sad indictment of our society that we have neglected those aspects of life in the countryside.
Probably by far the greatest problem in the countryside is the lack of affordable housing for the young people of the villages. It is estimated that during the next four years there will be a need for 80,000 affordable homes in rural areas. As noble Lords have said, to a large extent the problem has been created by the invasion of an affluent, long-distance commuter society which is fleeing from the noisy and polluted environment of urban areas, in particular in the south. The invasion of such people has also brought increased opposition to the production of alternative employment. Those people have moved to the countryside to avoid development, and at planning inquiries they have created a powerful local lobby against planning applications. That lobby is vocal and affluent and it can afford to object. Frequently it carries the day at public inquiries.
I am not against people wanting to live in the countryside. However, if one moves into a village one must accept that village life is different from life in the urban development from where one has come. One must accept that the villages must thrive, but there is an enormous clash of interest between local people and those who have moved in.
As regards the future of village life and rural communities, I am also worried about the present county structure plans which are out for consultation—at least in the part of the world in which I live. There
1644
are 60 days to oppose the plans but it is expensive for ordinary people to do so. What worries me even more is how the changes in the boundaries of the local authorities and the move towards unitary authorities will affect those plans. As there will be changes to the local authorities' district boundaries, is it worth our while to concentrate on the proposed structure plans? It is difficult to take them seriously. There have never been so many problems facing us and because of the changes that are taking place we do not know how to tackle them.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, asked who the countryside and the land belongs to. He suggested that it was the person who had the legal tender. I suggest that whoever has the legal tender—and I have some—is not the owner but the custodian of the future of Britain.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for tabling this Motion on an extremely important subject. It is a subject on which Members of this House speak with a wide range of expertise and knowledge. We have had some notable speeches but none more notable than the maiden speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Spencer, and the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard. I know that I speak for all your Lordships when I say that we are looking forward to hearing from them in the future on this and many other subjects.
The Motion refers to changes in the countryside and the organisations connected with it. My noble friend Lord Williams asked what we mean by "the countryside". We know that 80 per cent. of the UK landmass is rural. It is cared for by rather less than 3 per cent. of the population—those engaged in agriculture who are responsible for producing more than 70 per cent. of the temperate agricultural products that we consume. We know that about one-fifth of the population lives and works in the countryside. A recent report showed that 13 million people now living in urban areas would like to live in the country and that no less than 4 million people expect to move to a more rural area in the next five years.
What will those people find when they move to the countryside? They will find a countryside where 25 per cent. or more of rural households are living on or near the margins of poverty. They will find substantial housing problems. Only 60 per cent. of rural parishes have a shop; only 3 per cent. have a public nursery; only 6 per cent. have day care groups for the elderly and only 40 per cent. have a primary school. They will find a countryside which receives 1,640 million visits per year involving three-quarters of the population. A car is used on 80 per cent. of those visits.
As my noble friend Lord Williams said, we must beware of the dangers of setting a countryside in aspic. The countryside, its population and activities are not static phenomena. Considerable changes in occupation and social structure are taking place. Some are good and some are bad. To go from the macro to the micro level of changes in the countryside, I give one

1645
example of the kind of change with which we shall have to cope; namely, the development of the telecottage. Telecottages are buildings in rural areas which allow local people to work on communications equipment; for example, computers and faxes.
This week in a former milking parlour in Wiltshire a third telecottage is opening. It will contain 10 computers as well as faxes and photocopiers. Some argue that the telecottage will eventually be as common as the village post office, although it is not clear whether that will be due to the growth of the number of telecottages or to the closure of the rural post offices. There are already 250 telecottages spread around the country from the Orkneys to Cornwall and from Wales to Northern Ireland. One of the cottages in Wiltshire is used by 70 people working from home as well as by people running their own small firms. I mention that as one example of change in the countryside in order to emphasis the point that I made earlier; namely, that the countryside is not a static place. "Distance working" as it is called is likely to become an increasingly important factor in rural development and will bring with it its own problems and successes.
More households in the UK have personal computers than have cats or dogs as pets. Therefore, "technology fear" should not be a problem. Indeed, we may be entering the era of the rural "telescab" with distance working moving from the richer rural areas in the United Kingdom to the poorer areas where wage rates are lower and then from the UK to the poorer countries in Europe. For example, Ireland has substantial telecentre connections to the eastern seaboard of America providing cheap electronically based labour. That is one of the substantial changes in rural working patterns mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, with concomitant effects on housing, education and transport.
