Sitting of 18 April 1995

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

    NHS Capital Projects
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the amount spent on capital projects within the NHS in England since 1979; and if she will make a statement. [17571]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): At current prices, the total NHS capital investment programme since 1979 stands at more than £22.5 billion. In real terms, the capital spending level today is 70 per cent. above what it was in 1979. Over that entire period, a major capital building project has been completed on average every week.
    Mr. Dunn: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government should take the lead in getting private and public finance to work together in health and in other sectors, as was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition last autumn?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am well aware of the Leader of the Opposition's comments last autumn about getting public and private finance to work together. I am far from clear about the policy of the present Opposition health spokesman and her Labour party team. It seems far from
    2
    clear whether she agrees with her party leader or whether she dances to the tune of union paymasters. It is clear that private finance is bringing extra opportunities into the NHS so that we can build on the excellent capital programme that already exists.
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: With the increasing privatisation of the national health service, who will the managers in the NHS ultimately be accountable to—the patients or the shareholders of these companies?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the NHS is not for profit and is not for sale. The NHS is about progressive improvement in services for patients. More information is available than ever before about the quality and quantity of care that has been provided, to a standard completely unanticipated when the Labour party was in power. The people in the health service deserve credit for that.

    Trust Hospitals, Trent
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS hospitals in the Trent region are now run as trusts. [17572]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I am delighted to report that all hospitals in the Trent region are now run as national health service trusts.
    Mrs. Knight: Will my hon. Friend therefore join me in congratulating all those in the Trent region, and especially the Southern Derbyshire health authority, which covers my constituency of Erewash, on the excellent job that trust hospitals such as Derbyshire royal infirmary and Derby city general do? Is he aware that the DRI is increasing the number of eye patients that it treats by a further 1,000 this year? Does he therefore find it deplorable, as I do, that a hospital that is doing such an excellent job would have its trust status removed by the

    3
    right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) if she had half a chance, thereby jeopardising health care to her constituents as well as to mine?
    Mr. Sackville: I agree with my hon. Friend that hospitals have enormously benefited from trust status, as I saw when I recently had the honour of opening a new day case surgery and endoscopy unit at Derbyshire royal infirmary, with the permission of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). I know that that unit, for example, will allow for 3,500 day cases a year. That will enormously reduce waiting lists and enormously better serve my hon. Friend's constituents.
    Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that I have received more complaints from constituents about the operation of trust hospitals since the NHS moved towards that system, and that that has not been helped by some of the other measures that have taken place at the same time, such as GP fundholding, the peculiar interface between community care and hospitalisation, and the development of the rip-off of private nursing homes? Is it little wonder that no one trusts a trust in north-east Derbyshire?
    Mr. Sackville: The hon. Gentleman is one of those politicians who treats the health service as somewhere to go and have his photograph taken and to stir up some trouble. The fact is that more patients are satisfied with the NHS, although they see a completely different picture in the press, and the NHS is going from strength to strength with trust status.

    Dental Patients
    Mr. Mudie: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dental patients have been deregistered by NHS dentists since July 1992. [17573]
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): A total of 878,156 patients, comprising 867,653 adults and 3,503 children have been deregistered since July 1992. However, adult registrations are up by over 128,000 over a broadly similar period.
    Mr. Mudie: The Minister will be aware that the deregistrations arise from a dispute that has been allowed to fester for three years. In view of the fact that the Minister has just told us that nearly 900,000 patients have been deregistered and that 60 per cent. of dentists are taking no new adult NHS patients, is it not about time that the Minister acted—acted other than by press release—or is his real objective the privatisation of dental care?
    Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that in his constituency 58 per cent. of adults are registered for NHS care, which is higher than the national average, as are 61 per cent. of children, which is 4 per cent. above the national average. In Leeds as a whole, there is only one postal district which is not served by NHS dentistry, so there is a comprehensive service in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The Government are thoroughly committed to ensuring that that continues throughout the rest of the country.
    Mrs. Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that an important part of dental care is the provision of orthodontics? Is he aware that in my constituency of Chesham and Amersham some parents are experiencing difficulties in finding orthodontists for their children? Can
    4
    my hon. Friend reassure my constituents by saying that he will place the availability of orthodontists at the top of his list of priorities?
    Mr. Malone: I cannot give my hon. Friend that unequivocal assurance, but I can tell her that a number of NHS dentists, not orthodontic specialists, can provide certain levels of orthodontic care. If my hon. Friend cares to write to me about the point that she has made, I will look into it and see what improvements can be made.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister be kind enough to answer my question head on: how many of the 877,000 deregistered patients to which he referred does he expect to be able to find an NHS dentist in their area within 12 months from today? How many?
    Mr. Malone: The hon. and learned Gentleman fails to recognise that, although there are de-registrations on the one hand, there are re-registrations on the other. One of the reasons why we have addressed the question of continuing care payments is that 4.5 million people rolled off dental registers over 12 months and it is important that they are brought back on so that proper care can be provided. The hon. and learned Gentleman's question is absurd, particularly in the terms in which it was asked. NHS dental care is available for everybody in this country where it is clinically essential. If it cannot be provided by an NHS dentist, it will be provided by the community dental service by or a salaried dentist.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are plenty of dentists providing NHS dental treatment in this country and that, in the past two years, the numbers have increased by 533 to a total of nearly 16,000? Is my hon. Friend aware that my son received urgent dental treatment last week and that it was excellent?
    Mr. Malone: I was not aware of that last point but I am extremely glad to hear it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do not hear what the Opposition's policy is when they criticise the availability of NHS dentistry, but we have, in fact, heard from their official spokesman in the past few weeks that they will consult Health 2000 and
    "be putting the problem to them to seek a solution."
    They certainly do not intend to find that solution themselves.
    Mrs. Beckett: Surely the Minister must be aware, because the public certainly are, that it is as a consequence of the very low morale in the profession that dentists are leaving the health service in droves and that the General Dental Practitioners Association recently said that the Government's action
    "will not stem the tide of dentists leaving the NHS".
    As there is no doubt that that is the effect of Government policy, will the Minister tell us whether it is a further example of the Government's gross incompetence or of their deliberate malice and neglect which are undermining the health service?
    Mr. Malone: It is the sort of malice and neglect that has resulted in a real terms increase of 53 per cent. in spending on general dental services since 1979 and the sort of malice and neglect that has resulted in more dental practitioners—533 more, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said, providing NHS dentistry. It is absurd for the right hon.

    5
    Lady to state that NHS dentistry is on the point of collapse or that there is no commitment. Perhaps she should read what her policy is—she is committed merely to
    "retain as much of the service as possible",
    which does not sound to me like a ringing endorsement of NHS dentistry.

    Private Nursing Homes
    Mr. Orme: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of residents in private nursing homes in (a) 1979 and (b) 1994. [17574]
    Ms Janet Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of residents in private nursing homes in 1979 and 1994. [17575]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): In 1993–94, the total number of occupied beds in private nursing homes was 143,748. It was the first year for which this particular statistic was collected.
    Mr. Orme: Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of anxiety and fear among elderly people because of the closure of local authority premises and the extension of the private sector where proper safeguards have not been developed by the Government? Will he bear in mind the fact that it is his responsibility to stop such closures and to ensure that local authority provision is properly funded?
    Mr. Bowis: It would be difficult for local authorities to close the nursing homes to which the question refers as there are none. The question is about private nursing homes, which provide good quality nursing care for those who need it. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that increasingly people are able to find comfort and privacy and somewhere where they can take their own belongings and receive the care that they need. The increase in the number of nursing homes around the country shows that a great many people have been choosing this form of residential care provision in addition to those who have been placed there by the health service.
    Ms Anderson: Is the Minister aware of the deep public concern about the growing number of elderly people who are being forced to sell their homes and use their life savings to pay for residential and nursing care, often of a dubious quality? Does he agree with the Sunday Express that this can be described only as a tax on care? Will he tell us where in the Conservative manifesto at the last election this new tax on the elderly was mentioned?
    Mr. Bowis: Perhaps I might remind the hon. Lady that there has been no change in charging policies for people going into residential care. Since 1948, when Aneurin Bevan and Beveridge started the welfare state and the national health service, there has been a division between NHS care, which is free at the point of delivery and paid for by the taxpayer, and the social care that is provided for individuals. Where appropriate, that is topped up, formerly by the income support system and now by community care.
    If the hon. Lady does not think that that is the right policy, I suggest that she has a word with Sir Gordon Borrie, who chaired the Labour party's Social Justice Commission and who reminded the country that the
    6
    Labour party could not afford to ask the taxpayer to pick up the bill. Does she, and do members of Labour's Front Bench, support Sir Gordon Borne or not? The electorate would like to know.
    Dame Jill Knight: Is it not the case that any old person who needs care and who does do not have any money will get that care absolutely free? Many of us believe that it is not outrageous to expect an elderly person who has money—often quite a considerable sum—to make some contribution to the cost of their care.
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right. Nobody who has a low income or is on income support will have to pay towards the cost of care. Those who can afford it are invited to make a contribution to the care. My hon. Friend will recall the continuing care guidance that we issued recently, reminding the NHS that it continues to have responsibility for continuing health care, whether it is provided at a person's home, in a nursing home or in a hospital and that, wherever it is, it will be free.
    Dr. Spink: Can my hon. Friend confirm that a very vibrant independent nursing home sector has led to an overall increase in places available to people who need long-term nursing care? Does he deplore the actions of county councils such as Essex, which is not placing people in the independent sector?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right. He need look no further than the independent Audit Commission, which made it very clear that although community care as a whole has got off to a very good start around the country, better use could be made of resources if there were better financial controls in social services departments and if, as my hon. Friend says, better use were made of provision in the independent sector of residential and domiciliary care services.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Has not the most obvious consequence of the privatisation of care been the result—I shall start again, Madam Speaker, I am sorry. I am not feeling very well today. Has not the most obvious consequence of the privatisation of care been the wholesale revival of the out-moded institutional model, simply because it is the most lucrative form of care from a business point of view? Once again, by putting ideology before common sense, are not the Government now considering privatising even the inspection of care?
    Mr. Bowis: I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman is not feeling well. I hope that he feels better soon.
    He is not correct and I am sure that, on reflection, he will consider himself to be incorrect in referring to the privatisation of care. When the national health service contracts with nursing homes for the provision of residential care, it is doing no more than what it does when it contracts with general practitioners. Both are in the private sector. Both are providing services to the NHS which are free to the patient at the point of delivery.
    If the hon. Gentleman is really concerned about the care of individuals, I suggest that he looks at this week's Laing and Buisson survey, which reminded the House that the Labour party's policy of a national minimum wage would put up the price of care—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I must ask for brisk answers from Ministers. We are making no progress whatever today, our first day back.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that care in the community ensures that people stay in the community and out of nursing homes as long as they are fit to do so? Is that not the right policy and does it not help people?
    Mr. Bowis: Yes. One of the purposes and aims of community care is to enable people who wish to do so and are able to do so to remain in their homes, supported by a package of care. All the independent surveys of community care conducted in its early months show that that is precisely what is happening. Innovative packages of care are being provided. Of course, we also need a range of provision in residential care, to which the independent sector can contribute so much.

