Sitting of 24 June 1994

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

  Heathrow (Third Runway)
  9.34 am
  Mr. Michael Shersby: I beg to present a petition of 7,335 signatures from the London borough of Hillingdon with the full support of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), who is in his place beside me, and in the interest of our neighbour my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson).
  The petition of the London borough of Hillingdon, its residents and other interested residents in the surrounding area.
  Declares that the blight in the surrounding area and the uncertainty surrounding the illustrative scheme contained in the RUCATSE report—
  by the working party to examine the need for runway capacity in the south-east of England—
  in addition to the unprecedented scale of environmental damage a third runway at Heathrow would cause is an unacceptable burden on thousands of residents.
  The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons' early as possible outright rejection of Heathrow as an option for further runway capacity in the south-east, and certainly before the end of 1994.
  And the petitioners remain your sincere servants.
  To lie upon the table.

Leisure Industry
9.35 am
Mr. Simon Coombs: I beg to move,
That this House congratulates the Department of National Heritage on its first two years; recognises its contribution to the development of leisure in the United Kingdom; calls for a continuing debate on the purposes for which the proceeds of the National Lottery should be used; and expresses the hope that, in future, encouragement will thereby be given to the promotion of more active leisure pursuits.
This is the first time for a number of years that the House has had the opportunity to discuss the leisure industry in this country. I do not have to point out the importance of leisure to all of us. It is a major industry, employing some 1.5 million people-7.4 per cent. of the work force—with annual consumer expenditure running to £85 billion.
The Department of National Heritage spends just under £1 billion on promoting and supporting a variety of leisure-related activities but it is essentially a consumer-led private sector industry. All of us make decisions on leisure most days of our lives, and we spend on average £41 per household each week on leisure goods and services, or 15 per cent. of total household expenditure. I want to explore a number of issues that concern the leisure industry and, at
456
the same time, review the role and activities of the Department of National Heritage, which has now been in existence for a little over two years.
It will also be appropriate to consider the likely impact of the national lottery, the proceeds from which will go largely into leisure-related activities and which could dramatically improve the quality of sporting, artistic and other facilities throughout the country. Lottery proceeds will significantly alter the balance between consumers and providers when decisions on spending are to be made and we shall have to be careful not to tip the balance too far towards provision which is of no interest to the general public, who are the ultimate consumers.
Having said that, however, I hope that the debate will focus also on the pursuit of excellence and on the encouragement of success. The nature of leisure and, therefore, of the leisure industry, is always changing. Spending on leisure is, of course, a function of disposable income. As that rises, there is more money for leisure.
Not surprisingly, low-income families typically spend only one tenth of their income on leisure, but that rises to more than a quarter for those on high incomes. Another significant trend is towards home entertainment of different kinds, brought on by the growth of television and video, with the result that leisure has become far more passive than it was. That has also led to the individualisation of leisure—towards what might be called the earplug society. We may have different views on the desirability of those trends, but they are largely technology-driven, and they would be extremely hard to reverse in a free society.
It is, therefore, appropriate to begin this review of leisure by considering the increasingly important area of television and video, which are the dominant features of home entertainment. Last year, a Gallup survey revealed that 53 per cent. of respondents regarded watching a good film on television as a good way to spend an evening at home, while 29 per cent. said the same about hiring a video.
In contrast, 42 per cent. endorsed listening to music at home, and 40 per cent. reading a good book. Of those surveyed, 41 per cent. of males were attracted by the notion of a romantic evening at home, while only 38 per cent. of females felt the same. Similarly, 28 per cent. of males opted for cooking and eating in, whereas only 23 per cent. of females wished to join them.
It is estimated that the average television viewer spends three hours 45 minutes every day watching television—viewing figures are lower in the summer and higher in the winter. On average, people aged over 55 and housewives watch more than four hours of television each day. Television audiences are regularly estimated to account for between a third and a half of the population. Choice is steadily expanding for them.
The number of homes able to receive either cable or satellite television is rapidly increasing, especially as the £6 billion cable-laying programme reaches most major towns and cities, bringing 30 channels of television to each home.
In my constituency, more than 30 per cent. of homes are already connected to cable and, therefore, have access to satellite television. I have no quarrel with the principle of expanding choice. It is right that viewers should have access to a variety of programming, but quality is important, too. The number of hours that we spend watching television should also come under scrutiny

457
Quality comes from adequate funding and soon the Government will have to decide how that funding should be provided. It is hard to see how the BBC can survive in its present form without the licence fee, yet its inevitable decline in market share, coupled with the growth of subscription and pay-per-view television makes the BBC's position look increasingly anachronistic.
Ms Marjorie Mowlam: I do not dissent from a word that the hon. Gentleman has said and I greatly respect his opinion. It would be within the rules of the House, however, if, at this point, he declared his interest as parliamentary consultant to British Telecom and Blick International (Communications).
Mr. Coombs: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reminding the House of what I suspect most hon. Members already knew, because it is in the Register of Members' Interests. I was unaware that it was necessary to declare such an interest, but if the hon. Lady feels better for having got that off her chest, I am happy to put it on the record.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: I should like to make a more constructive intervention. Is my hon. Friend aware that the point he made about the licence fee was the very conclusion reached by the Select Committee on National Heritage in its recent report?
Mr. Coombs: I was, of course, aware of that. I always study the work of the Select Committee, even though from time to time I find it necessary to disagree with it. In a few moments, I shall mention another matter and it will be clear to my hon. Friend that I disagree totally with the Select Committee about it.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the advantages of the expansion of the medium of television is that it has given people in different parts of the country the opportunity to see programmes about our leading resorts? Given that my constituency of Blackpool is one of the leading resorts of Britain, and the world, does my hon. Friend agree that there are now greater opportunities for people to see the beauties of Blackpool through the medium of television and that it offers unrivalled opportunities for low and high-income families to enjoy leisure and tourism?
Mr. Coombs: I am not sure what I admire more—my hon. Friend's ready and excellent support for his constituents, who live in half of our premier seaside resort, or his ingenuity in turning my speech back to front. He has got to the last topic in my speech, while I am still trying to deal with the first one. I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend said.
I have no doubt that one of the contributions of television in the past 50 years has been to draw the population's attention to all the delights of Blackpool and, dare I say, those of other seaside resorts, although I hesitate to mention them since my hon. Friend is sitting close behind me. Now that I have dealt with all the pent-up feelings of hon. Members, perhaps I can continue where I left off.
In the end, general taxation may be needed to support the BBC's continuance in its areas of excellence, such as news and current affairs. It is, however, facing increasing challenges to such coverage from its rivals, both terrestrial
458
and satellite, just as Independent Television can match the BBC in drama and cultural programming. Pressure on advertising revenue from commercial radio and television and regional newspapers probably guarantees the survival of the licence fee in the short term. I hope that the Government will want to spell out a long-term vision, which is designed to ensure choice and quality.
It would be wrong to leave the vexed question of the future of television without paying warm tribute to the historic role of the BBC as a purveyor and supporter of arts and sport. For 68 years, the BBC has supported the Henry Wood promenade concerts. BBC Radio 3, now in healthy competition with Classic FM, continues to offer a classic music station unmatched elsewhere in the world.
The BBC's television and radio programmes win countless awards and its sports coverage of popular and minority sport is of uniformly high calibre. As we move towards the era of the information super-highway, when the interactive consumer will be all powerful, that commitment to excellence will be challenged increasingly.
The growth of video recorders adds another dimension to the debate about home leisure. After less than 20 years, the video recorder is pervasive. Surveys reveal that 60 per cent. of the homes of the lowest 10 per cent. of income earners have video recorders. Video cassettes, whether bought, hired or previously recorded from television, have significantly altered the viewing pattern of those households that have worked out how to operate the recorders.
The personal freedom that videos offer makes them an obvious target for the purveyors of pornography and violence. In the interests of children in particular, the Government will have to find a way in which to prevent exploitation and corruption from becoming endemic. It is in the nature of today's technology that freedom and licence are so nearly entwined.
The growth of videos should represent a wonderful opportunity for the British film industry, about which I shall say more later. Although Britons spent £9 billion in 1992 on television and radio, they spent nearly £5 billion on newspapers, books and magazines.
The growth of television news, with its ability to provide rapid coverage of events, has imperceptibly altered the role of newspapers, almost to the point of making that description inaccurate. Newspapers now provide as much opinion and views as hard fact, with plenty of prediction thrown in. The aim seems to be as much entertainment as information, if not more, so gossip and speculation about the famous and not-so-famous compete for space in the endless circulation war.
Freedom of the press is taken as read in this country, but there is also a role for responsibility. That is not a concept which comes readily to mind when one reads the pages of some national newspapers. Once again, the Government will have a tightrope to walk if they seek to balance freedom and responsibility. I suspect that some courage will be needed.
There has been a steady decline in the quality and quantity of reading matter in the home, particularly as a function of the rise of other forms of entertainment. The bestseller lists tell a tale of easy reading in preference to more stimulating material. The answer must lie with the promotion of the classics of literature in schools. Recent anecdotal evidence has not been encouraging and, among the young, the video game is king.

459
Music in the home has become more and more the province of the compact disc. CD sales are rising every year, by 17 per cent. in 1993 and 27.3 per cent. in 1994 —those are first quarter figures in each year—to 95.6 million in the first quarter of 1994, despite occasional ill-informed complaints about their price. I welcome the fact that record companies, both large ones such as EMI and smaller ones like Chandos and Conifer, have been able to expand their repertoire dramatically through more obscure areas of classic music to the encouragement of new, young composers and artistes in both popular and classic music.
The British music recording industry, which leads the world in its technical and artistic achievements, deserves our strong support, not the constant sniping based on ignorance which sometimes seems to be its lot. I, therefore, welcome the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the industry published yesterday, which clears it completely of the charge of acting against the public interest. The reverse is true.
I have mentioned the great popularity of eating at home. I only wish that the Department for Education would listen to the wise advice of the National Association of Teachers of Home Economics and give the teaching of safe, nutritious cooking a more secure place in the national curriculum, thus helping to reduce the incidence of food poisoning in the home. But I am, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in danger of straying some distance from my subject.
Staying in during the hours of leisure has become increasingly passive. We listen and we watch, but we hardly create. Few families do without television and radio, and even fewer make their own music or other entertainment, which I regret. Although chess has become increasingly popular in the past 20 years, culminating in Nigel Short bravely challenging for the world championship last year, families generally do less together than in the past. The Victorian stereotype of singing round the piano has long since gone in the vast majority of homes, which leads me to question whether this nation puts enough resources into teaching music in schools.
Even the noble art of conversation is now imperilled by the individualisation of leisure. Articulate speech is becoming harder to find, with phrases like, "you know", "I mean", and "sort of' used as substitutes for punctuation, and the redundant "actually" the favourite means by which infinitives are now split. Perhaps we need to reinvent the family. We certainly need to reinvent the art of communication.
Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend as horrified as I was to read in yesterday's newspapers that more than 44 per cent. of pregnancies in the United Kingdom are of single mothers?
Mr. Coombs: I wish that I felt happier about the link between split infinitives and unwanted pregnancies. But, as I said to a number of hon. Members before the debate, this is an opportunity for people to talk about most subjects, provided that they are fun. I suppose that, on that basis, I must accept that intervention as being as helpful as it was clearly intended to be.
An honourable exception to the trend towards inactivity is gardening, which remains hugely popular, with more than £2 billion spent on it every year. I am obviously not alone in finding weeding therapeutic.
460
The Department of National Heritage, together with other Departments of state, can and does influence a number of home-based leisure activities. Forthcoming pronouncements on the media will be of particular importance. However, in the wider world, the Department of National Heritage is a vital catalyst in the effort to provide better facilities and preserve our heritage. Ministers, however, have been content to hand over much of their power to influence events through the well-established policy of the arm's-length relationship with such bodies as the Arts Council.
While that arrangement has the considerable advantage that Ministers can deny responsibility when things go wrong, it is unsatisfactory for Ministers and, therefore, Parliament to be denied a say when mistakes are made. The recent fiasco of the so-called "beauty contest" for the London orchestras made the Arts Council look philistine and Ministers impotent.
The idea that London should be forced to surrender its position as the music capital of the world by the destruction of two of its world-class orchestras was appalling. I should like to think that the new Arts Council for England has completely abandoned such a notion, but can we be sure? Can Ministers be sure? One has only to look at the employment and earnings generated by each of those orchestras to judge the excellence of the return on the grants that they receive. Other European music capitals were aghast at what was proposed, and wait to see whether common sense and pride have now been restored.
I hope that we shall not hear too much talk in this debate about cuts in arts funding. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Arts Council's budget increased from £152.4 million in 1988–89 to £225.6 million in 1993–94. In that context, the recent small reduction in funding should occasion careful thought, perhaps some tough decisions, but not the widespread hysteria which we have witnessed. I wonder whether it is sensible for Ministers to run the risk that others might implement reductions in ways designed to generate maximum distress.
The funding scenario is about to change dramatically. As we celebrate 10 successful years of the business sponsorship incentive scheme, which has produced £64 million in new money and 3,000 first-time business sponsors for the arts, all eyes are now turning to the potential of the national lottery.
A new advisory board will make far-reaching decisions on arts spending up to and beyond the next century. Glittering prospects are already opening up. Naturally, the House would expect me to say that the new concert hall for which many of my constituents in Swindon have long been waiting must be a strong candidate for funding.
In the meantime, guidelines on funding have emphasised the need for matching funding and for longer-term viability. At one extreme of interpretation, one can see a time when every town will have its own arts facilities but insufficient funds to sustain them. At the other extreme, we shall see applications turned down amid general disappointment, because revenue funding cannot be satisfactorily identified and because the Arts Council's existing budget cannot be stretched far enough.
There must be a happy medium, based on the recognition that the Arts Council's budget should never be substituted for lottery funds. I suspect that it lies in recognising that, over time, the emphasis on lottery funds' disposal will gradually shift towards revenue support and

461
away from capital formation. That may mean a slower rate of infrastructure creation, but there should be fewer funding crises at a later date.
Ms Mowlam: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about revenue costs being a problem for many capital projects sponsored by the lottery, and none of us wants white elephants to continue until the turn of the century with money that has come from the lottery, but can he explain my worry that, if we accept some revenue costs, additionality battles with the Treasury, whoever is in Government, would be a problem?
Mr. Coombs: Yes, I accept that there is always that risk. We have to live in the real world, and in the real world the Treasury is there, whether we like it or not. However, we have to look to the Department of National Heritage to ring-fence lottery funding and to look at the totality of the problem with regard to capital costs and revenue implications in the longer term. I am suggesting that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State should address himself to that.
There needs to be a happy medium, which may mean a slower rate of infrastructure creation. A new generation of fine public buildings is all very well, but we need the quality of artistic performance to fill them with distinction. Similarly, I hope that the desirability of matching funding will not be too rigidly enforced. If it is, lottery funds will never reach some parts of the country, thus defeating what should be one of our objectives—to bring the arts within reach of all the people.
I need say little about the west end theatre, which remains a jewel in the crown of Britain's culture, but we should not forget the degree to which foreign visitors support it financially. Our actors, designers, writers and directors lead the way in musical theatre and drama, but we must remember how important it is to sustain the flow of overseas visitors to London by a positive attitude to tourism marketing. I shall discuss that later.
The position of the British film industry is perhaps slightly less satisfactory, but there are good grounds for optimism. We await the Government's review of the industry with the greatest interest. So soon after the 60th anniversary of Charles Laughton's first acting Oscar for Britain in 1933, it is appropriate to ask whether it is possible to revitalise the British film industry—after all, we should remember that cinema admissions in 1946 were 1.6 billion, and are now 113 million, albeit increasing by 15 per cent. in 1993. The answer must surely be yes.
It would require only a limited proportion of the lottery proceeds destined for the arts, channelled through the British Film Commission, to act as seedcorn for a revival of film-making in this country. We have the talent in acting, directing, and technical aspects to maintain a challenge for the Academy awards that is genuinely home based. Matching funding can be achieved with a more benign tax regime, and the seedcorn can then produce a harvest to match the palmy days of Alexander Korda and Ealing Studios. The recent success of "Four Weddings and a Funeral" should be enough to convince even the doubters what can be achieved.
Before discussing the prospects for British sport, I must mention the millennium fund, guidelines for the operation of which the Secretary of State set out in his speech this
462
week, and draw to the House's attention the fact that London needs a new modern concert hall, preferably on the west side of the capital, to complement the Barbican in the east and the Royal Festival hall to the south. A building of suitable size, quality and accessibility would be an appropriate way to commemorate the millennium. I hope that such a proposal will emerge, just as the Royal Festival hall was a crowning achievement of the Festival of Britain in 1951. The new hall might even have a good acoustic.
Attendance at sporting events has been in general decline since the war, largely because television coverage of sport has become so pervasive and so good. New spectator sports have been created by television. Snooker and darts are two that come readily to mind, but the development of the instant replay camera has made armchair viewing and criticism of major sports such as football and cricket a far more attractive pastime.
In spite of that, stadiums in this country, especially in our cities, have been modernised, and new facilities to enhance growth sports such as athletics have been created in Birmingham, Sheffield, Manchester and other cities. The football levy is helping to improve football grounds in the wake of the Hillsborough tragedy and the Taylor report, but there will be scope for further improving regional and local sporting facilities with the proceeds of the national lottery. It should be our aim to seek an overall improvement in British sporting achievement, and I hope that the Sports Council will think carefully about how that is to be done.
I especially hope that the general presumption in favour of capital schemes will not militate against investment in human capital. This country produces many fine sportsmen and sportswomen, whose talent cannot be nurtured to the fullest extent because of lack of funds. I propose the establishment of a scholarship fund from lottery proceeds to help develop those talents on which the next generation of sporting success will be based. As a nation, we need to win more gold medals, more world championships, than we do. The Christies, Gunnells and Jacksons are too few and far between, outstanding as their contribution to athletics has been.
It is also a tragedy that there is no British participation in this year's football world cup. Other countries invest heavily in their sporting future. Why not Britain?
The growing interest in keep fit classes, jogging and personal physical development, not to mention running and walking, is encouraging. Who could fail to be inspired by the sight of the annual London marathon getting under way? Yet I wonder whether we should be worried about the fact that, for many people, such a race is more about personal times than about winning or beating other people. The move away from competitive sport in some schools is deeply regrettable and I fully support the efforts of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in that respect.
I mention to my hon. Friend, in passing, the possibility of inflation-indexing the Sports Council's financial memorandum guideline that requires Government approval for expenditure of more than £200,000 on capital works or £50,000 on policy research or monitoring. Those figures have not been increased since 1972 and now represent a restrictive curb on the council's activity.
The House should know that the Sports Council is extremely keen to foster excellence in UK sport. Through its £1.5 million grants to the National Coaching Foundation and through its support for sports science and sports medicine, it has done much to help sportspeople. Its

463
national junior sports programme will, if properly integrated in the national curriculum, help to improve the prospects of British success in many sports. I know that the House would wish me to add that the grant aid given to the Sports Council should in no way be affected by the future availability of lottery funds.
There was great disappointment that Manchester's Olympic bid was unsuccessful, in spite of the efforts of Sir Bob Scott and the Prime Minister. Even so, Britain continues to be regarded as a leading sporting nation, full of good ideas and programmes.
I have spoken about the need to match funds with the proceeds of the national lottery. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will now clarify the position of the private sector. Is the private sector to be allowed to contribute to partnership schemes that might, in time, offer a return on investment to the national lottery fund?
In the sport of tennis, for example, an organisation such as David Lloyd Leisure is keen to develop facilities, not just for profit, but because its founder hopes to find a future Wimbledon winner for Britain. Does the Minister want such a partnership to work in future? Can he assure me that he is committed to the principle that the participation of young people in active sport, both in and out of school, is high on his agenda?
We now have the means to provide the right facilities and we need the will to set them up. The figures suggest that more than half the population participate in some form of physical activity, but in organised participative sport the figures are much lower. That is the challenge which the House and the country should seek to meet.
In the debate on sport that I initiated last year, I talked about the huge potential for tourism offered by the Manchester Olympic bid. I have already referred to the importance of overseas visitors to the success of London theatres, and the same is true of many other sporting and artistic facilities in this country, as well as the nation's built and national heritage.
In 1993, tourists made 19.3 million visits to Britain, during the course of which a record £9.1 billion was spent. That makes Britain the sixth most popular tourist destination in the world, after the United States of America, France, Spain, Italy and Austria. Other countries are constantly amazed at the relatively small amount of money we spend on the promotion of Britain as a tourist destination.
The countries that I have mentioned spend far more than we do, as do many other countries that are far less attractive than ours. Germany outspends this country by five to one on overseas tourism promotion. Our limited commitment of public funds is justified on the ground that the tourism industry is so successful, but surely the question is whether public resources spent on advertising Britain in lucrative overseas markets would bring a return to the taxpayer.
The answer in other countries is a resounding yes, and we should not rest on our reputation when there are jobs to be created and revenue to be earned in return for a modest additional outlay. I propose that the Department of National Heritage, in conjunction with independent organisations such as the Institute of Travel and Tourism or the Tourism Society, should conduct an urgent study of other countries' rates of return on overseas promotional advertising.
Tourism stands to gain from four of the five elements of the national lottery's proceeds. I have already spoken about the arts and sport. The Millennium Commission will
464
undoubtedly want to reflect on the international impact of the schemes that it will endorse. Similarly, the contribution of the lottery to the maintenance of our national heritage will be crucial to tourism.
The work of the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England—the headquarters of which, I am pleased to say, is now in my constituency—and of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, which is known as English Heritage, does much to preserve and enhance the sort of Britain that visitors from the world come to see. The lottery can significantly enhance our ability to restore and preserve the built heritage of Britain, as well as its museums and galleries.
But what about those parts of the heritage that are still in private hands and are so excellently represented by the Historic Houses Association? Is the Minister willing to see funds made available to the owners of the great houses, castles and palaces of Britain on appropriate terms? If not, we may find ourselves contributing to a form of creeping nationalisation, which would be wrong.
I know that the Treasury has been reluctant to alter the tax regime to enable the owners of historic houses to maintain their properties more readily, but lottery proceeds could do much to overcome that handicap by adding to the £200 million per annum that the Department of National Heritage already spends.
I offer my congratulations to David Beaton and the staff of the Historic Royal Palaces Agency for the great progress that they have made in the past five years, when there have been steadily increasing visitor numbers and profitability. I hope that other visitor attractions will follow the excellent example of the Victoria and Albert museum and open for longer hours on Sundays. It is sad that an important national treasure house such as the national gallery does not open on bank holidays.
The contribution of tourism to our national heritage, arts and sport is enormous. The British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board are constantly engaged in the task of promoting events in Britain to potential overseas visitors. The London arts season in February and March of this year was marketed in Germany, Spain, Japan, the United States, Canada, Australia, France, Italy, Ireland, the Nordic countries and Switzerland at an overall cost of £1.25 million.
Visitor inquiries and numbers were dramatically influenced by that expenditure and the latest estimate, which can as yet be merely anecdotal, is that many millions of pounds of extra business came to London as a result of the outlay of £1.25 million.
With more resources, much more could have been achieved, but I pay tribute to the fact that the British Tourist Authority has been able to recycle money—as much as £1 million—to overseas promotions in the past year. That has made an enormous difference to the number of inquiries coming to BTA offices in North America, where the increase in inquiries has been as much as one third—from 750,000 to 1 million in the past year.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as his speech has been such a thoughtful tour d'horizon of the tourist industry. Will he consider the total resources that we spend, via the British Tourist Association and individual tourist boards?
Will he consider the fact that the BTA promotes British industry in, for example, Boston in the United States, while

465
the Wales tourist board promotes Wales? Would it not be better for the British Tourist Association to promote the United Kingdom? It is important that visitors come to the United Kingdom—it does not matter where within it. Will my hon. Friend consider whether our resources are being spent as wisely as possible?
Mr. Coombs: I have the greatest sympathy with what my hon. Friend sayhs. He is right; we should be in the business of promoting the United Kingdom plc in any way that we can. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is keenly aware of that, as we have debated it more than once. I was proposing to spare him another onslaught on that issue this morning, partly in the interests of allowing one or two other hon. Members to participate in the debate before 2.30 pm.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) will forgive me, I shall not go into that subject in detail. If he has the chance to make his own speech, he can press the Minister on how best to promote all the United Kingdom, not just England —or, indeed, London—to those lucrative overseas markets that I mentioned, in the far east, America and some of the emerging nations elsewhere.
The London arts season has been a tremendous success as a result of the extra finance provided by the BTA and the ETB. The opening of the channel tunnel offers the prospect of a huge increase in visitor numbers. We can make a parallel with the case of Austria, where the recent changes in eastern Europe have resulted in the opening of the borders with the east—the former Czechoslovakia and Hungary. That led Austria to leap up the international visitors' table from seventh to fifth place in four years. I have no doubt that the opening of the channel tunnel gives this country the best opportunity in a century to increase the numbers of visitors to these shores.
We need to encourage visitors to travel beyond London, to discover the other England which has so much to offer: a friendly welcome and, possibly, less congestion. Tourism in Britain will benefit from continuing improvements in road and rail links, from more budget-priced hotels and from a greater willingness by those in the industry to learn and speak the languages of our visitors—especially French, German and Japanese.
A well-trained work force must be the central focus of Government policy in the next few years if Britain is to sustain its share of world tourism. The "welcome host" customer service training scheme, developed by the national tourist boards, should be supported by every training and enterprise council in the land.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that there remains a strong case for giving more help to the private sector in the form of grant aid. Almost all the resources disbursed by the Department of National Heritage go to public sector bodies; the private sector benefits only indirectly.
Grants given under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 offered useful assistance to the private sector, but have now been discontinued. Small hotels and boarding houses benefited from extra bathrooms and renovations in a way that is no longer possible, yet the need still exists. If one or two of my hon. Friends who represent
466
seaside resorts manage to catch the Chair's eye later today, I am sure that they will want to emphasise that point strongly.
The whole industry would welcome any sign from the Minister that he is sympathetic to this point. After all, such small establishments continue to bear the brunt of the excessive regulation which the Minister is pledged to reduce and of the anti-competitive effect of VAT at 17.5 per cent., which hoteliers and others feel puts them at a disadvantage vis-a-vis their rivals in other European countries, where the tax is as low as 5 per cent.
The vast potential of the British tourist industry needs to be more effectively recognised by the Government. The industry repeatedly calls for a designated Minister for tourism, but a clearer sign of the Government's understanding would be a commitment to additional funding for overseas promotion, stimulation of more holiday taking by the British in Britain and more help for the widely fragmented private sector—the small, self-employing businesses on which the industry significantly depends. There is no more exciting challenge for the Department.
During the short lifetime of the Department of National Heritage, the many different bodies under its aegis have been drawn together. Links between regional tourist boards and regional Sports Council offices have been encouraged. In the west country, the tourist board has produced joint strategy policy statements with the Sports Council south-west, South-west Arts and the area museums council. Other regional bodies have followed that lead. Similarly, the access initiative has been developing ways in which more people can gain access to sports and leisure facilities.
I have heard criticism of the mere fact of the existence of the Department of National Heritage, but the evidence is clear: it is beginning to make a worthwhile impact in a number of areas by acting as a catalyst and by making the sum greater than its parts. The advent of the lottery proceeds will be the greatest shot in the arm that United Kingdom leisure has had in 100 years—if we use them wisely.
I should like to think that a major policy objective for the future will be the promotion of active sport, and of participation in sport and the arts by a much larger proportion of the population. I hope that the Minister will feel able to respond positively to the suggestions that I have made on this and other matters, and that, ultimately, the whole nation will benefit from this Department's important work.
10.24 am
Mr. Matthew Banks: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in this important debate. Unfortunately, I have important engagements later in my constituency. As my hon. Friends know, I am punctilious about ensuring that I look after my constituents' interests. I, therefore, apologise to the House for the fact that I shall have to leave in a couple of hours' time.
Mr. John Sykes: Does my hon. Friend intend to speak for that long?
Mr. Banks: I shall try to leave my hon. Friend a little time in which to make his own speech.

467
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), in an excellent and thorough speech, rightly referred to the statistics that show that 19.3 million visitors spent about £9.1 billion in Britain and that Britain is the sixth most visited country in the world. All too often, our leisure and tourism industries are not given the credit that they deserve, but they are a vital source of employment for many people and they are important to our balance of payments. Those industries rank high among the top 10 employers in the British Isles.
I wish to refer to several of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon. I agree with what he said about section 4 grants and I hope that the Minister will feel able to express some sympathy with my hon. Friend's comments. I certainly think it unfair that the leisure industries of Scotland and Wales have been able to take advantage of those grants for quite some time now, whereas hoteliers south of the border have not. I understand the reasons behind the decision to discontinue the grants some time ago; nevertheless, I think that no area of the United Kingdom should be disadvantaged in the way that England is.
My hon. Friend referred to the importance of transport links with the tourism areas and resorts of this country and I agreed with what he said about them. Recently, the Secretary of State for Transport made an announcement about the roads programme. I was pleased to note that some of the road schemes might have dropped off the Department's list, but did not, were links with tourist resorts. I was especially pleased that the Scarisbrick and Pinfold bypass linking my constituency with the national motorway network remains in the programme.
I welcomed my hon. Friend's comments about reappointing a Minister with specific responsibility for tourism. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State, who has had to look after a long list of responsibilities since arriving at the Department. I am convinced that it would be possible to remove a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry and send him or her to the Department of National Heritage. Two Ministers are not enough to look after the diverse portfolios at the Department of National Heritage.
I know that the Minister had a useful meeting recently in Aberdeen with the British Resorts Association. Hon. Members will know that the BRA's headquarters is in my constituency of Southport. I should like to touch on some of the issues raised at the BRA's last meeting because that important body helps to engender greater co-operation between the Government, local authorities and the private sector. Such co-operation is becoming paramount and I hope to give one or two examples of how it is promoting tourism and will lead to further important developments in tourism infrastructure throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that, for the first time in the distribution to local authorities via the standard spending assessment system, specific reference has been made to the number of day visitors and that that is helping areas such as his and mine which receive large numbers of tourists?
Mr. Banks: That is my first substantive point and I am about to deal with it. My hon. Friend is entirely right and I welcome the introduction of an allowance for day visitors in the standard spending assessment for local authorities. That is long overdue and Conservative Members welcome
468
it. It is time to lay down a marker for the SSA because it is not a case of thus far and no more. We need to look at the definition of a day visitor; that is crucial to the issue that my hon. Friend mentions. I support a formula increase from one sixth to one third of a resident for 1995. I also want to see a tighter definition of the term "day visitor", because that will aid British resorts.
The BRA lobbied the Minister on that issue on 17 June, when it made it clear that it would be prepared to provide supporting statistics, costs and information. I have every confidence that the information that it provides will not fall on deaf ears and I look forward in the not-too-distant future to an increase from one sixth towards one third for which local authority representatives and others have been asking.
One of the greatest concerns of some of my hon. Friends who are in the Chamber relates to hotels changing to hostels. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) has expressed concern about the issues of Department of Social Security money being limited, the number of people who stay in our resorts and the changing nature of our resorts. I am reminded that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), who is in his place, and some of my other hon. Friends take a similar view.
We need a clearer definition of the word "hostel" and hostels must have a proper licensing scheme to ensure that standards of management, safety and insurance are improved. I do not propose to develop that theme now, because to do so would take us wide of the matter under discussion. However, I have put down a marker to the effect that it is vital not to allow, by default, the nature of our tourist resorts to change.
Mr. Sykes: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. He is not straying wide of the matter being debated, because the preservation of our resorts as jewels is important to the leisure industry. I, therefore, urge him to continue on that line.
Mr. Banks: It is difficult to refuse such an invitation and I know that if I stray wide of the mark you will bring me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend will shortly have an opportunity to make his own speech and deal with the issues that are important to him. I shall tackle those that I wish to deal with. I hope that the Minister will support the marker that I have laid down, although I dare say that there will be some resistance, especially from the Department of Employment, to my suggestions on planning and licensing.
Two areas of concern are the single regeneration budget and European reconstruction and development funding. It is right to express concern about the failure to recognise the economic value and impact of tourism projects. The evaluation process for those funds has been too heavily weighted in favour of industrial rather than tourism projects. I hope that the Minister will exert pressure, as I do, on his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment to adjust the selection criteria to give tourism projects a better chance of success. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon said, tourism and leisure provide a considerable number of jobs and, hitherto, the industry has not been given the credit that it deserves as a major employer.
Mr. Harold Elletson: Would my hon. Friend care to suggest to the hon. Member for Redcar

469
(Ms Mowlam) that she should talk to the Labour group in the European Parliament, which has consistently opposed tourism being classified for objective 5b status? Is that not disgraceful?
Mr. Banks: I agree with my hon. Friend. The hon. Lady, who is in her place on the Opposition Front Bench, will have heard his comments and I hope that she will act positively on them. We recently had European elections. The Labour MEP who has represented Merseyside, West for some years, managed to drop into my seaside resort constituency, which is in his constituency, for the first time in about a couple of years when no elections were taking place. I regret the total lack of interest in tourism of some socialists in the European Parliament. Tourism is undervalued and it is time that they did something about that.
I hope that the Minister will agree that the industry bias should be changed slightly so that tourism and tourist projects will have a better chance of success. I hope that, as I have suggested, he will press other Departments to change the evaluation process for tourism bids and recognise that such projects have a significant impact not just on my resort, but on others throughout the United Kingdom.
For different reasons, the quality of bathing water is an important and sensitive subject. My hon. Friends and colleagues in the leisure industry will stress the importance of there being no delay in the private water companies pressing ahead with their programmes with the utmost vigour so as to satisfy the requirements of the European Union directive. I know that the Minister also wishes to see that happen.
It is significant that, since the advent of privatisation, North West Water plc in my part of the world, in the north-west, has been able to find the necessary £85 million to reinvest in a new sewerage system which will prevent sewage drifting out into the Irish sea on days when there is heavy rain. That investment work is almost complete and will mean a significant improvement in bathing water quality in Southport and surrounding beaches. It is important to stress that many beaches, especially in my area of the north-west, are particularly clean and the Ainsdale beach received a Tidy Britain award last year. I know that Ministers have agreed with the British Resorts Association that we should continue to be active in that respect and I welcome the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Minister that there should be regular, possibly thrice-yearly, meetings with representatives of the BRA in future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon mentioned the national lottery. I agree very much with his comments about the advisory board and I especially liked his idea of a scholarship fund. We want to see more of the Christies, the Gunnells and the Coes, as he suggested. Did I say Coes? Perhaps I should have said Jacksons, but my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) certainly deserves mention, too. The Minister has stated in the past that tourism projects would not be eligible for money from the national lottery. However, I hope that when he replies to the debate he will take the opportunity to make it clear, as I believe that he should, that it will be possible for projects such as those in the arts, for cultural or sporting matters, or for built environment projects such as the renovation of historic piers such as the one in my
470
constituency of Southport, to benefit from money from the national lottery. It is important that my hon. Friend the Minister should draw up advice and guidance for the national lottery to encourage applications that would have an important tourism impact.
I should also like to comment on compulsory competitive tendering for entertainment services in local authorities. While I can see advantages in compulsory competitive tendering—certainly in a number of areas on which the Government have embarked in recent years, which has led to greater efficiency and services being provided at less cost to the council tax payer—it is now time that my hon. Friend and other Ministers made clear their intentions as to whether there is a timetable. If there is a timetable, what is it and how do the Government intend to proceed on the matter? What is the latest position? Shall we be legislating on the issue? That is important and local authority representatives would welcome advice on it.
My hon. Friends have already mentioned the question of tax. I am very much aware that, right across the board, Britain's hoteliers are subjected to a 17.5 per cent. tax regime. In other countries in the European Union, there are varying taxes affecting different parts of the industry. While I recognise that we are unlikely to be able to reduce particular taxes, if only because of European law, I hope that it will be possible for my hon. Friend the Minister to join me in expressing the view that we should not add to the existing tax burden on the tourism and leisure industry and that we especially do not want a tourism or bed tax.
I know that a number of my hon. Friends wish to catch your eye this morning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. In so doing, I shall highlight what I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks: the importance of partnership between Government, the private sector and local authorities. My constituency of Southport is a classic example of what can be achieved if there is a positive framework of co-operation. I am delighted that during the time I have been a Member of Parliament the Southport sea front redevelopment proposals have pressed ahead with the utmost vigour. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, some £310,000 of pump-priming money got that multi-million pound project off the ground. That shows what can be done, and I know that some of my hon. Friends also bat very hard for their constituencies. We received the £310,000 for Southport from the urban partnership fund. Although my constituency is part of an authority in the inner area, the constituency itself is not and, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, a considerable amount of arm-twisting went on behind the scenes and I am especially grateful for his support and the support of Ministers in other Departments.
I hope that we shall be able to see further Government support for the development of the much-needed sea wall defences in Southport, because without it we shall not be able to see the important public-private sector initiative of the Redelco plc development, which is vital to the future of Southport. I pay tribute to Mr. Phil King, who was chairman of the officers advisory group of the BRA and is manager of the tourism and attractions department of the metropolitan borough of Sefton; he is based in my constituency and has done sterling work, as have his colleagues in the BRA.
The debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon is a vital opportunity to which we should all contribute. I regret that, with the exception of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), there are no other

471
Labour Members and no Liberal Democrats in the Chamber to contribute to the debate. However, looking around the Conservative side, I am delighted to see that British resorts and the city of Chester are represented and that my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) are also here to bat for the British leisure industry.
10.46 pm
Mr. John Sykes: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks): Opposition Members are all in Wimbledon enjoying the sunshine.
I am grateful to be called in this important debate and especially to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), who gave a well-versed and well-thought-out speech, and my wise hon. Friend the Member for Southport. My constituency is well known to hon. Members. When I first became the Member for Scarborough in 1992, I was pleased to note how many hon. Members knew that Scarborough was England's first resort. In a host of ways, our town remains so, although our local economy has diversified. Apart from its craggy 45-mile coastline, we may all also boast some of England's finest countryside—the wild, rugged North Yorkshire moors and the valleys forged millions of years ago by ice-age glaciers, which left in their wake the notoriously unstable boulder clay on which the unfortunate Holbeck Hall hotel foundered a year ago.
Scarborough and Whitby are thriving towns and world-class resorts and the leisure industry forms a major component of our livelihood. People choose particular holiday destinations partly according to whether they are easy to reach. That is exactly how it has always been. Our Victorian and Edwardian ancestors knew that the considerable charms of Scarborough and Whitby were within easy reach by virtue of the most up-to-date communication system that human ingenuity had devised —the railway. With royal patronage, too, my constituency prospered and continues to prosper to this day because of the railway.
I attach the greatest importance to the railways. The Esk valley railway is not only a link to Whitby for surrounding villages, but a link for Teessiders and Tynesiders intent on having a good holiday. I am vice-president of the North Yorkshire Moors railway and I yearn for the day when, instead of stopping altogether at Grosmont, the trains continue into Whitby and bring with them an extra 300,000 visitors a year. I acknowledge, too, the importance to Scarborough of the service to York, to West Riding and to Manchester airport and beyond. There are 17 trains a day during the season—except, of course, when it suits the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. One can only guess at the precise effect that the two strikes so far have had on the leisure industry, those whose holidays were disgracefully disrupted and the nation at large. We can only wonder at the posturing of Opposition Members caught with their trousers down, so to speak, in the midst of probably the most boring leadership election in parliamentary history. Perhaps they are in need of counselling, like many of their febrile colleagues in the BBC—or perhaps not.
Perhaps one should refer instead to last Friday's Hansard to obtain a clue. By chance, I have a copy with
472
me. An important debate on competitiveness was in full spate—a subject as vital to the leisure industry as any other. I questioned Labour's Front-Bench spokesman—who, incidentally, prefers to be known as a spokesperson —on the rail strike, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler). The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) made a brilliant response. I pay tribute to him. He told the House in one sentence Labour's new industrial and leisure policy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to stray. I shall be grateful if he will stick to the subject of the debate.
Mr. Sykes: I am guided by your wise advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, perhaps the House would be interested to know how Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen viewed the rail strike, because, as he knows, communications are important to the leisure industry.
Ms Mowlam: I am female.
Mr. Sykes: Can I coax the hon. Lady out of her closet?
Ms Mowlam: I am not in a closet. I am seated on the Front Bench.
Mr. Sykes: It remains the case that Labour Members are timorous supplicants to the trade union movement.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) says that she is female. Does she now wish to be referred to as "a spoke"—like "a chair?"
Ms Mowlam rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us proceed with the debate in a serious way.
Mr. Sykes: Fortunately, these days the railway' is not the only means of transport. The A64 is one of the principal routes to Scarborough and Whitby, along which the majority of our visitors travel. It is a bad road, being busy and dangerous. For much of its length past York, it is single carriageway. I will share with the House the experience of holidaymakers during the Whitsun bank holiday. The Scarborough Evening News reported:
"About 6.30 pm yesterday, Radio 5 Live singled out just two roads to avoid—the A64 and the A1 in North Yorkshire.
AA Roadwatch said cars were stacked up all morning from York to Scarborough, and then again for more than four hours in the opposite direction last night.
Among the worst-hit areas was Whitwell-on-the-Hill, where traffic was reduced to a virtual standstill during much of the evening."
Since the 1930s, the authorities have planned to upgrade that road to a modern dual carriageway. It was believed that a scheme was imminent and a preferred route in place, until the Department of Transport put it on the back burner.
I want that road, and I want it as soon as possible, not just because I am the constituency's Member of Parliament but because I am a manufacturer in the area; I declare my interest in that regard. I discovered that the Department has three possible reasons for delaying the scheme—environmental, economic and strategic. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic is also the Member of Parliament for Salisbury, so I was able to reassure him on environmental grounds—that no Stonehenge straddles the preferred route and that no colony of lesser-crested newts or of Greenham common women nests there to prostrate themselves before the excavators and halt progress.