The problems of rural poverty, unemployment and housing are very closely linked. Extensive research indicates that there is a need for 20,000 social housing units in rural areas each year. When we consider that last year's entire national rural allocation of social housing units was less than the total need in one county, it is hardly surprising that in the four years up to 1992 the incidence of homelessness has tripled in rural areas.
That is a direct result of the Government's policy as regards the right to buy council houses while refusing the local authorities approval to replace the stocks sold off. That is a classic example of an extremely successful policy in terms of votes, accompanied by the most harmful social results. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that the problems of housing in the countryside result from the pressures of demand. They certainly do if the Government block the supply.
Rural unemployment results from a combination of factors in small areas—the reduction of agricultural employment, the closure of small firms, the closure of defence bases and of pits, to mention just a few examples. In the area concerned the scale may be relatively small in terms of numbers but the impact on the local community can be extremely severe. We are
1646
well used to hearing about the 100,000 jobs that have been lost for farmers and farm workers in the past decade. We do not often hear about the 38,000 jobs that have been lost in rural areas in the seven years from 1984 to 1991 as a result of pit closures. Of their nature, job losses from pit closures are much more concentrated in their effect than job losses in agriculture.
My noble friend Lord Williams remarked on the lack of environmental benefit of the set aside scheme. It has been calculated also that one job will be lost for every 400 acres of set aside. I believe that when we are looking at all the various schemes for less intensive farming, diversification and the development of rural industries, we should ask for a clear statement of the employment effects and the schemes should be accepted only if it is clear that they will result in more jobs than would otherwise be the case.
I should now like to mention a few points that have been raised during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, referred to the IACS—the Integrated Administration Control Scheme. We are all familiar with that in agriculture. I am already on record in this House as pointing out that in introducing the scheme the Ministry's performance made Group 4 look like the SAS.
We are told by the Minister that we must have this scheme because of fraud and because a vast amount of public money is involved. That is nonsense on stilts. For almost 30 years from the late 1940s to the mid 1970s there was a subsidy system in this country. I do not refer to the value or merits of the subsidy scheme. I refer only to its administration. There was a barley subsidy that was based on acreage; there was a wheat subsidy that was based on tonnage; there were three fatstock subsidies for cattle, pigs and sheep; there was a fertiliser subsidy; there was a lime subsidy; there was a calf subsidy; there was a grassland subsidy; there were a whole range of hill livestock subsidies. They were all managed effectively, efficiently and cheaply with virtually no fraud and certainly without the IAC scheme.
Of course there is fraud. We are really talking about—and I understand that the Government cannot say this—fraud in other member states, particularly in the southern member states. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, referred to the influence of the mafia.
I was very taken by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as he waxed lyrical with allusions to Cobbett, Hardy, the red kite and the blue butterfly. He proved what some people had begun to doubt; namely, that the Department of the Environment really does have a soul.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, asked the profound question: who owns Britain? I believe that he has forgotten that it was Lloyd George who said that the land belongs to the people. It appears that the Liberal Democrats may now be having some second thoughts about the intentions of the Almighty in that respect.
The noble Lord referred also to Sir George Stapledon, one of the great postwar agricultural scientists who said, the noble Lord reminded us, that

1647
his task was to grow two blades of grass where one grew before. I suppose that, with surpluses, he would be trying to grow half a blade now instead of two.
I was taken also with the thought-provoking speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barber, who discussed a subject on which he has spoken on many times in the past. I do not have time to deal with his arguments in detail but I argue that there should be a great deal more research into low input farming. I have been involved for nearly 40 years with the preparation of extremely detailed management accounts of a large number of farms. It is not always the case that the most profitable farms are those with the highest output. I believe that not very much research has been carried out in that area, although further research is now being undertaken. The whole area of low input farming should be looked into. It is not the case that we always have to go for the highest output to achieve the highest profit.
As I said, the second part of the Motion refers to agencies "connected with the countryside". We all know that there are certainly plenty of them. It is, perhaps, one of the few really successful growth industries in recent years. Virtually every agency—that is, both public and voluntary —which is involved in rural problems mentions overlapping functions and the lack of comprehensive and coherent policies in rural areas.