    NHS Senior Managers
    Mr. Cummings: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average pay of senior managers in the NHS in 1989, 1993 and 1994. [17576]
    Mr. Malone: Senior managers are paid at a particular point on a scale which in 1989 went from £12,560 to £39,170 per annum. By 1993 those rates had been increased by 20.8 per cent. and in 1994 by a further 2.2 per cent., making the range £15,490 to£48,340 per annum.
    Mr. Cummings: Can the Minister justify to the House why national health service executives are receiving wage rises more than twice the rate of inflation, while nurses are subject to a guaranteed 1 per cent. wage rise, which would give a midwife a rise of 43p a day? Will the Minister for once recognise the value of our nursing staff and ensure that their rises equate to those of senior health service staff?
    Mr. Malone: Of course the Government recognise the worth of all clinicians, nurses, midwives and health visitors who work in the health service. They make a fantastic contribution, which has been recognised by the independent review body, the recommendations of which the Government have accepted in full. Trusts are now coming forward with pay proposals, 75 per cent. of which are in the area of 3 per cent. The Government and I fully expect that trend to continue. I hope that, instead of demonstrating, staff will go to their trusts and pick up the offers which are increasingly on the table.
    Mr. Sims: Since the national health service owns a large number of properties, spends more than £100 million a day, has the largest labour force in the country and treats thousands of patients, is it not essential that those vast resources are competently and efficiently managed and that those managers are appropriately rewarded? Does my hon. Friend also accept that some of the rather well publicised recent incidents, in respect of which the standard of service in the health service was below what we might reasonably expect, could be ascribed not to structural faults in the NHS, but to management error and shortcomings? Will my hon. Friend ensure that those who are responsible are brought to account?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right to point out that, in aservice as complex as the NHS, delivering increased in-patient activity, day care activity and out-patient activity across the board needs to be properlymanaged. I
    8
    remind him that, compared with 12 years ago when 60 per cent. of those who worked within the NHS were involved in direct patient care, the figure is now 66 per cent. That is an increase. On the specific point that my hon. Friend made, I remind him that most health service management is subject to performance-related pay. If performance does not come through and if there are shortcomings, that will be taken into account when determining remuneration.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: What estimates does the Minister have of the administrative costs of introducing local pay bargaining into the NHS? To which groups in the NHS does he intend that to apply?
    Mr. Malone: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, it is the Government's policy that local pay be introduced for health service clinicians in the long term, and in the short and more immediate term, to nursing staff and midwives. The reason for that is important. It is to give them the benefits of local pay, so that trusts can configure pay and conditions packages appropriately in respect of local conditions. It is far more appropriate that that is done on a local rather than a national basis. A large number of trusts already have in place extremely well developed and refined systems; others will be making across-the-board packages, which they have already been doing. It is in the long-term interests of nursing staff that they pick up the offers which are on the table and ensure that they get fair pay and local pay and conditions.
    Mr. Forman: How many of the senior managers referred to in the original question are experienced former nursing and clinical staff? Is it not rather important to recognise that many people are promoted from the wards into managerial positions?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. That is one of the strengths of the new NHS. There are far more clinicians and people with qualifications in nursing involved at senior levels in NHS trust management. That is highly significant, and there has been a large amount of reclassification of those who were previously solely involved in clinical duties who are now involved in management as well. That is broadly welcomed by the professions, and I never understand why it is constantly sneered at by the Labour party.

    Water-borne Diseases
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has made to the World Health Organisation about water-borne disease in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates. [17577]
    Mr. Sackville: My right hon. Friend has made no specific representations to the WHO about the water-borne diseases in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates. However, I would like to make it clear that this country is a large contributor, both financially and in manpower, to World Health Organisation programmes and overseas aid programmes, including those benefiting the people of Iraq.
    Mr. Dalyell: Do Ministers accept the horrendous statistic given in the report of Riad el Taher, to which I drew the Minister's attention, that, since the end of the Gulf war, 500,000 infants have died in one way or another from malnutrition and disease? What was the role of the

    9
    WHO in those circumstances? Do the Government think that, whoever's fault it is, at least it is not the fault of the infants who are in such horrendous conditions?
    Mr. Sackville: I have the greatest sympathy with the suffering of the people of Iraq, but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that medicine and other humanitarian aid are outside the sanctions that have been applied. Saddam Hussein has yet again turned down another offer of substantial aid in return for limited sales of oil. His record does not suggest that, if there were a total relaxation of the sanctions, the health of his people would benefit. The only thing that would happen would be the rebuilding of his arsenal, which would do nothing for the welfare of his own people or of his neighbours.

    Pharmaceutical Exports
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total level of exports secured in the latest year for which figures are available by pharmaceutical companies based in Britain. [17560]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The latest year for which complete figures are available is 1993, when total pharmaceutical exports from the United Kingdom were £3,685 million. That was an increase of nearly a quarter over the previous year. Provisional figures suggest that pharmaceutical exports continued to rise steadily in 1994.
    Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry, Britain is best? In the light of that, in our own strong industry, together with the international excellence of the research industry in the NHS, does my right hon. Friend agree that we could benefit further from inward investment? In that context, is there anything further that she can add about her recent trade visit to Japan?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I support my hon. Friend. The pharmaceutical industry is one of our strongest industries. Britain is a magnet for inward investment, not least because of the strength of our research base; not least because of our comprehensive health service; not least because English is the international language of business; and not least because we have now secured the European Medicines Evaluation Agency.
    My recent visit to Japan was extremely productive, not only in further developing Japan as the second largest market for pharmaceutical exports but, above all, for encouraging Japanese inward investment in the pharmaceutical industry here, which I hope soon will be as commonplace as it is in the motor or electrical industries.
    Mr. Bayley: Does the Secretary of State agree that the main reason why the British pharmaceutical industry does so well is that the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme guarantees a 20 per cent. return for pharmaceutical companies, which they may invest in research? Will she guarantee that she will reject the siren voices of her Back-Bench colleagues who want free market prices for pharmaceutical products in the United Kingdom, and stick by regulation through the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the PPRS has served the NHS and the industry well. We have 3.5 per cent. of the world market. We have 5
    10
    per cent. of the production but 8 per cent. of the research and development. We continue to review the PPRS. The hon. Gentleman will know that we cut prices by 2.5 per cent. on the previous review. Before taking any further steps, we will make sure that we continue to balance the interests of good-value products for the NHS and recognition of an industry which has created jobs, employment and exports for this country.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason that exports rose so markedly in 1993 was that we had adopted a competitive exchange rate? Will she remind our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that interest rate policy should be designed to ensure that that competitive exchange rate remains, rather than to please the Bundesbank?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will know that I have frequent discussions with the Chancellor on many subjects. I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind in my next discussion, but I will also remind my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor—and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that one reason that Britain is so successful in terms of inward investment is because we have a deregulatory culture and that we have not adopted the social chapter. Therefore, firms that invest here have the advantage of being part of the European Union without all the burdens on industry and employment that are so common elsewhere.

    Mental Illness
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the Audit Commission's recommendation that access to help for mentally ill people should be available outside office hours. [17562]
    Mr. Bowis: The recent Audit Commission report did not make a specific recommendation on the subject. Nevertheless, we encourage health authorities and social services departments to provide access to out-of-hours services.
    Mr. Cunningham: That is the Minister's interpretation of the Audit Commission report, but is not the Audit Commission really saying that care in the community, particularly for mentally ill people, is grossly underfunded? Is it not suggesting that the Government, who have boasted about their achievements this afternoon, are following the same policy as California, which is to remove mentally ill people from mental homes and institutions as that saves money? Are not the Government being heartless towards homeless people, who also need after-hours services? What does the Minister plan to do about it? Will the Government put more resources into the scheme?
    Mr. Bowis: Had the Audit Commission referred to resources, it would have referred to the £2 billion that is put into the health service year on year. The hon. Gentleman's question is about 24–hour crisis care services. He will know that the Government have issued guidance to encourage the provision of 24–hour crisis services. He will also know that exactly those services are being provided in his own health district. Coventry, which already has a community psychiatric nurse on call and a 24–hour assessment service emergency night care team, is

    11
    spending £200,000 in the coming year on a more comprehensive crisis service, and has made that its highest priority.
    Mr. Illsley: Is it not clear that most organisations involved in mental health care have endorsed the call for 24-hour emergency services? The Government say that they are doing all they can to encourage such services and there was cross-party support for a recent private Member's Bill that dealt with the issue of 24-hour emergency services, but could not the Government do more to enable patients to gain access to care when they need it, rather than concentrating on legislation, which deals with compulsory conveyance for treatment? Should not the user benefit?
    Mr. Bowis: I do not see that those are in conflict. We want to improve discharge arrangements for patients from hospital, which is the purpose of the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill and the supervised discharge arrangements. We also want to ensure that money is spent on 24-hour care and access to services; that is the purpose of our guidance. We do not issue prescriptive directions from the centre about specific services, but we make it clear that we expect services to have crisis accommodation, crisis assessment and intervention teams, help lines and access to care teams, including the general practitioner and key workers.