473
Having satisfied myself on environmental grounds, I looked for economic reasons for delaying the scheme, but in vain. The preferred route is efficient. Much of it travels through the Vale of Pickering, which is level ground—a construction engineer's idea of heaven throughout the ages. It shadows the 19th-century railway that gave Scarborough its present-day prosperity.
The cost to the community of accidents—quite apart from the immeasurable loss of human life itself—is huge and would pay for two of the major schemes in one section alone in two years. The construction of that road would improve and sustain the wealth-creating and, by implication, tax-paying manufacturing, service and leisure sectors, which are already a considerable source of employment on the east coast.
That has already been recognised by the European Community, through our objective 5b status, thanks to Edward McMillan-Scott, our newly re-elected MEP. A number of my hon. Friends have also played their part. The dualling of the two sections would represent good value for money.
Having ruled out environmental and economic objections, I was left with strategic objections. Scarborough and Whitby are world-class resorts with their own economies which depend not only on tourism but on manufacturing, service industries, fishing, farming and people who wish to enjoy their retirement. We must compete for our customers with the best of the rest. We do not mind that—in fact, we thrive on it.
I decided to consider how Scarborough and Whitby compared strategically with other resorts. I took an up-to-date road map and made a survey of all major resorts in England and Wales, comparing their proximity to a dual carriageway or motorway. I tabulated them, starting with the nearest and ending with the resort farthest away. I was astonished and upset by the result.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) will be pleased to hear that Blackpool was at the top of the list. It is nil miles from the nearest dual carriageway, as are Brighton, Bournemouth, Colwyn Bay, Conwy and Margate. Cleethorpes is only two miles from a dual carriageway. Ramsgate, Bognor Regis, Morecambe, Clacton-on-Sea, Southport and Eastbourne are all within easy reach of one. Last night, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) told me that Eastbourne has just been given £25 million by the Department of Transport to upgrade the main road right to his back door. Imagine how upset I was to read that Scarborough shared joint bottom place with Minehead and Ilfracombe in its proximity to a major motorway network-40 miles away from the nearest continuous dual carriageway. England's fourth most important resort shares joint bottom place with Ilfracombe, which has a population of 9,000.
Mr. Fabricant: As my hon. Friend knows, I have experienced the road from York to Scarborough a number of times. Its status is most unfortunate, as Scarborough is a beautiful area to visit. Does my hon. Friend agree that Yorkshire in general is disadvantaged in its roads system? Perhaps that is the reason why fewer visitors come to Yorkshire and why tourism is centred more on the south of England.
Mr. Sykes: People will visit Yorkshire for many reasons, not least for the welcome and hospitality that greet them when they arrive. Many people think that we have a good road system, and we do—I just wish that that particular scheme could be brought forward. My constituents can knock spots off the competition. As we approach the 21st century, road usage is bound to leap, regardless of what the "antis" say, so time is not on our side. Even if the Government gave it the green light today, the new road could not be used until 2005. I do not begrudge any hon. Member a road scheme, but it has been galling to hear a number of hon. Members complain about schemes proposed for their constituencies. I beg my hon. Friend the Minister to persuade the Government to reconsider the case for an early start on the dualling of the A64.
Mr. Matthew Banks: While I am deeply envious that Scarborough has considerable rail links to Manchester airport, which Southport does not, I feel that I must point out that my hon. Friend's genuine modesty forbids him from telling us that, as a result of considerable lobbying on his part, the scheme to which he referred has not completely dropped off the Department of Transport's programme. The dual carriageway will be constructed as a result of my hon. Friend's pressure, if not as quickly as he would like.
Mr. Sykes: At the same time that parts of my constituency are disappearing, I am glad to agree with my hon. Friend that the scheme itself has not entirely disappeared but has perhaps been put off. As a Member of Parliament, I regard it as important to do my best to ensure that road is built sooner rather than later.
One reason for one's choice of holiday destination is whether or not it is easy to reach. Another reason why visitors come to Scarborough and Whitby is quite simply that my constituency is a nice place to visit. The hoteliers and landladies are renowned for their hospitality and the warmth of their welcome—even for Lancastrians. They work long hours in the service of their guests and are always cheerful. There is plenty to do and much family fun to be had, along with the best possible value for money.
Incomparable scenery and a remarkable heritage combine to povide a holiday to suit all tastes. It is possible to sail from Whitby and see little that one's 19th-century counterpart would not have seen. Captain Cook set sail from Whitby in the 18th century to discover Australia; if the health and safety people had been around then, he would still be in Whitby harbour today.
The Yorkshire Television series "Heartbeat"—a wonderful programme—is set in the glorious North Yorkshire moors. As the Yorkshire Post reported only yesterday, the area is achieving world fame among tourists and film crews alike. Let me make a special plea for the authorities to try their best to preserve the village of Goathland—known as Aidensfield in the programme—by ensuring that the best parking facilities for our visitors, and the quality of life for those who live there, are preserved.
Another issue that has caused us some concern for the future is the gradual emergence of badly run DSS hostels.
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: My hon. Friend sang the praises of Scarborough without mentioning the Stephen Joseph theatre and the contribution of Alan Ayckbourn. That is a marvellous example of a regional theatre's contributing not only to local culture but to

475
national culture, and to the international reputation of this country. Although that is true of many of our theatres, the Stephen Joseph theatre in Scarborough is a prime example.
Mr. Sykes: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Early one fine February morning, I was privileged to be able to take the Select Committee on National Heritage —of which I am a member—to Scarborough. We went to the top of Olivers Mount and, on that cold February day, we had a magnificent view of the town and all its beauties. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot possibly list all the beauties of my constituency today: our business is due to finish at about 2.30 pm and I do not wish to detain the House.
I was talking about DSS hostels, which have already been mentioned—badly run DSS hostels, that is; many are well run. My constituency contains few such hostels, but the behaviour of some tenants in the badly run ones has put tourists off. Neighbouring hotels have then had to consider whether to convert themselves to that type of accommodation, and a vicious circle was in the making.
Along with my good and hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North, I did my best to bring the problem to the attention of the powers that be. I pay special tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich (Mr. Sproat), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, and for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the Minister for Local Government and Planning, for the considerable efforts that they put into gaining a satisfactory response to our representations.
Planning permission is now required. For my part, I must say that the level of complaints has subsided; we must ensure that the current sensible regulation stays in place. In order to deal with existing hostels, the Government announced that they would consider a licensing scheme to give tenants the same standard of safe accommodation that is available elsewhere. That is indeed welcome news. One of the requirements is fire safety—as we know to our cost in Scarborough.
I understand that the owner of that particular hostel had no public liability insurance. Such insurance is a legal requirement for a hotel, but not for a hostel. I suggest that owners who appear to be contriving tenancies to give themselves a relatively easy income from housing benefit should be required to insure themselves and their tenants in a similar way to hoteliers.
The action taken by the Government so far has helped to ensure that England's greatest resorts have a prosperous future. As Member of Parliament for two of England's greatest jewels, I am grateful for that. I do not accept the trendy, untenable notion that seaside resorts are done for in England. Next year, my constituency will celebrate having returned Members of Parliament to Westminster for 700 years. When I am no longer Member of Parliament for Scarborough—by the people's choice or my own—I hope to leave it as the holidaymaker's first choice: a place where the elderly can retire in peace and enjoyment, where business continues to succeed and, above all, where young school leavers find opportunities and are able to prosper like the generations who have gone before them.
11.3 am
Mr. Harold Elletson: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes). I congratulate him on his thorough speech and the points that he raised about tourism
476
and coastal resorts. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on managing to secure a debate on this important subject. He dealt with it in a detailed and comprehensive way, demonstrating the importance of the leisure industry to the United Kingdom's economy as a whole.
I must add—I know that my hon. Friends will agree with me—that I find it extraordinary that, apart from the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), no Opposition Members are present. The hon. Lady sits in splendid isolation, but in isolation none the less. She was joined briefly by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks); I did not know whether to feel pleased for the hon. Lady, or sorry that he had had to come and help. A grey-bearded old Liberal came in for a short time, but he has now disappeared—heaven knows where.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon pointed out, the leisure industry accounts for £80 billion a year —the entire social security budget. It is shocking that no Opposition Member except the hon. Member for Redcar should be present to take part in the debate. People living in major tourist resorts that depend substantially on the leisure industry—such as Scarborough, Southport and Blackpool—will note that, and will particularly note the hypocrisy of the Liberal party. Its Members, who so often pretend to be the friends of the tourism and leisure industries, now cannot even be bothered to turn up.
Mr. Matthew Banks: May I clarify a point of detail ? Presumably my hon. Friend is referring to the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal party is a separate party, whose national headquarters are in my constituency and which was far too sensible to merge with the Social Democratic party.
Mr. Elletson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is quite right: I was, of course, referring to the Liberal Democrats, not to the Literal Democrats or any other flavour of Liberalism. I apologise for using shorthand of that kind. No doubt it is an example of the abuse of language to which my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon referred so convincingly, and which we should all try to avoid.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon demonstrated, the leisure industry emcompasses an enormous variety of sectors: music, including opera, sport and, of course, tourism. My hon. Friend examined some of them in detail, particularly sport. He mentioned the Manchester Olympic bid. I hope that all hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Minister, join me in hoping that although Manchester lost on this occasion, it will persist in its attempt to become the world's Olympic city and will receive the full, unqualified backing of the British Government next time. Let us hope that it will be third time lucky for Manchester.
I do not want to cover the ground covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon as comprehensively as he did. I wish to deal specifically with one aspect of the leisure industry: tourism, which was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon explained how important the industry is to the economy. Tourism alone accounts for 4 per cent. of gross domestic product. It employs about 1.5 million people, accounting for 10 per cent. of the national work force. It is now the second

477
biggest industry in the United Kingdom: £25 billion a year is spent on tourism and there were 18 million foreign visitors in 1992.
Over the past 10 years, employment in the tourism industry has grown by 28 per cent., compared with employment growth of just 1 per cent. in the country generally. Around the world, one person in 15 is involved in the industry, and it accounts for 6 per cent. of world GDP. It is, therefore, a massive and very important industry, which is growing year by year and which offers tremendous opportunity for job creation in this country and worldwide. Its importance is fully recognised by the Minister. My hon. Friends and I recognise that he is truly a friend of tourism and that, in the past year, he has fought some major and important battles on behalf of the industry. I thank him for the work that he has done on behalf of my constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) discussed Department of Social Security hostels, an issue of particular concern to his and my constituents and to people living in coastal resorts throughout the country. It may be difficult for people from other areas to understand the scale of the decay that has developed in the United Kingdom's major tourist resorts in the past 10 years as a result of the unregulated and uncontrolled influx of DSS benefit claimants into coastal resorts. That has had a shocking effect on the tourist industry and on people's quality of life in those areas.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough, I have received hundreds of letters of complaint about the sudden overnight establishment of DSS hostels in tourist and residential areas. We have heard a constantly repeated range of complaints about people urinating in the streets, swearing, drinking and taking drugs. The problem appears to be almost universally swamping people in coastal areas, which is shocking. It has greatly contributed to the decline of the quality of our resorts.
I am delighted that the Minister has taken the problem seriously and that he has done his best to fight a battle within Government to ensure that the Department of the Environment took up the case and agreed to introduce legislation.
Mr. Sykes: Does my hon. Friend consider it important that we had thought that the problem might have been confined to relatively few resorts, including Scarborough and Whitby, but that, as a result of conducting a survey of England's major resorts, which included the advice of my hon. Friends representing those resorts, we found out the true extent and nature of the dreadful problem?
Mr. Elletson: That is right. Like my hon. Friend, I was grateful to our hon. Friends and colleagues who contributed to that survey, which showed the scale of the problem across the country. The Department of Environment has sought to tackle it temporarily by changing the use classes order, which will mean that planning permission will be required for hostels. That will, however, deal only with problems arising in the future, not with the problem that exists now.
My hon. Friend is right to say that a licensing system is the long-term answer to the problem. I know that we shall be able to count on the Minister's support in pushing for
478
the establishment of that system as quickly as possible. He does not underestimate the scale of the problem and the damage that it is doing to tourist resorts.
Like some of my hon. Friends, I have been slightly critical of the role of the Department of National Heritage in the tourism and leisure industry. It has seemed slightly unfocused and not fully aware of the extent to which it is an industrial Ministry. The Minister understands that, and regards his role primarily as that of an industrial Minister who is running a Department responsible for one of the largest industries in this country. He has an important role in co-ordinating attempts to assist the industry to develop in the best way that it can and to recognise the opportunities available across the spectrum of Government responsibility. That is a massive task.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) mentioned transport and its effects on tourism. Day by day, we see environment problems that affect the tourism industry. The quality of life is bound up with people's enjoyment of their leisure time and the leisure industry.
We have had a problem in Blackpool and other tourist resorts with the quality of our bathing waters. I am delighted that the Minister has taken that issue seriously and that he has sought to ensure that the European Community and European Commissioners were not able to ban bathing off British beaches, which would have been entirely unnecessary and done a great deal of damage to the British tourist industry.
The local Labour party in Lancashire behaved in a grossly irresponsible manner in that matter. I was delighted that the ban has not been imposed and that we shall be able to move peacefully and successfully towards ensuring that our bathing waters meet European standards by 1996, which has been made possible by the amount of money that North West Water has invested in a new sewage treatment plant based at Fleetwood, which would not have been possible under the old regime.
Mr. Sykes: Does my hon. Friend agree that England's bathing waters are among the finest in the world and that some of our European partners—or so-called partners—apart from not obeying their own laws, do not obey the European directives and are well known for cheating on tests, for which we are so castigated in this country?
Mr. Elletson: I agree with my hon. Friend. I know that we can count on the Minister to ensure that the Department of the Environment monitors thoroughly the appalling abuses that take place in countries such as Italy and Greece, which are so quick and ready to criticise British resorts and the quality of British waters, without paying attention to the shocking state of affairs that exists in their resorts.
The tourist industry offers huge opportunities for job creation and economic growth. We must examine ways in which we can assist that potential. I am sure that all Conservative Members believe in backing genuine winners. We believe not in propping up lame duck industries but in assisting profitable, successful industries to become even more profitable and successful, and to employ even more people.
Tourism in Britain is a growing, winning industry. It recorded an average growth of 7 per cent. between 1980 and 1990. Unfortunately, that compares with 15 per cent. growth in the United States of America, 9 per cent. growth

479
in Italy and 10 per cent. growth in Spain. We have to ask ourselves what they are doing to support tourism that we are not but could be doing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon touched on some of the issues that we should deal with. He was right to suggest that we should reinstate section 4 tourism development grants, which no longer exist. Although he did not mention it, I know that he is fully aware of the fact that it is only in England that they no longer exist. That is an iniquitous and unjust feature of the present system: they exist in Scotland and in Wales, but not in England.
Mr. Brandreth: I have always been reasonably persuaded by the argument that there are different states of maturity in the different parts of the United Kingdom, in terms of tourism, which justify the imbalance in investment between Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and England. I know that some people—my hon. Friend is obviously one—take a different view.
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would elaborate a little more on why he thinks that there is no justification in the argument that there is a maturity in the English tourist industry. It has been there longer, and it is self-evidently more thriving, than the industry in other parts of the country, such as those that are slightly more remote from the major airports. Will my hon. Friend explore that point a little more?
Mr. Elletson: I shall be delighted to do that, because my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) is himself a very mature and distinguished Member of Parliament. As a Parliamentary Private Secretary, he is a member of the Treasury team. It is delightful that he can join us this morning and hear something of the importance of the tourist industry to the Treasury.
Of course there are differences in the maturity of the tourist industry throughout the United Kingdom. However, the present system does not take account of the relative maturity of different sectors of the tourist industry within Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England; for example, we do not take account of the relative lack of provision for disabled tourists. We can do nothing for them here. No grants are available in England for projects that might assist the development of tourism by disabled people. That problem could be addressed, however, because funds are available, in Scotland and Wales.
We must look at the question seriously. I do not think that it is a reasonable argument to say that Scotland and Wales are less mature or to say that because a particular project lies 10 miles across the Solway firth, it should find that massive funding is available from central Government. In a united kingdom, that argument does not work.
Mr. Matthew Banks: Is my hon. Friend saying—if so, I very much agree—that there is no difference of maturity between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? It seems to be just a matter of the Welsh Office, the Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office having taken a decision that has not been taken in England.
Mr. Elletson: Yes, that is right. Those are the advantages that the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish have —and which they are extremely lucky to have. We in England do not have those advantages. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester, a member of the Treasury team, will
480
consider that point seriously, and will consider the return of section 4 development grants in the next Budget. I assure them that that would be one of the most popular moves that they could make in tourist resorts, including my hon. Friend's own very distinguished, very important and popular tourist resort of Chester.
Mr. Brandreth: Of course every tourist resort would welcome any support that it can get. What is interesting is that, although the city of Chester, which borders Wales, does not get the additional help given to north Wales to promote itself, its attractions are so great that, even without that support, it flourishes. The tourist industry in Chester is mature and is helping itself. It thrives, flourishes and grows at an even greater pace than the areas that are getting help.
Mr. Elletson: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I believe that Chester has so much to offer, that there is so much more that Chester could do and that there are so many ways in which Chester could continue to grow. I would hesitate to say that it was fully mature.
Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great treasures of Chester is its Member of Parliament?
Mr. Elletson: I certainly agree. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester is little short of a national institution.
Mr. Tony Banks: He should certainly be in one.
Mr. Elletson: I am sure that, if my hon. Friend were in an institution, he would join many Opposition Members.
As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester is here this morning, and as he is a member of the Treasury team, I want to draw another issue to his attention, which many of my hon. Friends also wish to emphasise. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon raised the question of VAT rates on some of our tourist attractions. My hon. Friend the Minister will be well aware of this issue, which tourist attractions and leisure parks have taken up with him.
It is clearly ludicrous that we have such a wide range of different rates of VAT on the various tourist attractions, hotels and restaurants throughout the European Community. It may be difficult to remove VAT, or to lower the rate of VAT once it has been levied, without totally changing the system at European level, and without a new European directive. However, I hope that the Minister will take the matter seriously and that he will ensure that we continue to fight this battle on Europe.
The variations in VAT levels throughout the European Community are astonishing. VAT on hotel accommodation is levied at 6 per cent. in Belgium, 5.5 per cent. in France and 3 per cent. in Luxembourg, but at 17.5 per cent. in the United Kingdom, 15 per cent. in Germany and 25 per cent. in Denmark.
VAT on hotel and restaurant meals is levied at 20.5 per cent. in Belgium, 18 per cent. in France, 16 per cent. in Portugal and 17.5 per cent. in the UK, but at only 8 per cent. in Greece, 3 per cent. in Luxembourg and 6 per cent. in the Netherlands.
VAT on leisure and tourism admissions is 6 per cent. in Belgium, 5.5 per cent. in France and 3 per cent. in Luxembourg, but 17.5 per cent. in the UK, 17.5 per cent. in the Netherlands and 25 per cent. in Denmark.

481
That is an extraordinary range of VAT rates and it clearly helps to ensure that our tourist attractions, are not competitive. When one considers the effect of that on major attractions such as Blackpool pleasure beach, which every year attract 6 million visitors, and when one considers the effect on their ability to compete with the likes of Euro Disney, one realises that they are placed at a significant competitive disadvantage.
Mr. Sykes: The quality of my hon. Friend's speech has quadrupled the Opposition's representation to help the beleaguered hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam).
Mr. Fabricant: Quintupled.
Mr. Sykes: Quintupled, then. Will my hon. Friend comment for a moment on duty on beer, which is a serious threat to our brewing industry and, therefore, indirectly to the leisure industry? The difference between duty in France and in the United Kingdom is a sore point at the moment. It could lead to a reduction in the number of pubs and a reduction in brewing prosperity. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
Mr. Elletson: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is clearly a serious problem, not so much for us in the north of England, as for the south of England, where it is having an appalling effect on coastal resorts and towns. Many of our hon. Friends who represent those areas are very concerned.
Since I began to speak, more Opposition Members have decided to come into the Chamber. Obviously, the message has gone out that the empty Opposition Benches were a disgrace.
People in coastal resorts and people in our historic towns, who are concerned about tourism and about the leisure industry, will continue to regard those empty Benches as disgraceful. They will see how little the Labour party cares about this major industry. I hope that such people will remember that and that they will remember that, although a few Labour Members have now crawled in, the Liberal Democrats continue to be absent. What lesson can we draw from that?
I urge the Minister, who, unlike Opposition Members, is a genuine friend of tourism and the leisure industry, to continue his good work in fighting the battle for tourism and the battle for the leisure industry. I urge my hon. Friend to continue to ensure that this vital British industry continues to grow, as it can.
11.29 pm
Ms Marjorie Mowlam: In response to the final comment by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), I am very pleased to be joined by my hon. Friends the Members for Newport (Mr. Flynn), for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
Yes, the turnout has been bad this morning, but I think that the issue is poorly supported on both sides of the House. Even though there may be a poor turnout from Opposition Members, the complacency of some of the speeches from Government Members matches that lack of interest. It is a problem which we must deal with, and we readily acknowledge that it is an important industry.
I shall briefly respond to a point on hostels made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North at the end of his speech.
482
The problems that he outlined are in his view created as result of having particular hostels occupied by people on benefit. I understand that difficulties are created when people are living on benefit in hostels on very little money. They do not have jobs and can be seen sitting about the front at seaside resorts. They are not perceived as positive for many resorts and they are not a sight—if one can talk about human beings in that way—that many of hoteliers in his constituency like to see.
The hon. Gentleman talked about dealing with the difficulties of people who are living on benefit, about changing class orders and about long-term structural changes. The hon. Gentleman and his local authority know the real answer very well. If we could build more houses and get people back to work, we would not have to hear the way in which he talked about human beings.
Mr. Elletson rose—
Ms Mowlam: I shall not take interventions, on the simple ground that we may go off the point, and that would be unfair for the debate.
May I just apologise on behalf of my colleague the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) who, as hon. Members from both sides of the House know, speaks for the Opposition on tourism? My hon. Friend has done a lot of excellent work on tourism and is a valuable member of the team. Unfortunately, he drew the short straw and had to go to the world cup finals this week, so he is not able to be with us. He is obviously sad to have missed the debate.
I shall pick up on the speech by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs). I welcome the fact that he managed to get this debate today. The hon. Gentleman's commitment to the leisure industry and to tourism over the years has been solid. He has participated in every debate that I have read that the House had throughout the 1980s.
The sad thing is that the hon. Gentleman has to keep saying the same thing. The House heard him today talk about vital catalysts that can be provided by the Department of National Heritage. That was similar to what he said two years ago, when he said:
"my hon. Friend the Minister speaks up for the industry, but words are not always enough;"—[Official Report, 19 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 562.]
Mr. Elletson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Lady simply to brush the important issue of DSS hostels—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady was quite in order, or I would have pulled her up.
Ms Mowlam: I shall answer the hon. Member for Blackpool, North—as is my right—and I shall then talk about the priorities which I want for the leisure industry.
The hon. Member for Swindon has given admirable support to the industry and has tried by various means in the past couple of years to get a greater response from the Government on tourism and the leisure industry. I would say that he had a chance of being the Minister for Tourism after the upcoming reshuffle, but I presume that if I say that from the Opposition Dispatch Box, it will harm his chances.
Speakers today have shown how many issues could be covered in a debate on leisure and tourism. I thought that the quickest way of covering some of them would be to respond to two or three points made by the hon. Member

483
for Swindon. I shall not take up too much time and stop other hon. Members who have sat through the whole debate getting in.
The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to say that the film industry should receive money from the lottery. "Four Weddings and a Funeral" proves that it can be done, but how much longer do we have to wait for an initiative on film? We are waiting for a White Paper on the BBC and for statements on privacy and on cross-media ownership.
The film industry is so crucial: I agree whole-heartedly with the hon. Gentleman. Let us have some action and statements from the Department of National Heritage on the industry. Let us hope that those are not blocked again by the Department of Trade and Industry or by No. 10 and that we do not have to wait many more months before valuable partnership work is done with the British film industry.
On the BBC, I support the licence fee a little more strongly than the hon. Gentleman. He talks about the necessity in future for taxation in addition to the licence fee. The BBC is undertaking joint venturing, which it is doing internationally. If it remains international, and does not infringe on the licence fee as a part of the national public service that the BBC offers, some of the financial questions raised by the hon. Gentleman will not be a problem for the BBC in next 10 to 15 years.
There are two difficult questions that the BBC is facing immediately ; the hon. Gentleman highlighted them and then skirted around them. The first is sport.
Sport is an important part of the leisure industry and the difficulty now is that, if sport remains on cable and satellite, large numbers of people will not be able to see it without paying: it is not a part of the public service as terrestrial television is. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) has been doing a lot of work on the subject and he says that there is a way in which sport should remain in the national domain until cable and satellite penetrate the market to such an extent that there is a genuine choice for people.
The other difficult question relates to pornography in relation to cable and satellite television. The hon. Member for Swindon talked about the importance of freedom of choice for individuals, and he is absolutely right. But with cable and satellite, and some other changes that will come with interactives through fibre-optics and the development of e-mail that we see with Internet, there are problems there for a Government of any hue. Those will be difficult and we ought look at them a little harder.
The hon. Member for Swindon referred to excellence and gave the teaching of music as a good example. We could not agree more. The difficulty is that constraints have been placed on local authorities in terms of the few discretionary awards which are available. Those grants are now so rare that many of the music places at our colleges are taken by students from overseas, because our students cannot afford to go. We should love to see more excellence in music and in art. The problem is that the chance for students is not there, because discretionary awards, regardless of any political points, are a thing of the past.
I emphasise again our support for some of the points made by other hon. Members during the debate. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) talked about divisions between the English, Welsh and other tourist boards, and emphasised the importance of
484
section 4 and pump-priming. The Opposition support all that and we hope that the Minister will listen to his colleagues, if he does not listen to us.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) asked us to talk to our Labour colleagues—all 62 of them, who make up a major group in the European Parliament—about objective 5. I am sure that we will do what we can in partnership with them to get a shift to a greater emphasis on tourism at a European level. If there is anything else that we can do to help the hon. Gentleman with bits of assistance from our MEPs, all he has to do is ask. They are a strong group and we will work with them.
Mr. Matthew Banks: The hon. Lady has taken seriously the point that I made. So far as my own Euro-constituency of Merseyside West is concerned, perhaps she could encourage her colleague Mr. Stewart to come and visit my constituency a little more regularly. The years go by, and we do not see him.
Ms Mowlam: We all know the problems faced by MEPs, many of whom have eight parliamentary constituencies in their area. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, one can visit one's constituency every weekend and someone is sure to come up and say, "I haven't seen you for years, and I cannot contact you." We all know of those problems, however hard we work. Many of us work very hard.
I will not dwell on some of the other points made by hon. Members, but I shall ask the Minister—if he is awake —[Interruption.] His eyes were closed and I was worried that he was no longer with us. There were points raised by other hon. Members which the Opposition would also have emphasised.
I do not think that I need to emphasise the importance of the leisure industry. Hon. Members talked about "4 per cent. of GDP", "1.5 million workers", "every two jobs in the tourist industry means one extra job created", "the fourth largest growth area in the EEC". We all know the statistics and how important tourism is to the economy. The problem is getting it on to the political agenda and avoiding the drift in policy that, sadly, has been apparent even in the two years since the Department was created. The Department needs to be far more proactive in providing a lead for which the industry is desperate. The Department has, sadly, failed to do that. It should also be possible to foster greater co-operation between Departments.
About nine months ago, when I became shadow Secretary of State for National Heritage, the very next day I appeared on "Any Questions" in Chesterfield. I was put up in the Abbeydale hotel owned by Mr. and Mrs. Bramhill. They were delighted that the shadow Secretary of State was staying with them. In common with all hon. Members, when I left I said that, if there was ever anything I could do to help, they should contact me. Sadly, they contacted me two months later because of difficulties they were experiencing. The problem was caused by a minor issue, but it highlights the lack of Government activity.
The English tourist board used to publish a guide called, "Let's Go", which advertised small hotels such as the Abbeydale. Mr. Bramhill wrote to me to say:
"We were dismayed to learn that the ETB is not publishing 'Let's Go' this year. Business arising from 'Let's Go' is a significant factor for us."
He said that it was one of the major factors that attracted business to the hotel, and noted:

485
"Small businesses like ours rely heavily on ETB publications".
The ETB responded that it had ceased to publish the guide partly because of Government cuts in finance and because it intended to publish regional leaflets instead. When looking for somewhere to stay, no one wants to look at seven regional leaflets: one wants to look through a proper publication. It is fair to say, therefore, that I was made aware of the difficulties that the tourist industry faces soon after I became shadow Secretary of State.
In the past nine months, I have travelled extensively, and have visited every seaside resort that has been mentioned today. I have gone from Aberdeen and the Lemon Tree right down through Yorkshire to Scarborough, where I will be tomorrow.
Mr. Sykes: The hon. Lady has not written to me about that.
Ms Mowlam: I am telling the hon. Member now. I have also visited resorts in the south.
The sad thing is that, whether one speaks to people who work in the hotel industry, leisure parks or whatever, the message is the same. All they want is decent leadership and a clear strategy. I agree with the hon. Member for Swindon that it is partly a matter of investment. I also agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool, North, who hinted that is also partly a matter of funding. The difficulty with such funding is that one has to dip into so many different pots to put the money together.
As the hon. Member for Southport said, money is available through the European regional development fund to aid regeneration, but the capping of local authorities means that they have less to spend on such projects. If those local authorities received a decent sum of money to enable them to repair local infrastructure, the problem facing certain resorts could be overcome. All that is needed is a bit of direction and strategic thinking. The difficulty is that, in the past two years, we have not been given such a lead.
I do not want to dwell on my constituency, but it is a classic example of what happens when the necessary funds are unavailable. Redcar, which is further up the coast from Scarborough, used to be a seaside resort. People would go there from Scarborough during Whit week, and then go on to Seahouses and elsewhere.
If we are honest with one another, we will admit that the difficulty is that decay and lack of regeneration and growth have happened quicker in some seaside resorts than in others. The hon. Member for Scarborough is bullish and vibrant about its future, and my local authority and local industries want to behave in the same manner. They are fighting very hard, just like you, to win grants for joint ventures and to target areas for development.
The honest answer is that the number of visitors has declined. The state of the infrastructure in various resorts is a serious problem whether it is your pier at Southport, the front at Scarborough or the decline in Redcar—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Ms Mowlam: I apologise: I meant the pier in the constituency of the hon. Member for Southport.
The problems caused by lack of investment and difficulties in raising new investment to combat infrastructure problems are common to all of us, but some
486
resorts are feeling it harder than others. We are all struggling because we all have to dip into different pots of money to get better assistance, whether from the European Community or through local initiatives and urban programmes. If we had some Government lead, those problems would not be so severe.
Mr. Matthew Banks: I accept some of the points that the hon. Lady has made, but I hope that you will accept, as I said earlier, that my constituency is a classic example of the kind of partnership that we should all promote. The Government, through the urban partnership fund, pump-primed with £310,000 the multi-million sea front redevelopment strategy in my constituency. That is the way forward and that is what the Government are now doing.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been accused of all sorts of things this morning; it has been "you", "you", "you". Hon. Members should bear that in mind.
Ms Mowlam: Yes, I will.
I am pleased by that intervention from the hon. Member for Southport, because it reinforces the argument that the Labour party has made for the past 15 years—one cannot depend on the market alone to deliver. The market is important, but, as we both know, it cannot deliver the developments that we need to regenerate seaside resorts.
I accept that joint partnerships can be entered into to cover the large expenditure that is needed from the private sector, but we need the public-private mix for pump priming, future development and proactive strategic thinking. It is sad that it has taken the Government so long to understand that. We have argued for such a mix for the past 15 years, we remain consistent, but the Government have body-swerved and shifted.
I have highlighted the common problems that are caused by the lack of leadership from the Department. That is not only appreciated by the Opposition and recognised by some hon. Members who have spoken today, but supported in a recent document from the Confederation of British Industry, entitled " A Wealth of Attraction", which was published a couple of months ago. It notes that the Government have not given tourism a sufficiently central position in their thinking:
"The Government must demonstrate its commitment to the industry as a source of growth and jobs. It is not sufficient for the Government to delegate responsibility for the industry to the tourist boards, valuable though the work of these boards is."
That very point was made by one Conservative Member today.
I will not bother the House with the views of the British Tourist Authority and the ETB, but they, too, want specific steps to be taken by the Government, because they would make a difference to the well-being of the tourist industry.
There are four things that the Government could do which would make a difference to the future of the leisure and tourist industry. First, the Government should provide basic information. That is a basic task, and it is depressing that the Government have not already performed it. As I listened to the facts cited this morning, I was interested to note that we all churn out the same ones. We have got them from the same reports, which are a couple of years old. The CBI used those same reports.
When one asks what is the multiplier in terms of jobs in tourism or in terms of rebuilding infrastructure, the facts are not in the public domain. The odd City report is published, the London Arts Board report is about to be

487
published and other odd reports are published about various towns, but we do not have the kind of detailed statistics that should be available. They would make a difference, because they would enable us to argue for the industry and achieve a better understanding of it. We would then be able to demonstrate how crucial it is to the economy.
I believe that the figures we have quoted are lower than the real ones. We could put a much stronger case about the importance of tourism if the Government provided the proper factual base.
Secondly, the Government must become more proactive about tourism. I am quite ready to acknowledge that the current Minister was better than the previous one, and that the next one may be better than this one.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. fain Sproat)indicated dissent.
Ms Mowlam: Perhaps that is not possible. Low calibre and lack of quality are probably common to all of them.
The difficulty is that no Minister is prepared to put tourism at the centre of his or her agenda and to be as proactive as necessary.
D-day was a classic example. One has only to look at how other countries used D-day as a tourist opportunity. The French airlines and public and private sectors worked out packages for anyone with a D-day veteran in the family going from the United States to France in August.
Mr. Fabricant: Does the hon. Lady accept that the French airline to which she refers, Air France, which is owned by the French Government, made a thumping great loss last year compared to British Airways, which is not owned by the British Government?
Ms Mowlam: We can discuss the advantages of one company over another at another time. We could then quote British companies that have done better than French companies. The point that I am making is the importance of tourism and its knock-on effect on other industries. D-day was a good example of how the French used an occasion to make a difference to people visiting the country.
When I ask the Government to be more proactive, I mean that their role is to act in partnership with the private sector to deal with the problems of regional imbalance, for example. We are sometimes told that Cambridge is full of tourists and can take no more, whereas other parts of the country are desperately looking for more tourists.
Mr. Fabricant: Durham.
Ms Mowlam: Durham is a good example. If the Government had some kind of proactive strategy, it would make a difference not only to tourism but to the quality of life of people who live in tourist areas.
If the Government were more proactive, they could also look at some of the changes taking place in tourism. Tourists who visit England now do not have the kind of holidays that they had before. The hon. Member for Swindon was absolutely right to talk about a "quality service". That is why it was wrong to abolish the wages councils and why we need a minimum wage, but I shall not go into that matter now.
Quality holidays must be offered. Yesterday, I spoke to two Americans who came here to cycle between castles. Different types of holiday are developing, and the
488
Department must have a strategy by which it can work with the private sector to see where the industry can go. I am simply asking it to do some thinking to assist the BTB and ETB in seeing what the future holds.
If the Government had such a proactive policy, it would make a difference in terms of a coherent strategy for the important relationship between tourism and the environment. Conservative Members who have spoken so far did not mention the Council for the Protection of Rural England study published earlier this year. In "Leisure Landscapes", Jonathan Dimbleby said:
"There are growing conflicts between the needs of tourism and leisure in the English countryside and the protection of our precious environment. The inadequacies of public policy and failures in practice mean these conflicts are going virtually unrecognised. We must wake up and put things right."
One is not saying that the environment or tourism should predominate, but if we had a proactive Government who were thinking about the issues, we could have a strategy between the demands of the environment and those of the tourist industry.
The Department of National Heritage is trying to co-ordinate between regional sports councils and regional tourist boards. That is fine, but unless we have better co-operation between Departments on issues that affect the leisure industry and tourism, we shall not achieve the changes that will make a difference. The privatisation of British Rail is a classic example. The loss of the rover pass and the travelcard will make a big difference to tourists. If Departments had better relationships, our tourist and leisure industry would be much better. The whole question of deregulation comes into that.
Some simple measures could be taken speedily to make a difference to the leisure industry. Hotel insurance was mentioned by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes). Holiday insurance is a continuing problem. As every hon. Member who deals with his or her constituency mail knows, there is a lack of adequate insurance for holidaymakers, who often take out the wrong kind.
If the Jopling report is discussed by the end of July, it may mean that we shall work more sensible hours, which will be a plus for everybody. Given the low standing in which most members of the public hold us, it will not help if we work even fewer hours than they think we already work. I have compared the public holidays of other EU countries and, yet again, we are bottom of the list. Germany has 15 days; Luxembourg has 14 days; Portugal has 13 days; and, as with so many other European tables, we are bottom of the list with nine. I throw that fact into the debate as a suggestion. It is being debated elsewhere, but it could be considered.
Although the national lottery could make a great difference to leisure and tourism in the coming year, it will be merely a secondary source of funding. The hon. Member for Southport said that the Minister should draw up proposals, but he is meant to be independent, so he cannot do so.
The problem is that big organisations such as Covent Garden, Albertropolis and the Tate have whole departments working on the national lottery, whereas smaller projects around the country have no such backup. I support the lottery, which, potentially could make a great difference to arts and leisure, but, if we are not careful, it will become metropolis-based. There will be problems with the partnership between public funding and private funding, which is less available outside London.