However, before deciding on the right mix of agencies required, there are a number of steps that have to be taken. Obviously, and first, the broad objectives of policy must be clearly formulated, with guidelines for arbitrating the inevitable conflicts that will arise. Let us take an extreme example. There would be little point in setting up a special government agency for, say, rural housing if the Government did not take the policy decision to shift substantial resources into rural housing. If they did decide to do so, there would probably be no need for the agency in any event. But, once the objectives of policy have been defined, those objectives must be converted into specific programmes with targets. The right mix of agencies will develop if coherent policy objectives and programmes are clearly set out. However, if they are not, just having a plethora of agencies—as we have now—would merely confuse the issue. That is certainly what is happening at present.
I have felt for a long time—and I should emphasise from the Dispatch Box that this is a purely personal view; it does not represent my party's policy—that there is perhaps a need for a department of the rural environment or a department of rural affairs which would bring together MAFF and the various government agencies concerned with the rural environment—for example, the Countryside Commission, the Rural Development Commission, English Nature and so on. We are continually told that it is farmers who look after the countryside. It would, therefore, seem to be sensible for their sponsoring department to have an involvement in the care of the countryside.
I should say at once that correct organisation building is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition. All the organisational structures in the world will not
1648
help if the policies are not right in the first place. It was more than six years ago that I worked with the late Brynmor John, who was the Opposition spokesman on agriculture in another place. We produced a fairly substantial discussion document entitled, Towards a New Agriculture: A Labour View. I should emphasise that that was not a party document; it was intended to stimulate discussion. However, we carried out a good deal of work at that time on the idea of a department of rural affairs. We came to the conclusion that if we are to solve the deeply embedded problems of the rural economy and sustain in being the rural communities where people both live and work, our policies must be coherent in all those respects. The present structure of government, far from fostering a coherent approach to rural policy, leads, at best, to piecemeal tinkering and at worst to an exacerbation of conflict.
Of the many changes that are needed in the longer term there is one that we singled out—namely, the creation at national level of a department of rural affairs. Only if government can match the right administrative structure at national and local level with the right policies and the right resources will the future of our rural communities be assured. But it will take more than that; it will take the creativity and the energies of rural people. They have the clearest sense of their needs and problems. It is through their active involvement that a solution to those problems will be found.
8.23 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we have had a fascinating and wide-ranging debate; indeed, that is what one would expect in this House on a subject as dear to all our hearts as the well-being of the countryside. Like other noble Lords, I would like to express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Middleton for enabling us to paint a picture of those important issues with the benefit of such a broad canvas.
It is, I think, appropriate that I should focus my closing remarks on the major influence which agriculture has on the countryside. Farmers are surely the starting point in any such debate. The policies which the Government have in place to support the farming industry are of critical importance when we consider the impact which agricultural practices can have on our landscapes, on the wildlife interest of our countryside and on the state of our rural economy.
The agreement reached this time last year on reform of the CAP represented a major step forward in its development. The significant cuts agreed in support prices should bring internal prices closer to those of the world market, thus helping to improve trade relations, while reduced access to intervention will help to improve the market orientation of the CAP. The recognition, for the first time, of the importance of environmental considerations in formulating agricultural policy was a particularly welcome development, and one for which the UK had long argued.
The support payments to farmers under the CAP do, of course, play an important part in enabling them to care for the countryside. I believe that one could argue that a high proportion of farm subsidies benefit

1649
the environment either directly or indirectly. We should always remember that farmers are responsible for the management of the great majority of our countryside: some 80 per cent. of the land is farmed and a further 10 per cent. is under forestry. I cannot help thinking of the words of Rudyard Kipling:
"Our England is a garden and such gardens are not made by singing '0 how beautiful' and sitting in the shade".
Today's countryside is very much the creation of generations of farmers working and caring for the land. It is the responsibility of the current generation to reconcile the demand for efficiently produced food with the sometimes opposing demand for the countryside to be protected and cared for.