    Hospital Operations
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of operations carried out in NHS hospitals may be unnecessary. [17563]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The need for an operation for a particular patient is a matter for clinical judgment. Research evidence is leading doctors everywhere to question the frequency of some interventions. The United Kingdom is leading the world in generating that evidence and in helping doctors and patients in the NHS to use it in treatment decisions.
    Mr. Townsend: Is some internal NHS study being conducted? Bearing in mind the high speed of medical science, is not detailed national research required? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that she will not be dilatory in ensuring that, if possible, savings are made in such a crucial area?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I can assure my hon. Friend that it is a priority for the NHS that was set out in the planning guidance last year. There is progressive information about clinical effectiveness and outcomes, and a major NHS research programme is under way that supports that work. We work very closely with the professionals to ensure that we take forward understanding about effectiveness, monitor our work and improve practice.
    Mr. Enright: Is the Secretary of State aware that Pontefract hospital mistrust proposes to privatise people who enter its accident and emergency unit by asking whether they have insurance and, if they have, to put them into a special ward that is to be constructed, with champagne in its rooms and scent in its corridors?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will know that the standard of care in A and E departments has been further improved not only by the patients charter standard, but by the progressive move to a consultant-led service.
    12
    There has been a bigger increase in A and E consultants than in almost any other group in recent years, and we are determined to ensure that it continues. I am aware that the Opposition are conducting a vendetta against the private sector. We have no such feelings, and we wish to have the best possible NHS for all the patients who use it.
    Mrs. Roe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent report by the Health Select Committee on priority settings welcomed the Government's initiative to improve the spread of information throughout the NHS on the effectiveness of different clinical procedures? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such information is vital when making decisions about priorities? Will she assure the House that the Government will continue to support that important work?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I can give my hon. Friend that clear assurance. In commending the Select Committee's report, the Government greatly appreciate its recognition of our work on effectiveness. The report mentioned the Cochrane centre in Oxford, and next week my hon. Friend the Minister for Health will open the Cochrane database for systematic reviews. That is a remarkable achievement, whereby information can be updated electronically so that clinicians and health authorities throughout the country—and in other parts of the world—can have the latest knowledge about the effectiveness of different clinical procedures.
    Madam. Speaker: I call Mr. Wray on Question 13.

    Domiciliary Care
    Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safeguards exist to ensure proper standards of domiciliary care. [Interruption.] [17566]
    Mr. Tony Banks: Come on—one of you answer.
    Mr. Bowis: I apologise; the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Wray) has moved.
    There are codes of practice and contract terms for the independent sector, and there are complaint procedures for council-run services. These are supported by social services inspectorate guidance on standards, and from next April by local community care charters.
    Mr. Wray: No. 13—unlucky for some.
    Does the Minister agree that nursing and residential care are covered by the Registered Homes Act 1984 but that domiciliary care is a licence for abuse? Why will not the Minister implement the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) to bring domiciliary care under local authority control?
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman is a shadow of his former self.
    Considerable safeguards apply to domiciliary care. When local authorities contract for such care, they can include in the terms of their contracts the conditions and standards that they wish to see. There are many voluntary inspection and regulation systems and codes of practice for independent agencies and groups of contractors around the country. We have issued standards for domiciliary services which we will review in the overall review of inspection to be undertaken this year.
    Madam Speaker: I call Jane Kennedy for Question 14. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is not present. I call Mr.

    13
    O'Hara for Question 15. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is not present. I call Mr. Streeter for Question 16. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is not present. I hope that Whips on both sides of the House will note that those hon. Members are absent, and that the Ministers concerned and I will receive an apology from them before the day is out.

    Pharmaceutical Industry
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what benefits she expects to flow to the British pharmaceutical industry from the location of the European Medicines Evaluation Agency in London. [17578]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The British pharmaceutical industry will have the advantage of easy access to the agency, which will be working in its language and will offer its products quicker access to the European single market, all of which means that there will be increased inward investment in the UK, more exports and more jobs.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people will congratulate her and her colleagues in the Department on their work in ensuring that the European Medicines Evaluation Agency located in this country? Does she also accept that major pharmaceutical companies based in this country—such as Rhôone-Poulenc Rorer in my constituency—will be encouraged to make further investment in this country following that landmark decision?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Safe and effective medicines are vital to the health and well-being of the country. A productive industry is excellent for the wealth of the country. Our success in winning the European Medicines Evaluation Agency has already resulted in major companies deciding further to expand their activities here—not least the further expansion by Bayer to locate its regulations centre here to take advantage of this new opportunity. Such companies greatly welcome the economic climate in this country, the strong economy and the deregulatory approach to industry.

    Old People (Care)
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to develop alternatives to the institutional care of older people; and if she will make a statement. [17579]
    Mr. Bowis: The community care changes include among their objectives the development of alternatives to institutional care. The "Caring for People Who Live at Home" initiative, which began in 1992, and the guide, "Diversification and the Independent Sector", which was issued in October 1993, are specific examples of our encouraging local authorities to work with the independent sector to develop non-residential care services.
    Mrs. Campbell: Is it not disgraceful that Rose Robinson, who was mentioned in last week's Sunday Express, has had to spend £45,000 of her nest-egg on care in a council home—care that previously would have been
    14
    available to her on the national health service? What are the Government going to do about the lottery in health care for elderly people?
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that, if health care is required, it is provided free at the point of delivery by the health service. If doctors decide that health care should be provided in a nursing home, they will provide it and the NHS will pay. If doctors decide that a person's needs are no longer for health care but for social care, then, as Gordon Borrie's Social Justice Commission—the proposals of which will perhaps be adopted by the Labour party—says, it is a question of finding a suitable package of care for an individual. That has always been the case, and it is the case now. The hon. Lady should stop frightening people, and welcome the progress that has been made for care in this country.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April. [17590]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Mandelson: Will the Prime Minister endorse Labour's condemnation of the minority of militants who behaved so badly at the National Union of Teachers conference in Blackpool last weekend? Does he agree that the best way to isolate those individuals is for the Government to start listening to what governors, teachers and, above all, parents across the country are saying—that it is madness to trade cuts in the education of our children this year for tax cuts next year?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly share in the condemnation of the behaviour that we have seen at the National Union of Teachers conference in the past few days. Millions of parents would have been concerned about the behaviour that they saw. It was, frankly, disgraceful. It was loutish. If I may say so, Labour's Front-Bench education spokesman was appallingly treated by those militants.
    I am happy to share in the hon. Gentleman's thorough condemnation of the behaviour of that minority of teachers. I also very much regret the fact that their conference has decided today to ballot on strike action, against the advice of their executive committee. I strongly hope that wiser counsels will prevail and that teachers will decide that their job is to be in the classroom teaching their pupils, not outside teaching bad habits to their pupils.
    Mr. Clappison: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April. [17591]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the massive boost that he gave to British prestige by his decision to use Concorde for his recent visit to meet

    15
    President Clinton in Washington? Will he take this opportunity to declare his pride in travelling in that magnificent advertisement for British technology?
    The Prime Minister: Although the technology is now 25 years out of date, it is a magnificent aircraft, it is unequalled across the world and I congratulate all those with the wisdom to travel in it.
    Mr. Blair rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Blair: I see that the recess has not improved Conservative Members, Madam Speaker.
    On education, I agree that strike action would be wrong and misguided, but the Prime Minister's Secretary of State for Education admitted last week that, as a result of the Government's refusal to fund the teachers' pay award, some schools would face hard choices and might be unable to absorb the pressures put upon them. What does the right hon. Gentleman say to those schools?
    The Prime Minister: The fact is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that this Government have consistently made education a priority, benefiting parents, pupils and teachers. We have given parents more choice over their children's education and more information about how they are progressing. Even this year, with the funding levels about which the right hon. Gentleman complains, we are spending record amounts on education, as he will know. We are spending almost half as much again per pupil as when we first took office. We are on top of inflation and we now spend more per secondary pupil than Germany and Japan and more per primary pupil than Germany, France and most of the European Union. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we are dealing fairly with education now, as we have in the past.
    Mr. Blair: I do not. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that the pupil-teacher ratio has worsened under his premiership. The actions of a few extremists in the teaching union should not obscure the hard work and professionalism of the vast majority of teachers; nor should it allow the Government to escape their responsibility for their own brand of extremism, which is forcing education cuts on schools the length and breadth of the country.
    The Prime Minister: Our extremism has been to give people more choice and more information, to put far more of our young people into further and higher education than ever before, to increase spending on pupils by 50 per cent. and spending on school books by 50 per cent. over and above inflation, and to increase some areas of ancillary spending by more than 130 per cent. since we have been in government. If that is extremism in education, it is extremism that every other budget in Whitehall would have been happy to have.

    European Legislation
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to monitor the implementation by other EC countries of European Community legislation passed by their legislatures. [17592]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend—no, I do not. My right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade—[Interruption.] I see that the recess has not improved Opposition Members, either, Madam Speaker.
    My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and his Department work actively on behalf of British firms. We remain ready to intervene when we feel that other member states have failed to fulfil their obligations and to take the Commission to court if we believe that it has failed in its responsibility to monitor implementation and enforcement of European Community legislation.
    Mr. Steen: Since the European Community has a poor and inconsistent track record of enforcing directives and regulations, will the Prime Minister consider employing some of our own people in our embassies to do a little detective work to find out whether other countries gold plate and over-zealously interpret regulations as we do, at a cost to the consumer, our industry and our people? As deregulation is a cornerstone of this Government's policy—one that I wholly support—will he take a look at the activities of the Deregulation Committee, whose first deregulation proposal was on greyhound racing?
    The Prime Minister: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, we have successfully pressed the Commission to increase its efforts to improve member states' compliance with Community law. I assure my hon. Friend that our embassies already actively monitor the position so that action can be taken quickly when shortcomings are identified. The single market compliance unit in the Department of Trade and Industry also helps firms disadvantaged by other member states' failure to implement.
    The greyhound racing proposal is one of a large number. On the same day as it was put forward, we also started consultation on proposals to give friendly societies and credit unions more flexibility and to streamline procedures under the Building Act 1984. We shall continue to pursue deregulation.