489
I hope to goodness that the Government are not daft enough to indulge in the political short-termism in which they have indulged elsewhere. I am not scoring cheap points: I genuinely believe that. They have appointed political placepeople to the five bodies that give out the money, which is incredible short sightedness for the country's future. We could have worked on that for the good of the country as we approach the next century. If the Government indulge in political short-termism, people will say, "What a surprise—another millennium project in a Tory marginal constituency in the run-up to the next election." That will be appalling.
Let us hope that that does not happen, because it will destroy another potential opportunity held by the tourist and leisure industries. They have a great future. It is sad that the Government do not believe it.
11.57 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am glad to have an opportunity to catch your eye this morning, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a wide-ranging debate which, given the furtive imagination of some hon. Members in their books recently, could take us down some interesting alleys. I wish to concentrate on the tourism industry, about which much has already been said this morning.
The tourist industry forms the fourth biggest employer in my constituency, the Cotswolds. I commend any hon. Members listening to or reading my speech to visit the Cotswolds. The choice of hotels is excellent, from the luxury end of the market to the good-value end. We have the highest number of listed buildings of any local authority in the country. The Cotswold stone market towns and villages are an excellent architectural feature and well worth visiting. The countryside in the Cotswolds forms one of the most important areas of outstanding natural beauty in the country. Following the commercial break, I move on.
Tourism is an important industry in the Cotswolds. It has managed to employ an additional 5,000 people in the past decade. That is important to employment in Gloucestershire because that industry now employs about 17,000 jobs directly and about 25,000 jobs on the basis of the Heart of England tourist board's estimate of one tourism job creating another half a job elsewhere in the economy. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) said that there were no published statistics. That report is one source of published statistics. It is interesting that in the past decade in manufacturing, which still forms the largest single sector of industry in my constituency, the number of jobs has declined by 6 per cent. while in tourism the number has increased by 2 per cent., providing a further 5,000 jobs.
The Department of National Heritage has been formed for only two years and combines many different functions, which were portrayed in our last election manifesto. Incidentally, that manifesto had a far more ambitious target for the cultural and built heritage of this country than either of the two Opposition parties pledged in theirs. The Department encompasses broadcasting, arts, sports, the film industry, national heritage, national lottery and tourism.
490
All those functions of the Department of National Heritage are basically tax consuming, with the exception of the lottery and tourism, which contributes so much to decrease our balance of payments deficit. It would, therefore, be encouraging if, instead of specifying tourism last in its list of priorities, the Department would alter the list in its next annual report and place tourism first. As chapter 9 of the Department's report says, that huge industry earned almost £9 billion this year in foreign earnings. Spending on tourism in this country amounts to about £20 billion, or 4 per cent. of our gross domestic product, and employs more than 1.5 million people. The important aspect of that employment is that those people are employed in thousands of diverse small and medium-sized businesses. I hope that when the next annual report is produced, tourism will be moved up the list of priorities.
I commend to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State the format of the Department of the Environment's report, whereby achievements are laid out in one column and targets to be met are laid out in a different column. That is a good format and I commend it, not only to the Department of National Heritage, but to all Government Departments as a useful format for their annual reports.
Given the size of the industry, more attention could be paid to tourism. Although we are doing well in this country, we could do much better in the tourist industry. The British Tourist Authority and the National Trust provided me with useful information. As has already been mentioned, Britain is the sixth most popular destination after the United States of America, France, Spain, Italy and Austria. Where do the visitors come from? Almost two thirds come from western Europe and 18 per cent. come from North America. What do they do? A high percentage of those visitors are return visitors, which is extremely encouraging for the future health of our tourist industry, and 48 per cent. of visitors say that they use a hotel as their main or major residence while staying here.
Why do those visitors come here? By far the largest advantage that we have in this country is that English is the most universally used language in the world. Not only is it the number one language in the old Commonwealth countries, but it is the second language in many other countries. The British Tourist Authority's overseas visitors survey discovered that most people were happy with the linguistic reception that they received in this country. The most notable exception was, of course, the French, who complained that they were not met often enough with their mother tongue.
What do visitors do when they come to this country? The survey confirmed that they come here mainly for our culture. They come here particularly for our stately homes and art galleries, and especially our museums, with up to 62 per cent. relating the latter as being quite or very important to them.
What are the future trends? How can we improve the deficit in the balance of trade and tourism? Obviously, some tourist organisations, such as the National Trust, do an excellent job in encouraging visitors to come to this country. Between 1975 and 1988, the number of visitors to its properties increased by 60 per cent. and it now has more than 10 million visitors to its properties. That is a remarkable achievement and brings considerable problems. The sheer numbers of feet trampling through some of the National Trust properties and some of our national

491
parks means that the trust has a considerable task in preventing deterioration of those properties and carrying out refurbishment works to public rights of way in the national parks. However, that is surely a small price to pay when one considers the number of visitors, domestic and foreign, that the National Trust encourages to visit those excellent properties and parks, and the amount of tourism that it brings to this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) made an excellent, wide-ranging speech. I congratulate him on bringing about today's debate and I am glad to be able to support my near neighbour in making a contribution today. As I said in an intervention on his speech, when one considers the amounts spent by the regional tourist boards —the English tourist board, the Welsh tourist board, the Scottish tourist board and the Irish tourist board—one finds that in the past year the English tourist board has had a cut of about £2.5 million, while the Scottish tourist board has had an increase of about £3.5 billion, and both the Irish and Welsh tourist boards spend more than the English tourist board. However, the number of visitors are about 83 per cent. for England, about 10 per cent. for Scotland, 3.5 per cent. for Wales and a mere 0.5 per cent. for Northern Ireland. It therefore seems to me that we have got the balance of our spending on tourism wrong.
As I mentioned earlier, if one goes to Boston in the USA, for example, one finds that, from two separate offices, the Welsh tourist board is promoting Wales and the British tourist board is promoting other parts of the kingdom. It is surely much more important to encourage visitors to come to anywhere in the United Kingdom rather than go to France, Italy, Austria or any of the other destinations. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State seriously to consider co-ordinating with his hon. Friends and with the Welsh, Scottish and Irish tourist boards to discover whether the resources that we spend on tourism could be spent more effectively on promoting Britain.
After all, the British Tourist Authority, in the survey to which I referred earlier, has found that a quarter of all intending visitors to this country contact one or other of the tourist boards before they come here. More important, when they contact that tourist board they have probably already made up their minds where they want to visit in this country. If we could encourage more general knowledge about the diversity of culture and built heritage in this country, before visitors make up their minds to go to other destinations they might consider choosing Britain as their destination for this year's foreign holiday. I believe that we could do even better and create yet more jobs in our tourist industry if we co-ordinated the money that we spend, which becomes increasingly precious as Government expenditure becomes tighter.
Provided that we continue to improve our facilities, the future for inward tourism is excellent. As has already been said this morning, the channel tunnel, with a potential market of 350 million citizens of the European Union by the end of this year after the accession of Austria, Sweden, Norway and Finland, gives us additional and increased opportunities in tourism. It is interesting to note that the European Travel Commission report forecast that demographic changes across Europe will mean that by the year 2000 one in three Europeans will be aged more than 55. The visitors to this country will thus be an increasingly aging bunch, which will also provide the tourist industry with a considerable challenge. We must cater for that trend.
492
Members of that group are likely to have more spending power. As the prosperity of western Europe has increased, they will have built up greater occupational pensions. They will require more personal attention from the tourist industries, more hospitality in their reception and higher standards of comfort in hotels. They will require hotels that provide increasingly higher standards, are cleaner and offer a wider diversity of health facilities and facilities such as swimming pools. That demographic trend presents a huge challenge to our industry.
The aim must be to promote greater tourism in this country. We must compare our tourist facilities with those of other places. I have come back from a visit with the Select Committee on the Environment to look at shopping centres in France and Germany. It was interesting to look at the tourist facilities in Paris, in the charming town of Freiburg in west Germany and in the industrial city of Leipzig. I found that the standard of hotels in Paris was not particularly good—or at any rate, the standard was not that high in the hotel in which the taxpayer was prepared to put up the members of the Select Committee—but when I visited the tourist attractions in France, such as the Louvre with its new glass pyramid, I found that facilities were excellent. The directional signs were superb, and the quality of shops and information below the galleries was first class. Institutions in this country have something to learn from that.
Some of our major institutions, such as the Tate, have had major facelifts. Without wishing to cast aspersions, however, I must say that many of our other national institutions present, on the face of it, an unattractive image to tourists. They have wonderful cultural aspects, antiquities and pictures inside, but on the face of it they appear unappealing. My hon. Friend the Minister could encourage our institutions to see whether they can become more appealing to visitors. Some of the facilities seem to be there merely for the benefit of the curators rather than the visitors.
It is excellent that the Victoria and Albert museum now opens for longer hours on Sundays. I wish that other attractions would take into account the wishes of tourists and stay open for longer hours. In my market town of Tewkesbury, we have one of the finest stone work carvings of any abbey in Europe. Visitors flock to see the abbey which is open all hours, but at 5 pm the tearooms and shops close and one sees tourists milling around with nothing to do until they are able to return to their bed and breakfast or other accommodation. Surely the top shops, many of which complain that they are finding it hard to make a living, could be a little more innovative and inventive and stay open a little longer. When I mentioned that possibility, however, the employers shrug their shoulders and say that it would be hard on those who have to work in the shops. If more of the unemployed people in Gloucestershire were employed on a part-time basis, that would allow shops to stay open longer and make the businesses more viable.
I conclude by quoting from the report of the Department of National Heritage. I can sum up the debate no better than by quoting from paragraph 1.4 of that excellent report, which states:
"Each of the sectors for which the Department has responsibility in Government makes an important contribution to the quality of life. They provide enjoyment, relaxation and stimulation. They help to create a well-educated and well-informed society with a rich and varied cultural life, a society which places value on the mental and physical well-being of the individual. They contribute to a sense of national identity

493
and national pride."
If we strive to create excellence in this country in everything that we do in our cultural and tourist life, surely the lives of our citizens will be enriched, both culturally and commercially via the tourist industry. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take every possible action that he and the Government can take to promote this country abroad and help our citizens with a varied cultural life in this country.
12.14 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I wish to make a brief contribution to the debate as I have the second motion on the Order Paper and I understand that I might be lucky enough to reach it today. I do not want to test the patience of Conservative Members who are still waiting to speak.
I offer some friendly advice to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson). One should never criticise the absence of hon. Members from this place if one is going to do a bunk soon afterwards—the hon. Gentleman has gone already. It is a silly hon. Member who criticises others for not being present as it means that those here have a much better chance of speaking. The hon. Gentleman made a fairly foolish contribution.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on choosing this subject for debate and on being lucky enough to have won the ballot. It is strange that so much business in this place is still based on the fortunes of the wheel or raffle ticket—the ballot box. I am sure that we could find more sensible ways of selecting our business. I am not complaining because I am speaking in this debate.
Most of today's debate has been about tourism. I understand the points that Conservative Members have made about their constituencies. Newham, North-West might not sound the ideal tourist location, but it has many tourist attractions to offer, not least the northern sewer outfall walk. That may not sound pretty, but I can assure Conservative Members that it is delightful. In a couple of weeks, in conjunction with Thames Water, we shall be opening a green trail across the borough which will provide an attractive addition to its recreational facilities.
I acknowledge the support that the Government have given in terms of funds for city challenge and the restoration of old and historic buildings in Newham. I also acknowledge the ministerial visits that have been made, when Ministers have clearly been impressed by the opportunities that east London has to offer for the promotion of tourism in London as a whole. When one talks about tourism in London, one often speaks as though it were concentrated around the tower, Tower Hamlets and Westminster. But there are many other parts of our great capital city where there are sights for tourists to visit and we want to encourage them to do just that.
I wish to raise two specific points as I have the opportunity of getting a reply from the Minister. We have talked about tourism and leisure—one of the important ingredients of which is hotels. I want to talk about the incipient hotel that is being constructed on the other side of the river at County hall. There are heritage responsibilities in respect of County hall and I want to ask the Minister some questions. I will not re-run the abolition battle, but it seems scandalous to me and to many Londoners that
494
County hall should have been designated a hotel to be run by a Japanese leisure group called the Shirayama group. The London School of Economics put in a bid and it would have been appropriate if that wonderful public building had been used by a great institution of learning, rather than being turned into the circus that is now being played out on the other side of the river.
I do not know whether the Minister has seen the large banner that has gone up on the roof of County hall. On the river elevation it says, "Ten years" and, I understand, on the other side says, "on top"; it relates to Virgin Atlantic. One of the reasons why the GLC got up Mrs. Thatcher's nose so much was the banner that we put on the roof of County hall showing the unemployment figures for London. Incidentally, the number of unemployed people in London has continued to rise ever since the GLC was abolished—the banner would show 500,000 by now. It certainly upset the Government of the day, though, and many attempts were made to do something about it. I notice, however, that no Minister seems upset by the defacing of County hall by an enormous advertisement for Virgin Atlantic.
Some hon. Members have signed early-day motion 1382, which urges the planning authority to investigate whether planning permission has been granted for the site. I must tell them that planning permission was not granted. Instead of tabling an early-day motion, I approached the planning department of Lambeth borough council. It appears that Virgin Atlantic and the Shirayama group are in contravention of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992.
On the riverside elevation of County hall there is a banner advertising a "family fun place" and the name of a demolition contractor. That was not what planning permission was given for when Shirayama put in its original application. The advertisements contravene planning law. What does the Minister propose to do about enforcing planning regulations? These advertisements affect Londoners—they offend our vision. They may not offend the Minister, but they certainly upset many Londoners and Opposition Members of Parliament.
This cowboy organisation, Shirayama, and its chairman, Mr. Toyota are making fools of us and of Londoners in general. It is sad that County hall is being taken away from Londoners and will no longer be the home of the sort of London-wide local government which the Opposition intend to set up again once we are back in office. It also worries me that the building might end up like Battersea power station. That, too, has become a disgrace. Tourists look at it and wonder what we have done to that wonderful building. There is some controversy about whether to restore it and what to use it for. The GLC wanted to turn it into an indoor athletics stadium, which London needs, but unfortunately we were abolished and were thus unable to complete the project. So along came another cowboy with big ideas and small pockets, wanting to open another Disneyworld. Now the roof is off the building and the structure is becoming dangerous.
English Heritage is one of the Minister's areas of responsibility: it reports to him. I hope, therefore, that he will take a close interest in what is happening at Battersea power station. Sooner or later, someone will approach him or his colleague, the Secretary of State for the Environment, to say that it is now a dangerous structure which must be removed. Then someone will come along

495
and cream off the remains for another property development. I believe that the power station is now in the hands of a Hong Kong or Chinese group. That group will be able to claim that the structure is dangerous and then build whatever offices it wants on the site—and yet another important building will have been lost to Londoners.
As the Minister knows, County hall has a grade II listed facade. The principal floor is also grade II listed and has a war memorial and many other valuable architectural features that relate to London's history and local government. I find it disgraceful that a Japanese cowboy company should be trying to circumvent planning permission, altering its original proposals for County hall by stealth.
I have with me a letter from Lambeth borough council to the lawyers of the Shirayama group. It arose out of a question that was tabled in the House; the Department of the Environment has asked Lambeth borough council what is happening at County hall so as to be able to reply to that question. The letter says:
"The question has been prompted by a large banner fixed to the riverside elevation and reading 'family fun place'. There is also a further banner advertising a demolition contractor and three flags (the Union Jack, Japanese and Virgin Group) on the flag pole. At the recent South Bank Exhibition in the Royal Festival Hall, Shirayama displayed drawings showing two floors of commercial office floor space and a large virtual reality centre on the ground floor. Neither use falls within the terms of the Council's conditional permission for development of 25 March 1993. You will recall the various press items last November reporting Mr. Toyota as saying his proposals included a Disneyworld and a family funfair."
The letter continues by warning the solicitor:
"I appreciate that you may not be fully aware of your client's intentions, but given the above I would reiterate my request to you to remind Shirayama of the terms of the existing planning permission."
I want the Government to take action; if they do not, County hall may become the same sort of decrepit and derelict shell as Battersea power station has become—and the responsibility will rest entirely with Ministers'. It is incumbent on the Government to act now.
There is an old saying in politics: "Don't get mad, get even". I am doing both; I am angry, but I am also determined to get even. If anything keeps me in politics it is my desire to live to see a Labour Government. I only hope I will not die before there is one—I assume that I will not die in the next two years. When the Labour Government come to power, I want them to stamp all over the people who have stamped on Londoners, including the Tory politicians, the quangos and the Shirayamas of this world. I am angry now, but I hope soon to be even.
The Minister is also responsible for football. The hon. Member for Swindon rightly said that it would be great to have a British team in the World cup. At least we can all cheer on the Irish—I hope that all hon. Members will be doing that tonight, when the Irish play Mexico, although damn me if I have not noticed that it coincides with my advice surgery. Perhaps my advice will have to be a little more abrupt than usual this evening. I hope that my constituents will sympathise, and I shall tell them why.
It would indeed be nice to have a United Kingdom team; perhaps the Minister could promote that idea. We have so much talent in the United Kingdom that it seems a pity not to combine it in one football team. I know that that is a rather controversial point of view, but, given our failure to send a team to the World cup, perhaps we should think about it carefully.
496
Today I want to discuss cup final ticket allocations. I am still in mourning for the fact that my team, Chelsea, lost the cup final. If it had not been for some strutting little pedantic public schoolmaster purporting to be a referee and awarding that second penalty, the result would have been quite different. I want to take this opportunity to apologise publicly to all the people around me who were scandalised by my obscene language, in which I described the sort of things I would do to that referee if I ever bumped into him. I have cooled down since then and I apologise to all concerned for my rather picturesque language. I do feel a little ashamed of it now, but I was emotionally involved in the fact that my team had reached a cup final. It is no small thing to have victory snatched away by crass refereeing —that only added insult to injury.
To get to the cup final is one thing; to get access to the final is another matter altogether. I was—again—scandalised by the way the Football Association allocated its tickets. I do not know all the details, but Chelsea ended up with 18,000 and Manchester United with 26,000, and about 30,000 tickets went to other people. To try to find out who the other people were, I co-operated with the BBC on a programme that is due to come out some time later next month and we bought some tickets. We bought one through an advertisement in the Evening Standard for which we paid £375. Stamped on the back of that ticket was the name of the county association, Sussex county football association. We paid another £250 to a tout outside Wembley who claimed that the ticket came from a Manchester United player.
Those tickets have been sent to Mr. Kelly at the Football Association and I await his response because, clearly, there is a flourishing black market. It is outrageous that supporters who follow their teams cannot get in because others have been given tickets that they do not want and sell them on; something should be done about it. Given the national significance of the cup final I hope that the Government will take some interest in that. I am waiting to hear exactly what will happen in relation to the questions that I have put to the Minister.
It is annoying to the many genuine supporters who are effectively barred from getting to the game because of the unavailability of tickets to the competing clubs that, along with the great majority of people in the place, who I am sure do some work, are hangers-on, freeloaders, royalty of no fixed abode and MPs who write in. I hope that the Minister will speak about that because it is becoming a scandal.
Football has many problems over issues such as under-cover payments and financial irregularities. I asked the Minister whether he would instigate an inquiry into the rules governing the financial arrangements of FA premier league clubs, but he just said no, he did not even offer. I can tell the Minister that many people outside are far more interested in what goes on in their football clubs than in what happens in this place. That might be their mistake, but it is a fact and we should address some of the felt needs of those people, especially in the context of the organisation of their football clubs because that is important to them.
I also asked the Minister whether he would make it his policy to set up an independent regulator of FA Premier League and Football League clubs in England, but, again, he refused and said that it was a matter for the football authorities. These matters are perhaps too important to be left to the ossified Football Association which still lives in

497
the 19th century in the way that it runs this great national game of ours. I hope that the Minister will show some interest in that.
It was grossly unfair for the Football Association to move in on Tottenham Hotspur and ban it from the FA cup and deduct 12 points. That deduction probably means that Tottenham Hotspur will be relegated next year. I am all for getting wrongdoers and I am glad that the Inland Revenue is investigating Tottenham Hotspur and a number of other clubs, but it is wrong to penalise the fans. They were not responsible for those irregularities and it is most unfair on them that their club will probably be relegated next season and they will not have the opportunity to see it in the FA cup. The Minister should recognise that the Government should at least have an opinion on that unfairness, that infringement of natural justice. I hope that in his reply the Minister will give the House the benefit of such an opinion.
12.31 pm
Mr. David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on his excellent and wide-ranging speech. I agreed with practically all that he said, but I disagree with him on cable television, and I shall deal with that later.
The House will know that my constituency has become a tourist centre for journalists, who visit it to describe events after they have happened. It has also become a tourist centre for socialist Members. I caution both sets of people not to be unwise by writing off my victory or that of Basildon just yet.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon and I entered the House on the same day. We agree on many issues, but one matter certainly divides us—football. My hon. Friend supports Swindon, and I support the team in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), which is West Ham. I much regret, but I do not fully regret, that we beat Swindon in both matches this year. I am sorry that my hon. Friend's team was relegated from the Premier league, and I hope that the House will join me in hoping that the team gains promotion to the Premier league next year.
I could not possibly not comment on the speech by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. It would be stretching the imagination to say that he and I could agree on anything, other than perhaps animal welfare. I did not agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the GLC. I do not agree with what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said about football. But one thing on which I undoubtedly agree with him is his anger. He is angry about the Conservative party. I and many of my hon. Friends are very angry with the behaviour of socialism at the moment.
Of course, the hon. Gentleman is not in any sense guilty, because, if he had his way—he clearly articulates what he believes socialism stands for—I am sure that the Labour party would clearly tell us what its policies were, and would have a leader articulate them.
Under the motion on leisure, if Opposition Members believe that, over the next two years, Conservative Members will sit back and allow the general public somehow to swallow this designer socialism, they are very wrong, and they would be foolish to think that they can get away with the same plea as that used by the President of the United States, that it is time for a change.
498
Moving on to the motion before the House, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon that leisure—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I understood that the hon. Gentleman was already referring to the motion before the House. The admission from him that he was not, is not something that the Chair welcomes.
Mr. Amess: I stand fully corrected.
Mr. Charles Hendry: Is it not the case that my hon. Friend was directly referring to the motion? He was talking about socialism and socialism is so un-serious these days that it has become a leisure industry.
Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) is quite right to describe socialism as part of the leisure industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon was right when he said that leisure for some people is watching television. It may be eating or sleeping, or, for us politicians, it may be talking. I praise the leisure industry in the country, especially the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat), a fellow Essex Member. As the House knows, Essex is the finest county in the country.
I do not believe that we are doing a good job of promoting ourselves at the moment. I blame the Opposition in particular for, at every opportunity, talking the country down, which is doing great damage, especially to leisure.
When one visits Disneyworld in Orlando or if one goes to the Epcot centre, all countries have a display for visitors and an enjoyable ride is provided on which visitors may go. Little countries, medium-sized countries and large countries all offer a good facility for people. Yet the British effort is ye olde pub and ye olde thatched cottage. We cannot even run to giving people a decent ride.
I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) were in their places earlier. It seems extraordinary that a wonderful ride—although I have no desire to go on it myself—has been opened recently in Blackpool on which one can drop at practically 90 deg. If we can do that in Blackpool, why, for goodness' sake, cannot those people who promote this country abroad concentrate for once on doing that very thing?
Mr. Tony Banks: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's desire for a good ride; many of his colleagues could no doubt give him some acute advice in that respect. But what has that got to do with the Opposition? He started off, before he went on to the ride, by saying that the Opposition were failing to bolster British tourism and that they were talking the country down. I do not see the connection. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will enlighten me.
Mr. Amess: I have much to say about the Opposition talking the country down. I have no doubt that they would not agree with me that an issue such as the way in which our industry is displayed abroad is something on which we should concentrate. I shall explain precisely the sort of points that I am talking about.
Ms Mowlam indicated dissent.
Mr. Amess: The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) shakes her head, but it will become clear why I

499
believe that the Opposition have much to answer for. There are many ways in which, at no cost, we could talk the country up and direct our resources far better.
Ours is the finest country in the world, but the Opposition continually run it down, which affects the leisure industry. The Opposition keep telling people that the trains are better in France. They are not. The Opposition keep telling people that the streets are cleaner in Germany. They are not. The Opposition keep telling people that everyone in Japan works harder, but they do not —that is another lot of nonsense. Opposition Members are guilty of talking the country down, and that is damaging.
One of my hon. Friends said that Britain was the world's sixth greatest tourist attraction. Britain has had a huge influence on many countries, and I want it to be the world's No. 1 tourist attraction.
Ms Mowlam: Britain may be the world's sixth biggest attraction in terms of overseas visitors, whose numbers have increased in the past couple of years—but its percentage share of tourists has declined.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not talk down this country. We do not say that the trains are better in France, only that we want a channel tunnel link between the coast and London. We do not say that the streets are dirtier in Britain, only that local authorities should have the same rights as local authorities in Germany to make certain decisions. We do not say that the people of Japan work harder, only that British workers should enjoy the same health, safety and wage protection as Japanese workers.
Mr. Amess: I could not disagree more. I have never known a more irresponsible Opposition. They have no policy initiatives. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West castigated one of my colleagues for commenting on the lack of attendance at this debate. My hon. Friend was less than charitable. We know that Opposition Members are working hard in their constituencies. It is more likely that they are having a policy review to explain yet again where they stand on this issue. Much damage is done by Opposition Members criticising this country and destroying morale.
Whenever I get into a taxi, I ask the driver, "How's business?" We always discuss tourism and leisure. It is interesting that claims that have no basis in fact are perpetuated and repeated, which is quite wrong.
Mr. Tony Banks: What does the average taxi driver say about the Prime Minister? Will the hon. Gentleman be honest?
Mr. Amess: The average taxi driver at least knows that we have a Prime Minister who is a decent, honourable man—
Ms Mowlam: No, he is a liar.
Mr. Amess: —who is prepared to tell this country and the House what are his policies.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would withdraw her sedentary remark.
Ms Mowlam: I apologise for calling the Prime Minister a liar, which is totally unacceptable in parliamentary terms. He may be economical with the truth occasionally, but clearly he is not a liar.
Mr. Banks: But that is what the average taxi driver thinks.
Mr. Amess: No—I can tell the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that the average taxi driver tells me that he never, ever wants a Labour Government—he does not want socialism.
I much wanted Britain to be chosen as the venue for the Olympic games in the year 2000. Opposition Members congratulated Manchester on its bid, and I share in that. It was a marvellous effort, and I congratulate also my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on he way that he argued his case. We clearly saw the depth of patriotism aroused at the last Olympic games in Barcelona. This is not a frivolous point. Every time that a Spanish competitor looked likely to win, the king and queen of Spain could be seen jumping up and down in their seats in encouragement.
Mr. Elletson: Does my hon. Friend agree that many taxi drivers in Manchester immensely appreciated the way in which the Prime Minister had argued his case? Should we not continue to support Manchester, and ensure that it is the "Olympic bid" city next time as well?
Mr. Amess: That is slightly more controversial ground. I was about to make my suggestion for the next Olympic bid
Mr. Hendry: Not Basildon!
Mr. Amess: It might be at the back of my mind. But it is no good our waiting until 1996 or 2000 to decide on the venue for the games; we must decide now, as a country, that we want to hold them here at the next opportunity.
We must be determined and talk the country up. It would be a wonderful boost if the next Olympic games took place here. I am disappointed that they will not take place here in the year 2000, but at least they will take place in one of our former colonies, and it is a great comfort that Her Majesty the Queen will be there to open the games.
Mr. Fabricant: I agree whole-heartedly that Manchester put in a very good bid, with enthusiasm. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the many reasons why Manchester was not selected—and why it gained so few votes—is that it is not recognised internationally as a capital city? It is not a capital city, but, although Ankara is the capital of Turkey, Istanbul was recognised as the commercial capital.
Sydney is the commercial capital of Australia, and Beijing is both the commercial and the constitutional capital of the People's Republic of China. I hate the idea of basing everything in the south-east, but if we are to bid for the Olympic games in 2004, as I hope that we will—and if we are to have a realistic chance of success—surely we shall have to base them in London.
Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend tempts me to speak against part of the United Kingdom, which I am not prepared to do. I want to make positive suggestions. I hope that my hon. Friends will not take offence, but I believe that London and Scotland have very strong cases. I hope that Manchester will hold the Commonwealth games—it has a strong case in that regard—but I think that London would be the ideal centre for the Olympics.
Earlier this week, I visited docklands with some of my hon. Friends. Here is another example of Opposition Members' talking the country down. Docklands could not be reproduced anywhere else in the world: it is a wonderful creation. Baroness Thatcher was entirely responsible for driving the docklands initiative.

501
All the houses there have now been sold or let, and Canary Wharf is 50 per cent. occupied. The Daily Mirror, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, Sears and one of the big advertising companies are there. It is looking very good, and we should be proud. I come from the area, and know what a dump docklands used, sadly, to be; I am certainly proud that the new infrastructure is of such high quality.
If we succeeded in our bid to hold the Olympic games in London, docklands would be an ideal centre because of its attractive use of water. Scotland would also be an attractive site. I sometimes get a bit fed up with Scottish Members—who seem to have a down on the rest of the United Kingdom—but Scotland is a beautiful region, although it rains a lot.
Mr. Fabricant: The Olympic games in the year 2000 will be held in the beautiful city of Sydney. Is my hon. Friend aware that the amount of rainfall in Sydney during the Australian winter is substantially higher than that in Manchester in summer? I wonder whether the International Olympic Committee realises that the Olympic games will be held in Sydney during its winter.
Mr. Amess: I had not realised that. It is probably a bit late for the committee to reverse its decision, but I shall write immediately to my Australian friends and ask them to explain the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon discussed the national lottery. Conservative Members are guilty of allowing the Opposition to get away with murder on the issue. It was the Conservative party's idea to have a national lottery. The Johnny-come-latelies in the Opposition are adopting a lottery-praising attitude, but the Conservative Government were responsible for it, and it will be a great success.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that, after the Third Reading debate on the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, both the Opposition parties voted against it?
Mr. Amess: I am aware of that. One reason why I spent a fair bit of time in that debate was that I wanted the national lottery headquarters to be located in my constituency of Basildon. I am delighted that Camelot has been awarded the national lottery franchise. I have already corresponded with it to find out how it intends to run it.
I have not given up hope that Basildon will be entitled to some of the work that will be generated. First Data Resources is a wonderful company in my constituency, although its headquarters is in Omaha, Nebraska. It produces credit cards and has the expertise necessary for the production of, and the machinery behind, a national lottery.
The national lottery will produce £2 billion. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon discussed the ways in which the money could be spent. I do not want to go for the glamorous ways that have been mentioned. I am very involved with the National Association of Boys' Clubs in my constituency and proud to be the president of Basildon boys' club, Vange boys' club and other such organisations, which are run by wonderful people who give their time and turn out good citizens. It is an unglamorous form of leisure activity, but a valuable one.
502
It would be wrong if all the money from the national lottery were to find its way to high-profile leisure activities. I warn my hon. Friend the Minister that I shall seek to ensure that some of the resources from the lottery go to boys' clubs.
In his magnificent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon mentioned cable television, the one issue on which I disagreed with him. I am not an overly keen television fan. Most of us who have small children know that, by and large, they watch too much television. Turning it off continually does not stop them switching it on again when parents are out of the room. So much of what we see on television is rubbish.
That said, I was delighted when United Artists announced that it would locate its headquarters in my constituency, which could create about 800 jobs, an issue of concern to all hon. Members. However, I caution hon. Members whose constituencies do not have not cable. United Artists did not warn me—my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon has had a private word with me about cable—that every person's pavement would be dug up. That is all well and good if it is put back in good order, but not all pavements are grey or black. The modern style is sometimes to have a maroon pavement.
Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend also aware that, although some cable trenchers repair the pavements well, there can be serious damage to the roots of established trees? After four or five years, the trees decay. There are now guidelines—sadly, far too few cable operators adhere to them—on how to lay a trench without damaging trees and roads.
Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. When it all started, I thought that there would be isolated incidents. However, people's water mains have been broken by drilling that has not been done properly. Power cables have been spoilt and there have been terrible rows about the resurfacing.
Perhaps I did not listen carefully at the time, because I did not realise that there would be channelling outside everyone's house. We have just gone through two election campaigns—the local and the European. When I knocked on people's doors, I found that they wanted to talk not about the social chapter, but about their roads being dug up.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon that, as a Conservative, I believe in choice. Although I understand the benefits of cable, I believe that there is a serious duty on the contractors to repair the roads properly. If my constituency is anything to go by, the contractors have not discharged their obligations to the high level that I should have expected.
Yes, I will continue to support private enterprise, but I do not think that it is fair for many of my constituents to wake up in the morning and find that they cannot get out of their drive because a digger has been dumped. There are many such examples; I am sad to say that they are not isolated examples.
Mr. Simon Coombs: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I can give him one or two pieces of consolation. My constituency went through this business 10 years ago; it was one of the first to be substantially cabled. Many of the problems that my hon. Friend has

503
described so vividly were visited on us at that time. Experience usually teaches contractors how to avoid some of the mistakes.
On behalf of his constituents, my hon. Friend must take up vigorously with the cable company concerned the problems that are being experienced. There is a difficulty in management. The cable companies themselves are anxious to get on with the business of providing a service, and the contractors, who are often brought from other parts of the country, do not have quite the right attitude some of the time, I am afraid to say.
The problems have been addressed in other areas. There is an excellent organisation, the Cable Television Association, to which my hon. Friend should address his complaints, so that they can then be referred to the local cable company, with a little pressure to ensure that things are done properly. The nice thing is that, although there is a blemish on the pavement, the value of properties increases when people realise that they have access to cable.
Mr. Amess: I am encouraged and reassured by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon, and I shall take his advice. I do not mean my next remark unkindly; I have been trying to sort out people's problems with cabling for more than four months. The matter has gone on for a lot longer than I would have hoped.
In a debate such as this one, it is wrong for us not to mention the disabled. In their competitive sports in my constituency, the disabled are not only the equals of able-bodied people, but excel themselves. I am proud that, in my constituency, we have a young fellow called Andrew Blake, who won a number of Olympic golds In the Paraplegic Olympics. We also have a wonderful lady, Betty Jefferies, who also achieved a great deal. I pay a warm tribute to all the disabled groups in my constituency.
I do not know whether the Department of National Heritage has pushed vigorously the benefits of Sport Aid. My hon. Friend the Minister probably does not entirely welcome my raising the matter now; I do not know how much money is left. However, I thank him and his officials personally for the way in which my constituency has benefited from that money. I am delighted to say that Bowers United, a local football team, as a result of assistance from the Department of National Heritage, now has floodlights. As a result, the club will be in the FA cup this year for the first time in its history. It was always of a very high standard, but it was not eligible because it did not have floodlights. The grant of what I believe was £45,000 made available through Sports Aid has made many of my constituents very happy.
Of course, no constituency Member is always entirely satisfied. That is why I make no apology for my plea now for an organisation in my constituency which is intent on building the Essex international table tennis centre. I know that table tennis is not quite as popular as it was some years ago—I remember that Desmond Douglas was a champion, and one or two other people. It is the intention of a number of my constituents to build that centre of excellence in Basildon.
We have been told by the Foundation for Sport and the Arts that it is considering a grant application from the organisers for £150,000. The Eastern region sports council —headed by a wonderful footballer from West Ham, Trevor Brooking—will be supplying a further £100,000. But to make the project happen, we really are dependent on
504
the foundation advancing the money. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister if, through his Department, he would do everything that he possibly can to assist us with our application.
Moving on quickly, I take this opportunity to join the hon. Member Newham, North-West in his remarks on the world cup and football generally. It is terrible that we are watching a world cup with no England team involved. I am not going to talk about the previous manager, because I want to be positive about the way forward.
Last November, I tried to introduce in this House a ten-minute rule Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North had a go yesterday with a Bill on the subject of identity cards. I support them, although my ten-minute rule Bill was for a voluntary scheme. I wanted to amend the Football Spectators Act 1989. We make a great mistake in the House if we think that hooliganism has gone away. I do not believe that it has. We must not forget the disgraceful scenes at Millwall a few weeks ago, when fans rioted after an eliminator.
Never mind what the Europeans do in their countries. It is up to them through the European Community to put their own houses in order. We should lead the way in this country, and we must look at the passport situation very carefully.
Conservative-controlled Basildon district council runs wonderful sports and leisure facilities in my constituency. There is an example of a good council working with the private sector. There is the Eversley leisure centre which was opened in 87, the Markham Chase leisure centre opened in 1989, and the Pitsea welcome centre, which was opened in 1981. We have a number of wonderful swimming pools, and never let anyone forget the magnificent sportswomen and men in my constituency.
Fatima Whitbread lives just outside the constituency and supports all our local leisure activities. Basildon produced last year's winner of the London marathon—Eammon Martin. He is a wonderful example of all that is good in British sport today. He did not win this year, but he ran extremely well. He visited the House of Commons on Friday, and we were pleased to have him here with us.
There are marvellous golf courses in Basildon, and the Kingswood squash centre—the finest squash centre in Europe—which is run by the Guppy family. Another golf course that has just opened is called Stockbrook Manor, which very generously made me vice-president. All I have to do now is learn to play golf. It is a wonderful facility, and I know that many of my constituents will appreciate it.
A wonderful event took place yesterday in Pitsea hall park in Basildon, attended by 4,000 constituents, the Henry Bear teddy bears' picnic. That event may not, sadly, have been reported in the national newspapers today, because we know that they are not too interested in the good news. That picnic was a wonderful example of a group of organisations working together, in particular PPA, which recently held a tea party in the House, Home Start and the district council. The event was attended by mums and dads, who brought along their children aged between two and five. They all enjoyed the leisure facilities on offer.
I am particularly proud of what will happen in Basildon on Saturday and Sunday, when a huge rally of young people will be held. The event, known as Positive Youth, was the idea of Mr. Jackaman, of Kathleen Ferrier crescent, Basildon. He came along to my surgery two years ago and said, "David, I am fed up with all the bad publicity that