It is also the responsibility of the Government to balance the encouragement of efficient agriculture with the interests of those who live in the countryside, who enjoy it and who wish to see it conserved. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that primary legislation is simply one tool; there are others. We have successfully pressed in Brussels for environmental objectives to be made integral to the CAP. We have already made progress with the hill livestock compensatory allowances (HLCA) scheme in which environmentally damaging overgrazing is discouraged. The recent agreement on the 1993 price package takes us a stage further along that road. We plan to follow up the "greening" of the HLCAs by incorporating similar measures of environmental protection into other livestock support payments. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also mentioned set-aside. We have included a range of environmental safeguards in the set-aside management rules. Moreover, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, set-aside payments are conditional upon those management rules being adhered to. Set-aside is certainly not our idea of an ideal policy but we have to make the most of it. We have, therefore, been very encouraged by the wide support that we have had for our proposals for exploiting its potential, and particularly its environmental potential.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said that 20-year set-aside should be shaped by environmental considerations. I entirely agree. We have issued proposals to use 20-year set-aside to create or improve a range of important wildlife habitats. It is an environmentally led scheme. The Government will continue to press for the incorporation of appropriate measures of environmental protection into agricultural support schemes.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl so early in his speech. However, as it is an untimed debate we are not restricted by time. Has the noble Earl now left the set-aside problem, or will he return to it? I believe that he said that set-aside was environmentally driven. It seems to me that the arguments of the CPRE and others that set-aside is actually environmentally destructive should be taken account of in the noble Earl's response.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I said that the 20-year set-aside scheme under the agri-environment programme is environmentally led. We are targeting that particular scheme—and of course that is quite distinct from rotational and non-rotational set-aside —on potential wetland habitats and river fringes which have particular environmental value.
The Government also offer economic incentives to encourage farmers to manage their land in a way that delivers particular environmental benefits. We have just completed a wide-ranging consultation on proposals to extend our environmental management payments more widely, including, as the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, mentioned, the expansion of the environmentally sensitive areas scheme to cover additional areas. ESAs have been acclaimed by farmers and environmentalists alike and are an excellent example of how environmental benefits can be achieved by working with farmers. From the Lake District, to the South Downs and to Exmoor, the scheme currently covers some 800,000 hectares in England alone and we propose to extend it to over 1.1 million hectares. The Government also propose major increases in the area covered by environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Four weeks ago I explained to the House that we also wish to introduce some entirely new schemes. We have issued proposals for a moorland scheme and habitat improvement scheme which are aimed respectively at enhancing the nature conservation value of moorland and, as I have just mentioned, creating and extending valuable wildlife resources such as saltmarsh. Environmental requirements are also included in our proposed new organic aid scheme, while our proposals to create new opportunities for public access on land in environmentally sensitive areas and in set-aside offer an important new element which will encourage public enjoyment of the countryside. This is a major package of new voluntary measures which has been designed to protect and enhance wildlife, habitats and natural resources; to conserve and enhance our most attractive landscapes and to promote new opportunities for enjoyment of the countryside by the public.
The importance that the Government attach to such environmental incentives is reflected in our sharply increasing expenditure on them. In all, annual expenditure on environmental incentive schemes sponsored by the Ministry of Agriculture and Department of the Environment is planned to rise to over £120 million by 1995–96—and that is in England alone.
My noble friend Lord Middleton and other noble Lords have suggested that there is a case for rationalisation of the measures designed to encourage environmentally benign farming. There are several aspects to this question. First, the number of national environmental schemes quite simply reflects the fact that we have a number of environmental objectives. Minimising nitrate leaching requires a different approach and different incentives from improving the conditions of heather moorland. Of course we could merge the main schemes into one jumbo scheme and

1651
produce a jumbo application form, but I doubt if anyone would thank us for that. What we have done instead is to ensure that advice is available to guide farmers and landowners on the options open to them, and we have published free material which describes the main schemes and grants in a convenient way for farmers. In particular, we have issued a booklet entitled Conservation Grants for Farmers. I have a copy with me.
Secondly, we need to remind ourselves that this is an area where policy is developing, and it is important to be able to try out new approaches—for which I make no apology. I should also like to stress that we have been at great pains to ensure that all government schemes are complementary. The Government work very closely with their statutory conservation agencies, such as the Countryside Commission and English Nature, to achieve this. I know the picture can be complicated for farmers faced with local authority or National Park schemes in addition to the national ones, but this, I suggest, is a necessary element of diversity. Local schemes can and do usefully supplement national provisions with grants geared to more local concerns. However, I can assure noble Lords that the Government will continue to be alert to opportunities for rationalisation and simplification, particularly in the way that schemes are delivered.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, rightly said, the Government's role is not to stop change or to seek to preserve a particular pattern of production regardless of economic forces but to ensure that change takes place in a way which minimises the negative effects but allows society as a whole to benefit from the improvements. That is what we have been striving to achieve in this country. In 1988 we introduced the ALURE (Alternative Land Use and Rural Enterprise) package which provides assistance for farm-based forestry and pump priming finance to encourage farmers to look beyond agricultural production and diversify their businesses.