    Engagements
    Mr. Wray: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April. [17593]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wray: Does the Prime Minister agree that my constituency has the worst unemployment figures, health record and infant mortality rate in Britain? Why is it costing £34 million to keep my constituents unemployed? Does not the Prime Minister agree that he and the Government have been a failure? When will he do something? Should he not resign?
    The Prime Minister: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman about unemployment in particular. Although he may not have noticed it in his constituency, during the period when I have been Prime Minister, unemployment in Glasgow, Provan has dropped by 28 per cent.
    Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Royal Navy will maintain its policy, which goes back some centuries, of curbing Spain's maritime pretensions,

    17
    and that the Royal Navy will go to the assistance of any British fishing boat that is prevented from going about its legal business by Spanish action?
    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that for my hon. Friend. We believe in strict enforcement, and the fisheries protection vessels of the Royal Navy will ensure that rules and agreements are respected.
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April. [17594]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Turner: Will the Prime Minister confirm that almost 800 candidates in the forthcoming elections are calling themselves Conservatives? Does he agree that it is understandable that they do not want to knock on doors as Conservatives in those elections? Will he confirm the rumour that he intends to stand as an independent in Huntingdon at the next general election?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that that question was very carefully thought out, but I fear that there was a little problem in delivery at the beginning. I think that I know what the hon. Gentleman had in mind. He might have had in mind some Labour councils: for example, in Berwick Labour is fielding four candidates out of 28; in Craven, three out of 12; in Forest Heath, 17 out of 25. There are a large number of other illustrations that I might give the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps they have their concerns about Labour policy.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April. [17595]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my opinion, his personal beliefs and instincts command the overwhelming support of the people of this country on such issues as the economy and taxation, the national health service, education and the European Community, including fishing? Will he assure me and the country today that his personal instincts will be translated into Government action and policy during the next 12 months?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am happy to give him that assurance. We have a
    18
    very clear agenda of core beliefs: prosperity for all, extending opportunities, common-sense, decent values, first-class public services, the lowest credible level of taxation, pride in our nation and protection of our interests, both at home and abroad. I assure my hon. Friend that that is our programme, not just for the next year but for the rest of this Parliament and the next Parliament.
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April. [17596]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Prime Minister recognise that many former employees of the Bellings Group, which went bankrupt three years ago, lost a great deal as a result of abuses and fraud relating to that company's pension fund? Will he give an undertaking to those former employees that they will receive at least equal treatment to that given to members of the Maxwell pension fund?
    The Prime Minister: The scale of the Maxwell crisis and the large number of parties involved justified the exceptional action taken at that time by the Government. I do not think that we can necessarily adopt that model for general application. I understand that the independent trustee appointed to the Bellings pension fund is still continuing to pursue the recovery of assets missing from that fund. I think that we should better await the outcome of that investigation.
    Mr. Marlow: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April. [17598]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the single most important factor affecting our children's education is whether our teachers, as a body, wish to be looked upon as a respected, ethical profession or a primeval Scargillite rump?
    The Prime Minister: I am entirely happy to agree with my hon. Friend upon that proposition. Although a minority of teachers have let down the profession in which they serve, I believe that the majority of teachers will strongly disagree with their behaviour. I hope that they will show their disagreement within their teacher unions, as well as publicly.

Fishing
3.31 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor(by private notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the agreement concluded between the European Union and Canada on fishing and on the subsequent representations made by the Spanish Government to the United Kingdom.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Mr. William Waldegrave): The British Government welcome the agreement reached on Sunday between the EU and Canada, which settles the recent conflict over fisheries in the north-west Atlantic.
After protracted negotiations between the European Commission and Canadian officials, an agreement was reached, which is being ratified by written procedure by the Council of Ministers. It will then be applied provisionally with immediate effect, pending full agreement by the contracting parties to the North-west Atlantic Fisheries Organisation.
The agreement is in four parts. The first element is a tough new control and enforcement regime for the high seas of the NAFO regulatory area. Neutral observers will be placed on board all vessels fishing in the area, with the task of monitoring compliance with all internationally agreed conservation measures. They will have powers to alert inspection vessels to any apparent infringements. When major offences are detected, the vessel will be boarded and directed into port for enforcement action. Every vessel will also be subject to exhaustive checks on returning to port. Infringements will be subject to enforcement by the flag state. That system will be complemented by the introduction of a satellite surveillance system, applicable initially to 35 per cent. of vessels in the area.
Secondly, new conservation measures for Greenland halibut will be proposed to NAFO, including a minimum size of fish—for which there is currently no provision—and tougher by-catch limits.
Thirdly, quotas have been agreed. Hon. Members will recall that a total allowable catch of 27,000 tonnes for Greenland halibut was set for the first time last year. Agreement has now been reached on the share-out of that total allowable catch for the remainder of 1995 and future years.
Finally, Canada has agreed to delete Spain and Portugal from the scope of her legislation governing international waters, and to repay the bonds lodged for release of the Estai and her master, and to return the catch or its value to the owner.
This agreement has required both sides to make important compromises. It is a victory for good sense and negotiation, the course that the British Government have been urging throughout the conflict. Reasonable quota shares have been agreed for both sides, together with control measures which will ensure that the stock is conserved and rules are respected.
Throughout the negotiations, the United Kingdom has been determined to play a full part in using its role as a member of both the EU and the Commonwealth to further a successful outcome. There have been frequent contacts between the UK and the parties directly concerned. Her Majesty's ambassador in Madrid, David Brighty, was
20
asked to call on Carlos Westendorp, State Secretary for European Affairs, in Madrid yesterday to discuss the EU-Canada fisheries dispute. Media reports of that meeting bear little relation to what transpired. Mr. Brighty used the opportunity to make it clear that we had throughout the dispute tried to promote a negotiated settlement favourable to conservation, involving effective enforcement of rules and acceptable to both the EU and Canada. That has now been achieved.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister convey his congratulations to the Government in Canada on securing that excellent agreement by showing courage and determination against overfishing and illegal fishing, which threatened to destroy fishing stocks? Will he further urge the Government of Spain to wake up to the fact that the fishermen of Britain, and indeed of Southend-on-Sea, consider that there will never be peace and co-operation in fishing until there are effective controls of the behaviour of irresponsible fishermen, many of whom are Spaniards, which includes illegal net sizes, false storage areas and inaccurate catch returns?
Will the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food take the message from this happy outcome that we need to be tough and determined in securing the same benefits as the Canadians have secured by their approach?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that my hon. Friend meant the United Kingdom including Southend-on-Sea; there was no question of UDI in that matter.
I believe that my hon. Friend is right, and that the much tougher enforcement that has been the major gain out of the agreement that has been achieved is an achievement in itself for that fishery, but also sets a powerful precedent for other fisheries. I believe that it gives a warning to the fishermen of all nations who are tempted to breach the rules that that will not be tolerated in future in any other waters.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Is it not the case that, if we are to avoid a diversion of further Spanish fishing effort into our own waters, not least the Irish box, we need at least to try to negotiate in Europe a far tougher new control and enforcement regime, as has been an outcome with Newfoundland? Is it not time to turn our efforts to protecting our fishermen now, following the course set by the Canadians?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right. Her Majesty's Government will take the necessary steps this year, as they have in previous years, to enforce the law in the fisheries. Of course, most of the Irish box, as its name, would imply, is in Irish waters, and the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that Irish fishery protection vessels have also been active in recent days.
Mr. David Harris: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the role played by the United Kingdom Government in trying to broker, as far as they could, a reasonable outcome in the dispute, which has gone on for far too long? The only way to settle it, as we have said right from the beginning, is by negotiation.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a golden opportunity, now that world attention literally is focused on the problem of the overfishing of stocks, and that it is up to Heads of Government, including our Prime Minister, to take the lead in trying to obtain a sensible

21
policy that really pays attention to conservation? Does he agree that, unless we do, we shall have a repetition, time and again, of incidents similar to those of recent weeks?
Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have benefited throughout from the advice of my hon. Friend, who has been sensible, wise and practical throughout. What he says now is also right. I believe that the attention of Heads of Government, of politicians and of conservation organisations throughout the world has been focused by the dispute and that we should take advantage of that to widen it. The matter is not simply about Greenland halibut. It is about the conservation of fish throughout the world's oceans.
Mr. Peter Shore: Recalling the initial stance of the European Union five weeks ago, when the dispute began, and the words of the Fisheries Commissioner, Mrs. Bonino, that Canada was behaving as an international pirate, and recalling also that Britain, together with the other member states, backed the European Commission's stance by saying that we would have to reassess our relationships with Canada, is not the changed position of the Government and the satisfactory outcome of the negotiations a victory not only for conservation but for public opinion in this country?
Is it not a victory for the fishermen in Newlyn and elsewhere who have campaigned so vigorously against European threats against Canada and for parliamentary opinion that has been announced on a number of occasions in the House? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the many lessons to be learned from the dispute is the crucial importance of retaining the British veto so that we are not bound to follow European sanctions policies, carried out by qualified majority voting, which might be exercised against Canada?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition has not benefited from the sensible advice contained in the last part of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). The Leader of the Opposition is no longer in his place, but I am sure that he will study that point. As for the first part of what the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, a crucial moment in the dispute came when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom and, I believe, both sides of the House, made it clear that we would not allow the dispute to escalate into sanctions or action against Canada.
The dispute had to be settled by negotiation and in a way that met some of the Canadians' legitimate demands, with which we sympathise. That has been British Government policy throughout, and it has been the right policy. I believe that the generous words of thanks that we have received from the Canadian Government will find an echo in the House.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Did our ambassador in Madrid remind the Government of Spain that this House has been overwhelmingly on the side of the Canadians in the matter and that, in a traditional parliamentary democracy, Government answer to Parliament?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that the ambassador certainly made that point clear. Spain is also a
22
parliamentary democracy and also has her public opinion. Spain has the highest unemployment in the European Community. None of that is any excuse for overfishing or disobeying proper fisheries rules, but hon. Members should remember that there are also pressures on democratic politicians in Spain.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the Minister of State has, I think, conceded in helpful and constructive letters to me, we do not know very much about either the breeding habits or the oceanic habits of fish such as turbot, bream and halibut. Before we impose quotas in future, is it not a matter of priority to set up some sort of international research organisation to study the quantities and habits of those increasingly rare fish?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right. One of the sensible things to come out of the dispute has been a proposal for joint European-Canadian research work on the stocks in the north-west Atlantic—but that only scratches the surface. There must be more international work on such matters, and we should work on a precautionary basis. There are now proposals to use the technology available for much deeper sea fishing. We must be careful about such proposals while so little is known about what happens under the ocean's surface.
Mr. Christopher Gill: The British fishermen who met in Plymouth last Thursday were most anxious that I should convey to you, Madam Speaker, a flag presented to them by Canadian parliamentarians. I will do so at a suitable stage after Question Time.
In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend the Minister note that the west country fishermen who met in Plymouth last Thursday were of the unanimous opinion that there was no future for the British fishing industry while we remain a member of the common fisheries policy? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that it is all very well to talk about solving such problems in the name of conservation, but the reality is that a billion dead fish are being dumped back into the sea every year? Many of those fish are capable of being sold to provide meals for hungry mouths. We must stop pretending that every problem can be solved by a further conservation measure. Will my right hon. Friend and his officials take much more notice of the practical men who go down to the sea in ships and fish instead of taking so much notice of Eurocrats, bureaucrats and people with no experience of the practical and technical matters?
Mr. Waldegrave: If my hon. Friend had attended meetings—for example, in some parts of Scotland—he would have found a different answer. The industry is not united on the idea of withdrawing from the CFP; nor in real life is it practical. As other of my hon. Friends present at the same meeting said honestly to those anxious fishermen, that is not a practical proposal. I do not believe that it displays the right sort of leadership to say to people things that will not come about in real life.
We need not to scrap the common policy, but to have a common policy that works better and more efficiently, and that conserves and is enforced better. All the real anxieties and anger that I too have experienced from those fishermen arise from the fact that they know that the rules are not being properly enforced. They must be