505
young people in this country get. I want to have a celebration over a weekend of all the marvellous activities in which they are involved."
We will have to wait to see whether that event makes the headlines in our national newspapers, but it is good news about young people. It will offer a range of activities including running, jumping and swimming. The Guides, the Brownies and the Red Cross will be there. I am delighted to note that MK Electrics is among the sponsors together with First Data Resources. We have now decided to twin Basildon with Omaha, Nebraska, because of First Data Resources. It has generously donated three prizes for three young people to visit Omaha for three weeks to learn about its leisure facilities.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon on allowing us to debate leisure activities. It is a tragedy that at the moment we are so adept at talking ourselves down rather than talking ourselves up. We have much to be proud of. This is a very great country. I hope that the entire nation will unite behind the efforts of our leisure industry to promote this country not only to our good citizens but to the rest of the world.
1.7 pm
Mr. Charles Hendry: I could not possibly begin my speech without paying tribute to the wonderful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). Before today, I had not naturally thought of Basildon as the next venue for the Olympic games. The more I thought about it, however, the more evident that possibility became. My hon. Friend has run a marathon performance there for many years. Every hurdle he has met he has leapt across and he has shown that no hurdle is too high for him. He goes on vaulting to new heights every time he speaks on behalf of his constituents.
One thing we know for certain is that, added to that list of formidable stadiums in Basildon will shortly by the Amess stadium, in honour of the man who has shown a level of energy, enthusiasm and commitment to his constituency that has been matched by few other hon. Members.
Mr. Tony Banks: A mess stadium.
Mr. Hendry: I heard that sedentary intervention and I can understand why the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is angry, because the greatest tourist attraction in his constituency is the northern sewage outlet. That is scarcely in competition with even the most meagre tower block in Basildon or any of the beautiful sights in my constituency.
Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman should have a care, because the northern sewage outfall walk is a wonderful, almost rural walk. I invite him to join me in sauntering along it.
Mr. Hendry: I am immensely grateful for that invitation. When the hon. Gentleman described it as a "green" walk, I wanted to know why it was green, and whether something coming out of the sewer outlet causes it to be that colour. I should be delighted to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency and make his constituents realise that they should follow the Conservative approach to tourism. When they compare what is on offer in their
506
constituency with what is on offer in Conservative constituencies, they will realise that there is no comparison between the two.
My constituency is just outside Manchester and I was desperately saddened that we did not win the Olympic bid for the year 2000. One reason why those games went to Sydney was that many of those who would have backed Manchester felt that they had to stop Peking winning at all costs, and so opted for the city which they felt stood the best chance of doing that. Manchester's case was much more strongly put than the end result gave it credit for. Had the media attention paid as much attention, before the decision was made, to explaining and pushing Manchester's case as they paid afterwards to explaining why Manchester had lost, we would have had a better chance of winning votes.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on initiating this important debate. It is appropriate that we should have it now, as we are in the middle of the British leisure season, the most famous in the entire world. This week and next, we have Wimbledon —it may not last until the end of next week, given the way it is going; next week, we shall have Henley; Ascot was held recently; and Glyndebourne will go on through the summer. Those events give us the most famous leisure season in the world. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) is scoffing. Those events are not just wonderful for the people who attend them; they are watched by millions, not just in this country but throughout the world. The Wimbledon final will be the most widely watched sporting event in the world on that day. Those events do a tremendous amount of credit to Britain and its image overseas.
Ms Mowlam: May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I was not scoffing at the events but thinking how those events change in national importance. As the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) said, we must consider the difficult question of national coverage—when a national event should remain national and how to keep it on our national terrestrial television so that it is the cement that keeps our society together. I must admit that I had a little snigger at Glyndebourne, wonderful place though it is, because people in Redcar get little opportunity to see opera. That is not good for people.
Mr. Hendry: I agree with the hon. Lady but just down the road from her is Opera North, and the number of facilities is increasing. Emphasis has been put on touring opera to ensure that her constituents have a chance to see some of the wonderful opera that is available.
I was intrigued by the hon. Lady's speech, although I picked up few policy points from it. She mentioned the number of bank holidays in this country, but it was not clear whether she was promising more under a Labour Government as a carrot, implying that if people voted Labour they could have every day off or saying that businesses would suffer as a result of more bank holidays. Or perhaps she was saying that, because we have fewer bank holidays than other countries in Europe, we have a greater commitment to our work and the success of our country. She simply raised the matter as an interesting subject. I agree that it is interesting, but it would be nice to know whether the Opposition have a policy on it.
Ms Mowlam: With a Government whose policies are drifting, we have learnt not to be specific about our policies

507
two years from an election because if we are, the Government will simply nick them. I was trying to highlight four or five important points that need to be dealt with for the good of our tourist industry and to give pointers in the hope that things will be done, because the industry is crucial for our growth and development. On many of the points that I made, I was agreeing with the hon. Member for Swindon, who introduced the debate.
Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. It is helpful to know that the reason why the Opposition do not dare to have any policies is that somebody might agree with them. I am sure that, when the Labour party comes to put forward policies, if Conservative Members find that there is any element in them that is favourable, the Opposition will not simply stick to their gut reaction of opposing everything at every opportunity, which happens too often.
Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for letting me intervene. Before the intervention of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), he was mentioning the coverage of Wimbledon and the final. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to learn that during the two weeks of Wimbledon, the BBC is providing five simultaneous channels of continuous coverage from the different courts to 18 different countries, with all the technology that that involves. I had the opportunity to see, as recently as two or three days ago, the way that Spanish Television, the South African Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian Broadcasting Commission and M-Net in Johannesburg are covering, not only the finals, but the two weeks of Wimbledon, day by day, ball by ball. Is not that one of the things that promote Britain throughout the world?
Mr. Hendry: My hon. Friend is right. That will be an immensely popular service in every country that I can think of apart from Germany, which probably would not wish to watch Wimbledon.
The motion correctly points out the great role that has been played by the Department of National Heritage. My constituency has more to be grateful for on that front than almost any other constituency in the country. The predecessor of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State stepped in with a compulsory repairs order to save the grade 1-listed Crescent in Buxton —the pivotal centre of Buxton. A £1 million pound grant has now been made available through English Heritage. Thanks to the Government's intervention and the money that they have made available through English Heritage and the national heritage memorial fund, a building which was falling apart—which had decayed almost to the point at which it could not have been saved—has had its future secured.
Money has also been put in to restore the Slopes, which are the wonderful slopes that come down from the top of the town to the front of the Crescent. Those two restorations combined will do more than anything to make Buxton one of the most appealing tourist attractions in the country.
I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) and for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) occasionally engage in a little bit of rivalry about which constituency attracts the most tourists and which is falling into the sea most rapidly. But both their constituencies combined have fewer visitors a year than does High Peak: 22 million visitors a year visit the national
508
park—more than are received by any national park in the world outside Mount Fuji in Japan. People flock not only from the surrounding cities of Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Derby and Birmingham but from places throughout the world to look at its stunning beauty.
Although the Department for National Heritage deserves tremendous credit, the greatest credit goes to the individual people who have made that success. It goes to the hoteliers and people who run bed and breakfasts, who have made the national park a welcoming place to come and who ensure that people return time after time to our award-winning hotels. It goes to the people who run the sporting activities, the people who harnessed the natural beauty of the Peak district with man's talent and man's ability to take part in sport. It goes to the way in which the reservoirs are used for sailing, windsurfing and other water sports. It goes to the way in which we put money into sports clubs, rugby clubs and cricket—into the range of sports that make English life what it is.
I give tremendous credit and gratitude to the support that we have had from the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. The sporting clubs in my constituency have had many tens of thousands of pounds' worth of support from the FSA. That support has enabled them to expand, to bring in new people, to provide a worthwhile activity in which young people can become involved. That support is tremendously welcome and we are grateful.
We have in the area some of the finest treasures in the country. At Chatsworth house, just outside my constituency, the Duchess of Devonshire has shown other stately home owners how to run their houses—not only in the best interests of those home owners, who want to secure their heritage in their homes, but for the benefit of people who want to enjoy them and who like a good day out. I believe that the Duchess of Devonshire was invited by Her Majesty to give her advice on how to open Buckingham palace to the public. I hope that Her Majesty will not have the same trouble as the duchess. A man came up to the duchess in the grounds of Chatsworth and said, "Here, lady—you're not allowed dogs in here." He did not realise that she owned the place and could probably take her dogs where she wished. I trust that Her Majesty will not have a similar problem in her own garden.
Chatsworth house is a wonderful jewel, and next door, is Haddon hall, owned by the Duke of Rutland. Those two wonderful, historic families have preserved a jewel of this country's treasure, which can be enjoyed by millions of people over the years.
Mr. Tony Banks: They are stuffed with bourgeois layabouts.
Mr. Hendry: In Buxton there is a marvellous opera house. No doubt the hon. Member for Newham, North-West thinks that that is stuffed with bourgeois layabouts. It is not case; it is a small jewel of an opera house—a 900 seater. I invite the hon. Gentleman to come. After I have walked along his sewage outfall with him, I hope that he will come with me to enjoy the Buxton opera house—
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the champagne on the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Hendry: The champagne will most certainly be on me because I realise that when the hon. Gentleman comes

509
to my constituency the scales will fall from his eyes and a vision will open before him of how much more beautiful life could be if he lived in my constituency.
Tremendous effort is put in by people who, weekend after weekend, give of their own time. The Victorian weekend in Glossop brings the town together—residents celebrate its unique facilities and delightful assets. Young girls from all over the area participate in the May queen festival in Hayfield, and I am given the joyful role of judging the competition.
We also have the wonderful and historic well-dressing events in Derbyshire. Our wells are the source of our water and the source of our prosperity, so we give great thanks for that supply. We also give thanks to North West Water and Severn Trent Water for purifying the water and delivering it to us. There are great celebrations of village life in my constituency and such events ensure that, year after year, people return to see what we have to offer.
We must beware that we do not kill the golden goose. We could do so either through over-bureaucracy or by putting too much pressure on people through organisations such as the Peak national park. We could damage our assets. Of course, there is a case to be made for managing better the 22 million people who visit my constituency and for ensuring that the traffic flow is kept down so that we do not have traffic queues in the constituency that are worse than those in the city centres from which people have moved away.
We must ensure that we carry the people with us. The Peak national park and the Peak tourism partnership must not impose their way of life on the people who live and work in those constituencies, at their expense. When we make districts conservation areas, it should be a selling exercise. People should not be told that their district is to be a conservation area whether they like it or not. People should want their district to be a conservation area because they perceive the benefits. Sadly, that is not the case now and there is a greater need for organisations such as the Peak national park to carry the people with them.
If the district is to be successful, we must strike a balance between the interests of the visitors and the interests of those who live and work there. We must balance the interests of the hang gliders against those of people who live round about. I tried hang gliding, but I was not very successful. I hovered about three inches off the ground and did not make any progress. At least I missed the overhead pylons. Residents in Castleton are fed up with people jumping off the top of Mam Tor, a mountain in the middle of the constituency, and landing in the middle of the village, disrupting the traffic, frightening the sheep and bouncing off the power cables in between. If we participate in sports in rural areas, we must ensure that we respect the interests of those who live there.
Last year, I introduced a Bill in the House to enable footpaths to be closed in the national park during times of particularly high fire risk. The previous year, hundreds of acres of moorland were devastated by fire. Under existing law, we cannot close footpaths even when we know that one bit of glass dropped, one careless match or one cigarette end can cause carnage—damaging the heather for years to come and setting back the wildlife for generations.
Hundreds of people in my constituency earn their living by quarrying. Certainly, we need to be concerned about the
510
natural beauty of the area, but Buxton Lime Industries, for instance, has the biggest quarry in Europe. If we tell such companies that they have no right to be there because we have changed our environmental approach, the very reason for the existence of the villages in the area—the reason why people moved there in the first place—will be taken away from them. So the right balance must be struck.
Deregulation also remains an issue. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat), the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, on the sterling work that he has done towards tackling excessive bureaucracy—those rules that we all knew were rubbish but which were forced on people who run bed-and-breakfast accommodation, hotels and tourist attractions. Much is being done, but I urge the Minister—I do not imagine that he needs much urging—to nerve himself to continue the fight against regulation with unrelenting vigour, so that we can tackle all this gobbledegook and sweep away ridiculous rules.
There has been progress. When we last debated this matter, significant attention was devoted to the silly signs denoting animal attractions, which all had to show an elephant. For the sake of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, I am wearing my elephant tie today, in recognition of his and my great interest in elephants, but I do not want to see them on every signpost for flamingo parks, whale sanctuaries and so on. There has been sensible progress in this area, but if we want a truly dynamic tourist industry we must sweep away the regulations that hinder it.
My final point relates to farmers—in an area such as High Peak, the guardians of the countryside. They conserve it and they ensure that we can enjoy all that beauty in perpetuity. Perhaps we do not get the system quite right, however. We give grants to farmers who put up stone walls, but if a farmer has maintained his dry stone walls year in, year out, he will not get a penny in grant. A farmer who allows his walls to fall down will get a grant from the Government to put them up again. If, as we must, we give grants for conservation purposes, the focus should be changed to reward farmers who maintain their walls and barns in good condition. We want the countryside to be maintained in a way that keeps it beautiful and shows that mankind can improve on nature, harnessing natural resources for the benefit of those who live in an area or want to visit it.
In many ways, High Peak is a beacon for the leisure and tourist industries. I am always glad to invite my colleagues to visit it; I hope that they will always feel free to do so. I am grateful for having had the chance to make a small contribution to this important debate.
1.27 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: It is a great privilege to take part in this debate and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), whose brave initiative it was to initiate it. It is also a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), a near neighbour of mine. He mentioned Castleton; I have not hang-glided off Mam Tor, but I have climbed it and afterwards enjoyed sustenance at Ye Olde Nag's Head, an excellent restaurant and hostelry in Castleton—which, of course, is not far from Buxton. Although I have not recently visited the opera house there, I have been to the pub next door to it. In its own special

511
way, it, too, has a great deal of style which reflects the general character of Buxton and of the hon. Member who represents that great town.
I shall speak only briefly, on four topics. I should like to discuss broadcasting, to touch on investment in tourism, to talk about the different sorts of holidays we can enjoy in the United Kingdom, and to discuss the great city of Lichfield, which occupies a small part of my 34-mile long constituency but whose population accounts for 35 or 40 per cent. of the total.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon was absolutely right to talk at some length about broadcasting, although some might have said that it was not the sort of subject to be mentioned in a debate on leisure. As my hon. Friend said, on average United Kingdom citizens watch television for three hours and 45 minutes each day. That is far too long when there are other things that they could be doing, but it is a smidgen compared with the time that US citizens spend watching television—about seven hours a day. That shows the lack of imagination of some American citizens, or a lack of alternative interesting activities to draw them away from television. It is certainly not a reflection on the quality of television there. I was a student in the United States and I later worked there, and I know that it is not a patch on the television that is available in the United Kingdom.
The Select Committee on National Heritage is currently looking not only at broadcasting but at sport and its broadcast coverage. I do not wish to pre-empt the Committee's conclusions because final decisions have yet to be made. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) spoke about listings—the sports that are confined to terrestrial broadcasters. The Wimbledon finals are an example. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak spoke of the importance of Wimbledon in promoting Britain abroad. While at Wimbledon two or three days ago, I noted that about 20 per cent. of the people walking around seemed to be speaking foreign languages. That demonstrates that not only does Wimbledon promote Britain abroad among people who watch the games in their own countries, but it attracts people to the United Kingdom. Initially Wimbledon may have drawn German visitors but, sadly, many of them will have left by now.
The BBC is broadcasting on five channels simultaneously to broadcasters in different parts of the world, and that is a great credit to the BBC. Very few broadcasting organisations would be capable of doing that. For much of the time, we in the United Kingdom see only one of those channels, although sometimes BBC1 and BBC2 simultaneously cover different aspects of Wimbledon. Three additional feeds go to various parts of the world.
We shall find out in the next week or two, when the Select Committee on National Heritage makes its recommendations, whether the listings will be abolished or expanded or whether subscription services will come under the purview of the listings. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister will read that report in detail, as will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, because I know that they both read Select Committee reports with great interest. No doubt they act on them.
It is unfortunate that people get cheap laughs at party conferences by referring to the BBC as the bolshevik broadcasting corporation. That is not the case: many people who work at the BBC are not socialists but
512
Conservatives. The BBC does an excellent job, as do Independent Television and other United Kingdom broadcasters.
I agree with the hon. Member for Redcar when she says that not enough research is being done in investment in tourism. It would make an excellent subject for a doctoral thesis and I invite universities in various parts of the United Kingdom to encourage students to undertake a doctoral thesis in the cost benefit of investing in tourism. I believe that there is a multiplier effect and if the state—the taxpayer—were to invest more in the promotion of British tourism abroad, alongside the private sector, it would not be investment down the drain. I believe, but I do not know because the facts are not available, that it would generate a huge return in money raised through the Exchequer, from corporation tax on our hotel groups, from income tax from those people employed in the leisure industry and also from VAT as people pay for their hotel bills and go on rides, such as the biggest helter-skelter in the United Kingdom, if not the biggest in Europe, which happens to be in the domain of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson). I must point out, however, that the most exciting, even if not the tallest, helter-skelter in the United Kingdom is the Nemesis ride at Alton Towers, which is not far at all from my own patch of Mid-Staffordshire.
I therefore invite universities, other places of higher learning and institutions that conduct such research to try to perform an analysis. We need hard data. What is the percentage return that we can expect from promoting Britain abroad? How much money is raised by tourists coming to the United Kingdom? Guesses are made and the guesses may well be informed. On the other hand, they may not be. I agree with the hon. Member for Redcar when she says that she suspects that we may well be underestimating the amount of money that enters the country—directly and indirectly—from tourism. That area needs to be explored in much more detail.
There are many different sorts of holidays available in the United Kingdom. It saddens me when I meet American friends who say, "We've visited the United Kingdom. We've seen the UK." I ask them where they have been. They say, "We've been to London and we've been to Stratford-on-Avon." Sometimes they say that they have been to Blackpool, but rarely. Sometimes they say that they have been to our great university towns. What do they mean by that? They mean Oxford or Cambridge, but what about Durham? Durham has one of our oldest universities. I did not go there, I have no axe to grind there, but Durham is a beautiful city and yet, it saddens me when so few people visit it. It saddens me, too, when one walks around the Cotswolds. Stratford-on-Avon is almost sinking under the weight of American tourists. Yet when one visits beautiful villages such as Broadway, they are virtually empty of tourists from abroad. They are filled with tourists from the UK, but I rarely see tourists from abroad in such villages.
It is tremendously important to promote other parts of the United Kingdom. Whenever I go to the United States, I make a point of touring around various parts that even American friends say they have never visited. It is also regrettable that too many Brits fail to visit other parts of the British Isles. Two Christmases ago, I went to Scotland to tour the area. At the tender age of 42, I visited Scotland for the first time. That is a shame, but I am trying hard to

513
rectify the situation. At present, my knowledge and geography of the United States of America is far better than that of the United Kingdom.
Different types of holidays are being promoted in the UK. People undertake cycling holidays. Britain boasts one of the largest canal systems in Europe. I went for the first time on a canal boat holiday for a long weekend a few weeks ago. I travelled from Fiore in Northamptonshire to Leamington Spa in Warwickshire and back. What a marvellous experience that was. At one point, looking at the map, I could tell that I was within 150 yards of the M1 motorway. Yet I could have been in a totally different world. In fact, in many ways, I was in a completely different world and living at a completely different pace of life. Such holidays should be promoted more. It was a great pleasure to discover that many of the other people travelling on narrow boats were not from the United Kingdom. Many of them were American. I do not want hon. Members to think that I am criticising Americans—far from it. I simply pick on them as the archetypal visitor to the United Kingdom. We not only export canal boat holidays, in the sense that they attract overseas visitors, but the largest canal boat cruise company in France is British owned. I like to think that British people occasionally go to France—after all, it is a fellow member of the European Union—and that many of them are taking their holidays with a British company, so that the money comes back to the UK one way or the other.
There are other unusual holidays. One involves visiting different castles by bicycle or canal boat. Warwick is one of the best castles to visit, and it is in the private sector. It has been imaginatively and tastefully developed. One can also take holidays in hotels in the form of mystery weekends, at which one has to determine who is the murderer in a scenario in which Hercule Poirot appears. That is uniquely British.
My own patch is the city of Lichfield. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) said that he was a successor to the first Member of Parliament for Scarborough, who was elected in 1295. When my hon. Friend said that, I rushed off to the Library and discovered that I pre-date my hon. Friend not just in my birthday but in the sense that the first Member of Parliament for Lichfield attended at Oxford on 15 November 1213 to meet there in Parliament. Unfortunately, the Library was unable to tell me his name. However, the first recorded Members of Parliament for Lichfield sat in the Parliament of 1304. They were Vincentius de Hulton and Nicholaus Clericus. I suppose that with a name like Fabricant, which I never pronounce with a French accent, I follow that Norman style. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough follows Robertus le Covoner and Johannes Hamund, who are linked in many ways with the name Sykes.
Lichfield cathedral is 800 years old and attracts many visitors. In the near vicinity there are Alton Towers and The Belfry, where the Ryder Cup was recently staged. Lichfield also recently held folk and jazz festivals and will shortly stage the Lichfield arts festival. It is interesting that many able people were born in Lichfield but subsequently left. I live in the home of Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin, and the actor David Garrick was born in Lichfield. Ashmol, founder of the Ashmolean museum in Oxford, was also born in Lichfield, and Dr. Johnson was
514
born and educated there. Even you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, visited Lichfield to chair or address a mock Parliament in our ancient Guildhall, for which I thank you. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will visit Lichfield tomorrow and I look forward to that event, as do the people of Lichfield, with great interest and excitement. The annual Bower festival in Lichfield dates back to the 13th century. Morris dancers and the Member of Parliament, sheriff and mayor of Lichfield all take part. Interesting people come along: I hope that some day the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will take part in this exciting event.
Britain offers overseas visitors a gamut of activities and places. It is sad that while certain parts of the United Kingdom are sinking under the weight of those visitors, others are not often visited. It is also sad that certain unusual holidays do not attract overseas visitors; they need to be promoted more. I believe that investment by the United Kingdom in overseas promotion of British activities—together with private investment—is well worth while. I hope that universities will take up the challenge that I have offered and research further into the moneys that investment in tourism could return to our economy.
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. lain Sproat): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on securing the debate and choosing its subject: the House is in his debt. He gave us a marvellously sweeping and comprehensive view of many of the activities for which the Department of National Heritage is responsible and, in doing so, made an extremely important point about the Department as a whole.
Most of the debate has concerned tourism, quite rightly. I believe that, before the Department was set up after the last general election, we had had no debates on tourism for four or five years; yet, within the time of the current Parliament, I have taken part in two major tourism debates. The other day, we had an important debate on the arts in which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) took part, and my predecessor participated in another debate on tourism. I think that the establishment of the Department of National Heritage has focused the minds of hon. Members and Governments, and I hope that it has had the same effect on the leisure industry, particularly tourism. For that alone, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) properly conveyed the apologies of her hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for his absence. I should put on record that I appreciated his courtesy in telling me that he would not be here. We value his contributions to tourism and sport debates very much, not least in his capacity as a former boxing champion; we miss the advice that he would have given today, although we greatly envy his being in the United States to watch the world cup. I know that he wanted to attend an Adjournment debate the other night and normally he attends such debates assiduously. I should add that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks)—also an assiduous attender of tourism debates—is abroad on parliamentary business. We miss the contribution that he, too, would have made.

515
Near the beginning of his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon used a very good phrase: he said that we had become "an earplug society". I took him to mean that we listen too much to Sony Walkman personal stereos, as well as watching too much television and too many videos. Far be it from any Government to say how much time people should spend watching television and videos, but it is extremely important that our children should not spend so much time watching television and videos and playing computer games that they do not take proper physical exercise or play enough sport. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon said, one of the things that I am most keen to do is to ensure that children have proper opportunities to play sport, especially team games in school. My Department and the Department for Education are in the process of producing a joint report on what we should do to increase sport in schools. Sir Ron Dearing has produced his report and we are looking forward to hearing people's comments on it by the end of next month.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon mentioned the future of the British Broadcasting Corporation and paid it some well-deserved compliments. The hon. Member for Redcar also mentioned the BBC. All hon. Members will know that a White Paper on the BBC will be produced shortly and until that moment comes I shall let the matter rest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon launched a gentle attack—as attacks go in this place—on the arm's-length principle as it applies to the Arts Council. Of course, I take his point that Ministers often get the blame for decisions that are taken by the Arts Council. My hon. Friend mentioned the case of the London orchestras last year. Although there may be occasions when, had I been taking the decision, it would have been different from that of the Arts Council, it is common ground among hon. Members of all parties that, on balance, we should continue to adhere to the arm's-length principle and that, although from time to time the Arts Council, the regional arts boards, the sports councils and others make decisions with which we do not agree, the principle is worth sticking by.
My hon. Friend then moved on to the national lottery. As he rightly said, it will revolutionise the way in which we consider many projects that will be funded by the lottery. A number of hon. Members said that tourism will not be directly eligible for lottery funds, but tourism receives a substantial indirect benefit from the five areas that will directly benefit from the national lottery—sport, the arts, charities, the built heritage and the millennium fund. I hope that those involved in tourism will get together with others and apply for lottery funds. Clearly, the built heritage is at the heart of what is attractive about this country. I hope that those involved in the tourist industry will get together with others and come up with projects that will improve our built heritage, which will in turn attract more tourists to any given area.
It is worth making another point about the lottery. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon said that he was concerned about the relationship between capital spending and revenue spending from lottery funding. He was right to make that point. In the past few months, I have gone round every sports region in this country. At every meeting, the issue that people were most concerned about was the relationship between capital and revenue funding. Although sports projects would, rightly, be eligible for lottery funding, the people to whom I talked were afraid that, because it was all capital spending, we would find
516
ourselves building, let us say, a load of new leisure centres with no money to pay people to run them or for maintenance and repairs. One statistic that I picked up somewhere along the regional sports trail was that it cost £200 an hour to keep an ice rink frozen. That is serious money. It is no use putting up the capital spending to build the ice rink and then not having the revenue cash to deal with it.
I am glad that as a result of many of the representations to me and to other Ministers, we have now issued directions whereby it is possible, when a capital project is to be funded by the lottery, to make arrangements whereby revenue funding will follow it. There cannot be revenue funding for a project if there is no capital funding. In the case of the leisure centre, which I gave an instance of a moment ago, there can be revenue funding either by way of an endowment trust or by way of direct funding from, let us say, the Sports Council. That is a very happy compromise and I am glad that we have reached it. It may turn out that that is wrong; it could be wrong either way. We may find that the lottery money is silting up too much and that we shall wish to go back to more capital funding. I do not think so, but it may happen. In one, two or three years' time, we will look at the matter. We will keep an open mind on the subject. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon feels that the important central point that he raised has been dealt with satisfactorily, as appears to be the case for the moment—at least until we have more experience to look at.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon also mentioned the film industry. Nobody could have done more over the past months than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take advice on what should be done about the film industry. My right hon. Friend has seen representatives from almost every possible branch of the industry. He is considering what to do—whether there is more Government help that could be given or not. He will make his announcement shortly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon mentioned sporting scholarships; that is a very important point. Sporting scholarships would not, of course, be eligible for lottery funding directly, for the reasons that I have just given. However, I undertake to look carefully at what my hon. Friend has said. It may be that before the summer recess, I shall have the chance to make an announcement about what we intend to do about the Sports Councils. I certainly very much hope that we shall be able to do that by the summer recess. My hon. Friend may then be able to put his question to me in that context.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon also made the point about the inflation-linking of the level above which the Sports Councils have to come to my Department to ask permission to spend money. I will look at that point; I am not entirely convinced. The recent reports by the National Audit Office and others have made me look extremely cautiously at the way in which the Sports Councils and other bodies spend money. I undertake to look at that point. As I said, I hope that the Sports Councils announcement will be made before the summer recess.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon then passed on to an important section of his speech—the section on tourism. I do not think that any hon. Member these days needs to be reminded of the importance of that industry. I was very struck by the fact that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) said that she would not run through all the statistics again about the industry involving 1.5

517
million people and having a turnover of £30 billion. We all understand why. It is significant that only two or three years ago, she would not have said that. It is because, quite rightly, we have had so much concentration on tourism that people know the statistics. Certainly five or 10 years ago, those statistics would not have been at the top of everyone's mind. That is a tribute, I hope, to what the Department of National Heritage, among others, has done to explain the importance of tourism as a major industry in this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) referred to my being an industry Minister and he was absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) suggested that we might put the section on tourism at the front of our annual report in future. That is a very good idea and I see no reason why it should not be done. It is certainly true that for the first time ever we have a Department—the Department of National Heritage—in which tourism is the single most important economic element. I am acutely conscious of that. The fact that tourism has played such an important part in today's debate shows that the House is very conscious of that fact. I am also acutely conscious of the fact that the hon. Member for Newham North-West (Mr. Banks) has an important motion on which he would like to speak. I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House, but this has been such a wide-ranging and valuable debate that I could certainly take up all of the time available.
Mr. Simon Coombs: My hon. Friend has covered my points in great detail. He has missed only one, and I should like to give him the chance to respond to it. I raised the matter of the private sector and its relationship with the various funding bodies under the lottery in relation to sport and heritage. Will he clarify the position of the private sector in respect of its entitlement to lottery proceeds for joint funding?
Mr. Sproat: I shall do my best to clarify it. I say "do my best" not out of false modesty, but because it is a grey area. As I understand it, the National Heritage Memorial Fund is prevented by primary legislation from giving money to private sector organisations. For instance, if one owned a stately home or a pier—Hastings pier was an example which I looked at the other day have—one would have to turn oneself into a charity before being eligible for certain sectors of money. That is certainly true of any funds that somebody applied for from the National Heritage Memorial Fund.
In other areas, such as sport, it is a question of what the royal charter of the Sports Council allows it to do. As I understand it, the Sports Council is of the opinion that its charter may allow it to give money to partnerships that include private sector profit-making bodies. That will be something for the Sports Council to go over again with its lawyers, no doubt before the first applications come forward. That is also the case for the Arts Council, and so on.
It is a very important point. We want a proper partnership with bodies that have applied for the national lottery funds, and those may be local authorities, organisations with private sector involvement, charities or whatever. The key question is—is the lottery money going
518
to be used for the "public good"? Clearly those are words which can be defined in a number of ways, but basically that is the key element. I very much hope that, certainly as far as sport is concerned, it will prove that we can look at private sector bids as part of a partnership. My hon. Friend mentioned the David Lloyd tennis centre, but I cannot not tell him off the top of my head whether that body is eligible or not.
My hon. Friend has makes an important point, and it is a grey area which the bodies will be looking at in the coming months. If we find that they are prevented from involving the private sector bodies in partnership, we will look again at the legislation and see whether it ought to be changed. I am not saying that it should be changed, but we will look at it.
Had I more time, I would have spoken more on the position of the English tourist board and the British Tourist Authority. As we do not have as much time as we would have liked, I shall just say that it has made a terrific difference having Adele Biss as chairman of the English tourist board. The managing directors, as it were, are John East and, at the BTA, Anthony Sell. I feel that they are injecting a new sense of dynamism into those organisations. They have been looking at everything. For instance, Anthony Sell has just completed a tour of all of the BTA stations around the world. He is getting the bureaucracy squeezed out of the centre and directing it to the outposts for promoting this country abroad, and I congratulate him on that.
At this stage, I shall pick up on what the hon. Member for Redcar and one or two other hon. Members said about D-day. Of course, the tourism aspect of the D-day memorial was extremely important and the hon. Lady will be pleased to know that it was not only important, but successful. We gave more money to the BTA office in New York, which is now run by its dynamic new chief, Mr. Jeff Hamblin, and he was specifically set the task of getting as many visitors as possible from North America over here to participate in our joint activities to commemorate the 50th anniversary of D-day. According to the initial information from the BTA, its efforts were extremely successful. I cannot give full weight to the figure given, but it is estimated that more than 100,000 extra visitors from North America came over to share in our commemoration of D-day. That is what we wanted to achieve.
We look forward to next year's commemoration of the end of the second world war and we should be grateful to receive any advice about that which hon. Members may wish to give us. I should also pay tribute to Lowe Bell for its efforts in getting those extra tourists over here. It did a marvellous job in raising public awareness of D-day and increased the number of events for tourists from just a couple of hundred to more than a thousand. It was marvellously professional and I congratulate it and thank it for the role that it played.
I am aware, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) said, that the headquarters of the British Resorts Association is in his constituency, because I had the pleasure of meeting its representatives in Aberdeen on Friday. I am extremely impressed with its work. I hope that it will be possible to hold regular meetings with it and other organisations, because one of the problems of being a Minister is that people only come to the Department when they have a problem. One does not know about the genuine, normal background work. It is just the same for us as hon. Members, often we only see

519
people at our surgeries when they have some terrible problem. I should be glad to fix up regular meetings between the British Resorts Association and myself so that it can update me on how things are going in its part of the industry. That will give me a context within which to make my judgments as to what more should be done to encourage tourism in this country.
I noted what my hon. Friend said about the allowance for day visitors in the standard spending assessment. My Department was extremely keen to pursue that issue and I am grateful to my ministerial colleagues for doing so. That demonstrates how tourism is only just beginning to be taken more seriously than it used to be in Government. It is another example of the benefits of having a Department such as the Department of National Heritage.
My hon. Friend also mentioned DSS hostels and hotels. I should like to pay great tribute to the work done by my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) and for Blackpool, North. Without their detailed research, it would have been difficult to convince my ministerial colleagues of the seriousness of the problem.
On the question of the European regional development fund, assisted area status and similar funding, it is true that tourism has not always benefited from those funds. The idea still exists that unless a job is in the manufacturing sector it is not a proper job. That is rubbish, because jobs in tourism are as important as those in any other sector. We must be absolutely sure that those who make decisions on how to deploy moneys from the ERDF, assisted area status funds or single regeneration budgets understand the importance of tourism, as well as that of manufacturing industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough made a powerful contribution to the debate. He mentioned the difficulties that he has encountered about the dualling of the A64. I will draw that matter to the attention to my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister was travelling on the A64 over Whitsun, so perhaps he will not need too much persuading. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough is tight to emphasise the great importance of proper communications.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North emphasised the importance of tourism, which is important not just in this country; it is estimated that it will be the largest industry in the world by the year 2000. He also mentioned the vexed question of VAT on hotel accommodation. I know from my travels round the tourist regions of the strength of feeling on that matter. We and the British Tourist Authority take seriously the points that have been raised about VAT on hotel accommodation. The association has, therefore, hired the consultants Touche Ross to look into the matter and make comparisons, because the matter is not as simple as it looks. The French charge 6 per cent. VAT on hotel accommodation while the Danes charge 25 per cent. and we charge 17.5 per cent. While we do not pay VAT on food, other countries do. It is a complex balance to make, but it should and will be made. I look forward to receiving the advice of Touche Ross in due course.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West talked about the sewage outfall walk in his constituency. I take that seriously. Tourism is not just the Tower of London and the Victoria and Albert museum, or even the Lake district or highlands of Scotland. I welcome anything that adds to the variety of this country's tourism product. I, too, noticed the sign on the GLC building. Indeed, a policeman in the
520
House sharply pointed it out to me and said what a disgrace it was. I cannot say that it is a disgrace because I do not know who is responsible for it, but I will find out whether I have a locus to say that it is an unsightly addition to an important listed building.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have no locus to say how the Football Association should deal with the allocation of world cup tickets, so long as it keeps within the law. If members of the FA have not heard the hon. Gentleman's speech, I am sure that he will draw it to their attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) made some important points. I heard what he said about the Foundation for Sport and the Arts' contribution to table tennis in Basildon and I shall draw it to the attention of the excellent secretary-general of the FSA, Mr. Grattan-Endicott.
A number of hon. Members mentioned listed sporting events. That is one of the most important points which the Select Committee on National Heritage made to me the other day. It is a difficult balance to strike. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Redcar about the cement that keeps society together. I look forward to considering that point when the Select Committee on National Heritage report is placed before me.
With those few words, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon once again for giving us the chance to discuss this important subject.
2.13 pm
Mr. Simon Coombs: With the leave of the House, I shall briefly summarise the debate.
I am grateful for the support that I have received from a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Although the debate was supposed to be on leisure, it has concentrated increasingly on tourism. That is right and good. I have long been an advocate of the House's showing more interest in tourism. That interest has been amply demonstrated by today's debate. I particularly agreed with those hon. Members who said that as the importance of tourism grows, it becomes much more important that we consider its management in terms of protecting the environment—both the countryside and our historic towns and cities. The Department's predecessor commissioned a report on the environment and tourism a few years ago, which I commend to my hon. Friend the Minister.
The debate has touched on problems with cable. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) had no sooner made his speech than he rushed off to Basildon to deal with more of his constituents' problems. I can tell him, however, that help is at hand and efforts will be made to overcome the problem that he described.
In an excellent contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) pointed out that people in the United States watch more television than we do. The answer to that riddle is simple: their football games last three times longer than ours.
I question whether the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) has read the annual report of the Department of National Heritage.
Ms Mowlam indicated assent.
Mr. Coombs: When reading that report, as I have, one is amazed by the sheer volume of activity that a mere two Ministers of the Crown, with one spokesman in the House

521
of Lords, are able to get through. I commend my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the tremendous energy that he and the Secretary of State have shown in the past two years in covering that complex and important subject. There are signs not so much of drift but of tremendous activity in all directions.
I am delighted that so many of my hon. Friends have spoken up on behalf of their constituencies; that is what these debates tend to degenerate into, and they do it so well that it would be a shame to stop them. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the fact that he concentrated on the arguments that I made in the debate and was very helpful about several issues. However, I commend to him the importance of considering the heritage and the way that private owners within heritage can be helped in the future.
I want England, Britain and the United Kingdom to be successful in sport and in other respects. I want us to win cricket matches. I want us to win football matches. I want us to win athletics gold medals. I want Jeremy Bates to win Wimbledon. I want a great deal. I am hungry for more success for the United Kingdom in sport and other aspects of leisure. I want the British to be an active, healthy and happy nation, and I hope that, in a small way, this debate has helped to make that dream a reality.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Department of National Heritage on its first two years; recognises its contribution to the development of leisure in the United Kingdom; calls for a continuing debate on the purposes for which the proceeds of the National Lottery should be used; and expresses the hope that, in future, encouragement will thereby be given to the promotion of more active leisure pursuits.