Diversification is not a realistic option for every farmer, but it has been a great success and now nearly half of all the farmers in the country have some form of diversified business. We were therefore able to withdraw the special support of grant aid for farm diversification this year while continuing to support farmers in their efforts to diversify by working with local authorities and other countryside agencies to ensure that strategies are in place to support diversification and that planners are fully aware of the need for appropriate economic development to take place in the countryside. In particular, my department has been working closely with the Rural Development Commission in England in its countryside employment programme areas which are specifically targeted at integrated development in three pilot areas which are particularly susceptible to problems arising out of agricultural restructuring. In this context, I wish to associate myself with many of the points made by my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth.
My noble friend Lord Middleton and other noble Lords commended the idea of a department of rural affairs. Ultimately, the creation of any new department is a matter for my right honourable friend
1652
the Prime Minister. My noble friend's proposal for a Ministry of rural affairs could cover a wide range of subjects which are currently the responsibility of several departments. His suggestion is one which the Government have examined from time to time over the past few years; but our view continues to be that the present arrangements are working satisfactorily.
The noble Earl, Lord Spencer, gave us a sparkling maiden speech full of wisdom and good sense. I join other noble Lords in congratulating him upon it. I share his enthusiasm for encouraging landowners to open up parts of the countryside for public enjoyment. I hope we shall hear him and see him often in this House. I express the same hope to my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard who spoke with obvious authority on issues which are close to the hearts of many of your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, gave us a thoughtful speech drawn from personal experience. If he is as good a farmer as he is a politician, he must indeed be a successful man. I shall be glad to look into his suggestion that an auctioneer should sit on the Meat and Livestock Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked about government plans on promised legislation. We are keen to legislate in several areas as soon as possible. However, as I said earlier, legislation is not the only way in which our policies can be furthered. The noble Lord mentioned the implementation of the habitats directive, as indeed did the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I can assure them that the Government will be issuing proposals for implementing the directive shortly, and there will be widespread consultation before regulations are introduced.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked about the monitoring arrangements for development plans in the Government's guidance document PPG7. Both the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office scrutinise local authorities' development plans to ensure that government guidance on planning policies is properly reflected in them. Several noble Lords including the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, spoke about designations of land with no statutory basis. I recognise the anxiety over the proliferation of non-statutory designations by local planning authorities. Such designations enable local planning authorities to take account of local landscape, wildlife and archaeological benefits in taking planning decisions. However, PPG7 makes clear that planning authorities must encourage rural development and in doing so they must strike a proper balance between conservation and economic interests.
It is important therefore that excessive and unjustified use is not made of non-statutory designations in order to place unnecessary barriers in the way of rural development proposals. We will be looking for opportunities to emphasise this point with planning authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, suggested that the natural areas recently launched by English Nature are a new designation with which farmers will have to grapple, and that they may not succeed. These are an English Nature initiative

1653
intended to help it develop its nature conservation work. They are not statutory designations which constrain farmers in any way.
The noble Baroness also asked about the possibility of a framework or strategy for environmental policies. The Government have set down the policy framework in the 1990 White Paper This Common Inheritance. The responsible government departments and agencies work closely together to achieve a co-ordinated approach. I would reassure the noble Baroness that our policies and the framework are kept under review.
The noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, referred to the work of English Nature and the Countryside Commission as separate agencies. If I understood him aright, he expressed the wish that they be kept separate. The Government explained in their White Paper This Common Inheritance that the greater size and complexity of agencies in England would make an effective merger more difficult to achieve than in Scotland and Wales. Moreover, the more sparsely populated areas of Scotland and Wales lend themselves more readily to an integrated approach. In England the relatively intense pressures make it more appropriate, for the time being at least, to retain separate organisations, collaborating with each other where necessary.