23
strengthened. They must not be weakened by trying to go back to an imaginary free-for-all that might be worse for conservation in the end.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: While the Minister has rightly placed strong emphasis on the importance of enforcement, will he elaborate on whether the NAFO area penalties will be translated into UK fishing industry limits? As he has said that this will be a precedent, will he advise me on whether he regards the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy as a critical factor in the intergovernmental conference in 1996? I am sure that that would be welcomed by fishing communities' representatives and by the fishing industry, from the point of view of conserving both jobs in the industry and fishing stocks?
Mr. Waldegrave: The last two items, if one is to be honest, are often in conflict. That is exactly the problem faced by Spain. She has tried to meet the problems of high unemployment in Galicia by building a huge new fishing industry to employ those unemployed people, thereby increasing her fishing power and causing problems. If fishing power is to be aligned to stocks, we cannot guarantee that every job in the fishing industry will be preserved. Anyone who makes such a guarantee is not telling the truth. It is better, therefore, to say to people, as we said to the House a few months back, "Yes, we will provide decommissioning money, so that we can get the fleet to the size that stocks can maintain in the long term." That must be the right way forward.
In a sense, the CFP is in constant renegotiation. This very year, whole new regimes for enforcement and control are under discussion. In the negotiations, we have an opportunity to consider how many fish are caught every year. We must get tougher on those quotas and on the share-out of those quotas.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Had it not been for the brave, determined and unilateral action of our Canadian friends, we would not have had the improved conservation measures that my right hon. Friend has been able to announce today. Is not the lesson that the common fisheries policy is basically a farce, as land-locked nations such as Luxembourg and Austria, Mediterranean nations such as Italy and Greece, and Baltic nations such as Sweden and Finland have a say in north-west Atlantic fisheries, which are nothing to do with them?
Mr. Waldegrave: It is ironic that, on the very day that we are welcoming the establishment in the north-west Atlantic of a common regime with much tougher enforcement, total allowable catches and agreed share-outs of quotas—exactly the mechanisms of the common fisheries policy—people should argue that that proves that there is something fundamentally awry with such a policy. The exact opposite is shown: that what is needed is common action, but common action backed by real enforcement, quotas and total allowable catches that are set at a level that stocks can, in the long term, maintain. That is what has been established for that one fishery after tough action, which we have applauded, by the Canadians and after negotiation with the European Union. We must be equally tough elsewhere.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Does the Minister accept that the only way to conserve the fishing stocks is to ensure
24
that those who seek to break the rules in order to improve their catches do not profit from their illegal action? While the various fishery protection vessels of many different nations can catch the occasional miscreant, the answer to the problem is to ensure that nobody profits in their home ports by the sale of small fish or juvenile fish that have not yet bred, or by fishing over quota.
Is not the new agreement an opportunity for the European Union to establish some sort of universal or Europe-wide enforcement agency so that we would have British fishery inspectors operating on the north coast of Spain or in Brittany and perhaps Spanish enforcement officers operating in Newlyn in Cornwall? Would not that be one way of ensuring that those who break the rules do not profit?
Mr. Waldegrave: The House will sympathise with the thought behind the hon. Gentleman's comments. If there is a common policy, it must be enforced in a common way so that there is confidence in each of the different fishing areas that it is being enforced properly. The Commission is taking steps to strengthen its inspectorate capacity, but there is much more to be done. There is much to be done by the deployment of new technology such as satellite surveillance and so on which the European Community is developing. As I have said, I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's comments in a way, but I am not sure that there would be many volunteers from the Spanish side to be deployed in Newlyn at the moment.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is just possible, to say the least, that the Spaniards might make it rather hot for our tuna fishermen when they go about their lawful business later in the year? Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to the House that whatever resources are needed to ensure that our people can fish legally and in peace will be provided by Her Majesty's Government?
Mr. Waldegrave: The same thought had occurred to me and to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said last week, we will deploy the necessary resources.
Mr. John D. Taylor: I welcome the new agreement between the European Union and Canada and the new regime for the enforcement of rules. It has been suggested that that could be a precedent for that part of the Irish box into which the Spanish boats will be gaining access. As the rules are devised for enforcement in that part of the Irish box, will the Minister ensure that, in practice, they will not be more damaging to home-based boats than to boats that come from a long distance?
Mr. Waldegrave: We will certainly endeavour to meet the right hon. Gentleman's legitimate concern. We are closely in touch with the authorities in the Republic of Ireland, who, as the right hon. Gentleman must have seen, have been having their own problems in the past few days. We will need to work closely with them to ensure that there is proper enforcement and a proper exchange of information.
Mr. Roger Knapman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the settlement—game, set and match, as they say, to the Canadians, the conservationists and common sense. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, having paid so many millions of pounds to

25
help set up the overblown Spanish fleet, British taxpayers will not now be asked for further millions of pounds to decommission part of it?
Mr. Waldegrave: The Spanish fleet is subject to the same decommissioning targets as the rest of the European Community, and that is right. I am sure that we will need to return to those in the years ahead. My hon. Friend is right that this is a good outcome and I genuinely believe that the British Government have played a key part in restraining some of the earlier rhetoric and in keeping the negotiations on the rails at a critical time. I pay tribute also to the negotiators on both sides who have made concessions to bring about a mutually satisfactory future regime.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not the truth of the matter that there is an agreement at this time because the Canadian Government had the guts to stand up against the common fisheries policy and Spain in particular and that the British Government caved in a few weeks ago?
Mr. Waldegrave: No. The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that Canada is not a member of the European Union and is therefore not involved in the common fisheries policy. Spain took action when it saw its long-term interests threatened. That is what we will do when necessary. The hon. Gentleman may have seen that, only last month, an illegal British-registered, Spanish-owned ship was fined more than £300,000 for breaches of the fisheries regulations. Where rules are to be enforced, they will be enforced.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate the Government on the role that they played in reaching this very desirable settlement, but is it not a pity—I hope that my right hon. Friend will comment on this—that the European Community does not seem to recognise that the United Kingdom is also part of the Commonwealth and that our membership of the Commonwealth long preceded our membership of the European Community? Should not the European Community bear that in mind? Does my right hon. Friend feel that the remarks of the Fisheries Commissioner from Italy on "The World at One" today were highly partisan and extremely unhelpful, because what we have achieved through the courage of the Canadians is a real conservation policy that has some meaning and some teeth?
Mr. Waldegrave: We have said several times that less rhetoric from that quarter might have advanced matters more quickly. In such negotiations, in the end both sides have to make concessions. Both sides did so, and produced a sensible regime. I believe that it was Britain's membership of the Commonwealth, to which I referred in my statement, and our long-standing connections of friendship and trust with the Canadians which enabled us, not for the first time, to fulfil a valuable transatlantic role in the relationship between the European Union and the North American continent.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is not the lesson of this whole affair the fact that, when one has justice on one's side and one knows that everyone in the world believes that one is right, a little bit of brinkmanship does not go amiss? That is what the Canadians have been involved in. With that in mind,
26
would not the people of Brightlingsea now like to think that the Government might adopt a more provocative stand on issues of animal welfare?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of an approach to foreign policy more usually associated with my party than with his. We shall remember his words when next we have to take tough action overseas and when Opposition Members are, as usual, saying that everything should be referred to the United Nations, that nothing should be done or that everything should be subjected to some committee or other. I accept that, when one is right, one has to take tough action, and we shall do so if necessary to protect our own fishermen.
Mr. Tony Banks: On the back of this agreement, what action will be taken by the European Union against illegal fishing by the Spanish off the west coast of Africa, where, of course, there are no fishery protection vessels such as those in Canada?
Mr. Waldegrave: I know, because the hon. Gentleman has referred to this before, that there have been allegations—indeed, there were further allegations in the newspapers this weekend—but I am not sure that the European Community has any legal standing in such cases. However, I shall pursue the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that these matters are, unfortunately perhaps, between the sovereign state—Spain, in this case—and the littoral state, but I shall look into it and write to the hon. Gentleman.
Dr. Gavin Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition welcome the agreement, and does he accept that, if it is a victory for Canada, it is also a victory for the European Union because it is in the interest of the fishing communities of Canada and Europe that we should have long-term, effective conservation? As for the immediate impact on employment in Spain, will the Secretary of State say whether the common fisheries policy will restrict the opportunity that the Spanish Government have to use their own money to help cushion the effect of any cut in employment?
While it is true that British fishermen have welcomed the agreement, it is also true that they do not welcome the prospect that the Canadian Government may be able to conserve turbot stocks outwith their 200-mile exclusive economic zone more effectively than Britain will be able to conserve our fishing stocks within our economic zone, following the agreement reached by the Secretary of State at the Council of Ministers in December in respect of our western waters.
As for that agreement, will the Minister confirm that a great deal of negotiation has still to take place on the implementation of any effective conservation measures which may have to be put in place as a result of additional Spanish vessels in those western waters? If it is true that the Irish Government supported the British Government's stance on this occasion, will the Minister explain to the House why the Irish Government did not support the British Government when it came to the crunch over additional access to western waters in December?
Mr. Waldegrave: On the last point, the hon. Gentleman should perhaps address his questions to the Irish Government. That was a decision for them, not for

27
me. On the other points that he raised, any plans that the Spanish may have for investment or subsidy in relation to their fishing communities must be submitted to the European Commission for approval, but there are structural funds of one kind or another available, as there are in some parts of the United Kingdom as well. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to say that more negotiations have to be completed. The Minister of State in my Department has been closely involved in those negotiations, which are about the regime which will be needed next year. The overall position, of course, of enforcement within our waters is exactly the same as that of the Canadians within their waters. We are responsible for enforcement within our 200–mile limit and we shall enforce rigorously. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), we shall deploy the necessary resources to enable enforcement.