Reform of Parliament
2.15 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move,
That this House notes the declining importance of Parliament in the nation's affairs as power moves from national governments to the institutions of the European Union; and calls for a reduction in the number of honourable Members of Parliament, the construction of a new Parliamentary building, the uninterrupted televising of proceedings, the election of a second chamber by regional proportional representation, the determination of the electoral system for the Commons following a referendum, the provision of adequate chamber facilities for honourable Members, and for pm-legislative scrutiny and reinforcement of the Select Committee system.
I express my gratitude to the business managers for allowing us to reach motion No. 2 so that I can say a few words.
On Monday this week, when the Liberal Democrats had a motion down about changing parliamentary procedures, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) spoke about the public contempt for Parliament. In my opinion, he was absolutely wrong: there is no public contempt for Parliament. If there is contempt—and one would accept that there is—it is contempt for politicians.
Many people would say that politicians rank only slightly above journalists and cockroaches in public esteem. I have always thought that that was a little unkind to cockroaches because they are perfectly evolved creatures, which is more than I can say for many Members of Parliament. They would survive a nuclear holocaust, which, fortunately, no Member of Parliament would.
That shows that our standing in the eyes of the electorate is fairly low. There is a worrying degree of mutual contempt; that is what I sense—mutual contempt. If a Government who were elected on a minority of votes push hard with deeply unpopular legislation without regard for public opinion, the electorate get the feeling that the politicians and—although I shall not particularise—the Government do not give a damn about their feelings. If we continue to ignore the wishes of the electorate, obviously we prove them right in that respect. Mutual contempt is therefore created.
We perhaps feel—when I say, "we", I mean all hon. Members—that we can get away with things that are unpopular. That is a way of treating the electorate with contempt, and the electorate simply think that politicians are self-seeking and do not pay very much attention to the wishes and needs of their constituents. In both cases, that is a slightly unfair analysis, but we all sense those feelings that people have about us.
Recently there has rightly been an upsurge in parliamentary navel-gazing. I mentioned the debate that we had at the beginning of the week. On Monday, we shall debate the Select Committee system. We are still waiting to debate the Jopling report in any meaningful and executive measure, although I suspect and trust that we shall do so shortly. I think that it is right that we should examine this institution very critically.
I am pleased to say that in recent years my party, the Labour party, has proposed, through conference resolutions, a range of constitutional changes that the next Labour Government will implement: a Bill of Rights; a second Chamber elected by regional list and proportional representation; the election of British Members of the European Parliament in a similar way; the restoration of

523
independent local government; the scrutiny by Parliament of the prerogative powers of the Executive; and fixed-term Parliaments, which I think are very significant indeed.
The Prime Minister of the day has far too much power to decide when the election will be called. Clearly, a Prime Minister will not choose a time that is inconvenient or embarrassing to his party. It is difficult to see the present Prime Minister finding any window of opportunity between now and 1997—I am sure that he will go all the way to the wire. If we had fixed-term Parliaments as other countries do, it would give a degree of certainty. If Governments start manoeuvring and creating economic booms, we cannot stop them, but the electorate will know what it is all about. The Labour party will be considering Lord Plant's report on proportional representation systems. It is right that we should do so.
Changes are coming whether we like it or not, mainly because of the European dimension. Powers are moving away from this place and from all national Parliaments, as they move towards the institutions of the European Union. There are hon. Members in all parties who find that disagreeable. They believe that the disappearance of parliamentary sovereignty and powers into the institutions of Brussels marks a retrograde step. I do not believe that. I shall not go too deeply into the subject, but I believe in a federal Europe. I have no fears about national sovereignty disappearing into the greater good or the nation state moving away and disappearing as states evolve and we move towards a federal European state. That seems to be natural and I welcome it.
We cannot stand around in this place whingeing about the changes and the way that they affect us; we must try to respond to them. The European Parliament will clearly obtain more powers—Maastricht guaranteed that. The intergovernmental conference in 1996 will undoubtedly move the process forward. It is important that we work within those movements and try to ensure that the European Parliament obtains more power so that it can hold the institutions of the European Union to greater account. We need to democratise those institutions. It is no good whingeing; we must respond to the changes.
We have a thin legislative programme and we can already see how we are making work for ourselves in this place to fill up the available time, which is depressing. We are looking at the possibility of the summer recess starting in the middle of next month and continuing until October. If this place is meant to hold the Executive to account, it cannot do so with a 14 or 15-week summer recess. We should consider ways of phasing the recesses throughout the year so that if it is true that we hold the Executive to account in this place—which I doubt—we can make more of a fist of it by questioning Ministers regularly and not letting them off the hook for an enormously long period in the summer.
I think that we all accept that we work ridiculous hours in this place. The hours and the manner of our work destroy individuals' health and personal relationships. I shall not go too deeply into the issue of the hours we work as the Jopling report is considering that subject. I am sure that we shall have an opportunity before the recess to debate that issue, and, more important, to vote on the report's recommendations.
I mentioned the fact that the Labour party will be considering the Plant report. To his eternal credit, John Smith said that the Labour Government would have a referendum on a change of system if one is proposed,
524
which I suspect it will be. I can see how things are working. It would be better for a proposal to change our electoral system to come from one of the major parties—the Labour party or the Conservative party—than for it to come from the Liberal Democrats, who could be seen to be self-seeking in wanting to change the system. I want our electoral system to reflect the needs and wishes of the electorate. I do not think that the way our system works at the moment has that effect.
If we changed to a system of proportional representation, we could reduce the numbers of Members of Parliament. There are far too many of them, although that might be hard to believe looking around the Benches today. There are 651 and their work loads differ enormously. I know that there are Stakhanovites on both sides of the House; the same people always seem to be around. But if the United States, with a population of 240 million, can get away with a Congress of 535, I should have thought that we, with a much smaller population, could get away with far fewer Members of Parliament.
As the Government are reducing their functions these days by privatising everything, perhaps it is time they started to reduce the number of Ministers too. I note that one group never mooted for privatisation are the Government themselves. They might get some support from us if they proposed to privatise themselves.
If we reduced the numbers of Members of Parliament, we could improve the facilities for them. I am not looking for jacuzzis and sun beds, but we could at least have allocated places in this Chamber. The layout of the Chamber derives from the fact that, in 1547, Edward VI gifted his chapel to the Commons—and we are left with this ridiculous choir stall arrangement and no facilities.
Mr. Denis MacShane: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that the hemicycle shape of most European legislatures leads to rhetorical interventions by Ministers and none of the give and take that I have enjoyed in my four or five weeks here.
I have worked for the BBC and for a trade union, both extremely parsimonious institutions; but now I come here to find that there are no facilities and no secretarial help. There are free paper clips and there is free stationery. The meanest pizza delivery boy has a fax and a mobile phone, but we have nothing. I want to do a job for Rotherham, and I should like to have the facilities with which to do it.
Mr. Banks: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) I hope that he has discovered the Fees Office by now. The best bit of advice one can give a new Member is to tell him the way to the Fees Office. We do get secretarial allowances, so people outside tend not to sympathise with us much. But it is difficult to run a constituency office and a Westminster office, as I do, on the £41,000 that we receive—it is clearly not enough. Last year, and the year before that, I had to give the Fees Office a cheque at the end of the year—last year for £7,000 or £8,000—because I had gone over my budget. I had stopped claiming money, because there was none left by November in a financial year that goes through to March. We do not have enough resources to do our jobs properly.
This is a strange place to work in, because no account is taken of our differing work loads. In my constituency, I get problems by the skip load, yet I have exactly the same facilities as does a Member of Parliament who may receive

525
a few dozen letters a week and whose main problem is deciding which garden fete to open on Saturday. Would that I had those sorts of problems!
The answer lies entirely in our own hands. We are in the strange position of being our own bosses—although we seem to have lots of other bosses who are always telling us what to do and what we have done wrong, and how they would do it differently. Every pub contains an alternative Government. It is one of the great tragedies of this life: if only all those taxi drivers and hairdressers would turn to politics, the country might be far better run.
As I say, we could deal with the matter ourselves, but we have consistently failed to do so. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham will add his voice to those arguing, not for luxury for hon. Members, but for decent facilities so that they can do a better constituency job.
I think that the layout of this Chamber should be changed. No great history attaches to it, after all; it only dates from 1951. We could turn it into a hemicycle. If we did not want to do that, we could certainly have allocated desks if, as I have suggested, we reduced the number of hon. Members, and that would enable us to have electronic voting. Why do we have to go through the absurdity of continually breaking off to go into the Division Lobby? I do not want to see all the traditions of this place thrown away, but we must not allow ourselves to be imprisoned by our past.
The Chamber is confrontational. If we took 650 people from the telephone directory and stuck them in this place they would behave in exactly the same way as hon. Members behave at Prime Minister's Question Time. In many respects, the Chamber is like a football pitch with banks of supporters on each side looking down to the pitch, each group cheering on its own side even when it is playing rubbish. That is precisely what it is all about—and unfortunately too many people view Prime Minister's Question Time as the be all and end all of parliamentary activity, which it is not.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day
  Private Members' Bills

    ABOLITION OF SERVICE CHARGES IN RESTAURANTS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): No day named.

    INSOLVENCY (No. 3) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    WATER (DOMESTIC DISCONNECTIONS) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [25 February].
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate further adjourned till Friday 1 July.

    WITHDRAWAL OF MEDICAL TREATMENT BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    HORSES (PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR FOR YOUNG RIDERS) (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July.

    FREEDOM TO ROAM (ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    SALE AND SUPPLY OF GOODS BILL
    Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered, read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

    TELEVISION LICENCES (REDUCTION FOR POOR RECEPTION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    MARRIAGE BILL
    Read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That—

  (1) at the sitting on Monday 27th June, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House), the Motion for the Adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister shall lapse at Seven o'clock; and

  (2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall—

  (a) at the sitting on Tuesday 28th June, put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to the draft Ports (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 and the draft Ports (Northern Ireland Consequential Provisions) Order 1994 not later than three hours after the first such Motion has been entered upon or half-past Eleven o'clock, whichever is the earlier; and

  (b) at the sitting on Thursday 30th June, put the Question on

  (i) the Motion in the name of Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1994 not later than one and a half hours after it has been entered upon;

  (ii) the Motion in the name of Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to the draft Civil Service (Management Functions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 not later than one and a half hours after it has been entered upon; and

  (iii) the Motion in the name of Mrs. Gillian Shephard relating to the draft Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 not later than one and a half hours after it has been entered upon;

  and the said Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

  Gatwick Airport (Second Runway)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  2.31 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: The last time that I moved an Adjournment debate was more than 20 years ago, so no one could claim that I am abusing this parliamentary procedure. Hon. Members should use Adjournment debates to bring to a wider audience a matter that particularly affects their constituents and about which their constituents are concerned. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London is to reply to the debate. He was my Parliamentary Private Secretary for a number of years and we are good friends. [Interruption.] He was an excellent PPS, not just very good, and he has been an excellent Minister, one of the Government's most robust defenders on the Front Bench. I wish him well in the forthcoming shuffle.[Interruption.] The fact that a Whip is cheering means nothing.
  The possibility of a second runway at Gatwick has occasioned more concern in my constituency than any matter that I can recall. I have had thousands of letters on the matter, and that is exceptional for any hon. Member. There have been huge public meetings at which hundreds of people have turned up not only in Surrey but in Sussex. The councils involved, including my own, Mole Valley district council, which is co-ordinating the campaign by district councils against the runway, and Surrey county council, have also strongly opposed it. The Gatwick area conservation campaign, which is being brilliantly led by Brendon Sewell, has co-ordinated much of the local opposition.
  The possibility of a second runway derives from the RUCATSE—standing for runway capacity in the south-east—report, which examined airport capacity in the first 20 years of the next century in south-east England and London. For two reasons, I was appalled to find in that report that Gatwick was even considered as a possibility for expansion. First, in 1981, the inspector at the second terminal inquiry at Gatwick said:
  "There is no prospect of a second runway at Gatwick and it would plainly be an environmental disaster to create one."
  Following that view of the inspector, the Government issued an airports policies White Paper in 1985. I was then Secretary of State for the Environment, so I remember the discussions on it in the Cabinet. In that document, the Government set out their policy. It said:
  "The Government believes that the provision of a second runway at Gatwick would have unacceptable environmental implications."
  That is Government policy. It has not been changed, it has not been modified, it has not been trimmed, it has not been qualified and it has not been altered in any way. It is still Government policy and I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will reaffirm that this afternoon.
  Secondly, I was appalled because there is a legal agreement between the British Airports Authority and Sussex county council, which was entered into when planning permission was given for the second terminal at Gatwick. That agreement precludes starting construction on a runway before 2019. I went to see Sir John Egan, the chairman of the British Airports Authority, and his authority sent me a letter, which said:
  "So far as Gatwick is concerned, as you know, BAA has signed an agreement with the Local Authorities under which we have

  529
  agreed not to construct an additional runway at the Airport for 40 years. That agreement runs until 2019, and we consider ourselves bound by it."
  That is a very clear, absolutely categorical statement. The British Airports Authority considers that that legal agreement is totally binding. Therefore, if a Government of any complexion decided to go ahead with a second runway, they would have to bring in primary legislation to set aside that legal agreement, which, I must say to the House, would be unthinkable and could not be carried.
  I entirely accept that air transport is very important to the British economy, and that we should be very proud of the fact that Heathrow is the largest and busiest international airport in the world. It brings a great deal of wealth and prosperity to our country, although 30 per cent. of the passengers at Heathrow do not come to stay in London but are transiting to other places. It is a major centre of movement and transfer in air travel, and we do not want to lose that.
  I also entirely accept that there will be more air travel over the years to come. More people are wanting to travel —there is some doubt about the figures, but that increase is inevitable. How will that be accommodated? Heathrow will certainly have to expand to at least 80 million passengers a year and that is on the cards. Gatwick will have to expand from its present 20 or 21 million passengers to about 30 to 35 million and I have no objection to that. There will be expansion in the existing framework of the airport, a better use of runways and more night flights and I am reluctantly prepared to accept all of that.
  At the same time, regional airports will expand. Manchester is an enormous success as an international airport. In the second city in France, Lyon, the airport is tiny and provincial. Manchester is a major international airport with flights going out to all over the world and it is something of which we can be proud. There is shortly to be a second terminal there, as I understand, which will enhance its position. There are other regional airports such as the East Midlands airport, Leeds-Bradford and Newcastle. In fact, since the publication of the RUCATSE report, East Midlands airport has come forward to say that it would like to handle more passengers. All those developments will ease the pressure on the London conurbation as a centre of air travel and that is very important. At the same time, there should be a better use of the existing runways and a greater use of night flights.
  What is the proposal to which I am objecting? It is simply that I feel that a second runway should not be built at Gatwick. It would expand the passenger throughput at Gatwick—currently 20 million passengers a year—to 80 million a year. That is a four times increase. Down in Surrey and north Sussex, there would be an airport broadly twice the size of Heathrow. One knows the enormous spread of Heathrow. A great airport such as that involves not only runways but hotels, warehousing, car parking facilities and all the network of commercial activities which take place around it. A quadrupling of size is an enormous change. It would mean a huge industrial and commercial complex, mainly in my constituency, but spreading into the whole of Surrey and Sussex.
  RUCATSE said that an airport was needed in the south-east by the year 2010. Now that the figures have been refined, that date looks like extending to 2020 or 2025, which is important in itself. The case against Gatwick is
  530
  that such an enormous industrial and commercial undertaking would affect an area of considerable environmental beauty.
  The whole area covered by the proposal in Surrey and north Sussex is in my backyard. People may say that that is why I am pursuing the matter but if one does not look after one's own back yard, no one else will. Also, the back yard that I am looking after comprises the whole of the southern part of Surrey and the northern part of Sussex —some back, some yard. It is a major and beautiful part of the country. Nearly all of it is green belt, and much of it is occupied by areas of outstanding natural beauty. Some areas contain acres and acres of ancient woodlands that date back to the middle ages, which would have to be destroyed—a proposal to which the Woodland Trust is objecting.
  The proposed development would also destroy the villages of Charlwood and Hookwood. Charlwood is a particularly beautiful mediaeval village. It has a real sense of community with a village school, shops, two or three pubs and a cricket team. It is a recognisable living community with a great community feel. That would go. How can one live between two runways when one cannot get to the village?
  Hookwood would also go. Charlwood and Hookwood have 55 listed buildings, one of which is a Norman church having the oldest wall painting—it dates from the 13th century—in the country. It is older than any English picture in the national gallery. It would cease to be the active, vibrant church that it is today, and would become an empty, derelict stump. The other villages under the flight path that would go would be Newdigate, Oakwood Hill, Capel and Beare Green. Life would be unbearable in them all.
  When one reads the list of villages that would be affected, it is rather like the herald describing the casualties to Henry V after Agincourt—Charlwood, Hookwood, Newdigate, Ockley, Oakwood Hill, Capel and Beare Green. The list has a ring of destruction and despair, and the destruction of those villages must not happen.
  The other environmental argument is that an airport capable of transporting 80 million passengers a year will generate an enormous volume of road traffic. RUCATSE acknowledges that new roads would have to be built. The main existing road is the M23, which feeds in to the M25 and continues to Brighton. It is currently a three-lane, four-lane motorway—but would have to become a 14-lane motorway. The M25 is currently a three-lane motorway going to a four-lane motorway—eight lanes in width. The level of traffic generated by a huge industrial and commercial complex would require much wider motorways.
  If any Government were to approve a second runway at Gatwick, the M25 would have to be widened to 14 lanes around its entire perimeter. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, that move would be strongly opposed by all the relevant councils and by Members of Parliament whose constituencies would be affected. An airport twice as large as Heathrow in the south of England would attract passengers from the midlands and the north. They would have to make long journeys there. Some would fly down, while others would take trains or travel by car. A great volume of traffic movement would result, which is a powerful argument against a second runway at Gatwick.
  It does not end there. If the M23 were widened to 14 lanes to end at Coulsdon near its junction with the M25, it

  531
  is impossible to think that that would be satisfactory for traffic from central London. It takes about an hour to travel from central London to the M25 at Coulsdon, and trying to avoid Croydon makes it a miserable journey through a series of suburban roads. Given the amount of traffic that a huge airport would generate, it is unthinkable that the development would be possible without a motorway such as the M4—which goes out to Heathrow—starting much closer to the centre of London.
  There is another environmental snag. The development would not take place in a beautiful flat area; there is a hill in the way, called Stan Hill. For flying to be made safe, a cutting nine times the size of the cutting at Twyford Down would need to be driven through the hill—and it is doubtful whether flying would be safe even then. My hon. Friend the Minister knows all about Twyford Down: he bears some of the scars. This particular environmental scar would be unacceptable.
  For all those environmental reasons, a second runway at Gatwick is a very bad idea. Help is at hand, however. Unusually, it comes from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has issued regional planning guidance for the south-east of England. In his guidance to inspectors on the sort of planning needed in the south-east, issued about two months ago, he states explicitly that any major economic development should take place in the north and east of London rather than the south and west, which constitute the most congested part of the country. According to the guidance,
  "In the western counties of the South East"—
  Sussex, Hampshire, Surrey, Berkshire, Oxfordshire and south Buckinghamshire—
  "while having regard to the needs of the market, and taking account of the changes to the structure of the local economy since the late 1980s"—
  this is the key phrase—
  "a reducing rate of economic and housing development is appropriate."
  A sentence or two later, the Secretary of State says:
  "At Crawley/Gatwick, despite infrastructure and services improvements to cope with recent rapid growth, constraints on development, and policy constraints in adjoining areas, make regionally significant expansion undesirable."
  That is the clearest and most explicit statement of Government policy for the relevant part of the south-east of England. Unless the Government tear up that guidance and forget it, it is unthinkable that they could possibly consider a runway at Gatwick, given the phrase
  "policy constraints in adjoining areas, make regionally significant expansion undesirable."
  I would go further: on environmental and aviation grounds, Gatwick is the least attractive of the three main options.
  What, then, should the Government do? They can be helpful. I am sure that they want to be helpful for all sorts of reasons—not just to me, but to a wider body of opinion in the south-east. First, they should accept that building another runway in the south-east is politically and environmentally unacceptable until Stansted and Luton airports are full. Stansted carries just 2 million passengers, although it can take 20 million; it should be full before any consideration takes place. Luton—a much smaller airport than Stansted, but much more reliably managed—carries about 3 million passengers; it, too, could take more. A determined effort must be made to expand the airports before another runway is considered.
  Secondly, the Government should accept that there is no need for a runway before the 2025. Thirdly, they should develop the regional airports more vigorously. Fourthly,
  532
  they should reaffirm their Gatwick legal agreement. Fifthly —this is not really my hon. Friend's responsibility, but I hope that he will consider it—the Government should announce more generous compensation terms when a site is chosen. Many of my constituents now have difficulty in selling their houses, because they are suffering from blight. When my hon. Friends consider the various representations on the different sites, I hope that they will rapidly come to the conclusion that it is not sensible and would be highly damaging and disastrous to have a second runway at Gatwick.
  2.49 pm
  Sir George Gardiner: It is with great pleasure that I intervene in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). I do so to make it clear that he speaks not merely for his constituents, whose communities will be torn apart by a second runway at Gatwick, but for hundreds of thousands of people living for miles around.
  My constituents in Horley will be close to the eastern end of the runway. They share with the inhabitants of large swathes of Surrey and Sussex a feeling of utter horror that such devastation should even be contemplated. It is an area of beautiful countryside. It is part of the green belt—the very lungs by which those in the Greater London conurbation can breathe. That it should be punctured to produce an airport twice the size of the present one, requiring 27,000 new homes to be built, ancillary service buildings and a vast programme of additional road building, is unthinkable.
  The need for a second runway in the south-east within the proposed time scale is based on analyses and assumptions which are open to grave doubt. It is highly likely that such additional capacity will not be required until much later in the next century, which gives the Government plenty of time to investigate, for example, the Thames estuary option, which will cause far less damage to established communities, but which RUCATSE, to its shame, barely touched on.
  I give my hon. Friend the Minister some friendly political advice. Today's debate, useful though it is, is but an initial skirmish. I warn him that unless he or his successors make it clear soon that they are dropping the suggestion, they will not know what has hit them when many Conservative Members make their feelings known. Now that the consultation period has closed, I urge him and the Secretary of State to lift the cloud of fear hanging over many established communities and to make it clear that they have no intention of raping and destroying our environment.
  2.51 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): It is a great pleasure for me to have the honour of responding to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). It was a tremendous honour to have served as his Parliamentary Private Secretary. I fear that he gives me far more credit than I deserve. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, the Whip on duty, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) and I share one distinction: all three of us have seconded the Loyal Address. What unites my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling and myself is that neither of us has achieved the august stature required to be allowed to propose the Loyal Address, which my right hon. Friend has.

  533
  Commendably, my right hon. Friend has avoided Adjournment debates for 20 years, but I remind him that the idea is that we share the time. I fear that I have about seven or eight minutes in which to respond to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner). I hope that he will forgive me if, to some extent, I merely acknowledge the various points that have been made.
  I understand why my right hon. Friend should have raised this subject and I accept the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate that feelings on the subject in Sussex run high. The simple truth that we all suffer from an extraordinary form of schizophrenia when we contemplate airport development underlies the issue. I register my own interest in that my constituency is not a million miles from Stansted airport, one of the three main airports serving London. We all want to see the economy expand and jobs to be created. I recall offhand that Heathrow gives employment to about 50,000 people, quite apart from the jobs created by the business that the airport generates.
  Gatwick, of course, is already a hugely important hub and a hugely important employer. It is the fifth largest airport in Europe, competing with Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol in its own right. As my right hon. Friend said, it already handles more than 20 million passengers, which gives it a considerable position in the league. My right hon. Friend was generous enough to confirm, as most people would, that development of the existing facilities for perhaps up to 30 million passengers a year and beyond is entirely to be hoped for.
  It is natural that whenever we contemplate the hugely difficult proposition of where we put a new runway, we should run into the concerns that have been so ably expressed this afternoon. I shall not attempt to debate for a second the relative merits of the various sites that the working group on runway capacity for the south-east—RUCATSE—discussed; that would not be appropriate. I merely say that when my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate mentions Marinair—the estuarial airport option —I conclude only that perhaps some of the enthusiasm for that option derives from the simple fact that it is in no one's back yard. Although I say no more on that, it does not make the discussion of issues such as this one any easier.
  It was right for the Government to follow up the advice from the Civil Aviation Authority on the need for runways and to set in hand the RUCATSE work. At that time, the Government acknowledged what was said in the 1985 White Paper, which my right hon. Friend quoted—that second runways should not be built at either Gatwick or Stansted. In its terms of reference, RUCATSE was explicitly asked to have regard to the environmental considerations which led to those views and they are, indeed, as my right hon. Friend stated.
  I confirm straight away that I am, of course, aware of the legal agreement between the British Airports Authority and West Sussex county council to the effect that a second runway should not be built before 2019. The extent to which local people have set great store by that agreement has been brought forcefully to my attention by my right hon. Friend, not only today but in correspondence, and I acknowledge the importance of that agreement. In summary, RUCATSE produced forecasts of traffic and asked how those could be accommodated at the various sites.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: My hon. Friend says that he acknowledges the importance of the agreement. Do I take it from that that the Government do not have it in mind to set aside the agreement, but that they will honour it and accept it?
  Mr. Norris: As my right hon. Friend knows, the agreement is between the local authority and the airport owners—between West Sussex county council and the BAA. As such, it is not an agreement to which the Government are specifically party and, therefore, it is not for me to contemplate its being set aside. The important thing—this is a specific reassurance that my right hon. Friend rightly wants—is that the Government fully recognise the importance of that perfectly legally binding agreement. My right hon. Friend, who is a distinguished former Secretary of State for the Environment, will understand that, in these circumstances, that is as far as I can go.
  RUCATSE was asked, first, to produce forecasts of traffic and, secondly, to see how they could be accommodated at the various sites by, for example, looking at possible layouts of runways and terminals. Thirdly, it was asked to assess the implications in respect of a variety of criteria. It is terribly important to stress that the alignments studied by RUCATSE were indicative only. Although some of the features of the analysis would be robust in terms of small or even large changes, others would not. The group attempted as far as possible to address key questions resulting from changes in assumptions through the use of a variety of sensitivity tests.
  The forecasts that RUCATSE produced were performed on an objective basis for all the sites that were studied. Naturally, forecasting of this sort is very much long-term stuff and very inexact. We all accept that. We have assumed reasonable economic growth and we have acknowledged that its translation into a rapid rate of air traffic growth—more than 6 per cent. on average in the 1970s and 1980s—is unlikely to continue. The judgment was made that there would be lower growth rates and a maturing of the most developed markets, but that there would eventually be a need for extra capacity.
  My right hon. Friend was right about the increasing importance of regional airports. We recognise that, but we cannot put the matter to one side and convince ourselves that a combination of peripheral developments, however relevant, will provide a total solution to the need for this country to be competitive well into the 21st century. Air transport will be an important part of that and RUCATSE's work, unenviable in many ways, but supported—I acknowledge this—by many local environmental groups around each of the airports, has been invaluable.
  I give my right hon. and hon. Friends an assurance that we are not dealing here with a specific application. If there were any development attempted to take forward the notion of Gatwick as the location for an additional runway, there would not only be the need for a full and detailed environmental impact assessment, but a great deal more of an extremely long and convoluted process in which I would expect my right hon. and hon. Friends to play a full part.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Audiovisual Eureka
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans his Department has for the United Kingdom's forthcoming presidency of Audiovisual Eureka.

  Mr. Brooke
  The United Kingdom presidency of Audiovisual Eureka will run from 1 July 1994 to 30 June 1995.

  Our objectives for the presidency will be to enhance and give priority to those aspects of Audiovisual Eureka which complement other European initiatives aimed at strengthening the European audiovisual industry. We shall place particular emphasis on those which foster practical co-operation between western European countries and the countries of central and eastern Europe. We shall also aim to promote the use of new technologies for the production of films and programmes; and we shall seek to promote audiovisual technology transfer between east and west.

  A central part of the United Kingdom presidency work programme will be to oversee an independent evaluation of Audiovisual Eureka as part of a thorough review of its effectiveness, and to ensure that any recommendations arising from the review are implemented.

  I shall be inviting Ministers of the 32 participating countries, as well as the European Commission and Council of Europe, to attend a meeting in London on 16 June 1995 to mark the culmination of our presidency.

  Football Stadiums
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he has reached his final decision on applications received from Premier League and first division football clubs for an extension to the Government's 1 August all-seater deadline.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have. On 26 May, in answer to a written parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), columns 227–29, I announced that I had considered applications made by 11 clubs, and having taken into account the recommendations made by the Football Licensing Authority, formed a preliminary view. I also set out the criteria against which each application had been assessed.
  "Clubs seeking an extension in order to relocate to a new ground are expected to produce clear evidence that such an extension would be for a strictly limited period and that the club could realistically complete its relocation within a reasonable and definite time scale.
  Clubs applying for an extension in order to redevelop their existing grounds are expected to show why their circumstances are wholly exceptional, why the reasons for the delay could not reasonably have been foreseen and why they could not be attributed to the actions or inaction of the club."
  324
  Clubs were given until 16 June to make further representations to me in support of their case, before I announced my final decision.

  On the basis of the information then before me, I indicated that I was minded to agree that the following clubs, all of which are actively engaged in relocation to new stadia, have a valid case for an extension of the 1 August deadline:

  Derby County

  Grimsby Town

  Middlesbrough

  Portsmouth

  Sunderland

  I have today written to the chairmen of each of these clubs to confirm that my final decision is to grant limited extensions in each case.

  I have warned, however, that although I have granted an extension, my general policy remains, and I have in mind that the extensions will be for one year only. I have also explained that any decision to allow the retention of standing accommodation for a limited period will not affect safety requirements at the ground. Clubs will still be required to observe the terms and conditions of the local authority safety certificate issued under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, and any requirement placed on the club as a result of the FLA exercising its powers under section 13 of the Football Spectators Act 1989. The responsibility of each club to ensure that the ground meets the necessary safety requirements remains unchanged, irrespective of whether or not an extension is granted.

  On 26 May, I also wrote to the chairmen of the following clubs indicating that, although I appreciated the very real difficulties they faced, I did not consider that the case they had presented was sufficiently strong to warrant an extension of the deadline beyond 1 August 1994:

  Barnsley

  Chelsea

  Manchester City

  Newcastle United

  Oldham Athletic

  Swindon Town

  I said that in reaching my final decision I would consider each case on its individual merits in the light of the above criteria, having regard to all material facts and to the need to be consistent where circumstances are similar and fair to all clubs in the Premier League and Football League first division. I said that I would also take into account any other relevant points which the clubs wish to make in response to my letters.

  Representations were received from five of these clubs before the 16 June deadline. I have given careful consideration to the points raised, and have also reviewed the original applications which each club made to the Football Licensing Authority.

  I have decided that only one of these clubs, Newcastle United, has presented a sufficiently exceptional case to warrant an extension to the deadline, and that I would not be justified in granting extensions to Barnsley, Chelsea, Manchester City, Oldham Athletic or Swindon Town. I have therefore written to the chairmen of each of these clubs to inform them of my final decision.

  I have today laid an Order under section 11 of the Football Spectators Act 1989 directing the Football Licensing Authority to include in its licences the following conditions:
  Only seated accommodation shall be provided for spectators at a designated football match; and

  325
  Spectators shall only be admitted to watch a designated football match from seated accommodation.

  The order will come into force on 15 July, and will apply to all clubs in the Premier League and first division of the Football League, save those which have been granted extensions to the 1 August deadline. The following clubs promoted into the—now—first division since 1991 will also be omitted from the order:

  Bolton Wanderers—promoted in 1993

  Burnley—promoted in 1994

  Port Vale—promoted in 1994

  Reading—promoted in 1994

  Stoke City—promoted in 1993

  West Bromwich Albion—promoted in 1993

  These clubs will have three years from the date of their promotion to ensure that their grounds are all-seated.

  I am pleased to report that the majority of clubs in the top two divisions will meet or are planning to meet the Government's deadline. I congratulate those clubs on the great strides they have made in improving the safety and comfort of spectators at their grounds. I will follow closely the progress made by clubs to which I have granted an extension, and I look forward to being able to report that these clubs also have successfully achieved all-seater stadiums.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Romanian Children
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what projects to improve the care and education of Romania's children are being supported through the Poland and Hungary assistance for economic restructuring—PHARE—programme of the European Union; and how British organisations are contributing.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A wide range of projects to improve the care and education of children in Romania are being supported under the PHARE programme. They include: in health care, particularly maternal and infant health services; the rehabilitation of orphanages and the training of personnel; the establishment—in concert with the Romanian Government—of a national policy for the protection of children; and the development of strategies to prevent the institutionalisation of vulnerable groups of children.
  European Commission data on contracts awarded under PHARE are not broken down by recipient country. Between 1990 and 1993, 125 contracts were awarded to British organisations working in the areas of non governmental organisations, social adjustment, humanitarian aid, science and techonology, health and public administration.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received about deaths occurring in Omo valley district in southern Ethiopia because of transport difficulties in reaching famine victims; and what the Government and the European Union are doing to overcome these difficulties.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are in touch with the Ethiopian Relief and Rehabilitation Commission—RRC—about the situation. There are no official figures for deaths from 326
  drought and famine. The terrain in much of the region is mountainous with poor or non-existent roads. Road and air access is difficult; ox carts are often the only means of transporting supplies.
  The RRC is planning to carry out a helicopter survey of the remoter areas of the region to assess accurately needs and access routes. We are prepared to help with the survey and with implementing its recommendations.
  Since January, we have committed 45,000 tonnes of bilateral food aid to Ethiopia. The EU has committed 264,000 tonnes. We have also provided about £191,000 for seeds and tools and therapeutic feeding centres throughout the Omo region.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what overseas aid Her Majesty's Government are currently providing to Pakistan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 23 June 1994]: Gross British bilateral aid to Pakistan for 1992–93—the latest year for which figures are available—was £34·483 million. This consisted of £18·619 million under the ODA's bilateral country programme, £12·676 million in Commonwealth Development Corporation investments and £3·188 million in other aid, including debt relief and drug related assistance.

  Recent initiatives include projects in primary education and health, family planning and participatory urban and rural development. Other main sectors covered are land development and irrigation, energy and water and sanitation.

  Brazil (Mahogany)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he makes of the percentage of mahogany exported from Brazil to the United Kingdom which has been obtained illegally in Brazil.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have no reliable means of assessing whether or not timber entering the United Kingdom has come from an illegal source in its country of origin. The legality of timber extraction is a matter for the authorities in the country in which it takes place.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Debts (Non-payment)
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the 20 Prison Service establishments to which the largest number of those found guilty of offences in respect of non-payment of debt were committed in the latest period of 12 months for which there is information, specifying in addition how many of these offenders were sentenced for non-payment of(a) television licences and (b) community charge.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is given in the tables separately for the non-criminal offences of non-payment of debt and also for non-payment of fine for using a television without a licence.
  327

  The 20 Prison Service establishments receiving the most non-criminal prisoners committed to custody for the non-criminal offences of non-payment of debt in England and Wales, May 1993—April 19941

  Numbers received for non-payment of debt

  Prison Service establishment ranked by number received for non-payment of debt

  Total

  of which, Non-payment of community charge

  1. Liverpool

  134

  129

  2. Hull

  120

  109

  3. Leicester

  94

  79

  4. Leeds

  74

  32

  5. Woodhill

  73

  72

  6. Durham

  55

  54

  7. Canterbury

  54

  54

  8. Preston

  54

  54

  9. Lincoln

  52

  18

  10. Shrewsbury

  40

  39

  11. Bedford

  38

  28

  12. Lewes

  38

  24

  13. Risley

  37

  31

  14. Birmingham

  35

  34

  15. Drake Hall

  34

  33

  16. Holme House

  33

  32

  17. Swansea

  32

  30

  18. Low Newton

  31

  30

  19. New Hall

  30

  25

  20. Pentonville

  30

  25

  1Provisional figures.