My noble friend Lord Kimball, while making some important points, also sounded a somewhat individual note. He referred to a laissez-faire conservation policy. The Government's conservation policy is not laissez-faire; it is both carefully tailored and prescriptive. We need both regulation and incentives to encourage beneficial management to protect wildlife. The fact is that there is great concern among naturalists and the general public that intensive farming methods are putting diversity of flora and fauna at risk. There have been significant losses of wildlife habitats and species, and the steps that the Government have taken to restore such losses, where practicable, and to encourage sympathetic management of those which remain have been widely welcomed by landowners, conservationists and the general public.
The bureaucracy to which my noble friend referred is accountable. MAFF and the DoE consult widely on their initiatives, not just with environmental groups, and Parliament debates them.
My noble friend Lord Kimball referred in particular to avian predation. Although the populations of certain birds of prey have recovered, I am not aware of any evidence that populations have reached the levels where there is a significant problem for agricultural production which would require the Government to consider exceptional action. On the other hand, if my noble friend has any such evidence I would be happy to consider the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Barber, argued cogently against supply controls. I take issue with him in so far as he referred to purely voluntary schemes. It is no secret that the UK has consistently argued for gradual price cuts and against compulsory supply controls as a means of containing the CAP and bringing agriculture nearer to the free market. However, I
1654
suggest that that does not cut across our belief in soundly based and carefully tailored voluntary schemes to encourage the enhancement of wildlife habitats, the conservation of landscape features and floral diversity. I was heartened by the comments of my noble friend Lord Swinton in that vein.
The noble Lord, Lord Barber, also referred to pesticides. The Government's policy is not unnecessarily to discourage all use of pesticides but to ensure that pesticide use is limited to the minimum necessary for the effective control of pests compatible with the protection of health and the environment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised the subject of rural crime, as did the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield. The incidence of rural crime appears to be rising. However, rural areas still have the lowest levels of crime per capita. I recognise the specific problems faced by rural communities—hare coursing, vandalism and new age travellers have been mentioned. The police response to rural crime focuses on a partnership approach, liaising with the community by means of multi-agency schemes. In addition, the Government announced in March their intention to bring forward measures which will extend the range of criminal offences for aggravated trespass and illegal camping. Those will help to combat the raves of which my noble friend spoke. That will undoubtedly also be welcomed by my noble friend Lord Annaly.
My noble friend specifically asked about legislation to deal with hunt saboteurs. The Home Office is taking a further look at the legislation in that area to see whether any more can be done to reduce the hindrance of lawful activities.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft referred to the National Trust report on Exmoor and in particular to deer management. I am aware that deer in the Exmoor area, and indeed in other parts of the country, can and do cause serious damage to farmland by breaching stock-proof fences, allowing livestock to stray, and by grazing early bite grass intended for sheep. The Deer Act 1991 permits the daylight shooting of deer outside a close season in order to prevent or reduce damage. Recommendation 1a of the report to which my noble friend referred calls for legislative action to underpin the formation of management groups. That would require landowners to take action against deer as part of a group initiative. Further legislation on deer would not, I believe, sit well with the current climate of deregulation and would put us in the very difficult position of forcing animal welfare agencies to cull deer on their land, with all that that would entail. The Ministry's policy is to encourage the formation of deer management groups on a voluntary basis.
My noble friend asked what was the Government's view on deer sanctuaries. The Government have long recognised the need for careful intervention in specially designated areas to safeguard endangered species. Without such action the diversity of our wildlife would be diminished, possibly irreversibly. If possible, nature should be enabled to maintain its own balance between species, but an unnatural intervention as described by my noble friend can do more harm than good to wildlife in the areas.

1655
My noble friend Lord Marlesford made a wide-ranging speech. I apologise to him for not answering all the points that he made: I am running out of time. He referred to new housing developments in the countryside. Since the mid-1980s we have gained considerable experience of planning proposals for new settlements, by which I mean substantial stand-alone villages and small towns. Those proposals have almost invariably been deeply controversial. In the light of experience my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has taken the view that a proposal for such a settlement should normally be contemplated only in very particular circumstances, including adherence to local wishes, the prospect of positive environmental improvements and the requirement that it does not fall within a green belt, national park, SSSI etc.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford asked about the EC and town and country planning. Town and country planning is specifically recognised by the Community as a matter of national concern, but member states are required so to order their planning policies as to fulfil the requirements of EC law.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to the need for affordable housing in rural communities, with which I fully concur. The Housing Corporation has a special rural programme for villages of below 3,000 in population, with 60 per cent. of funds for villages of fewer than 1,000 inhabitants. That programme is running very successfully and we are monitoring it closely.