Business of the House
4.1 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement. The business for Thursday 20 April will now be a debate on a motion arising from the first report of the Select Committee on Privileges on a complaint concerning an article in The Sunday Times of 10 July 1994 relating to the conduct of Members. That will be followed by a debate on a motion relating to withdrawal of Members from meetings of Select Committees arising from the first special report from the Select Committee on Members' Interests. The remaining stages of the Criminal Appeal Bill, which I had previously announced for Thursday, will now be taken on a later date.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. It is right that the House should discuss the report of the Privileges Committee at the earliest possible opportunity. While some hon. Members may have wished to have had more notice of the debate, it will not come as a surprise to many, and will be welcomed by the House as a whole.
Will the Leader of the House clarify three points? First, will he say how much time is likely to be allotted to the debate and ensure that it is appropriate to the matters under discussion? Secondly, will he confirm that the motion that he will table for Thursday will include the exact wording of the report of the Privileges Committee? It is extremely important that the House is able to vote on the exact and detailed recommendations made by that Committee. Thirdly, will he say when the remaining stages of the Criminal Appeal Bill will be taken and will he give an assurance that the re-timing of that day's debate will not interrupt matters and mean the loss of the expected Supply day in the next week or so, for which we have been pressing?
Mr. Newton: To take the last point first, I cannot at the moment indicate the total reorganisation of business that we shall consider in the next two or three days, but, of course, I take note of the hon. Lady's point, which is in some ways more appropriate to my normal business statement. The answer to her second question is yes. I expect that the motion will include the exact wording of the report of the Privileges Committee. I understand—I hope that it is in order for me to say this—that there is an agreement between the usual channels that the time allotted will be two hours for the first debate and one and a half hours for the second. I expect to table the appropriate business motions.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that the debate on Thursday would not be the best time to deal with some of the media behaviour in the case to which he has referred and other cases in detail? Would it be possible to have a debate not with the threat of legislation, but on the various standards that the media, press and broadcasting set for themselves, and to provide the opportunity—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is very wide of the mark. As the Leader of the House would say, that is more a question for his normal business statement.
Mr. Bottomley: I was asking for confirmation that Thursday's debate would not be the most appropriate time for that kind of fuller debate.
Mr. Newton: If my hon. Friend is asking for my personal view, the answer is that I agree with him. However, at the end of the day, it would be for you, Madam Speaker, to determine the scope of speeches in the debate.
Mr. Simon Hughes: We welcome the announcement made by the Leader of the House, but can he clarify whether, in setting this Thursday which is obviously an early opportunity for resolving a matter which should not be left hanging around, he is following a principle in terms of time delay between a report from the Privileges Committee and resolution by the House? Secondly, will there be Government-whipped votes in support of both motions to be tabled by the Leader of the House?
Mr. Newton: On the first question, the honest answer is no. I was not seeking to establish a principle. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to go further, I would have preferred it to be possible to deal with the matter before the recess, but frankly it was not, with the notice that we could have given at that stage. This is the earliest practicable moment after the recess. But for the recess, I would have hoped to deal with it quicker.
On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman will know that the question of whipping is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, but he will also know that, by convention, House of Commons matters of this kind are not the subject of whipped party votes.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether the second debate on Thursday, that in relation to Members' interests, will be sufficiently wide to enable us to have a debate on some of the allegations made in the press at the weekend, because those are wide allegations and they follow a trend in respect of allegations that have been made about other hon. Members which the Select Committee on Members' Interests is investigating?
Mr. Newton: Once again, my hon. Friend is inviting me to take over your privileges, Madam Speaker, in respect of deciding what is and what is not in order during the debate. However, I would have thought that the debate was fairly narrowly drawn.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Are the motions to be tabled for Thursday amendable? If so, will they be tabled in time so that hon. Members can amend them if they feel that that is necessary?
Mr. Newton: They will be amendable. I hope that they will be tabled tonight. Whether amendments are selected is a matter for Madam Speaker.
Mr. Toby Jessel: As this is a short week, can my right hon. Friend say when he might be in a position to indicate next Monday's business?
Mr. Newton: I very much hope to be in a position to indicate next Monday's business on Thursday. Indeed, I suspect that I will be in terrible trouble if I cannot do that.
Mr. David Trimble: While the urgency of the privileges business is appreciated, will the Leader
30
of the House bear in mind, when he is rearranging the remaining stages of the Criminal Appeal Bill, the fact that the Bill has wide support throughout the House and is regarded by many hon. Members as one that should be expedited as quickly as possible?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful for that supportive offer.
Mr. David Winnick: Would not it be unfortunate if the procedure adopted on Thursday did not allow us to vote if we so wished—and as I do—in favour of the recommendations of the Privileges Committee in respect of the two hon. Members, but at the same time to dissociate ourselves from the recommendation about The Sunday Times? Will the Leader of the House give an assurance, in so far as he can, that there will be an opportunity for an amendment to be tabled and a vote to be taken accordingly?
Mr. Newton: Once again, Madam Speaker, we are in your territory rather than mine. I expect that it would be possible to devise an amendment to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wants if he wished, but whether the amendment would be selected and in order would be a matter for the Chair.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I recognise that the usual channels determine the length of debates, but, with regard to the first debate, I believe that the time allowed is far too short. If that debate were longer, some of us might have the opportunity to set out our reservations about the Privileges Committee report in so far as it has failed to address what we believe is the central issue in the whole affair. There is a danger that Privy Councillors and senior Members of the House of Commons will dominate the debate, which should be contributed to by many more than those few.
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I have said in good faith and in being as open as I could with the House a few moments ago, but no doubt the usual channels, who seem to be present in force, will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Leader of the House recall that, when this matter was originally debated and referred to the Privileges Committee, one of the amendments that was accepted for inclusion on the amendment paper but not subsequently selected for debate stated that all moneys received by hon. Members for their parliamentary work should be deducted from their parliamentary salaries? Will the motion on Thursday be wide enough to include such an amendment for discussion?
Mr. Newton: Once again, I am being invited to tread into territory beyond what would be proper for me, as whether an amendment is in order would be, of course, for the Chair. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I am not drawn into that deep water into which he is trying to entice me.
Mr. Tony Banks: As the Leader of the House has now reorganised the business for Thursday, could he find time on that day also for a

31
statement from the appropriate Ministers with regard to the resumption of the export of calves for the veal trade on the continent? Perhaps we could then ask a Minister—
Madam Speaker: Order. That question is not in order.
Mr. Bill Michie: Although there will be two debates, they might be interlinked. Will the Leader of the House assure us that, during those debates, there may be a link that is relevant to both Committees?
Mr. Newton: Once again, Madam Speaker, I am tempted to think that you should have made the statement, not I. Again, we are in the territory of what is and what is not in order in debating a certain motion. If such links are clearly demonstrable, I am sure that, as always, the Chair will take a characteristically reasonable view.

Points of Order
4.11 pm
Sir Cranley Onslow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Question Time you let fall a comment on the absence of some hon. Members who had tabled questions for oral answer. I am not sure that what you said was fully understood by the House, and I wonder whether you could clarify it.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that matter as a point of order. It has become a regular occurrence that some Members are not in their place when their questions are called. When Members' questions appear on the Order Paper and they are not able to be here, I would expect their questions to be withdrawn and for my office and the ministerial office to know in advance. In some cases, Members do not let me know and they do not let Ministers know. That is very bad behaviour.
The Whips, perhaps through the 1922 Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman is a respected Member, and through the parliamentary Labour party, should call to the attention of Members the fact that Ministers and the Chair need an apology when Members are not in their place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It seems that I have the support of the House on this matter, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) for allowing me to make it clear.
Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has the President of the Board of Trade or the Secretary of State for National Heritage offered to come to the House and make a statement in defence of rugby league against the depredations of the American mogul Murdoch? Is it not crucial that they do so now?
Madam Speaker: I understand the strong feelings of some hon. Members about this matter in those parts of the country from which I hail. No Minister has let me know that he wishes to make a statement at this juncture on the matter that the hon. Gentleman seeks to raise.

Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill
4.13 pm
Mr. Michael Stephen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit payment directly or indirectly to any person convicted of an offence in the United Kingdom (or in any country with which the United Kingdom had diplomatic relations at the time of the offence if the offence would have been an offence if committed in the United Kingdom at that time) or to any person associated with that person in respect of any book, play, film, newspaper article or other publication relating to that offence; to confer anonymity upon men accused of sexual offences unless and until convicted of them; and for connected purposes.
The first part of my Bill would make it an offence to pay a criminal for his story. It makes a mockery of our system of criminal justice and causes justified public outrage when a person is convicted of crime and then is seen to profit from that crime by selling his story to a newspaper or from being paid for his co-operation for a book, film, play or some other publication. It would, for example, be intolerable if Mrs. West were convicted of the Gloucester murders and received any financial benefit from selling her story.
My Bill would apply to direct payments and also to indirect payments via friends, relations or business associates. It would also apply to payments made here in respect of offences committed not only in Britain, but in any country with which we have diplomatic relations.
The second part of my Bill would give men accused of sexual offences the same protection from publicity as enjoyed by complainants since 1976, unless and until the defendant is convicted. There have been many cases and I shall remind the House of some of them, without naming the men concerned and thereby adding to the distress that they have already suffered.
The House will remember the case about a year ago involving an undergraduate accused of rape by a female undergraduate. More recently a television actor and comedian was accused of rape by a Soho stripper. Only last week, a gynaecologist was accused of sexual offences against two nurses. The jury found that the allegations by the nurses were no more than malicious lies. All those men were acquitted, but they will never be completely free of the stigma that attached to them by reason of the publicity attending the case.
Last week, a young man was acquitted of rape at Exeter Crown court. He did not have to live with the stigma for long, because he hanged himself last week. Commenting on that case, Lord Denning, the distinguished former Master of the Rolls, said:
34
"This case is a tragic example of the importance of amending the law. Confidentiality should be extended to the man and the woman until after the verdict."
The House may remember that men did have that protection from 1976 to 1988. I am well aware of the reasoning of the Heilbron committee which reported in 1975 and of the Criminal Law Revision Committee which reported in 1984. I do not agree with their conclusions. The general rule is that the identity of all defendants should be published, but in 1976 Parliament made a special exception for rape cases, which was extended in 1992 to other sexual offences. Parliament took that action because of the special character of sexual offences.
If an exception is made for complainants in such cases, it must also, as a matter of common fairness and justice, be made for defendants. It may well be that in a particular case the police have a compelling reason for wishing to publicise the name of the suspect and the Bill would permit a judge, on the application of the police, to grant the right to publicity, but in most cases it would be sufficient to say that the suspect was wanted for serious offences without specifying the nature of those offences.
It is said that anonymity for complainants is necessary so that women will not be deterred from reporting sexual offences. I agree with that proposition, but under the cloak of anonymity it is more likely that malicious complaints will be made for the purpose of destroying the reputation of a man whose anonymity the complainant knows will not be protected. The answer is not to remove the anonymity from women, but to grant similar anonymity to men.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Stephen, Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Lady Olga Maitland, Mr. Patrick Nicholls, Mr. David Evans and Mr. Bernard Jenkin.

Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Michael Stephen accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit payment directly or indirectly to any person convicted of an offence in the United Kingdom (or in any country with which the United Kingdom had diplomatic relations at the time of the offence if the offence would have been an offence if committed in the United Kingdom at that time) or to any person associated with that person in respect of any book, play, film, newspaper article or other publication relating to that offence; to confer anonymity upon men accused of sexual offences unless and until convicted of them; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July 1995, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]
Orders of the Day

  Environment Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, I must announce that I have put a ten-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches today.
  4.19 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Government are committed to a high level of environmental protection. That is what the people of Britain want, and that is what we are determined to continue to give them. But, sometimes, when we talk about the environment, we use high-falutin' language which removes what we are discussing from the lives of most of us. The facts ought to be interpreted and presented in a more down-to-earth way.
  It is not surprising that many were pleased to see that—for the first time in a long time—a salmon was caught in the Thames at Canary wharf. That is a more eloquent statement about the cleanliness and the quality of the river than any of the figures which can be put forward or the arguments which can be expressed. So often, the dense numbers, complex science and abstruse concepts we use pass people by. But that example is one of a series which show how much the countryside, the rivers and the urban environment have been improved and can be improved.
  That has been particularly noticeable on the international stage in previous weeks. The Government's subjecting of energy policy to the disciplines of the market has meant not only that we are now confident of meeting our Rio commitment—unlike many who made a lot of noise at the time and presented all kinds of arguments about what they were going to do—but that we are able to go further than we promised.
  I was able in Berlin to call upon other industrialised nations to join us in making a commitment to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by between 5 and 10 per cent. by 2010. The fact that we were able to do that in advance of the conference ensured that we were able to play a central role in ensuring a succesful outcome to the conference.
  Those successes, and many others like them, are a result of the Government's environment policy which has set Britain on a course for sustainable development. But we have not been content simply to chart a course and sit idly by, waiting for progress to occur. To ensure that we attain the goals we have set ourselves, we have put in place perhaps the most comprehensive machinery of government to manage the environment to be found anywhere in the world.
  I will not rehearse the details today, but it is necessary to see the Environment Bill not as the only part of the policy, but as part of a continuing programme to improve the environment at home and throughout the European Union, and to ensure that we lead the rest of the world in the direction in which all of us seek to go.
  Many Members on both sides of the House have the same demands and desires, and this is an area where we ought to be trying to create as great a consensus as
  36
  possible, so that the demands which we shall make upon all the people of Britain are willingly accepted. If we are to do that, we must give support not only to the high-level panel on sustainable development which Sir Crispin Tickell chairs, and the sustainable development round table which has representatives from business, academia, local authorities and environmental organisations, but also to the Going for Green initiative, which was welcomed by all parties when we launched it earlier this year.
  The machinery of government issue is of considerable importance, because the centrepiece of the Bill is a further and significant strengthening of our mechanisms for protecting the environment and delivering sustainable development.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: In a moment, if I may.
  The new environment agency will give us opportunities to proceed much faster and in a more holistic way than we have so far been able to do. The whole idea is that we look at the environment much more in the round. We must recognise that we cannot deal only with water, as air and land pollution must be seen together with water pollution. The work of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and that of the local authorities in their waste management role needs to be brought together with what the National Rivers Authority has so excellently done in the past few years.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Could I raise the question of gas or stythe in Northumberland, which I raised some time ago in the House of Commons? What does the Secretary of State intend to do specifically about that problem in Northumberland? One man in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has lost his life, and some housing estates have been badly affected. It seems to me that everyone is burying his head in the sand.
  Mr. Gummer: That was a sad occurrence. Of course, the Coal Authority is at the centre of those concerns, but the hon. Gentleman will find that, when I come to deal with the matter in general later, he will see what the Government seek to do. In the specifics, we are looking carefully at what has happened. We join the hon. Gentleman not only in sending condolences to the family of the man concerned, but in wishing to ensure that, so far as possible, there is no recurrence of what is universally seen as a tragic case.
  The Government believe that, if we are to deal with such matters, not least the sort of occurrence which the hon. Gentleman has raised, we have to start with an attitude towards growth that is best expressed by the phrase "sustainable development". There is no doubt that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see a growing economy, but that they do not wish to see that growth bought at the price of the next generation. In the past, the profits of one generation have been paid for in costs to the next generation. We are all seeing that today, not least in the sort of incident that the hon. Gentleman has just raised.
  We are paying now the costs of what produced wealth in the past. We can certainly accept that responsibility today, but it is also our responsibility not to lay similar costs on future generations if we are to proceed with the growth

  37
  which all of us want to achieve today. That is why sustainable development lies behind all that we do in the environment. That is why sustainable development and the concept that it encapsulates needs to be borne in mind in all that we do when we discuss the new environment agency.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: Why does the Bill exempt coal mines from any consequence of polluted minewater until 1999? Why does it apply only to pits that are still open after 1999, and not to the large number of pits which have closed? Does that not speak more about the interests of the Government in creating a sustainable environment than all the lofty sentiments expressed at international conferences?
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman cannot have read what my noble Friend said in the House of Lords. He made clear the responsibility that the Coal Authority would take on its shoulders until 1999. When the hon. Gentleman looks at the facts, he will see that we have protected people. I hope that he will not spread a misreading of what the situation will be.
  A proper balance has been introduced. It has been discussed in great detail in their Lordships' House, and it will undoubtedly be discussed here, too. We are clearly protecting the environment in a sensible way and making sure that people have proper notice of the responsibility which will lie on their shoulders after 1999. Up to that time, clear responsibilities will lie on the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority has accepted those responsibilities.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: My right hon. Friend mentioned a moment ago the legacy that previous generations have left to future generations. I presume that he had in mind very much the question of contaminated land.
  Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he has consulted on his proposals with those who might develop such land, that he has satisfied himself that he has made it possible for them to do so commercially and economically, and that his proposals will not have the opposite effect to that intended, and prevent such redevelopment?
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to point to the need for balance, but detailed consultation is under way, and we are consulting all those interests. The issue he raised is crucial. We must ensure that decontamination is carried out to the level necessary for the purpose to which the land is to be put. If we try to ensure that all land has to be cleaned up to the highest possible standard so that it could have any use, then frankly, we will not get much land cleaned up. It is much better to ensure that the land is cleaned up to the level suitable for the use for which it is intended, and in that way we will get the balance right.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I really must get on for a moment.
  Balance is at the heart of sustainable development. The two words, sustainability and development, need to be held together if we are to get a sensible answer. We need to grow if we are to provide the resources our people need, but at the same time we need to grow in a sustainable way. It is not easy to keep those two words together. When people talk about sustainability but fail to talk about growth, they are talking about the destruction
  38
  of society, for a society without the resources for improvement, change and betterment is not one in which we would wish to live.
  Those who talk about growth without giving any indication of how to make it sustainable are betraying the next generation. The two words must be kept permanently together. That means reconciling the needs of the environment and of economic development, rather than pursuing one at the cost of the other. It means placing the concept of the environment at the centre of decision making, rather than as an add-on extra.
  When I was Minister of Agriculture, one of the issues associated with the common agricultural policy was putting the environmental concerns of farming at the centre, instead of their being an add-on extra that some nations would take on their shoulders but some would not, and about which some farmers were concerned while others were not. Environmental concerns must be part and parcel of the agricultural process and, indeed, of other processes.
  To do that, we must take proper account of costs and benefits. Only in that way can we ensure that environmental priorities are central to the way in which we make up our minds about what we do, and are not something that one bothers about only when one can afford it.
  Costs are important. We cannot deliver on environmental demands unless we take into account the costs and ensure that they are proportionate to the benefits that we gain. We can all give a list of desiderata, but we also need a list of priorities for we must ensure that we do not do the least important things first, or we will find that there are no resources left for doing the things that really matter. That means that we need a well focused and well managed series of bodies that will offer practical ways of ensuring that holistic approach to environmental protection and effective planning.
  For example, one of the reasons why the change in the structure of the national parks is necessary is to ensure that they are run by bodies that are more able to take in the wider interests that they ought to represent. We must avoid festooning those new organisations with additional tasks and duties, covering everything with some environmental connection. They need to be properly focused, but they also need to ensure that they can cover the range of environmental demands that will be made of them.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I was one of the members of the Select Committee on the Environment when Sir Hugh Rossi recommended that environmental agency. I expressed my concern at the time, and I do so again now. The idea of the environmental agency is second to none, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is selling it to the House very well, but he has not stated the cost implications. The Select Committee was concerned about the fact that 10,000 paid civil servants would be involved.
  Our second concern is the agency's effect on industries and consumers, and whether this country would be at a disadvantage compared with other European countries that do not have all those high standards. Will my right hon. Friend say something about the on-costs to the nation as a result of the environmental agency?
  Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The figures he quotes could apply to people currently doing