  The 20 Prison Service establishments receiving the largest numbers committed to custody for non-payment of a fine for using a television without a licence, May 1993–April 19941

  Prison Service establishment

  Number

  1. Risley

  83

  2. Liverpool

  69

  3. New Hall

  68

  4. Holloway

  55

  5. Low Newton

  47

  6. Hull

  44

  7. Birmingham

  43

  8. Pucklechurch

  34

  9. Leicester

  33

  10. Leeds

  33

  11. Lincoln

  27

  12. Shrewsbury

  25

  13. Drake Hall

  23

  14. Holme House

  21

  15. Exeter

  20

  16. Blakenhurst

  18

  17. Pentonville

  13

  18. Bedford

  12

  19. Preston

  12

  20. Durham

  11

  Canterbury

  11

  Wood Hill

  11

  1Provisional figures.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals his Department has to make it an offence to employ an illegal immigrant.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  At present, although it is an offence knowingly to harbour an illegal entrant or an overstayer, there is no general requirement on employers to satisfy themselves as to the immigration status of their employees. The immigration service already gives priority to detecting those working here illegally and taking 328
  subsequent action to curtail their stay or remove them from the United Kingdom. The Government keep the law in this area under review and expect employers to behave responsibly.

  Racial Incidents
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many racial incidents were recorded by each police force in England and Wales in 1993.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information is now collected on a financial year basis. The figures for 1993–94 are given: these have been collected by the same means as figures published for earlier periods, and they are comparable. I will be considering further the arrangements which are in place for collecting and publishing such figures in future in the light of the recent report by the Home Affairs Select Committee on racial attacks and harassment—HC 71–1.

  Reported racial incidents April 1993–March 1994

  Number

  Avon and Somerset

  159

  Bedfordshire

  60

  Cambridge

  100

  Cheshire

  98

  City of London

  1

  Cleveland

  50

  Cumbria

  17

  Derbyshire

  221

  Devon and Cornwall

  14

  Dorset

  25

  Durham

  32

  Dyfed-Powys

  0

  Essex

  133

  Gloucestershire

  28

  Greater Manchester

  658

  Gwent

  21

  Hampshire

  212

  Hertfordshire

  117

  Humberside

  79

  Kent

  160

  Lancashire

  262

  Leicestershire

  315

  Lincolnshire

  4

  Merseyside

  155

  Norfolk

  33

  North Wales

  2

  North Yorkshire

  22

  Northamptonshire

  102

  Northumbria

  405

  Nottinghamshire

  264

  South Wales

  400

  South Yorkshire

  106

  Staffordshire

  117

  Suffolk

  73

  Surrey

  79

  Sussex

  214

  Thames Valley

  166

  Warwickshire

  87

  West Mercia

  100

  West Midlands

  487

  West Yorkshire

  244

  Wiltshire

  51

  Provincial total

  5,873

  Metropolitan total

  3,889

  England and Wales total

  9,762

  Channel Islands
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the circumstances of the departure from office of the Deputy Bailiff and Lieutenant Bailiff of the island of Jersey.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Appointment as Deputy Bailiff of Jersey is by the Crown, on advice from the Home Secretary in his capacity as the Privy Councillor with special responsibility for Jersey. A Deputy Bailiff may depart from office on the expiry of the period of appointment, or on appointment to other office, or by resignation, or by removal by the Crown acting on advice.

  The Bailiff of Jersey of the day may appoint for a purpose ad hoc, or permanently, one or more lieutenant bailiffs. Permanent appointees may resign from office, or be removed from it by the bailiff; otherwise, their appointments end with the departure from office of the Bailiff who appointed them.

  Prison Visits
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were allowed to take part in an assisted prison visits scheme during 1993; and what was the total amount of funding paid under this scheme for such visits.

  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 Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 24 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of people taking part in the assisted prison visit scheme during 1993 and the total amount of funding paid out under it.
  The information you request is not available for the calendar year or in the form requested. For the financial year 1993–94 the number of successful applications was 74,280 and the total funds disbursed were £2,236,816.

  Firearms
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were(a) killed and (b) injured in incidents involving firearms in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", copies of which can be found in the Library—latest edition, 1992, Cm 2410, table 3.8. Figures for 1993 are not yet available.

  Mrs. Karamat Bi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when arrangements are to be made to issue Mrs. Karamat Bi—Ref.: TH/2964/93—through the British high commission in Islamabad with a visa to visit the United Kingdom following her appeal against refusal to grant being upheld in Leeds on 15 December 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A copy of the adjudicator's determination was sent to the entry clearance officer in 330
  Islamabad on 6 January. Inquiries are being made into the present position, and the hon. Member will be informed as soon as possible.

  Remand
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many males remanded in custody in 1993 spent(a) up to one week, (b) one to two weeks, (c) two to four weeks, (d) four to eight weeks, (e) eight weeks to three months, (f) three to six months, (g) six months to 12 months and (h) over 12 months in prison before their court case was concluded;

  (2) how many females remanded in custody in 1993 spent (a) up to one week, (b) one to two weeks, (c) two to four weeks, (d) four to eight weeks, (e) eight weeks to three months, (f) three to six months, (g) six to 12 months and (h) over 12 months in prison before their court case was concluded.

  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 Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 24 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions asking how many males and females remanded in custody in 1993 spent (a) up to one week, (b) one to two weeks, (c) two to four weeks, (d) four to eight weeks, (e) eight weeks to three months, (f) three to six months, (g) six months to 12 months and (h) over 12 months in prison before their court case was concluded.
  The available information is given in the attached table.

  Remand prisoners in Prison Service establishments on 30 June 1993 By length of time since first reception1 England and Wales

  Number of persons2

  Length of time since first remand into a Prison Service establishment

  Males

  Females

  All lengths

  10,250

  400

  Up to and including 1 week

  1,000

  50

  More than 1 week up to and including 2 weeks

  800

  50

  More than 2 weeks up to and including 4 weeks

  1,300

  50

  More than 4 weeks up to and including 8 weeks

  1,750

  70

  More than 8 weeks up to and including 3 months

  1,500

  70

  More than 3 months up to and including 6 months

  2,300

  80

  More than 6 months up to and including 12 months

  1,300

  40

  Over 12 months

  400

  10

  1Time since first reception on remand into a Prison Service establishment. This includes any intervening time spent on bail, but excluding time spent in police cells beforehand.

  2Rounded estimates which therefore may not add to the totals.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the regions of the United Kingdom that have received European regional development funding in each of the last three years; and what was the amount of the funding to each region.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The last programme period for the European regional development fund ran for five years,

  ERDF Allocations 1989 to 1993 Objectives 1,2 and 5b

  £ million 1994 prices

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1989–93

  Objective 1

  Northern Ireland

  53

  63

  64

  95

  93

  369

  Objective 2

  North East England

  35

  44

  41

  59

  60

  240

  East England

  54

  68

  63

  91

  92

  368

  West Midlands

  40

  51

  47

  68

  69

  276

  North West England

  47

  59

  55

  79

  81

  321

  West Cumbria

  2

  2

  2

  3

  3

  13

  West Scotland

  46

  59

  54

  79

  80

  318

  East Scotland

  15

  19

  18

  25

  26

  103

  South Wales

  23

  29

  27

  39

  40

  158

  North East Wales

  7

  9

  8

  12

  12

  47

  Total Objective 2

  269

  340

  315

  456

  463

  1,844

  Objective 5b

  South West England

  8

  20

  16

  12

  10

  66

  Rural Wales

  11

  29

  24

  17

  15

  95

  Highlands and Islands

  10

  27

  22

  16

  14

  89

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  3

  3

  2

  2

  11

  Total Objective 5b

  30

  80

  65

  46

  40

  261

  Miscellaneous

  —

  —

  —

  4

  6

  10

  Mahogany
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what are the sources of his Department's data on the importation of Brazilian mahogany into the United Kingdom;

  (2) if he will list the Brazilian companies from which mahogany was imported into the United Kingdom during 1993;

  (3) which United Kingdom companies imported mahogany during 1993 from the (a) Bannach, (b) Perachi, (c) Maginco and (d) Impar companies of Brazil;

  (4) how much mahogany from Brazil by volume and value was imported into the United Kingdom in 1993.

  Mr. Needham
  There are no official sources for information on the importation of Brazilian mahogany into the United Kingdom. The information has not been available since 1992 because the United Kingdom trade classification no longer separately identifies mahogany from several other non-coniferous woods.

  Information on United Kingdom importing companies and Brazilian exporting companies is not available.
  332
  from 1989 to 1993. The table gives a breakdown of the ERDF funding provided by objective and by region during that time.

  Objective 1 is for development and structural adjustment of the regions whose development is lagging behind. Objective 2 is for converting regions or parts of regions seriously affected by industrial decline. Objective 5(b) is for development of rural areas. These objectives are specifically regional in nature; they involve measures restricted to certain eligible regions or parts of regions.

  Smaller sums shown in the table as "miscellaneous", were made available outside the objective 1, 2 and 5(b) areas.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he intends to take in order to ensure that illegally felled mahogany from Brazil does not enter the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government have no reliable or practical way of identifying Brazilian mahogany which has come from an illegal source. Nor is there any legitimate way in which the United Kingdom could adopt a national ban on the import of such products. Primary responsibility for ensuring that harvesting and export is carried out lawfully must rest with the Brazilian Government.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the latest figures showing the volume of correspondence from hon. Members to Ministers and agency chief executives, the targets set for reply and the percentage of replies sent within target.

  Mr. David Davis
  The 1993 figures are set out in the table. The table also sets out figures showing ministerial correspondence in 1992 first published on 23 March 1993,Official Report, columns 550–54.
  333

  Correspondence from Members of Parliament to Ministers and Agency Chief Executives

  1992

  1993

  Department or Agency

  Target set for reply (working days)

  Number of letters received

  Percentage of replies within target

  Target set for reply (working days)

  Number of letters received

  Percentage of replies within target

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  15

  11,001

  81

  15

  11,150

  69

  Cabinet Office (OPSS)

  15

  492

  57

  15

  911

  59

  Central Statistical Office

  18

  26

  85

  110

  63

  77

  Crown Prosecution Service

  15

  102

  67

  15

  229

  66

  Customs and Excise

  18

  2682

  90

  18

  36,457

  55

  Ministry of Defence

  15

  5,189

  74

  15

  6,374

  75

  Defence Research Agency

  —

  —

  —

  15

  53

  66

  Department for Education

  20

  15,192

  72

  20

  317,049

  84

  Teacher's Pensions Agency

  10

  115

  93

  10

  98

  92

  Department of Employment

  17

  43,797

  96

  15

  7,604

  85

  Employment Service

  15

  248

  94

  15

  313

  92

  Department of the Environment

  15

  18,103

  56

  15

  21,057

  54

  Planning Inspectorate Agency

  8

  430

  81

  8

  5555

  80

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  10

  7,921

  76

  10

  9,641

  83

  Department of Health

  20

  16,353

  72

  20

  19,822

  72

  Medicines Control Agency

  —

  —

  —

  15

  13

  90

  NHS Pensions Agency

  —

  —

  —

  20

  14

  100

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  —

  —

  —

  5

  11

  100

  Home Office

  15

  2,221

  22

  615

  15,950

  25

  25

  3,171

  61

  625

  11,318

  52

  HM Prison Service7

  —

  —

  —

  725

  348

  54

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  10

  51

  29

  15

  40

  83

  Inland Revenue

  18

  2680

  27

  818

  34,202

  45

  23

  2202

  12

  923

  3805

  39

  Valuation Office

  —

  —

  —

  23

  474

  45

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  15

  729

  82

  15

  10675

  77

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  20

  5,417

  84

  20

  6,716

  84

  Land Registry

  —

  —

  —

  20

  40

  100

  Department of National Heritage

  18

  2,007

  55

  18

  111,145

  83

  Northern Ireland Office (inc. Northern Ireland Departments)

  10

  3,194

  57

  1210

  33,814

  66

  15

  3,061

  77

  1315

  32,057

  73

  Child Support Agency (NI)

  —

  —

  —

  10

  27

  96

  Compensation Agency (NI)

  7

  34

  79

  7

  80

  85

  Rate Collection Agency (NI)

  7

  12

  75

  5

  13

  100

  Social Security Agency (NI)

  20

  43

  91

  10

  28

  82

  Overseas Development Administration

  15

  5,500

  63

  15

  4,218

  87

  The Scottish Office

  17

  3,393

  57

  17

  6,860

  52

  Department of Social Security

  20

  14,222

  63

  20

  23,518

  76

  Benefits Agency

  20

  20,822

  64

  20

  1428,242

  84

  Child Support Agency15

  —

  —

  —

  20

  2,222

  13

  Contributions Agency

  20

  340

  63

  20

  264

  70

  Department of Trade and Industry

  10

  28,129

  63

  10

  325,988

  66

  Companies House

  10

  79

  42

  10

  159

  46

  Insolvency Service

  10

  60

  91

  10

  30

  97

  Radiocommunications Agency

  10

  25

  96

  10

  43

  100

  Department of Transport

  15

  16,987

  74

  15

  324,754

  71

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  10

  891

  98

  10

  345

  95

  Driving Standards Agency

  15

  123

  91

  10

  91

  96

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  10

  61

  72

  15

  15

  93

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  15

  21,241

  58

  15

  311,396

  58

  334 335

  1992

  1993

  Department or Agency

  Target set for reply (working days)

  Number of letters received

  Percentage of replies within target

  Target set for reply (working days)

  Number of letters received

  Percentage of replies within target

  Welsh Office

  12

  3,022

  61

  12

  3,468

  81

  CADW (Welsh Historic Monuments)

  12

  21

  90

  12

  31

  91

  Notes on 1993 figures16

  1Represents target set for Central Statistical Office (CSO) to submit replies to HM Treasury. In addition, the chief executive received three letters directly from Members of Parliament, all of which were answered within the 10-working day target.

  2Figures cover November and December 1992 only.

  3Includes all ministerial replies, not only letters from Members of Parliament.

  4Figures cover 1 January to 31 August 1992. On 1 September new 15 working day target was set. From 1 September to 31 December 1992, 91 per cent. of 2,205 letters received were replied to within target.

  5Figure includes 29 cases relating to Wales—with effect from 1 April 1993.

  6Targets within the Home Office are actually expressed in calendar days, because of bank holidays therefore, performance will occasionally be measured against fewer than the 15—or 25—working day target. 25 working day target is for replies to Immigration and nationality department, Prison Service and United Kingdom Passport Agency subjects, 15 working day target is for all other subjects. Members of Parliament are encouraged to write direct to the immigration and nationality department board. These letters are included in the totals shown. New Home Office targets were adopted on 1 October 1992 and some 20,000 cases in 1992–93 were not included in the main chart.

  7HM Prison Service established as an agency on 1 April 1993. Targets within the Prison Service are actually expressed in calendar days, because of bank holidays therefore, performance will occasionally to measured against fewer than the 25 working day target.

  8Head office figures.

  9Local office figures.

  10Figure excludes letters received by the legal secretariat to the Law Officers which were subsequently replied to by either the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Director of the Serious Fraud Office.

  11Represents correspondence received since 1 April 1993 when new computer recording system was introduced.

  12Replies signed by Minister.

  13Replies signed by Private Secretary to Minister.

  14Includes correspondence from Members of Parliament sent directly to local operational units.

  15Child Support Agency was launched on 5 April 1993.

  16The 1992 figures were taken from the Official Report, 23 March 1993, columns 550–54. Please also refer to notes given with that reply.

  In addition, the following Departments/agencies received at least one but less than 10 letters from Members of Parliament in 1993 and are not shown in the table:

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food - Intervention Board, ADAS, Veterinary Medicines Directorate.

  Cabinet Office - Central Office of Information, Occupational Health Service, Recruitment and Assessment Services.

  Ministry of Defence - Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Defence Accounts Agency, Defence Analytical Services Agency, Defence Animal Centre, Defence Postal and Courier Services, Queen Victoria School, RAF Maintenance.

  Department of the Environment - Building Research Establishment, Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, The Buying Agency, The Security Facilities Executive.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Attorney General - Government Property Lawyers Agency.

  Northern Ireland Office (including Northern Ireland Departments) - Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (NI), Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency (NI), Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland, Training and Employment Agency (NI), Valuation and Lands Agency (NI).

  Overseas Development Administration - Natural Resources Institute.

  Ordnance Survey.

  Scottish Office - Historic Scotland, Scottish Prison Service.

  Serious Fraud Office.

  Department of Social Security - Information Technology Services Agency, Resettlement Agency.

  Department of Trade and Industry - Accounts Services Agency National Physical Laboratory, Patent Office.

  Department of Transport - Vehicle Certification Agency, Transport Research Laboratory.

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what key targets have been set for the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency for the current financial year.

  Mr. David Davis
  I have set the following targets for Recruitment and Assessment Services for 1994–95:

  1. Financial break-even in accruals terms;

  2. A 2 per cent. increase in efficiency over 1993–94 performance;

  3. evaluation ratings of 96 per cent. of RAS customers satisfied with the service they have received, and 75 per cent. of these giving "more than satisfied" or "highly satisfied" assessments.

EDUCATION

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many contracts and for what total sum were let out by his Department or agencies for which it is responsible to(a) Coopers and Lybrand, (b) KPMG Peat Marwick, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) Price Waterhouse, (e) Arthur Andersen, (f) Touche Ross, (g) Grant Thornton, (h) Robson Rhodes and (i) Pannell Kerr Forster for (i) privatisation, (ii) market testing, (iii) management advice, (iv) accounting, (v) audit, (vi) consultancy and (vii) any other services in 1980 to 1983, 1984 to 1987, 1988 to 1991 and 1992 to 1993.

  Mr. Forth
  The information for the periods 1980 to 1983 and 1984 to 1987 is not available, and the information requested for the periods 1988 to 1991 and 1992 to 1993 broken down in the format could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  337
  The total number of contracts and the value of those contracts with the companies referred to for the periods 1988 to 1991 and 1992 to 1993 is as follows:

  1988 to 1991

  Contracts

  £

  Coopers and Lybrand

  17

  387,500

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  11

  525,000

  Ernst and Young

  2

  51,000

  Price Waterhouse

  2

  61,000

  Touche Ross

  6

  235,000

  Robson Rhodes

  1

  22,250

  No contracts were placed in this period with Arthur Anderson, Grant Thornton and Pannell Kerr Forster.

  1992 to 1993

  Company

  Contracts

  £

  Coopers and Lybrand

  12

  1,708,000

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  9

  236,500

  Ernst and Young

  2

  51,000

  Price Waterhouse

  5

  111,500

  Touche Ross

  4

  116,500

  No contracts were placed in this period with Arthur Anderson, Grant Thornton, Robson Rhodes and Pannell Kerr Forster.

  St. Paul's Primary School
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when the architects and building branch of his Department will make its recommendation on the St. Paul's primary school nursery class building in Hammersmith.

  Mr. Forth
  A letter giving full approval to the building project was despatched to the local education authority on 25 May 1994, with a request to forward a copy of the letter to the school governors.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what advice he has given to the Higher Education Funding Council for England regarding efficiency gains from(a) teaching and (b) research funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The spending plans announced in last year's Budget imply annual efficiency gains in the HEFCE sector of 4 per cent. in 1994–95 and 1995–96 and 3 per cent. in 1996–97. Separately, we have asked the HEFCE to maintain broadly the current proportional split between funds for teaching and research, and it will monitor the impact of these arrangements.

TREASURY

  Life Insurance Directives
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the consequences for the taxation of insurance activities of the coming into force of the European Community's third life insurance directive—92/96/EEC—and third non-life insurance directive—92/49/EEC.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The third life and non-life insurance directives come into force on 1 July 1994. They are an 338
  important part of measures being taken to create a single market in financial services throughout the European Union. One effect of the directives is that insurance companies whose head office is in another member state of the European Union will not be subject to regulation and supervision by the Department of Trade and Industry under the Insurance Companies Act 1982. This will have the effect of taking these companies outside the tax rules which apply to insurance companies because those tax rules are based on provisions of the Insurance Companies Act which will no longer apply to them.
  As a result, we shall be introducing legislation in the next Finance Bill to change the definition of insurance company to ensure that all companies operating in the United Kingdom remain within the special tax rules for insurance companies. We shall also be amending provisions which give relief from tax where there is a transfer of insurance business sanctioned by a court in the United Kingdom so that they also apply where there is a transfer of United Kingdom insurance business sanctioned by the regulatory authorities in another member state.
  We will also introduce measures to prevent a loss of tax where there is a transfer of insurance business to a transferee who does not carry on that business in the United Kingdom so as to be within the charge to tax.
  Subject to their approval by Parliament, these measures will take effect from 1 July 1994, the date on which the third insurance directives come into force.
  I also wish to make it clear that, contrary to some reports, the coming into force of the third life assurance directive will of itself have no effect on the taxation of gains from life assurance policies. At my request, the Inland Revenue is currently conducting a review of life assurance taxation in the light of single market developments and this includes the taxation of policy holders. The Government will decide in due course in the light of that review whether changes to the taxation of gains from life assurance policies are necessary. Meanwhile, the existing rules on policyholder taxation remain in force, and the Inland Revenue will continue to certify policies as "qualifying policies" where they meet the conditions laid down in the legislation.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Macedonia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conditions are being sought by the Greek Government for the lifting of its embargo on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; and what his response is to these proposed conditions.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Greek Government's decision to close Salonika to Macedonian trade was in reaction to a long-running dispute about the flag, name, symbols and constitution of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. We consider the Greek action to be unjustified and support the decision of the European Commission to refer the case to the European Court of Justice.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in lifting Greece's unilateral sanctions on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Greece still refuses to reopen Salonika to Macedonian trade. On 14 June, the European
  339
  Court of Justice heard the Commission's request for interim measures, pending the hearing of the substantive case against Greece. The court's decision is expected shortly. We continue to make clear to the Greek Government that their action is unjustified, and that it should be reversed without precondition.

  Burundi
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what armed activity is taking place in Burundi; and what action is being taken by the United Nations to prevent the Rwandan war from spreading to Burundi.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have had no reports of armed activity in Burundi. The special representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Ould Abdullah, heads a small good offices mission in Bujumbura which has been successful in promoting stability in the country.

  There are also 47 Organisation of African Unity observers stationed in Burundi in a confidence-building capacity. This mission has the full support of the UN.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many member states of the European Union have totally independent military nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Two—the United Kingdom and France. The United Kingdom's nuclear forces are assigned to NATO but remain at all times under the control of the British Government.

  Liberia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Nations Security Council last considered Liberia; and what are the latest reports to the United Nations on the progress of its mission there.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Security Council met in late May 1994 to discuss the Secretary-General's report on Liberia of 18 May 1994. The Council President issued a statement on Liberia on behalf of the Security Council on 23 May 1994. Copies of both the statement and the report have been placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what problems exist with the financing of the United Nations supported peace initiative in Liberia; and which countries have proposed to withdraw.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations status of contributions reports shows that at 30 April 1994, of the $39.8 million assessed on member states for the United Nations observer mission in Liberia—UNOMIL—for the period 22 September 1993 to 21 March 1994, unpaid assessments amounted to $24·6 million.

  The United Nations Secretary-General reported on 18 April that as of 31 March, voluntary contributions to the trust fund for the implementation of the Contonou accord amounted to $15.16 million, from the Governments of Denmark, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. At the time of the Secretary-General's report, expenditure authorised from the trust fund totalled $11·7 million.
  340
  The Secretary-General also reported that, on the basis of a draft budget prepared by a joint mission of the United Nations and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems in September 1993, the Elections Commission has estimated that an overall amount of $13·7 million will be required to carry out the electoral process. The report stated that the transitional Government will endeavour to provide some $8·5 million of this amount and will seek international support for the remaining $5·2 million.

  Of the United Nations troop contributors, only Tanzania has announced a decision to withdraw.

  European Union
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects he has sought to bring to the attention of the Greek Government for discussion during their period as holders of the presidency of the European Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have had discussions on a full range of European and international issues with the Greek Government during their presidency of the Council of the European Union.

  Brazil
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will instruct appropriate United Kingdom diplomatic staff in Brazil to discuss with representatives of the Nucleus for Indigenous Rights the issue of the mahogany trade between Brazil and the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Our embassy in Brasilia is instructed to continue its close contacts with the Nucleus for Indigenous Rights on various issues, including mahogany.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security during the first year of the child support scheme how many parents with care previously in receipt of income support ceased to be eligible as a result of receipt of child maintenance.

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

  Income Support
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in respect of those parents who have ceased to receive income support as a result of receiving child support during the first year of the scheme, in how many cases their resulting income has been(a) up to £5, (b) up to £10, (c) up to £15 and (d) up to £20 per week above income support level.

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

  Consultants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many contracts, and for what total sum were let out by his Department or agencies for which
  341
  it is responsible to (a) Coopers and Lybrand, (b) KPMG Peat Marwick, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) Price Waterhouse, (e) Authur Andersen, (f) Touche Ross, (g) Grant Thornton, (h) Robson Rhodes and (i) Pannell Kerr Forster for (i) privatisation, (ii) market testing, (iii) management advice, (iv) accounting, (v) audit, (vi) consultancy and (vii) any other services in 1980 to 1983, 1984 to 1987, 1988 to 1991 and 1992 to 1993.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available follows:

  Firm

  Number of contracts

  Total value (£)

  1986–87

  Coopers and Lybrand

  1

  5,635·00

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  0

  0

  Ernst and Young

  2

  60,145·00

  Price Waterhouse

  3

  112,971·00

  Arthur Andersen

  0

  0

  Touche Ross

  1

  75,306·00

  Grant Thornton

  1

  15,836·00

  Robson Rhodes

  0

  0

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  0

  0

  1987–88

  Coopers and Lybrand

  3

  319,006·00

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  0

  0

  Ernst and Young

  1

  10,459·00

  Price Waterhouse

  2

  42,720·00

  Arthur Andersen

  0

  0

  Touche Ross

  3

  59,601·00

  Grant Thornton

  1

  270·00

  Robson Rhodes

  0

  0

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  0

  0

  1988–89

  Coppers and Lybrand

  3

  37,341·00

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  2

  10,235·00

  Ernst and Young

  0

  0

  Price Waterhouse

  2

  51,037·00

  Arthur Andersen

  1

  10,000·00

  Touche ross

  4

  258,948·00

  Grant Thornton

  0

  0

  Robson Rhodes

  0

  0

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  0

  0

  1989–90

  Coopers and Lybrand

  4

  262,571·00

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  2

  59,891·00

  Ernst and Young

  1

  14,909·00

  Price Waterhouse

  6

  1,137,894·00

  Arthur Andersen

  0

  0

  Touche Ross

  3

  314,210·00

  Grant Thornton

  0

  0

  Robson Rhodes

  0

  0

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  0

  0

  1990–91

  Coopers and Lybrand

  5

  288,365·00

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  4

  723,280·00

  Ernst and Young

  5

  442,365·00

  Price Waterhouse

  10

  3,587,350·00

  Arthur Andersen

  0

  0

  Touche Ross

  7

  709,104·00

  Grant Thornton

  0

  0

  Robson Rhodes

  0

  0

  Parnell Kerr Forster

  0

  0

  1991–92

  Coopers and Lybrand

  1

  47,290·00

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  6

  136,292·00

  Ernst and Young

  3

  139,502·00

  Price Waterhouse

  11

  952,994·00

  Arthur Andersen

  0

  0

  Touche Ross

  3

  78,294·00

  Grant Thornton

  0

  0

  Robson Rhodes

  0

  0

  342

  Firm

  Number of contracts

  Total value (£)

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  0

  0

  1992–93

  Coopers and Lybrand

  4

  117,775·00

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  7

  447,258·00

  Ernst and Young

  2

  22,637·00

  Price Waterhouse

  9

  259,064·00

  Arthur Andersen

  0

  0

  Touche Ross

  2

  249,620·00

  Grant Thornton

  0

  0

  Robson Rhodes

  0

  0

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  0

  0

  Family Credit
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support applicants were refused benefit on grounds of(a) partners' earnings and (b) partners in receipt of family credit in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not routinely collected and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the research by the social policy research unit on the assessment of self-employed earnings in family credit to be published.

  Mr. Burt
  The report "Measuring Low Incomes: Self-Employment and Family Credit" by the social policy research unit at the university of York was published on 3 February and copies were placed in the Library.

  In addition, I have today placed in the Library copies of the consultation document on the report. We have circulated it to a wide range of interested bodies and have asked for comments by 31 August.

  Job Seekers
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether(a) the Benefits Agency or (b) the Employment Service will implement the new job seeker's allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reply of Tuesday 21 June at column 87.

  Habitual Residency Test
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what action he intends to take in relation to the habitual residency test; and if he will make a statement:

  (2) when the Social Security Advisory Committee reported to him in relation to the proposed habitual residency test; what was the committee's conclusion or main recommendation in this matter; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library;

  (3) what parliamentary action is required to implement the habitual residency test in relation to social security payments.

  Mr. Burt
  We are still considering the introduction of a habitual residence test in the income support, housing
  343
  benefit and council tax benefit schemes. The report from the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Government's response will be published at the same time.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received to date concerning the habitual residency test; how many have been(a) broadly favourable and (b) broadly unfavourable.

  Mr. Burt
  No separate count has been kept of representations received on this matter.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when the new Benefits Agency premises in Johnstone town centre are scheduled to open; where these will be located; how many staff will be transferred to this location; from where they will be transferred; how many additional jobs will be created at what grade; what new or enhanced services will be available to clients from these new premises; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the total contract value of the new Benefits Agency office in Paisley; when he expects the office to be operational; when he expects the office to be officially opened; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The opening of new Benefits Agency offices in Johnstone and Paisley is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Gordon McMaster, dated 23 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the new Benefits Agency offices in Johnstone and Paisley.
  Benefits Agency Estates, in liaison with Property Holdings, are negotiating the acquisition of a lease for Unit 5, William Street, Johnstone which on present plans is scheduled to open as a caller service point by the beginning of 1995.
  The six staff currently employed in Johnstone will transfer from Floors Street to the new premises. No additional jobs will be created nor will any be lost.
  The move to the main shopping area will mean the new office is more accessible to our customers and will provide an improved service for all members of the public in and around Johnstone.
  The total contract value of the new Benefits Agency premises in Paisley is approximately £5·2 million.
  It is expected that the new office will be operational in June 1995 with the official opening within 2 months thereafter. Plans for the official opening have yet to be finalised.
  The Renfrew District Manager, Colin Wright, will be happy to provide you with any further details should you require them.
  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Benefits, Doncaster and Mexborough
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current number of recipients of(a) income support, (b) invalidity benefit and (c) retirement pension in the Doncaster and Mexborough areas; and what were the figures (i) 12 months and (ii) 24 months ago.

  Mr. Burt
  This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 23 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about benefit recipients in the Doncaster and Mexborough areas.
  344
  The information is not available in the format requested. This is because Benefit Agency (BA) District boundaries do not correspond with county or borough boundaries.
  Income Support (IS) recipients in the Doncaster area are dealt with by the Doncaster District of BA. This District comprises Doncaster West District Office (DO) and Doncaster East Branch Office (BO). IS recipients in the Mexborough area are dealt with by the Wath-on-Dearne Branch Office (BO) of the Rother and Dearne District. This office, however, also deals with areas other than Mexborough. Identifying the number of IS recipients resident in the Mexborough area and dealt with by Wath-on-Dearne BO would incur disproportionate cost.
  In Appendix 1, I have provided information relating to numbers of IS recipients in the area dealt with by the Doncaster District, and by Wath-on-Dearne BO.
  Although the Doncaster District of BA deals with Invalidity Benefit (IVB) and Retirement Pension (RP) for most of the Doncaster area, a small part is dealt with by the Mexborough BO of the BA Rother and Dearne District. Mexborough BO also covers IVB and RP for the Mexborough area, but from May 1994 also assumed responsibility for the Swinton and Wath-on-Dearne areas. Identifying the number of IVB or RP recipients resident in either the Mexborough or Doncaster areas and dealt with by Mexborough BO would also incur disproportionate cost.
  However, in Appendices 2 and 3, I have provided information relating to IVB and RP recipients in the areas dealt with by the Doncaster District, and by Mexborough BO.
  The figures provided for RP recipients include a small number of Widows Benefit recipients and an estimated number of RP recipients paid by direct credit transfer. The latest information available does not fully reflect the additional numbers appropriate to Mexborough BO following that office assuming responsibility for additional geographical areas in May 1994.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Appendix 1

  IS Recipients

  Doncaster District

  Wath-on-Dearne Branch Office

  30 May 1992

  27,416

  8,736

  31 May 1993

  28,848

  9,556

  31 May 1994

  30,090

  11,703

  Appendix 2

  IVB Recipients

  Doncaster District

  Mexborough Branch Office

  30 May 1992

  11,933

  2,319

  31 May 1993

  13,026

  2,435

  31 May 1994

  13,973

  3,943

  Appendix 3

  RP Recipients

  Doncaster District

  Mexborough Branch Office

  30 May 1992

  49,657

  6,310

  31 May 1993

  49,166

  6,280

  31 May 1994

  48,477

  6,426

TRANSPORT

  Highways Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how often the chief executive of the Highways Agency has met representatives from the private sector to discuss the possibility of market testing, contracting out or privatising work currently undertaken by the agency; and what were the names of the companies involved and the dates of the meetings.
  345
  Mr. Key
  These questions relate to operational matters of the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 23 June 1994:
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic, Mr. Key, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about market testing.
  I have not met any representatives from the private sector to discuss the possibility of market testing, contracting out or privatising work currently carried out by the Agency.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total cost to date of the employment of the Bray's detective agency to gather information on Twyford Down protesters; and from which subheads of which votes these funds were taken.

  Mr. Key
  This question relates to operational matters of the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 23 June 1994:
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic, Mr. Robert Key, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the cost of employing Bray's Detective Agency (Southampton) to gather evidence of trespass on the M3 construction site near Winchester.
  To date, Bray's have been paid £251,65637. These costs have been met from the Highways Agency Vote 1 (National Road System: Capital Section Al (New Construction and Renewal) of the Roads Vote.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations his Department has had with environmental groups about individual road schemes.

  Mr. Key
  This question relates to the operational matters of the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 23 June 1994:
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic, Mr. Robert Key, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary question about what consultations there have been with environmental groups with regard to individual road schemes.
  Consultations with statutory bodies such as English Nature, English Heritage, the Countryside Commission and the National Rivers Authority take place from an early stage of route development.
  Other environmental groups are given the opportunity to comment on a proposed scheme at public consultation and when the draft orders for the preferred route are published.

  Consultants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many contracts and for what total sum were let out by his Department or agencies for which it is responsible to(a) Coopers and Lybrand, (b) KPMG Peat Marwick, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) Price Waterhouse, (e) Arthur Andersen, (f) Touche Ross, (g) Grant Thornton, (h)
  346
  Robson Rhodes and (i) Pannell Kerr Forster for (i) privatisation, (ii) market testing, (iii) management advice, (iv) accounting, (v) audit, (vi) consultancy and (vii) any other services in 1980 to 1983, 1984 to 1987, 1988 to 1991 and 1992 to 1993.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost for contracts let before 1989. Those let in the period 1989 to 1993 are shown in the table.

  (a) Coopers and Lybrand

  (i) 1991: Railways privatisation—value £1,446,808

  1992: DVOIT privatisation strategy review—value £15,000

  1993: Railways privatisation—value £425,532

  (iv) 1992: Temporary finance director—value £52,000

  (v) 1992: Financial audit of DVOIT—value £7,532

  (vi) 1989: Birmingham northern relief road—assessment of proposals and financial advice on concession agreement—value £1,374,000

  1989: Cashless parking equipment—value £50,000

  1990: Financial advisers on private roads—value £150,000

  1991: Study of EC directives and liberalisation—value £450,377

  1992: Evaluation of telesales tenders—value £18,000

  1993: Two seminars on tender evaluation-value £2,000

  1993: Sale of anonymised data—value £25,000

  1993: Evaluation of vehicle re-licensing tenders—value £25,000.

  1993: Scottish Office road safety review—value £18,000

  1993: Review of NMCS maintenance contract specification and performance—value £59,794

  (b) KPMG Peat Marwick

  (i) 1992: Financial advice on DVOIT privatisation—value £553,820

  1993: TRL privatisation study—value £78,150

  1993: Railways privatisation—value £2,893,618

  (iv) 1990: Implementation of a computerised accounting system—value £94,000

  (vi) 1989: Network information system—value not known

  1990: Routine maintenance management system—value £174,500

  1991: PMS implementation study—value £146,954

  1991: Audit of ex-Trinity House liquidated funds—value £4,800

  1992: Network referencing—value £101,300

  1992: DISC network policy—value £70,846

  1992: IT/IS strategy advice—value £90,000

  1992: Project management software—value £171,980

  1993: Purchasing and supply IT system study—value £43,880

  (c) Ernst and Young

  1992: DVOIT privatisation—value £2,000

  1993: Railways privatisation—value £680,851

  (vi) 1990: Consultancy advice to DVLA—value £111,000

  1992: European engineering standards study—value £87,414

  1992: Payroll costs model—value £106,000

  1993: OPRAF consultancy—two contracts, total value £170,000

  1993: IT strategy support—value £38,545

  347
  (d) Price Waterhouse

  1991: Privatisation of trust ports—value £886,233

  1992: DVOIT privatisation—three contracts, total value 86,127

  1992: Privatisation of London Buses—value £551,000

  1993: VI privatisation feasibility study—value £72,500

  1993: Advice to TRL on privatisation—value £9,230

  (iv) 1992: Consultancy advice to DVLA—value £162,000

  (vi) 1992: Taxation/company car advice—value £5,850

  (e) Arthur Andersen

  Nil

  (f) Touche Ross

  (ii) 1993: Advice to DVLA on market testing—value £139,000

  (vi) 1990: The impact of price-fixing agreements—value £5,000

  1990: Future of Greater Manchester Buses—value £53,120

  1992: Accommodation management information system—value £87,799

  (g) Grant Thornton

  Nil

  (h) Robson Rhodes

  Nil

  (i) Pannell Kerr Forster

  Nil

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to request MARPOL—the marine pollution convention—to give special area status against oil pollution for the North sea.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Walley) on 10 February 1994,Official Report, column 471.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the last financial year the total salary costs plus bonuses for each of his agency chief executives and his Permanent Secretary.

  Mr. Norris
  Information on agency chief executives' salaries was set out in the answer I gave the hon. Lady on 21 March,Official Report, column 103. Details of chief executives' total remuneration including bonuses in 1993–94 will be published in the annual report for each agency. The salary of the Permanent Secretary was £90,148 per annum with effect from 1 April 1993.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has of changes in the severity of road accident injuries resulting from the use of bull bars on road vehicles.