The noble Baroness also asked about the reorganisation of local government and strategic planning. Strategic (structure) planning is a matter to which the Local Government Commission has been asked to give specific attention in making its recommendations. The Government will ensure that strategic planning is properly catered for in the pattern of reorganised authorities.
The right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised the matter of suicides. The question of farmer suicides is a very sad one but, sadder still, it is not a new problem. Farmer suicide rates have been high for a long time, as have rates for other rural occupational groups such as forestry workers or veterinarians, who have suicide rates twice as high as farmers. My department and the Department of Health are co-operating closely on this issue, and the Government have given £20,000 to a project aimed at identifying needs and dealing with the special problems of delivering mental health services in rural areas. The Department of Health is supporting a campaign called Rural Outreach run by the Samaritans. My own department is providing free business advice through ADAS to farmers on referral from the Samaritans or social services.
If the House will allow me, it is right that, like my noble friends Lord Middleton and Lord Addison and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I should also mention that other major land use in the countryside, forestry. Forestry can play an important role in meeting a wide range of environmental, economic and rural objectives in rural areas. There is widespread agreement on the need to achieve increased woodland cover. Cover in
1656
England is just 7 per cent. of the total land area, far less than that of almost all our European partners, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, pointed out.
In September 1991 a statement published by the Forestry Commission on behalf of forestry Ministers set out the broad policy framework for afforestation. We want to achieve a steady expansion in the nation's tree cover and a sustainable management of our forestry plantations for multipurpose use. That policy is one which the Government stand by firmly. Yesterday saw a further important statement when the Government published the Command Paper, Forestry and the Environment, giving their response to a report on the topic in another place.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, perhaps I may say this. Since 1979 we have seen nearly ⅓ million hectares of new planting in Great Britain. In relation to our land area we have done more to build up our forestry area than almost any other country in the world. The Forestry Commission, and private sector planting, including restocking, was well over 30,000 hectares for the year to 31st March 1992. That was close to the average of the previous 20 years. I see no need to be pessimistic about future prospects for forestry.
The British countryside is one of our great national treasures and we owe a duty to future generations to care for it as our predecessors cared for it. The Government's commitment is clear: through guidance, through environmental protection measures and through financial incentives we assist farmers and other land managers to care for the countryside for the benefit of those who live and work there as well as for the benefit of those who visit it. The money spent on our environmental schemes is money well spent. I have been heartened by what I have heard today, and while time has prevented me from responding to every point made, a great deal of what has been said will undoubtedly be helpful in informing our policy-making over the months ahead as our countryside schemes are developed and refined.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and add my congratulations to the two noble Lords who made their maiden speeches. I was grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for the idea of a single strategy for the countryside. It was reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He referred to the idea—to which I referred—for a ministry of rural affairs. Not wholly unexpectedly, my noble friend Lord Howe was not keen on it.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, chided me gently for taking a rather narrow view. However, it is a wide subject. In opening I indicated that I would leave others to discuss the economy of the countryside. That has been done by noble Lords, notably by my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth and by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
I am grateful for what has been said by the two Ministers. If he will forgive me for saying so—I believe that my noble friend Lord Stanley agrees with me—I thought that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde

1657
painted a rather over-optimistic picture of rural prosperity. He spoke in glowing terms of the well-being of certain bats, birds and flowers; and what countryman can fail to rejoice in that? However, I fear that that happy state of nature is not matched by the well-being of some humans who have to earn their living in the countryside.
The noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, spoke of improvement in rural job opportunities. There is certainly room for improvement. There remains a
1658
great shortage of affordable rural houses. That was referred to by my noble friend Lord Marlesford. However, no one who saw the television film made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Westminster—it was shown last week—could fail to contrast that with the rosy view which appears to illuminate the DoE. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at six minutes before nine o'clock.

  LEGAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN'S REPORT
  LEGAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN'S REPORT
  ROUGH SLEEPERS INITIATIVE
  ROUGH SLEEPERS INITIATIVE
  SCOTLAND: CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
  SCOTLAND: CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
  A.9 PITLOCHRY TO INVERNESS ROAD: ACCIDENTS
  A.9 PITLOCHRY TO INVERNESS ROAD: ACCIDENTS
  DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS: KEY TARGETS
  DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS: KEY TARGETS