  Mr. Key
  We have no direct evidence. Impact tests using an instrumented child-size headform on a bull bar have shown that the severity of an impact on a bull bar appears significantly more than on a flexible bonnet. We 348
  have, therefore, taken steps to identify accidents where a pedestrian has been struck by a vehicle fitted with a bull bar with a view to determining whether bull bars are, in fact, causing increased injuries.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the numbers of road traffic accidents in each year since 1983 involving at least one motor vehicle driver who had been previously advised by a medical practitioner that they were not medically fit to drive; and how many involved(a) serious injuries and (b) fatalities.

  Mr. Key
  This information is not available.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he intends to issue the safeguarding direction for the route of the new channel tunnel rail link at Pepper Hill in the borough of Gravesham;

  (2) when he intends to issue the safeguarding directions for the route of the new channel tunnel rail link at Ashford in Kent.

  Mr. Freeman
  Safeguarding directions for the route of the new channel tunnel rail link at both Pepper Hill and Ashford were issued yesterday and will come into force today. Copies are being placed in the Library.

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those ports which have facilities to accept chemical contaminated waste.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 23 June 1994]: The Marine Safety Agency is currently undertaking a comprehensive survey of the provision of reception facilities in United Kingdom ports. The results of the survey will be published when they have been evaluated.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to improve the monitoring of non-accidental discharges in United Kingdom territorial waters.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 23 June 1994]: All United Kingdom registered ships, aircraft and offshore installations are asked to report any incidents or sightings of oil to the United Kingdom Coastguard who passes the information to the marine pollution control unit. The MPCU carries out 500 hours of aerial surveillance per annum, using aircraft fitted with specialised electronic equipment for detecting oil slicks on the surface of the sea. This is targeted on the main shipping lanes where non-accidental discharges are known to occur most often.

  These measures are considered adequate for the purposes of monitoring non-accidental discharges, and there are no plans to change or increase them.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ratify annex IV of the marine pollution convention; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 23 June 1994]: The Government will consider ratification of annex IV of MARPOL when the findings of a comprehensive survey of United Kingdom reception facilities, including those for sewage, are available later in the year.

ENVIRONMENT

  Brixton City Challenge
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what indication he has given to Brixton city challenge that its grant is to be curtailed.

  Mr. Baldry
  Following a ministerial annual review of Brixton challenge, officials wrote to the chairman of the company on 10 March, indicating that it was not possible to approve the 1994–95 action plan at that time. Since then, the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction has met representatives of the three parties on Lambeth council, and the chairman of Brixton challenge. Satisfactory assurances have been given with regard to the implementation of the Brixton challenge 1994–95 action plan, and the Minister therefore wrote to the party leaders and chairman on 22 June confirming the continuation of funding.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on Brixton city challenge.

  Mr. Baldry
  It was not possible to approve a second year of operation for Brixton challenge before the start of the current financial year because of their poor performance in 1993–94. However, assurances have now been given by the three party leaders at Lambeth that they will fully support Brixton challenge in the future, and the 1994–95 action plan has been revised by the company to make up for outputs lost last year. In these circumstances, the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction wrote to the Brixton challenge chairman and the Lambeth party leaders on 22 June informing them that he is now willing to approve a continuation of funding.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received concerning Brixton city challenge.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department has recently received three representations concerning Brixton city challenge.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of England's housing stock is constructed or adapted to meet the needs of physically disabled people at the latest date for which information is available; if he will break this information down into categories of housing tenure; what plans he has to enhance the availability of such housing stock; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The Department collects information for England on building starts and completions of specialised housing for the chronically sick and disabled, and on conversions or improvements for disabled persons, but not on the stock of such dwellings for physically disabled people.

  The available figures of housebuilding starts and completions by housing associations and local authorities for the chronically sick and disabled are shown in "Housing and Construction Statistics". Provisional data for 1993–94 in England are to be published shortly in the March quarter 1993 issue, part 1, and these are given in the table.
  350

  New housebuilding completions for the chronically sick and disabled England: 1993–94

  Housing associations

  Local authorities

  Totals

  Wheelchair

  136

  7

  143

  Mobility

  810

  59

  869

  All

  946

  66

  1,012

  The numbers of dwellings converted or improved for disabled persons are published in "Housing and Construction Statistics". The latest available financial year figures are for 1992–93 and are on tables 2.19 and 2.20 of the December quarter 1993 issue, part 2.

  All new housing association dwellings are required to be built to mobility standards. Allocations and priorities for local authority dwellings are determined by the individual authorities. The Department is considering whether to extend part M of the Building Regulations to cover all new buildings.

  Housebuilding
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for the last 15 years, in respect of the number of permanent dwellings(a) started, (b) under construction and (c) completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Estimates of housebuilding starts and completions, and dwellings under construction in England are shown in the quarterly and annual publication "Housing and Construction Statistics".

  Figures for 1991 and 1992, with provisional figures for 1993, are in the December quarter 1993 edition, part 1, table 1·2(a); and those for each year from 1982 to 1990 are in table 6.1 (a) of the 1982 to 1992 annual edition. Figures for 1979 to 1981 are in the same table of the editions for earlier years: 1980 and 1981 figures are in the 1980–1990 edition, and 1979 figures are in the 1979–1989 edition.

  Copies of these publications are in the Library.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Building Defects
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations his Department has received(a) about the amount of award given to plaintiffs who have successfully sued professional advisers who have been negligent in reporting defects in a building that the plaintiff has purchased and (b) about cases where the cost to the plaintiff of repairing the building is very much higher than the award given by the court because the award given by the court reflects what the value of the property would have been if the purchaser had known about the defect but was still willing to purchase but at a lower price; and if he will make proposals to enable courts to award the full reinstatement cost.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There has been correspondence between the Lord Chancellor's Department and my hon. Friend about the principles which apply in these cases. We do not propose to change those principles.

  Community Charge Offences
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases involving community charge offences have been taken to the High Court for judicial review, or are awaiting a date for a judicial review.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Schedule 4 to the Local Government Act 1988 provides for certain types of offence. The number of convictions and acquittals under these provisions referred for judicial review cannot be assertained except at disproportionate cost. For the same reason, it is not possible to provide the number of judicial review cases involving the enforcement of community charge; there are, however, currently 169 such cases awaiting a hearing date.

PRIME MINISTER

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has in respect of the 1996 IGC relating to a written European constitution.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply. None.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mahogany
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Attorney-General what action he intends to take in respect of imports of stolen Brazilian mahogany into the United Kingdom.

  The Attorney-General
  I understand that there are no restrictions on the import of Brazilian mahogany into the United Kingdom. The procedures for the investigation of criminal offences allegedly committed in relation to Brazilian mahogany are no different from those applicable to any other criminal offence, and the proper course, if it is believed that a criminal offence has been committed within the jurisdiction, is for the facts to be reported to the police.

WALES

  Medical Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money has been paid by his Department as merit awards to medical consultants in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as follows:

  Payment of distinction awards to consultants

  £

  1983–84

  1,841,988

  1984–85

  1,974,672

  1985–86

  2,273,522

  1986–87

  2,617,765

  1987–88

  2,698,790

  1988–89

  3,272,598

  1989–90

  3,753,583

  1990–91

  4,104,603

  352

  £

  1991–92

  3,701,500

  1992–93

  3,340,347

  Source: Health authorities annual accounts/financial returns Pembrokeshire NHS trust annual accounts—1992–93 only.

  Notes:

  1. Includes medical and dental consultants, NHS staff and honorary contract holders.

  2. 1992–93 figures are latest available.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the counties served, the number of hectares and the number of farmers in each of his Department's divisional offices for agriculture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Coverage of Welsh Office Divisional Offices1

  Divisional Office and Counties served

  Hectares of agricultural land2

  Farmers, partners and directors3

  Llandrindod Wells

  Powys; South, Mid and West Glamorgan; Gwent

  559,635

  11,835

  Carmarthen

  Dyfed

  453,589

  12,099

  Caernarfon

  Gwynedd; Clwyd

  479,798

  9,545

  Source: June 1993 agricultural census.

  1The figures shown are for the main holdings and therefore exclude the estimated 6,800 minor holdings in Wales which account for 18,700 hectares of land. Minor holdings data are not available at below national level.

  2Excludes common rough grazing land.

  3Farmers, partners and directors working whole-time or part-time on farm holdings on 1 June 1993. Excludes wives/husbands of farmers, partners and directors, even if the wives/husbands themselves may be partners or directors.

EMPLOYMENT

  Railway Signalmen
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the increase in real earnings of railway signalmen and white collar workers in the private sector since 1979; and what were the corresponding increases in productivity.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The available occupational information from the new earnings survey in 1979 closest to that requested is for full-time railway signalmen and shunters and in 1993 for railway signal operatives, crossing keepers, shunters and points operatives. When adjusted for the increase in the retail prices index at April, the earnings of this group increased by 47·3 per cent. during the period.

  The corresponding increase for private sector full-time non-manual employees was 51·6 per cent.

  The information requested for productivity is not available.

  University Graduates
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of graduates left university and took up careers in industry in(a) 1990, (b) 1991, (c) 1992 and (d) 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The table shows the number of first degree graduates who were in permanent employment in industry at the end of the calendar year in which they graduated. The figures are expressed as a percentage of all first degree graduates from United Kingdom universities and as a percentage of all those in permanent employment in the United Kingdom. They are derived from surveys published by the "Universities' Statistical Record" and exclude graduates from the former polytechnics and central institutions which received university status from 1992 onwards.

  Per cent. of all graduates

  Per cent. of those in permanent employment

  1990

  12·3

  28·2

  1991

  9·4

  25·2

  1992

  8·1

  22·9

  1993

  7·8

  21·3

  Note: Industry is defined as including agriculture, the extractive industries, utilities, construction, transport and manufacturing.

  Barnsley/Doncaster Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much of the Barnsley/Doncaster training and enterprise council's budget for(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 was devoted to the development of (i) self-employed businesses and (ii) new businesses.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In 1993–94, of the total training and enterprise council budget for Barnsley and Doncaster, business start-up accounted for 14·1 per cent. of expenditure. The planned expenditure for 1994–95 is 10·9 per cent. of the total TEC budget.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the information he receives from the Barnsley/Doncaster TEC about the operation of local enterprise companies; and what plans he has to increase the information available to him.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Training and enterprise councils do not provide information about the operation of local enterprise companies.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of his Department's staff who were seconded to the Barnsley/Doncaster TEC have taken advantage of the voluntary early retirement scheme while remaining in employment with the TEC; and at what cost to the voluntary early retirement scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  None.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many overseas persons are currently being trained under the auspices of the Barnsley/Doncaster TEC.
  354
  Miss Widdecombe
  The training and enterprise council operating agreement precludes TECs from training overseas nationals who are subject to employment restrictions or to a time limit in their stay in Great Britain or both—other than refugees or asylum seekers.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what instructions he has given to the Barnsley/Doncaster TEC in respect of when local enterprise companies may take steps to provide serviced sites.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Training and enterprise councils are not responsible for local enterprise companies.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made to the cost to public funds of the applicants of voluntary early retirement schemes to secondees from his Department to the Barnsley/Doncaster TEC, combined with the absence of a clawback mechanism for the former civil servants benefiting from the early retirement scheme but continuing in full-time employment with the TEC; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There is no cost to public funds as I know of no such cases.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the companies used by the Barnsley/Doncaster TEC which are members of the Confederation of British Industry.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each of the last five financial years the date on which the Barnsley/Doncaster training and enterprise council was notified of its yearly budget; when it actually received its funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Training and enterprise councils are notified of their budgets after the public expenditure survey announcement each year. TECs are funded monthly in arrears in accordance with their agreed contract.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of women members of each TEC; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of women on training and enterprise council boards is set out in the table. TECs are private companies and are responsible for the composition of their boards.

  TEC Name

  Number of Female directors

  Avon TEC

  3

  AZTEC

  3

  Barnsley/Doncaster TEC

  1

  Bedfordshire TEC

  2

  Birmingham TEC

  2

  Bolton Bury TEC

  1

  Bradford and District TEC

  2

  Calderdale/Kirklees TEC

  1

  CAMBSTEC (Central and South Cambridgeshire)

  1

  Central England TEC

  2

  355

  TEC Name

  Number of female directors

  CENTEC (Central London)

  3

  CEWTEC (Chester, Ellesmere Port, Wirral)

  2

  CILNTEC (City and Inner London North)

  2

  County Durham

  2

  Coventry and Warwickshire TEC

  1

  Cumbria TEC

  2

  Devon and Cornwall TEC

  2

  Dorset TEC

  2

  Dudley TEC

  1

  ELTEC (East Lancashire)

  2

  Essex TEC

  3

  Gloucestershire TEC

  2

  Greater Nottingham TEC

  1

  Greater Peterborough TEC

  1

  Hampshire TEC

  2

  HAWTEC (Hereford and Worcester)

  3

  Heart of England (Oxfordshire) TEC

  3

  Hertfordshire TEC

  2

  Humberside TEC

  2

  Kent TEC

  2

  Leeds TEC

  1

  Leicester TEC

  1

  Lincolnshire TEC

  1

  London East TEC

  2

  Manchester TEC

  2

  Merseyside TEC

  2

  Mid Glamorgan TEC

  2

  Norfolk and Waveney TEC

  3

  NORMIDTEC (North and Mid Cheshire)

  1

  North Derbyshire TEC

  3

  North London TEC

  1

  North Nottinghamshire TEC

  2

  North West London TEC

  2

  North Yorkshire TEC

  3

  Northamptonshire TEC

  2

  Northumberland TEC

  1

  Oldham TEC

  2

  Powys TEC

  2

  QUALITEC (St. Helens) Ltd.

  2

  Rochdale TEC

  4

  Rotherham TEC

  1

  Sheffield TEC

  2

  Shropshire TEC

  1

  SOLOTEC

  2

  South and East Cheshire TEC

  2

  South Thames TEC

  3

  Southern Derbyshire TEC

  3

  Stockport/High Peak TEC

  2

  Suffolk TEC

  2

  Surrey TEC

  2

  Sussex TEC

  2

  TARGED North West Wales TEC

  1

  Teesside TEC

  1

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  1

  Tyneside TEC

  2

  Wakefield TEC

  2

  Walsall TEC

  2

  Wearside TEC

  2

  West London TEC

  2

  West Wales TEC

  1

  Wight Training and Enterprise

  1

  Wiltshire TEC

  2

  Wolverhampton TEC

  1

  Total

  137

  Astra Training Ltd.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the properties transferred to Astra Training Services Ltd. in 1990 as part of the privatisation of the skills training agency, and their market value at that time; what is the total sum received by the 356
  Government in respect of the sales of any of those properties since 1990; and what details have been supplied to him of the current ownership of each of the properties and the current status of the agreement made with Astra Training Services Ltd. regarding the clawback of any profit on the sales of the properties following the company's collapse.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The following 33 properties were transferred to Astra Training Services Ltd. in 1990 as part of the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency:

  Barking

  Medway

  Basildon

  Milton Keynes

  Bellshill

  North Staffs

  Billingham

  Norwich

  Birmingham

  Peterborough

  Bradford

  Plymouth

  Bristol

  Preston

  Cheshire

  Redruth

  Dundee

  Rochdale

  Durham

  Sheffield

  Enfield

  Southampton

  Gloucester

  Tyneside

  Gwent

  West Glamorgan

  Hillingdon

  West Sussex

  Hull

  Wigan

  Irvine

  Wrexham

  Manchester

  The market value of the properties at the time of the privatisation is a matter of commercial confidentiality. The Government have received no sum in respect of the sale of any of the above properties since 1990 and full details of the current owners of each of the properties have been supplied to the Department, along with confirmation that, in all but one case, the clawback conditions continue to apply to new owners.

  None of the sales to date has triggered an actual clawback payment, due mainly to the low values generated in the depressed property market which has prevailed since privatisation.

  In the one case where clawback no longer applies, Hillington, the Government accepted a settlement payment—£50,000—to remove the clawback provisions. This was on the advice of the Department's professional advisers, who saw no prospect of any actual clawback payment in a similar amount being triggered within the remaining clawback period.

  Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Social Affairs Council held on 22 June.

  Mr. Hunt
  I attended the meeting of the Labour and Social Affairs Council held on 22 June in Luxembourg, and was accompanied by the Minister of State, Department of Employment, and the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt).

  The Council agreed to adopt the directive on the protection of young workers and to maintain in full the United Kingdom's renewable option not to apply limits to the working time of children and adolescents in the United Kingdom. Three member states abstained.

  The other 11 member states reached a common position on the draft European works councils directive. In accordance with the terms of the social protocol to the Maastricht treaty, this directive will not apply within the United Kingdom and employees based in the United

  357
  Kingdom will not count towards the threshold which determines whether the directive applies to multinational companies. As a result, more than 200 British companies which would otherwise have been covered by the directive will not have to establish European works councils. Furthermore, the directive will not oblige any British company to extend European works councils to the United Kingdom. Unlike companies in the other 11 member states, British companies will remain entirely free to decide for themselves what arrangements are best for consulting their United Kingdom employees.

  The Council reached agreement unanimously on a regulation to set up a European Health and Safety Agency, which will be sited in Bilbao. The main aims of the agency will be to promote and encourage the dissemination of information on health and safety matters.

  The Council also unanimously reached a common position on a new European Community vocational training programme, to be called "Leonardo da Vinci". The proposal will replace a range of existing Community training programmes, PETRA, FORCE, EUROTECNET and COMETT. It will have a budget of 620 mecu over five years.

  The Council heard progress reports on the follow-up work to the Delors White Paper and conclusions of the Brussels European Council on competitiveness, growth and employment, on the draft directive on chemical agents and on a commission communication on immigration and asylum policies.

  The Council adopted unanimously a resolution on the promotion of equal opportunities for men and women through the action of the European structural funds.

  The Commission's draft programme on social exclusion was withdrawn from the agenda by the presidency.

  Disabled People
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) disabled men and (b) disabled women in (i) the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow and (ii) Scotland as a whole were registered as unemployed at the most convenient date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 June 1994]: The labour force survey asks people of working age if they currently have a health problem or disability which limits the kind of paid work they can do. Estimates based on answers to this question will include people with short-term or minor health problems and disabilities as well as those registered as disabled.

  The latest LFS estimates for summer 1993 show that there were 26,000 such men and 10,000 such women who were International Labour Organisation unemployed and living in Scotland. The information is not available for parliamentary constituencies.

SCOTLAND

  Regional and European Elections
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hours on average returning officers and depute returning officers at the regional and European elections are expected to devote to these additional duties; whether it is the normal practice for their employers to allow time off to allow them to perform these additional duties; and if he will make a statement.
  358
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is no information held centrally about hours worked by returning officers and their deputies when engaged on European parliamentary election work. The arrangements for local government elections are the responsibility of the returning officer and council concerned.

  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 which he appointed on 26 January 1993 to undertake work in relation to the Shetland oil spill.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The ecological steering group on the oil spill in Shetland, which my right hon. Friend appointed last year under the chairmanship of Professor William Ritchie of Aberdeen university, has now completed its substantive report on the environmental effects of the spill. I expect to publish the report on Monday 27 June, when copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Detention
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the results of the research into detention in Scotland under section 2 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and voluntary attendance at police stations are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  A report entitled "Research into Detention and Voluntary Attendance of Suspects at Police Stations" is being published today.

  The report shows that despite some difficulties in a small proportion of cases caused by the six-hour limit, the current provisions for detention and voluntary attendance generally work satisfactorily. I do not intend to bring forward any legislative proposals on this subject.

  Copies of the report are available in the Library.

HEALTH

  Emergency Dental Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many family health authorities have been unable to provide emergency dental services in the period since December 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General dental practitioners have an obligation under their terms of service to provide emergency cover to their registered patients. They may also offer emergency treatment to non-registered patients. Family health services authorities can make arrangements for emergency treatment for those patients who are not registered.

  Where there are already adequate emergency services available from general dental practitioners, or the community or hospital dental services, there is no need for FHSAs themselves to make arrangements. All FHSAs report that they can help patients contacting them to receive national health service dental treatment.

  The available information is shown in the table:
  359

  Total number of family health services authorities reporting that they were not providing or did not need to provide emergency dental services in each week since December 19921.

  England Week ending

  FHSAs

  4 December 1992

  6

  11 December 1992

  6

  18 December 1992

  6

  25 December 1992

  —

  1 January 1993

  —

  8 January 1993

  6

  15 January 1993

  6

  22 January 1993

  6

  29 January 1993

  6

  5 February 1993

  6

  12 February 1993

  6

  19 February 1993

  6

  26 February 1993

  4

  5 March 1993

  7

  12 March 1993

  5

  19 March 1993

  5

  26 March 1993

  6

  2 April 1993

  6

  9 April 1993

  5

  16 April 1993

  5

  23 April 1993

  7

  30 April 1993

  5

  7 May 1993

  6

  14 May 1993

  6

  21 May 1993

  5

  28 May 1993

  6

  4 June 1993

  7

  11 June 1993

  6

  18 June 1993

  5

  25 June 1993

  5

  2 July 1993

  6

  9 July 1993

  5

  16 July 1993

  5

  23 July 1993

  5

  30 July 1993

  6

  6 August 1993

  5

  13 August 1993

  6

  20 August 1993

  6

  27 August 1993

  6

  3 September 1993

  5

  10 September 1993

  5

  17 September 1993

  5

  24 September 1993

  5

  1 October 1993

  5

  8 October 1993

  5

  15 October 1993

  5

  22 October 1993

  8

  29 October 1993

  7

  5 November 1993

  8

  12 November 1993

  6

  19 November 1993

  5

  26 November 1993

  6

  3 December 1993

  6

  10 December 1993

  6

  17 December 1993

  5

  24 December 1993

  —

  31 December 1993

  —

  7 January 1994

  6

  14 January 1994

  6

  21 January 1994

  7

  28 January 1994

  5

  4 February 1994

  6

  11 February 1994

  6

  18 February 1994

  5

  25 February 1994

  7

  4 March 1994

  6

  11 March 1994

  5

  18 March 1994

  5

  25 March 1994

  5

  1 April 1994

  6

  360

  England Week ending

  FHSAs

  8 April 19942

  —

  15 April 1994

  8

  22 April 1994

  8

  29 April 1994

  6

  6 May 1994

  5

  13 May 1994

  5

  20 May 1994

  5

  1Data were not collected during the Christmas and new year periods.

  2Data received for week ending 8 April 1994 are not comparable to the other data.

  Generic Drugs
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will estimate the savings which would have accrued to the NHS if in the financial year 1992–93 all prescribable drugs that were out of patent had been generically prescribed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is not possible to quantify accurately the potential savings to the national health service because the price differentials between branded and generic drugs are subject to fluctuations, not all drugs that are out of patent have a generic equivalent and it is not always clinically appropriate to prescribe a generic drug.

  Nursing Education
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by regional health authority the numbers of entrants to initial pre-registration nursing education by course of study and by academic qualifications possessed by entrants in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by regional health authority how many qualified NHS nurses and midwives, unqualified NHS nursing staff and nursing learners there were in each of the last five years; and what percentage each group was of the total NHS and midwifery staff in each year.

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest available information will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by regional health authority the whole-time equivalent numbers of(a) agency and (b) bank nursing and midwifery staff employed in the national health service in each year for the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is shown in the tables.

  The increase in bank nurses and midwives, together with the corresponding decrease in agency nurses and midwives, reflects the more widespread flexible working arrangements in the national health service for nurses and midwives.
  361

  Agency nurses by region 30 September 1988 to 1992 (Whole-time equivalent)

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Northern

  —

  —

  1—

  —

  —

  Yorkshire

  180

  160

  120

  110

  110

  Trent

  30

  150

  10

  130

  90

  East Anglia

  190

  190

  280

  240

  200

  North West Thames

  1,160

  1,540

  1,080

  710

  430

  North East Thames

  1,750

  1,530

  1,190

  910

  680

  South East Thames

  1,200

  1,250

  1,000

  430

  170

  South West Thames

  740

  1,000

  950

  520

  280

  Wessex

  60

  40

  —

  10

  30

  Oxford

  90

  100

  230

  180

  190

  South Western

  80

  190

  150

  70

  100

  West Midlands

  290

  410

  1,150

  370

  540

  Mersey

  80

  70

  90

  70

  10

  North Western

  50

  110

  140

  90

  100

  SHAs

  330

  500

  320

  90

  300

  Others

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  —

  ENGLAND

  6,240

  7,230

  6,710

  3,930

  3,230

  Bank nurses by region 30 September 1988 to 1992 (Whole-time equivalent)

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Northern

  330

  390

  180

  410

  610

  Yorkshire

  200

  210

  220

  270

  320

  Trent

  240

  220

  460

  490

  760

  East Anglia

  320

  400

  470

  490

  600

  North West Thames

  420

  510

  480

  590

  610

  North East Thames

  670

  460

  510

  950

  1,400

  South East Thames

  620

  590

  630

  720

  840

  South West Thames

  590

  690

  630

  1,050

  990

  Wessex

  480

  410

  550

  560

  600

  Oxford

  320

  310

  390

  730

  550

  South Western

  450

  540

  490

  780

  1,260

  West Midlands

  410

  450

  430

  500

  500

  Mersey

  310

  390

  330

  480

  450

  North Western

  470

  340

  410

  470

  480

  SHAs

  1—

  —

  40

  50

  50

  Others

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ENGLAND

  5,830

  5,910

  6,230

  8,540

  10,020

  1Denotes figures of five and under and '—' denotes no staff.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten whole-time equivalent.

  2. 'Others' includes staff in other statutory authorities.

  3. Some totals may not equal the sum of components due to rounding.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by regional health authority the numbers of whole-time equivalent NHS nursing and midwifery staff employed on each grade and pay point of the clinical grades, educational grades, and senior nursing and midwifery pay spine in each year for the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Community Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many home helps are employed by each local authority responsible for community care; and what is the ratio of home helps to population in each authority.

  Mr. Bowis
  The latest available data relates to whole time equivalent directly employed home helps, excluding home help organisers and assistant organisers as at 30 September 1993 and will be placed in the Library.

  Clinical Standards
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to include information on clinical effectiveness and performance in the patients charter.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The patients charter already includes the right to be given a clear explanation of the proposed treatment, alternatives and risks. This is an essential part of ensuring that the right treatment is provided in the right way to the right patients, thus promoting clinical effectiveness.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make it her policy to require regional health authorities to disclose in their accounts receipts from(a) the disposal of hospitals and (b) other large asset sales;
  363
  (2) if he will list references concerning income from the sale of hospitals in the audited accounts of the regional health authorities from 1984 to date.

  Mr. Sackville
  Since 1991, total capital receipts are disclosed in the cash flow statement of the annual accounts of regional health authorities. This complies with the financial reporting standards issued by the Accounting Standards Board. Prior to 1991, income from the sale of capital assets was disclosed in the notes to the accounts of regional health authorities.

  NHS Beds
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the total bed capacity of national health service providers is(a) unused and (b) used for private practice.

  Mr. Sackville
  Data about levels of occupancy of national health service beds are not held centrally. Information is held about the number of occupied bed days relating to each consultant episode. In total, there were over 45 million occupied bed days during 1991–92 in the

  Hospital medical consultants by population in each region England - 30 September 1992

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Whole-time equivalents

  Whole-time equivalents per 100,000 population

  Whole-time equivalents

  Whole-time equivalents per 100,000 population

  Whole-time equivalents

  Whole-time equivalents per 100,000 population

  Whole-time equivalents

  Whole-time equivalents per 100,000 population

  Northern

  940

  30·5

  940

  30·6

  970

  31·6

  1,030

  33·3

  Yorkshire

  1,020

  283

  970

  26·5

  1,000

  27·3

  1,130

  30·6

  Trent

  1,200

  25·7

  1,230

  26·2

  1,250

  26·7

  1,330

  28·2

  East Anglia

  580

  28·4

  630

  30·6

  650

  31·4

  630

  29·9

  North West Thames

  940

  27·0

  1,040

  29·9

  1,060

  30·3

  960

  27·0

  North East Thames

  1,180

  31·2

  1,240

  32·8

  1,240

  32·5

  1,340

  35·7

  South East Thames

  1,100

  30·0

  1,130

  31·0

  1,170

  31·8

  1,170

  31·6

  South West Thames

  780

  26·4

  820

  27·7

  850

  28·4

  820

  26·9

  Wessex

  770

  26·2

  780

  26·6

  810

  27·6

  840

  28·0

  Oxford

  660

  26·1

  670

  26·5

  690

  26·7

  710

  27·4

  South Western

  820

  25·3

  850

  26·0

  870

  26·7

  900

  27·0

  West Midlands

  1,410

  27·2

  1,460

  27·9

  1,500

  28·7

  1,530

  29·1

  Mersey

  690

  28·6

  720

  29·9

  730

  30·4

  750

  31·2

  North Western

  1,220

  30·7

  1,290

  32·3

  1,310

  32·6

  1,290

  32·3

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed in the NHS in each year since 1990–91.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Hospital medical and dental consultants in England at 30 September (whole-time equivalent)

  Number

  1990

  14,590

  1991

  14,900

  1992

  15,290

  Note: Figures rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalent

  Private Health Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department will commission an independent inquiry to establish the full costs of providing private health care within the NHS; including the costs of capital investment and training of medical staff.
  364
  general and acute sector in England. The number of bed days used by private patients is less than 1 per cent. of this total.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her response to the European Union's recommendation on child care.

  Mr. Bowis
  This relates to a requested response by March 1995.

  Medical Consultants
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by regional health authority and by year for the last four years, the number of medical consultants per head of population; and how many of them worked in private practice.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the table. The number of medical consultants who worked in private practice is not available centrally.

  Mr. Sackville
  No.

  Doncaster Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date Mr. Graham Smith was informed that he was not to be reappointed as chairman of the Doncaster health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Mr. Smith was told informally at the beginning of March that he was not being recommended for reappointment as chairman of Doncaster health authority. I wrote to Mr. Smith on 28 March notifying him formally that he had not been reappointed.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received regarding the adequacy of her Department's risk level assessment for soot particles of an average hourly concentration of 250 micrograms per cubic metre.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has not set a risk level for soot particles. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of
  365
  State for the Environment's expert panel on air quality standards is currently considering a standard for particulates which will include soot particles. The possible health effects of particulates are under consideration by a sub-group of this Department's expert advisory Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is her estimate of the health benefits of the reduction in air pollution to the safe levels defined by the World Health Organisation by the year 2000;

  (2) what assessment she has made of the health implications of a delay of five years in the reduction of air pollution to the safe levels defined by the World Health Organisation.

  Mr. Sackville
  The World Health Organisation air quality guidelines were established to provide information on possible effects of air pollutants and as a basis for standard setting by individual countries. They were determined with a view to protecting sensitive individuals and include safety factors to account for variations in sensitivity between individuals. Modest excursions of air pollutants above the guidelines would not therefore be expected to have a large effect on health.

  The assessment of the health effects of air pollution close to these levels remains uncertain. The Department's expert advisory committee on the medical effects of air pollutants has set up a sub-group to advise on the possible links between air pollutants and asthma and one to advise on the possible health effects of particulates including soot. The position will be reviewed in the light of its advice.

  Targets
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will identify the second order priorities for the next round of the "The Health of the Nation" targets; and what consideration she has given to the inclusion of targets specifically relating to the need to reduce the incidence of heart failure as a discrete part of the coronary heart disease targets.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no current plans for setting any new "The Health of the Nation" targets or key areas. The focus for the present is on consolidating work in the five existing key areas.

  Almost all cases of heart failure are attributable either to coronary heart disease or hypertension, both of which have specific "The Health of the Nation" targets within the CHD/stroke key area. The prevention, early diagnosis and effective treatment of heart failure are subsumed within these existing targets.

  GP Practices
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner practices there are in operation in each NHS region in England.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table

  Region

  Number of practices

  Northern

  523

  Yorkshire

  671

  Trent

  852

  East Anglia

  299

  North West Thames

  818

  366

  Region

  Number of practices

  North East Thames

  905

  South East Thames

  776

  South West Thames

  518

  Wessex

  442

  Oxford

  382

  South Western

  571

  West midlands

  1,064

  Mersey

  442

  North Western

  879

  The data relate to 1 October 1993.

  Intensive Therapy Units
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intensive therapy units are in operation in each NHS region in England(a) in absolute numbers and (b) per head of population by region.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Region

  Number of intensive therapy units (ITU's)1

  Population2 per ITU

  Northern and Yorkshire

  26

  252,303

  North West

  30

  219,673

  Trent

  16

  294,031

  West Midlands

  20

  260,960

  Anglia/Oxford

  13

  355,607

  North Thames

  27

  270,425

  South Thames

  13

  510,530

  South Western

  24

  246,625

  1 The number of intensive therapy units does not reflect accurately the level of provision as the number of beds in each unit varies considerably.

  2 Population figures based on 1990 Office of Population Censuses and Surveys data.

  Dentistry
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many dental deregistrations there were in the period 1985 to 1993;

  (2) how many clients were registered with general dental practitioners in each year since 1983.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: Before the introduction of the new dental contract in October 1990, patients did not register with their dentists for treatment. Patients could not therefore be deregistered before that date. There were 687,765 deregistrations between 3 July 1992, the date deregistrations started to be counted, and 10 June 1994. Over a broadly similar period, total patient registrations rose by 1,049,178.

DEFENCE

  Porton Down
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tests and studies have been carried out by the chemical and biological warfare establishment at Porton Down using potassium; when these experiments were carried out; and what were the results and conclusions of these tests and studies.
  367
  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Dr. Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what tests and studies have been carried out by the chemical and biological warfare establishment at Porton Down using potassium, when these experiments were carried out, and what were the results and conclusions of these tests and studies has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. Tests and studies on potassium, which is a highly reactive metal, have not been carried out at CBDE. Although potassium as a laboratory chemical has been used and continues to be used on an infrequent basis in various aspects of general organic chemical synthesis at CBDE Porton Down.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his answer of 26 January Official Report, columns 304–5, (1) how many service volunteers on average return voluntarily to Porton Down to take part in subsequent unrelated studies; whether they receive the same pro rata payment as volunteers who go only once; and how many times a service volunteer may go to Porton Down to participate in studies;

  (2) what details from the study are recorded on the medical records of individual service volunteers who have participated in studies at the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down; what is his Department's policy on releasing the medical records of service volunteers to the individual concerned or to the individual's doctors if so requested; and how many medical records have been released in this way;

  (3) how many service volunteers on average each year withdraw from studies at the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down after the nature of the intended study is explained to them; and whether they still receive payment;

  (4) how many service volunteers are on average each year recalled to have their medical health checked; how such volunteers are chosen to be recalled; how many years after the study they are usually recalled; and whether they are recalled more than once;

  (5) how many service volunteers on average each year are rejected as being unfit following the medical examination on arrival at the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down; and whether they still receive payment if they are rejected.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establisment under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his answer of 26 January, Official Report, columns 304–5, further questions relating to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment volunteer programme have been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  368
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use service volunteers to:

  (a) assess the ability of service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures;

  (b) develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel and

  (c) evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

  No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.
  3. Service volunteers re-attend CBDE to take part in further studies according to their willingness and availability and are paid the same as volunteers who may only attend on one occasion. There is no restriction on the number of times a volunteer may return to CBDE to participate in studies but a volunteer cannot re-attend to participate in the same study for scientific and statistical reasons. Volunteers are paid to compensate them for the inconvenience of the tests carried out as part of the study; there is no difference in the amount of the payment for volunteers who have returned for a further study.
  4. It has long been MOD policy to release Service volunteers' medical records to a patient's GP on a MEDICAL-IN-CONFIDENCE basis when they are needed for the management of a particular case. It is entirely up to the GP how much or how little of this information he conveys to his patient. The Service volunteer's medical documents will include the results of the investigations performed as part of the entry medical examination. There are no central records maintained of how many medical records have been released in such circumstances.
  5. Over the past three years, only one volunteer has withdrawn from a study following detailed explanation of the protocol. He received payment in compensation for the inconvenience of the tests he had undertaken during the entry medical examination.
  6. There is no set pattern of recalls or selection of volunteers for recall. The number of volunteers recalled and the time after the study are varied according to the objective of recalling the volunteers. The current practice is that all volunteers upon arrival at the Establishment are read a lay statement by a military officer which states that it is our policy to call back some volunteer subjects for re-testing from time to time to ensure that the techniques used give consistent and reproducible results and that no changes in the way we apply the tests have occurred with time." The recall of any volunteers to CBDE is recorded on their medical records.
  7. About 5% of volunteers are rejected following review of their medical documents prior to their attendance at CBDE. They receive no payment. Between 5–10% of volunteers are rejected as unfit following the entry medical examination upon arrival at CBDE. They will receive payments in compensation for the inconvenience of the tests undertaken as part of the initial medical examination.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, columns 163–64, (1) what was the purpose of experiments carried out on the nerve agent VX during the specified years at Nancekuke; what was the conclusion of these experiments; what quantities of the agent VX were used in these tests; when the results of these experiments were exchanged with the United States of America; with which other countries these results were shared; and under which defence agreements this information was exchanged;

  (2) on which agents in the V series Nancekuke carried out research in the specified years; what was the purpose and conclusions of this research; when the results of these experiments were exchanged with the United States of America; and under which defence agreements this information was exchanged.
  369
  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer of 11th January, Official Report, columns 163–4 for further information about the nerve agent VX and the V series research carried out at Nancekuke have been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.
  3. The studies on VX during 1957–1976 were to determine whether or not this agent was producible in quantity and was stable when stored. Our records do not indicate the amount of VX but it is estimated to be less than 100 kgs.
  4. The V series agents were substituted analogues of VX. The V series agents were investigated to determine whether they were stable and whether they could be produced effectively by an aggressor.
  5. The results of this work have formed part of the chemical and biological defence programme and is part of the technical database drawn upon in collaboration with the United States, Australia and Canada under the Technical Cooperation Programme and its predecessors and with the United States and Canada under the Memorandum of Understanding on Chemical and Biological Defence.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what precautions are taken to ascertain whether individual service personnel have allergies before they are tested in the human volunteer programme at the chemical and biological warfare establishment at Porton Down;

  (2) how long is the average stay for service volunteers who are involved in studies at the chemical and biological warfare establishment at Porton Down; how much payment each service volunteer receives; and how many tests each individual undergoes on average.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what precautions are taken to ascertain whether individual Service personnel have allergies before they participated in the human volunteer programme and how long is the average stay for Service volunteers who are involved in studies at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down; how much payment each Service volunteer receives; and how many tests each individual undergoes on average have been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use service volunteers to:

  (a) assess the ability of service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures,

  370

  (b) develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel and

  (c) evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

  No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.
  3. In order to ascertain whether individual Service personnel have allergies before they are tested in the human volunteer programme their Service medical documents are reviewed at CBDE before the volunteers attend for studies. No volunteer is accepted for studies at CBDE with a medical history suggesting allergic response to any substance. A recent, positive history of hay fever, asthma, eczema or other allergic phenomenon will lead to rejection at the initial medical examination, despite the fact that this may not be directly relevant to the study, or substances being used in the study being performed. Evidence or allergic response found at the initial medical examination, such as urticaria, or respiratory function tests suggesting an allergic airway response (asthma) will also lead to automatic rejection.
  4. Service volunteers may remain at CBDE for between three days to four weeks depending on the study protocol in which they are participating. The majority of recent and current protocols involve a two or three week stay. Payment for the inconvenience associated with the tests in a study will vary according to the number of tests undertaken which may vary between about a minimum of 100 to a maximum of approximately 400; a payment is made for each test. The minimum amount presently paid is £142 after tax whereas the maximum is £350 after tax.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 January,Official Report, column 306, what was the conclusion of the Biotechnology Committee's report into the implications of biotechnology for defence; how many members were then serving on the Biotechnology Committee; how many of them were academics; whether they were given access to the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer of 26th January, Official Report, column 306, what was the conclusion of the Biotechnology Committee's report into the implications of biotechnology for defence; how many members were then serving on the Biotechnology Committee; how many of them were academics; whether they were given access to the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The Biotechnology Committee considered the impact that biotechnology would have on the threat from biological weapons and the ways in which this technology could be harnessed to enhance the United Kingdom's defence capability to detect and provide medical countermeasures against biological agents. The Biotechnology Committee consisted of 14 members of which 7 were from academia. They were given access to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down and to relevant documentation in order to carry out their task. Their report is classified and as such I am unable to arrange to place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official

  371
  Report, column 163, (1) how many service volunteers were used for tests at Porton Down in each year between 1964 and 1979; what was the purpose of those tests; and which chemicals and biological organisms were used in those tests;

  (2) what were the reasons for the increases in the number of tests on service volunteers in 1980 and 1981; why only GB (Sarin) has been used in the tests since 1979; and what were the highest and lowest amounts of this agent used in these tests.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer of 11 January, Official Report, column 163, asking how many volunteers were used for tests at Porton Down each year between 1964 and 1979 and the reasons for the increases in the number of tests in Service volunteers in 1980 and 1981 and why only GB (Sarin) has been used since 1979 have been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use service volunteers to:

  (a) assess the ability of service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures,

  (b) develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel and

  (c) evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

  No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.
  3. The number of Service volunteers used for studies at Porton Down in each year between 1964 and 1979 was as follows:

  Number

  1964

  298

  1965

  146

  1966

  149

  1967

  244

  1968

  263

  1969

  181

  1970

  327

  1971

  225

  1972

  358

  1973

  264

  1974

  304

  1975

  137

  1976

  254

  1977

  117

  1978

  104

  1979

  153

  These volunteers have participated in studies carried out for the purposes outlined in paragraph 2 above. No volunteer studies have been carried out involving biological organisms.

  4. The number of Service volunteers increased in 1980 and 1981 because of the need to carry out studies into aircrew protection. A number of studies were carried out to determine the lowest acceptable level for exposure to nerve agents.
  372
  5. GB (Sarin) is an example of a volatile nerve agent which has been used in all studies involving nerve agents since 1979. This agent has been used as it is representative of the range of nerve agents.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, columns 165–66, which of the studies on nerve gases, CR gas and CS gas were carried out in Australia; at which Australian defence establishment these tests were done; what was the purpose and conclusion of these tests; and in which years these tests were carried out.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer of 11th January, Official Report, columns 165–6, which of the studies on nerve gases, CR gas and CS gas were carried out in Australia, at which Australian defence establishment these test were done; what was the purpose and conclusion of these tests; and in which years these tests were carried out has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.
  3. In this work it has been necessary to evaluate the potential hazards from nerve gases and the irritants CR and CS. Our records do not indicate that any of our work on these materials has been carried out in Australia.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 January,Official Report, column 303, (1) at which military establishments studies for the human volunteer programme have taken place other than the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down; when and for what reasons these studies were conducted at Porton Down; and what was the conclusion of these studies;

  (2) when the detailed protocol was approved by the independent ethics committee and adopted by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment; and if he will publish this protocol covering the testing of volunteers.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer of 26 January, Official Response, column 303, when the detailed protocol was approved by the Independent Ethics Committee and adopted by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment; and if he will publish this protocol covering the testing of volunteers and at which military establishments studies for the human volunteer programme have taken place other than the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down; when and for what reasons these studies were conducted at Porton Down; and

  373
  what was the conclusion of these studies have been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use service volunteers to:

  (a) assess the ability of service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures,

  (b) develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel and

  (c) evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

  No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.
  3. A separate detailed protocol is prepared for each study; these are classified and are not published.
  4. Our records indicate that studies involving Service volunteers have also taken place at RMCS Shrivenham, Dover, Bulford, The Cambridge Military Hospital and some collaborative work has been carried out with the Institute of Aviation Medicine. Such studies are carried out at these other Establishments when it is more convenient to do the studies there than to require the volunteers to come to Porton Down.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tests and studies have been carried out by Porton Down to assess the so-called pepper sprays; when these tests and experiments were carried out; whether they involved humans and animals; what were the conclusions of these studies; when the results of these studies and tests were exchanged with other United Kingdom Government Departments and other countries; and with which other countries and United Kingdom Government Departments these results were shared.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him what tests and studies have been carried out by Porton Down to assess the so-called pepper sprays; when these tests and experiments were carried out, whether they involved humans and animals; what were the conclusions of these studies; when the results of these studies and tests were exchanged and other United Kingdom government departments and other countries; and with which other countries and United Kingdom government departments these results were shared has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.
  3. Our records indicate that no tests or studies have been carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment to assess so-called pepper sprays. We are aware that the active material in the so-called pepper sprays devices is capsaicin; this was studied by CBDE in the 1920s as a possible incapacitating agent. Our records do not indicate what detailed work was done with capsaicin.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department last negotiated with the United States 374
  of America to supply Britain with a shipment of nerve gas; what prompted the negotiations; and what were the conclusions of the negotiations.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when his Department last negotiated with the United States of America to supply Britain with a shipment of nerve gas; what prompted the negotiations; and what were the conclusions of the negotiation has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.
  3. Our records indicate that the last transfer of nerve gas from the United States of America to Britain took place in June 1967 and was transported to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down. Our records do not indicate precisely when the negotiations took place but they are likely to have been in the course of the regular trilateral and quadlateral discussions with the US on chemical and biological defence, and to have taken place shortly before the transfer in 1967. The negotiations which led to this transfer took place to enable a collaborative programme of work into the stability and analytical research of nerve agents to be carried out. The results of this work was part of the chemical and biological defence programme and would therefore be part of the technical database drawn upon in collaboration with the United States, Australia and Canada under the Technical Co-operation Programme and its predecessors and with the United States and Canada under the Memorandum of Understanding on Chemical and Biological Defence

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many staff at the Chemical and Biological Warfare Establishment at Porton Down have been permanently disabled since 1964 due to work-related activity; in which year each occurred; what were the causes and circumstances of each one; and what was the establishment's response in terms of changing procedures to prevent such cases;

  (2) how many staff at the Chemical and Biological Warfare Establishment at Porton Down have died due to work-related activity since 1964; in which year each death occurred; what were the causes and circumstances of each death; and what was the establishment's response in terms of changing procedures to prevent such deaths.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many staff at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down have died or been permanently disabled due to work-related activities since 1964; in which year each death occurred; what were the causes and circumstances of each death; and what was the Establishment's

  375
  response in terms of changing procedures to prevent such deaths has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to have available small quantities of materials which may be used as chemical or biological warfare agents by a potential aggressor.
  3. Our records indicate that no members of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment staff have died or been permanently disabled due to a work related activity since 1964.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 397, with which other countries the results of the tests on tryptamines were shared; when these results were shared and through which defence agreement they were exchanged; which animals were tested with tryptamines; how many of each of these animals were used; and when Porton Down ended its work on tryptamines.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer to 27th January, Official Report, column 397–8, with which other countries the results of the tests on tryptamines were shared; when these results were shared and through which defence agreement they were exchanged; which animals were tested with tryptamines; how many of each of these animals were used; and when Porton Down ended its work on tryptamines has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.
  3. Our records do not indicate precisely how many small laboratory animals were used in this work but they are likely to have involved rats, mice, rabbits and monkeys. The work involving tryptamines ceased in the mid 1960s and the results of this work was part of the chemical and biological defence programme and would therefore be part of the technical database drawn upon in collaboration with the United States, Australia and Canada under the Technical Co-operation Programme and its predecessors and with the United States and Canada under the Memorandum of Understanding on Chemical and Biological Defence.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down has done to assess the threat of genetically engineered toxins; what was the conclusion of the work; which toxins have been studied; what tests and studies have been involved in this work; which section of the establishment has been carrying out the work; whether the results have been published in open literature; and whether the results have been exchanged with any other country.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  376
  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him what the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down has done to assess the threat of genetically-engineered toxins; what was the conclusion of the work; which toxins have been studied; what tests and studies have been involved in this work; which section of the Establishment has been carrying out the work; whether the results have been published in open literature; and whether the results have been exchanged with any other country has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.
  3. Theoretical reviews have been carried out to evaluate the threat from genetically engineered toxins by the Defence Microbiology Division in conjunction with appropriate sections of the Establishment. The results are classified and have not been published in the open literature. In addition genetic engineering has been used as a tool in work to study medical countermeasures to toxins by, for example, detoxifying toxins in order to produce safer vaccines. This work was part of the chemical and biological defence programme and would therefore be part of the technical database drawn upon in collaboration with the United States, Australia and Canada under the Technical Co-operation Programme and its predecessors and with the United States and Canada under the Memorandum of Understanding on Chemical and Biological Defence.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), on 11 January,Official Report, columns 163–64, what was the purpose of research on the nerve agent GD during the years outlined at Nancekuke; what was the conclusion of this research; what quantities of the nerve agent were used in this research; with which other countries the results of this research were shared and under which defence agreement this occurred.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him pursuant to his Answer to the honourable Member for Brent East on 11th January, Official Report, columns 163–64, what was the purpose of research on the nerve agent GD during the years outlined at Nancekuke; what was the conclusion of this research, what quantities of the nerve agent was used in this research; with which other countries the results of this research were shared and under which defence agreement this occurred has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.
  3. The Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has carried out work on the nerve agent GD to evaluate the feasibility and hazard of the use of such an agent against the UK Armed Forces. The work enabled assessments to be made of the ease of

  377
  acquisition of the precursors for GD, the case of stabilisation of GD and the shelf life of thickened GD. The quantity used was about 60 kg.
  4. The results of this work were part of the chemical and biological defence programme and would have formed part of the technical database drawn upon in collaboration with the United States, Australia and Canada under the Technical Co-operation Programme and its predecessors and with the United States and Canada under the Memorandum of Understanding on Chemical and Biological Defence.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when female service personnel have taken part in tests under the human volunteer programme at Porton Down;

  (2) how many service personnel have died while taking part in the human volunteer programme run by the Chemical and Biological Warfare Establishment at Porton Down since 1964; in which year each death occurred; what were the causes and circumstances of each death; and what was the establishment's response in terms of changing procedures to prevent such deaths;

  (3) how many service personnel have been involved in accidents requiring hospital treatment while or after taking part in the human volunteer programme run by the Chemical and Biological Warfare Establishment at Porton Down since 1964; in which year each accident occurred; what were the causes and circumstances of each accident; and what was the establishment's response in terms of changing procedures to prevent such accidents.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him how many service personnel have been involved in accidents requiring hospital treatment while or after taking part in the human volunteer programme run by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down since 1964; in which year each accident occurred; what were the causes and circumstances of each accident; and what was the Establishment's response in terms of changing procedures to prevent such accidents, how many service personnel have died while taking part in the human volunteer programme run by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down since 1964; in which year each death occurred; what were the causes and circumstances of each death; and what was the Establishment's response in terms of changing procedures to prevent such deaths and when female service personnel have taken part in tests under the human volunteer programme at Porton Down have been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use service volunteers to:

  (a) assess the ability of service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures,

  (b) develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel and

  (c) evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

  No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.
  3. Our records indicate that no Service personnel since 1964 have been involved in accidents requiring hospital treatment or
  378
  have died while or after taking part in the human volunteer programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  Female Service personnel have been invited to participate in the human volunteer programme since May 1972 and first participated in the volunteer programme in November 1972.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work Porton Down has carried out to assess substituted hydroxylamines and hydrazines as an incapacitating agent; when this work started and ended; what was the conclusion of this work; which and how many animals were involved in this work; if the tests involved humans; with which other countries the results of the work were shared; when this information was shared; and under which defence agreement these results were exchanged.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him what work Porton Down has carried out to assess substituted hydroxylamines and hydrazines as an incapacitating agent; when this work started and ended; what was the conclusion of this work; which and how many animals were involved in this work; if the tests involved humans; with which other countries the results of the work were shared; when this information was shared; and under which defence agreement these results were exchanged has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.
  3. Our records indicate that no work has been carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment to assess substituted and unsubstituted hydroxylamines and hydrazines as incapacitating agents.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) of 11 January,Official Report, column 160, where the results of the work on pyrroles were published in open literature.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer to the hon. Member for Brent East on 11th January, Official Report, column 160, where the results of the work on pyrroles were published in open literature has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Froces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential

  379
  hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.
  3. Our records indicate that the results of the work on pyrroles carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has not been published in the open literature.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on 11 January,Official Report, column 167, why Australia requested each of the agents and materials from Britain; from which British military establishment each was transferred; to which Australian establishment each was transferred; how each was transported and what safety precautions were required; and what was the nature of the V agent and G agent intermediates.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East on 11 January, Official Report, column 167, why Australia requested each of the agents and materials from Britain; from which British military establishment each was transferred; to which Australian establishment each was transferred; how each was transported and what safety precautions were required; and what was the nature of the V agent and G agent intermediates has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.
  3. The V agent intermediate was methyphosphonodichloride and the G agent intermediate was Di-Di which is a mixture of methylphosphonic difluoride and methylphosphonic dichloride. These were transferred from the then Chemical Defence Establishment at Nancekuke. Our records do not indicate why Australia requested the agents and materials from Britain or how they were transported to Australia. They were, however, transported to London, suitably packaged in accordance with the safety standards applicable at that time, for onward transportation to Australia.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) of 11 January,Official Report, columns 164–65, what work Porton Down has also done on assessing the hazard of tremorines; when this work started and ended, what was the conclusion of the work; where were the conclusions published; and with which other countries the results of the work were shared and when this information was exchanged.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24th June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer to the honourable
  380
  Member for Brent East of 11th January, Official Report, column 164–5, what work Porton Down has also done on assessing the hazard of tremorines; when this work started and ended, what was the conclusion of the work; where were the conclusions published; and with which other countries the results of the work were shared and when this information was exchanged has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to have available small quantities of materials which may be used as chemical or biological warfare agents by a potential aggressor.
  3. In my reply of 11 January I advised the honourable Member for Brent East that the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment had carried out work on oxo-tremorine. Our records indicate that we have not carried out work on tremorines as such although pyrroles are substituted tremorines and my answers of 11 January 1994, Official Report, column 160 and 19 July 1993, Official Report, column 82 relate to pyrroles.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many research projects relating to genetic engineering have been funded in universities and polytechnics by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment since 1979; what are the titles of these projects and what was the duration and value of each project.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many research projects relating to genetic engineering have been funded in universities and polytechnics by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment since 1979, what are the titles of these projects and what was the duration and value of each project has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. A total of seven research projects relating to genetic engineering have been funded in universities and polytechnics by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment since 1979. The details are as follows:

  Title

  Duration

  Gene probes for flaviruses

  3 years

  Plasmid stability in bacillus

  3 years

  Genetic control of translational fidelity in yeast

  3 years

  Eukaryotic expression vectors

  3½ years

  Mapping of bacterial proteins

  4 years

  Bacillus brevis for biosynthesis of heterogeneous proteins

  3 years

  3. The total value of these contracts was £1,059K; it is not our normal practice to reveal the value of individual contracts as the disclosure of the value is left to the individual universities and polytechnics to make as they feel appropriate.
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which years Porton Down has tested(a) CR gas and (b) CS gas on service personnel in the human volunteer programme; what was the purpose of these tests; how the gas was administered to the volunteers in both cases; what was the conclusion of these tests for each of the gases; how many service volunteers were tested with each of the gases; and where the results of these tests are published in open literature.
  381
  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking in which years Porton Down has tested (a) CR gas and (b) CS gas on service personnel in the human volunteer programme; what was the purpose of these tests; how the gas was administered to the volunteers in both cases; what was the conclusions of these tests for each of the gases; how many service volunteers were tested with each of the gases; and where the results of these tests are published in open literature has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use service volunteers:

  (a) assess the ability of service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures,

  (b) develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel and

  (c) evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

  No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.
  3. Our records indicate that 460 Service volunteers were exposed to the irritant CS during the period 1959–1973 and 190 Service volunteers were exposed to CR during the period 1963–1976.
  4. The purpose was to carry out skin and eye sensitivity tests, food palatability tests, physiological tests to determine the effects on the respiratory and cardiovascular systems and exercise testing to determine the degree of incapacitation following exposure. The CS and CR was administered in controlled amounts in an exposure chamber or to the skin in the form of a solution.
  5. Our records indicate that the results of the human volunteer programme involving CS and CR have been published in the open literature as listed in the Annex.

  Open Literature Publications

  The presentation and management of individuals contaminated with solutions of dibenzoxazepine (CR).

  Ballantyne, B., Beswick, F. W. and Price Thomas, D.

  Medicine, Science and the Law, 13, No. 4, October 1973.

  The cutaneous reactions produced by dibenzoxazepine (CR).

  Holland, P.

  Brit. J. Derm (1974), 90, 657–659.

  Effects on man of whole body drenches with dilute solutions of c-chlorobenzilidene malononitrile (CS) and dibenzoxazepine (CR).

  Ballantyne B, Gazzard M. F., Swanston D. W. and Williams P. Arch. Toxicol 34 183–201 (1975).

  Riot control agents. Biomedical and health aspects of the use of chemicals in civil disturbances.

  Ballantyne B.

  Medical annual 1977.

  Report of the enquiry into the Medical and Toxicological aspects of CS orthochlorobenzylidene malononitrile. Part I. Enquiry into the medical situation following the use of CS in Londonderry on 13th and 14th August 1969.

  Himsworth Committee. October 1969. HMSO Cmnd 4173.

  Report of the enquiry into the Medical and Toxicological aspects of CS, Part II. Enquiry into Toxicological aspects of CS and its uses for civil purposes.

  Himsworth Committee. September 1971. HMSO Cmnd 4775.

  382

  The effect of CS aerosol upon exercise, ventilation and cardiac frequency in healthy men.

  Cotes J. E., Evans L. R., Johnson G., Martin H. de V. and Reed J. W.

  J. Physiol, 222, 77–78, 1972.

  Effect of CS aerosol upon Lung Gas Transfer and Alveolar Volume in Healthy Men.

  Cotes J. E., Dabbs J. H., Evans M. R. and Holland P.

  Q.JI. exp Physiol. (1972), 57, 199–206.

  The cutaneous reactions produced by o-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile and w-chloracetonphenone when applied directly to the skin of human subjects.

  Holland P., and White R. G.

  Br J. Derm (1972), 86, 150.

  The palatability of food exposed to o-chlorobenzylidene malononitirile (CS).

  Kemp, K. H. and Wilder W. B.

  Medicine, Science and the Law, 12 No. 2, April 1972

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work Porton Down has carried out to assess benzimidazoles as an incapacitating agent; when this work started and ended; what was the conclusion of the work; which and how many animals were tested during this work; how many service volunteers were tested; and where the results of the work were published in open literature.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, under their framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what work Porton Down has carried out to assess benzimidazoles as an incapacitating agent; when this work started and ended; what was the conclusion of the work; which and how many animals were tested during this work; how many service volunteers were tested; and where the results of the work were published in open literature has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to have available small quantities of materials which may be used as chemical or biological warfare agents by a potential aggressor.
  3. We have no record of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment having carried out work on benzimidazoles as an incapacitating agent.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the numbers of staff and budget of the defence microbiology division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has increased or decreased since the division was set up;

  (2) what publications have been published by scientists in the defence microbiology division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment since 1986; in which scientific journals they were published; and on what date they were published;

  (3) what are the current priorities of the defence microbiology division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, under its framework
  383
  document. I have asked the chief executive, to write to the hon. Member. There is also an annex listing research publications by scientists in the defence microbiology division, which will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what are the current priorities of the Defence Microbiology Division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, whether the numbers of staff and budget of the Defence Microbiology Division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has increased or decreased since the division was set up, what publications have been published by scientists in the Defence Microbiology Division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment since 1986; in which scientific journals they were published; and on what date they were published have been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The primary purpose of the Defence Microbiology Division at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down is to carry out work on defence against pathogenic micro-organisms and toxins that are assessed to present a threat to the United Kingdom Armed Forces. The work of this division contributes to the United Kingdom programme on chemical and biological defence which is aimed at ensuring that the United Kingdom Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them.
  3. The current priorities of the Defence Microbiology Division are to investigate technologies for the rapid detection and identification of biological warfare agents and to investigate medical countermeasures against their use.
  4. Since its establishment in 1979 the numbers of staff and budget of the Defence Microbiology Division have increased. Our records indicate that the research publications by scientists in the Defence Microbiology Division since 1986 are listed in the Annex.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the relationship between his answer of 29 March,Official Report, columns 732–33, and his oral statement of 27 January, Official Report, column 444, regarding his visiting South Yorkshire.

  Mr. Hanley
  There seems to have been an error in the Official Report at column 444. As the hon. Member has been informed subsequently on a number of occasions, my visit of 27 January was to North Yorkshire.

  Air Misses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates, locations, aircraft types involved, altitude and determination of cause, for all category C air misses involving military aircraft over the United Kingdom in 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Hanley
  I will arrange for a copy of the list of all category C air miss reports involving military aircraft over the United Kingdom in 1988 and 1989, which have been investigated by the joint air miss working group to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the action taken in response to the joint air miss working group recommendations in its report on air miss No. 46/93.
  384
  Mr. Hanley
  The national air traffic services in conjunction with the appropriate MOD staffs have taken the requisite actions called for by the joint air miss working group in its recommendations. No discrepancies or inaccuracies were found in the United Kingdom and NATO airborne early warning orders.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library brief descriptions of the circumstances of all category A air misses involving military aircraft for each year since 1989.

  Mr. Hanley
  Lists of all categories of air misses involving military aircraft since 1988 have recently been placed in the Library of the House. Since that time, there have been a further three category A air misses, details of which will be placed in the Library shortly. The lists detail the date, location, risk category, aircraft type and descriptions of the cause.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the category A air miss 159/93 on 2 November 1993 between a Jet Ranger 206 helicopter and an RAF Tornado, (b) the category B air miss 148/93 on 18 October 1993 between a Jet Ranger 206 helicopter and an RAF Tucano and (c) the category C air miss 151/93 on 12 October 1993 between a Jet Ranger 206 helicopter and an RAF Tornado.

  Mr. Hanley
  All reported air misses are investigated by the joint air miss working group—JAWG. The reports of the investigations into these three incidents will be included in the next JAWG "Analysis of Airmisses in the UK" due to be published in the autumn. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House in the usual way.

  Royal Air Force (Bosnia)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the current interval between assignments to duties over Bosnia for Royal Air Force airborne warning and communication system crews; and what deferments of AWACS crew training tasks have taken place as a result of meeting commitments to providing crews for Bosnian operations;

  (2) what are the current (a) planned and (b) actual intervals between deployments for operational duties over Bosnia, northern Iraq and southern Iraq, for individual members of aircrew in (a) Tornado GR1/1A squadrons, (b) Tornado F3 squadrons, (c) Harrier squadrons, (d) Jaguar squadrons and (e) Royal Navy Sea Harrier squadrons; and for what period of time aircrew are assigned to these duties on each occasion.

  Mr. Hanley
  Intervals between deployments of aircrew overseas for operations related to former Yugoslavia and Iraq vary for a variety of reasons. On the assumption that the present pattern of deployments continues unchanged, the number of deployments overseas and the time spent on operational duty by individual RAF aircrew in a full year would on average be of the following order:

  Average number in a full year of

  Aircraft/Theatre

  Deployments

  Weeks spent on operational duties

  E-3D: former Yugoslavia

  8

  16

  Tornado GR1/1A: Iraq

  0·5

  3

  Tornado F3: former Yugoslavia

  0·67

  8

  385

  Average number in a full year of

  Aircraft/Theatre

  Deployments

  Weeks spent on operational duties

  Harrier: Iraq

  1·33

  8

  Jaguar: former Yugoslavia

  2

  16

  Royal Navy aircrew flying the Sea Harrier for former Yugoslavia operations deploy to the Adriatic with their ship for about six months at a time. Individuals would not spend the whole of this period on operations, and could expect there to be at least six months between deployments.

  The E-3D force is able to meet its operational commitments and although essential crew training is being achieved, the period for initial crew familiarisation has increased.

  Night Vision Goggles
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases of disorientation have been reported by aircrew flying with night vision goggles since this equipment was first employed, in each of the flying services.

  Mr. Hanley
  There has been one reported incident, involving an Army Air Corps helicopter, attributable to aircrew disorientation when wearing night vision goggles.

  Air Exercises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the titles, dates and locations of planned major air exercises over the United Kingdom for the remainder of 1994.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Exercise Title

  Date

  Location

  Highland Cardinal

  4–8 July 1994

  Mid Wales

  Welsh Cleric

  11–15 July 1994

  Mid Wales

  Brilliant Foil

  3–7 October 1994

  All of United Kingdom mainland

  Green Blade

  3–11 November 1994

  South of Scotland and Borders

  Tornado
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the date of the incident in which a Royal Air Force Tornado suffered an engine fire on take-off from Canadian air forces base Goose bay in 1993; what was the damage to the aircraft; where the repairs were undertaken; and what was the cause of the accident.

  Mr. Hanley
  The incident occurred on 20 July 1993. The aircraft was repaired at Goose bay after sustaining heat damage to the engines, rudder and one taileron. The cause of the incident was a servicing error during replacement of the right engine reheat fuel control unit.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average cost per flying hour, including apportionment of fixed costs, of flying the Tornado GR1 aircraft(a) from RAF Bruggen and (b) from bases in the United Kingdom.
  386
  Mr. Hanley
  Fixed costs are spread over four squadrons in the case of RAF Bruggen and two in the case of United Kingdom bases. At 1993–94 prices, the average cost per flying hour of a Torndado GR1 operated from(a) RAF Bruggen is £18,952 and (b) United Kingdom bases is £21,673. These figures include fixed costs and those relating to depreciation, interest on capital and administration.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what annual number of flying hours per member of(a) Tornado GR1, (b) Tornado F3, (c) Jaguar and (d) Harrier aircrew was provided for in Royal Air Force fuel allocations for each financial year since 1990–91.

  Mr. Hanley
  The average number of flying hours expected to be flown by each Tornado GR1, Tornado F3, Jaguar and Harrier aircrew member in 1990–91 and 1991–92 was 240 hours. In financial years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95 the forecast average was 222 hours. Those flying hours were provided for in the Royal Air Force fuel allocations for the years concerned.

  HMS Valiant
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the result of the tests carried out on 11 May on the Royal Navy crew of HMS Valiant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The results of the tests carried out on a representative number of the crew of HMS Valiant on 11 May showed no abnormalities.

  NATO Peacekeeping Manual
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the academic bodies consulted in the preparation of NATO's new manual on peacekeeping.

  Mr. Hanley
  Two NATO documents on peace support operations are in preparation. Academic bodies have not been consulted as part of this process.

  Low flying
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of low flying sorties carried out by Germany-based aircraft of No. 2 Group in 1993 in(a) German airspace, (b) the United Kingdom low flying system and (c) elsewhere.

  Mr. Hanley
  Aircraft of No. 2 group RAF strike command flew 5,228 sorties in the United Kingdom low flying system in 1993. The upper limit for low flying in German airspace is 1,500 feet. However for the purposes of statistical consistency No. 2 group now apply the United Kingdom upper limit of 2,000 feet when maintaining low flying records. Such records cover fast jet aircraft only. The number of sorties flown in Germany and elsewhere during 1993 were as follows:

  Fast jet sorties below 2,000 feet

  Germany

  2,229

  Elsewhere

  1,070

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances
  387
  of the unauthorised flight in the United Kingdom low flying system of three F-16s of the royal Danish air force on 14 December 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  The aircraft had been deployed to RAF Leuchars to carry out low flying training. On their return flight to Denmark they flew at low level without authorisation and breached an avoidance area. Details of the incident have been passed to the royal Danish air force for appropriate action.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints about alleged low flying incidents occurring(a) in mid-Wales (b) in the whole of Wales and (c) throughout the United Kingdom he has received during each year since 1991 and in the current year to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of inquiries or complaints relating to military low flying which my Department received in each year since 1991 to May 1994, the latest date for which figures are available, from addresses in the county of Powys, Wales and the United Kingdom are as follows:

  Year

  Powys

  Wales

  United Kingdom

  1991

  108

  791

  4,846

  1992

  199

  904

  6,295

  1993

  110

  556

  5,738

  11994

  31

  161

  1,716

  1Up to 31 May 1994.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the first low-level overland training area for air defence aircraft was established; what facilities these areas are designed to provide which were not previously available to air defence units: if he will list the locations of each such area in the United Kingdom, together with their height limits, hours of operation and arrangements for limits on aircraft numbers and for deconfliction from other air traffic; and if he will place in the Library a map showing the location and extent of the low-level overland training areas.

  Mr. Hanley
  The low-level operational training area—LOTA—system was established on 3 April 1992 in order to provide better co-ordination between air defence aircraft engaged in low level intercept training and offensive aircraft using the United Kingdom low flying system. The system does not provide for any form of training not previously available but allows aircrew to register their intention to train in a specific LOTA. This facilitates co-ordination of sorties and thereby enhances training opportunities. LOTAs are not subject to special regulations, but any military flying below 2,000 feet: within them is subject to the normal regulations of the United Kingdom low flying system. There are seven LOTAs; I am arranging for a map showing their location to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum runway length necessary at any base to be used regularly by the Eurofighter aircraft.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not our practice to release operational information.
  388
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where he proposes pilot training for the Eurofighter aircraft will take place.

  Mr. Hanley
  A decision on the location of Eurofighter 2000 pilot training has not yet been taken.

  Training Areas
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the(a) statutory requirements and (b) requirements set out in service orders for the operating authorities of military firing ranges and training areas to report infringements of danger area airspace.

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

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 441, how the percentage of United Kingdom herds with adult breeding cattle that had experienced at least one case of BSE, as given in "Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in Great Britain, A Progress Report", published by her Department in March 1994, was calculated; and if she will give the percentage for the latest available date.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The figure in the progress report is for Great Britain, not the United Kingdom, and is the best estimate available using information collected by the state veterinary service about confirmed cases of BSE and agricultural census data.

  The percentage of herds that have experienced BSE is calculated by using data from the agricultural census on the number of holdings with dairy cows plus the number of holdings with beef cows as the denominator. This introduces a small error as those holdings with both dairy and beef cows will be counted twice. Those categories will also include some holdings with non-adult animals intended for breeding but not separately identifiable. As the agricultural census collects data on "holdings" only—rather than herds—and information on BSE database relates to "herds", counting of some holdings twice is considered to give the most accurate estimate for the denominator, particularly as each holding may comprise two or more herds.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is(a) the amount of land in hectares, (b) the number of farmers and (c) the cost of the five year set-aside scheme in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Payments to farmers in England under the five-year set-aside scheme for the financial year 1993–94 were some £20·7 million. Those payments relate primarily to land set-aside during the scheme year October 1992 to September 1994 under 3,360 agreements covering some 112,000 hectares. Estimated expenditure for 1994–95 is £14·1 million in respect of 2,130 agreements for the 1993–94 scheme year covering some 72,000 hectares. The reduction is the result of some farmers completing their
  389
  five-year agreements and others taking advantage of the option to terminate early in order to join the arable area payments scheme.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money has been paid out under the arable area payments scheme in(a) each county and (b) each region for linseed in 1993–94; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  No arable area payments have yet been made in respect of the 1993–94 scheme year.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 636, concerning the amounts paid out under the arable area payments scheme in 1993–94, whether these figures included payments for linseed; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  No. Those figures related to the 1992–93 scheme year. Linseed was not incorporated into the arable area payments scheme until 1993.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of the benefit to consumers in the United Kingdom of the 1992 CAP reform agreement; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  At the time of the CAP reform agreement, it was estimated that, when the reform is fully implemented, the annual costs imposed by the CAP on consumers should be around £8 billion lower for the EC as a whole, and around £1 billion lower for the United Kingdom.

  Regional Service Centres
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the counties served, the number of hectares and the number of farmers in each of her Ministry's regional service centres; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested in respect of the Ministry's nine regional service centres is set out in the table.

  June 1993 census of agriculture and horticulture England1

  Regional service centre location and counties covered

  Total agricultural area (Hectares)

  Farmers/partners/directors2 (Numbers)

  Bristol

  Avon

  83,583

  2,246

  Dorset

  198,653

  3,412

  Somerset

  274,254

  6,360

  Wiltshire

  269,449

  3,360

  Total

  825,939

  15,378

  Cambridge

  Bedfordshire

  91,160

  1,450

  Cambridgeshire

  285,670

  4,046

  Essex

  266,916

  4,347

  Hertfordshire

  104,892

  1,478

  Norfolk

  429,960

  5,864

  Suffolk

  305,843

  4,205

  390

  Regional service centre location and counties covered

  Total agricultural area (Hectares)

  Farmers/partners/directors2 (Numbers)

  Total

  1,484,441

  21,390

  Carlisle

  Cumbria

  461,185

  7,755

  Lancashire

  221,226

  6,441

  Northumberland

  382,262

  2,925

  Tyne and Wear

  15,442

  305

  Total

  1,080,115

  17,426

  Crewe

  Cheshire

  168,502

  5,003

  Merseyside

  19,659

  596

  Greater Manchester

  41,074

  1,624

  Shropshire

  286,821

  5,742

  Staffordshire

  197,155

  5,130

  Total

  713,211

  18,095

  Exeter

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  279,894

  7,758

  Devon

  520,312

  12,681

  Total

  800,206

  20,439

  Nottingham

  Derbyshire

  186,673

  4,450

  Leicestershire

  197,275

  3,307

  Lincolnshire

  522,994

  7,334

  Northamptonshire

  189,569

  2,361

  Nottinghamshire

  152,207

  2,459

  Total

  1,248,718

  19,911

  Northallerton

  Cleveland

  29,328

  528

  Durham

  158,136

  2,664

  Humberside

  287,186

  4,507

  Yorkshire

  North

  637,075

  10,621

  South

  83,235

  1,714

  West

  103,002

  3,401

  Total

  1,297,962

  23,435

  Reading

  Berkshire

  70,783

  829

  Buckinghamshire

  127,194

  2,131

  East Sussex

  112,163

  2,435

  Hampshire

  227,278

  3,267

  Isle of Wight

  26,494

  567

  Kent

  249,406

  4,694

  Greater London

  14,413

  492

  Oxfordshire

  203,870

  2,314

  Surrey

  68,918

  1,810

  West Sussex

  126,183

  2,335

  Total

  1,226,702

  20,874

  Worcester

  Hereford and Worcester

  313,880

  7,691

  Gloucestershire

  208,250

  3,674

  Warwickshire

  156,186

  2,817

  West Midlands MC

  15,602

  520

  Total

  693,918

  14,702

  Total for 9 regional service centres

  9,371,212

  171,650

  1Excluding estimates for minor holdings.

  2Excludes spouses of farmers, partners and directors though they themselves may be partners or directors.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Luxembourg from 20 to 23 June; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This meeting of the Council, at which I represented the United Kingdom, had a full discussion over four days of the Commission's proposals for farm support prices for 1994–95 and related measures. In the early hours of the final day, the Presidency tabled a final compromise the costs of which were assessed by the Commission to be at the limit of the funds available. Despite this, several member states regrettably continued to press for further measures involving additional expenditure. When the Presidency called a vote Germany, France and Luxembourg rejected the package as a whole and several others objected to parts of it. The proposals were accordingly not adopted and it now falls to the German Presidency to try to break the impasse.

  The Council also discussed a proposal concerning the welfare of animals in transit. Along with Germany, Belgium, Netherlands and Denmark, I expressed concern that, although the proposal contained significant improvements over the present rules, including a strengthening of enforcement, it failed to go far enough. As a result of our pressure, the Commission subsequently gave a commitment to come forward by 1 July 1995 with a further proposal on maximum journey limits.

  The Council unanimously agreed three directives establishing certain maximum pesticide residue levels in cereals and products of animal and plant origin, a decision establishing rules on the storage and marketing of eggs, a regulation fixing the support prices for certain fruits and vegetables for July 1994, and a regulation establishing a
  392
  Community scheme for plant variety rights. No decision was reached on the site of the European Community plant variety office, and this issue will be considered further during the German Presidency. I urged the Council to locate the office at Cambridge in view of that city's unique blend of scientific and technical expertise and excellent communications.

  The Council also agreed by qualified majority a directive establishing uniform principles for the evaluation of plant protection products—Germany and the Netherlands voting against—and a decision designed to provide better financial discipline and prioritisation of programmes for assistance under the veterinary fund. I voted against this proposal because of an associated Council resolution whose wording contained the potential to undermine overall budgetary control.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions she has had concerning the unpublished European Commission report on the reform of the common agriculture policy; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [pursuant to her reply, 24 March 1994, c. 372]: The study to which my hon. Friend referred has still not been published. However an article by Mr. Knud Munk, an economist employed by the Commission's DG II, which appears to cover similar ground, has recently been published in the Journal "European Economy". Copies of this article have been placed in the House Library.

  The basic thrust of the article is to point to the attractions of nationally funded direct payments to farmers, de-coupled from production, as a replacement for other forms of agricultural support.