  39
  those jobs. They happen to do them under different hats, either as members of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, working for local authorities in their waste management function, or as members of the National Rivers Authority. If the numbers are added together, the figure is similar to what my hon. Friend quoted.
  I hope and believe that, by bringing those resources together, we shall reduce the number of people involved in the agency. Indeed, the agency will have failed if it cannot make its operation as lean as humanly possible. It must also use contractors to involve the private sector in as wide a range of activities as possible. It must get the best value for money, and all those measures can be taken effectively by such an agency.
  My hon. Friend knows that I am entirely on his side on that matter, as I am a late convert to the concept of an agency, on precisely those grounds. It was necessary to build an agency that did not end up being a juggernaut—so large that it could not see its priorities clearly. My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of that, and I assure him that, with the balance in the Bill, we seek to make it absolutely clear that the agency will be effective and as lean as possible. By bringing together those responsibilities, it will ensure that its work can be done better and more effectively with fewer people.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I welcome the Bill in terms of what it will do for the national parks, but I am concerned that the schedule says only that it is desirable to appoint councillors from wards. Will my right hon. Friend look at that and consider whether we should direct councils to appoint to national park authorities councillors who represent national park areas?
  Mr. Gummer: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, as, in some cases, national parks have given the impression that they have not been as understanding of the people who live in them as they have been about certain other matters outside. I want to ensure that people who live in national parks feel properly represented by those national park bodies.
  I have tried hard to think of ways of doing that precisely as my hon. Friend suggested, but there are real reasons why, in a number of national parks, one could not direct that matter quite as he thought. We have some ideas about how we might give specific support to local people who live within national parks and ensure that they are represented on the relevant national park body, and I hope that we can talk those ideas through in Committee.
  Mr. A. J. Beith rose—
  Mr. Llew Smith rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who represents an important national park.
  Mr. Beith: Will the Minister include among the ideas that he considers the direct election of at least some members of the national park authority by residents of a park? Will he bear in mind the concern in areas like Northumberland, where people feel that the national park is, in some way, inimical to the continued presence of the Army, which has been a good conservator in the area, and has worked effectively and successfully with the park over many years?
  Mr. Gummer: I have been impressed with how the Army has dealt with a number of issues, particularly in the right hon. Gentleman's area, and I am concerned about the attacks that have been made on it, unnecessarily and wrongly. However, we are looking at all sorts of ideas, and I rule out none that are put forward.
  I have considered some radical proposals, and hope that we can have a consensus on the matter, because it will be better for the environment. If people who live in national parks feel much more closely allied and committed to how their national park is run, they are more likely to do, often voluntarily, things that it would be impossible to ask them to do statutorily. There is a real prize to be gained here if we can get that right.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Gummer: May I just complete this point? I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for missing him.
  I hope that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed accepts that we have sought to take that tone in the Bill, which was put into the public domain as a draft Bill in the first place. We have sought to listen carefully in another place. We have changed the Bill in a number of important areas where we believe that the case for change has been made.
  I should certainly like the Bill to command as much consensus as possible. I do not want people to feel that we will not be as flexible as possible. Hon. Members must appreciate, however, that, on many of the issues involved, two genuine sides exist, and that both are seeking the best answer environmentally. That does not necessarily mean a battle between one side that considers sustainability most important and the another that is concerned only about growth. People are genuinely trying to bring those concepts together to get the balance right. The national parks are a good example of that.
  In their Lordships' House, people argued on both sides about exactly how to offer the best mix of powers and responsibilities to the national parks authorities. They did so in order to achieve an end that they hold in common. I cannot promise that we will necessarily reach an answer that is universally acceptable, but all I can say is that we will seek one that carries the greatest consensus and the best balance between elements that are often diffuse and contrasting.
  Mr. Llew Smith: The right hon. Gentleman said that environmental issues should be the centre of all decision making. With that in mind, would he care to comment on the development of the nuclear industry, and the legacy of nuclear waste that we will pass on to future generations?
  Mr. Gummer: I am a strong supporter of nuclear, power, because I believe it is one of the cleanest and most environmentally friendly ways of producing power. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) may laugh, but there is genuine disagreement between environmentalists about that.
  What I have found most interesting recently is that many of the people who opposed the opening of a second nuclear power station in my constituency, and demanded that we should use wind power, are precisely the same people who now oppose any granting of planning permission for wind power generation anywhere in the country. A peripatetic anti-power group exists, which is

  41
  opposed to any type of development, whatever it is, as long as it is the one that it is on about—every other alternative is better than that one.
  The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent should recognise that respectable grounds exist to argue that nuclear power plays an important part in ensuring that we can save the planet for future generations by reducing the amount of carbon that we emit into the atmosphere. Were we, France and other countries not to generate as much nuclear power as we do generate, we would have little chance of meeting the obligations laid before us.
  The Labour party should remember how little nuclear waste is generated, and compare it with the damage done by sulphur and carbon dioxide. In those circumstances, the Opposition should take more seriously the case for nuclear power.
  Mr. Iain Mills: On the national parks, does my right hon. Friend realise how strongly concerned motor rallyists are about what is meant by "quiet enjoyment" in country parks? Many people have spoken to me, as chairman of the all-party motor industry group, about the difficulty of defining that term.
  Mr. Gummer: I am sure that you have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we have moved from nuclear power to motor rallying with one short step. That shows the range of issues that the Bill is bound to cover.
  I am perfectly aware of the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) has raised. I have received a most helpful and direct letter from the Royal Automobile Club about them. We must ensure that we recognise the range of activities in which people have every right to feel they can be involved in the national parks. We need to find a way to get that balance right.
  One of the difficulties is that we are often faced by single-issue groups, which are only concerned about one particular aspect of the countryside. Somehow or other, we need to bring those interests together. That is, once again, part of the consensus that we must find in the debate.
  The core of the Bill will be the establishment of the environment agency and the Scottish environment protection agency, SEPA. As I have already said, I was a late convert to the need for those new bodies. I am convinced of them primarily because of the nature of sustainable development.
  I do not see how one can ensure that sustainable development lies at the heart of our decision making unless pollution can be controlled. A single agency can make that possible. We cannot ensure such sustainable development unless it is possible to deal with the way in which pollution affects all the elements and not just water. For that reason, the agencies will be more than the sum of their parts.
  Those agencies will take forward the key aims of providing a more integrated approach to environmental regulation and management and improving the efficiency of regulation. We hope that that integrated approach will ensure that, by bringing management and regulation together, we can, in most cases, deal with such matters by management rather than by regulation. It is better to organise by the most voluntary means the best way of achieving our ends. If possible, the agencies will seek to foster such management, but they will have strong powers to back up those efforts at management.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: If we are to mean what we say about sustainable development, the public need to be aware of all environmental information, which may not be available to them now. I refer in particular to industrial operators' data on emissions from cement kilns, which affect areas near my constituency. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that the public should be aware of that information?
  Mr. Gummer: Of course. The tests that we are conducting in that respect are about to be completed and then all the figures will be available in the normal way. We are open about offering such information, but if the hon. Lady can point out to me any areas where we could be more open, I would be happy to look at them.
  There is no question of wishing to restrict information. The only issue of concern is information of great use to us, but made available on a commercial basis, which makes it impossible to share. One must strike a balance, but wherever possible I shall certainly make the relevant information available.
  Mr. Keith Mans: My right hon. Friend has just mentioned the aims of the agencies. Does he agree that, in order to promote good environmental practice, those agencies should have the ability to insist on clean technology, or at least to promote it as a way forward, not only to provide jobs, but to ensure that best practice is adopted when considering new techniques?
  Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The work that he is doing as a member of the all-party environment committee is helpful. It is not only a question of clean technology, but of ensuring that we use the most efficient and cost-effective way of delivering our ends.
  One of the dangers is to insist upon a particular mechanism, rather than being concerned to reach those aims. By introducing the concept of cost-effectiveness, I hope that the new environment agencies will be able to encourage best practice, to be achieved at the most reasonable cost. That is vital to ensuring that we use our resources to their best effect to improve the environment.
  We must accept that there is a good deal of green posturing. For example, people demand that we should make reassuring general comments about the environment without being prepared to count the cost. They are not prepared to accept that, to improve the environment, we must take some tough decisions.
  I exempt the current Opposition spokesmen from that charge, because they were not in place at the time, but I remember how difficult it was to follow an Opposition argument that we had to do much more to deal with CO2, emissions, but that the source of 30 per cent. of them—the homes of Britain—should not bear the cost. The Liberal party is keen on green taxation, but not on any that might lose it a single vote in any by-election. That type of green posturing must stop, because it will not help any of us. I hope that we will be able to get rid of it.
  No doubt the Opposition will ask for various assurances, but I hope that they will not demand sustainable development as well as a system that does not offer the means to meter any resources to make people pay for the cost of those resources. If we do not have a mechanism that puts the cost upon the resource rather than on employment, we will not achieve our ends. We will

  43
  run contrary to the propositions to which the Government—and, I understand, the Opposition—signed up, not only at Rio but in the European Union.
  In the Environment Bill, the Government are squarely tackling those issues. The creation of the new agencies will simultaneously benefit the environment and the wider economy, because they will be able to look more broadly across all the environmental media. However, those agencies will also be confronted with difficult judgments—there is no doubt about the difficulty of many of those judgments. We are giving those agencies a principal aim based on the precepts of sustainable development and a duty to take account of costs, including costs to the environment and benefits in carrying out their functions.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I will give way in a moment, but I think I have an idea about what the hon. Gentleman might ask me, so in advance I shall say to him that, unless the concept of cost-benefit analysis is at the heart of our approach to the environment, we shall never bring home to business, local authorities and Governments the importance of the environment.
  If one does not undertake cost-benefit analysis—if one does not make it necessary to express the importance of the environment in the imperative language that will appeal to bankers, as well as those who are naturally enthusiastic about flora and fauna—one will not give the environment the importance that it should have. Cost-benefit analysis is a crucial way of raising the profile of the environment, not only through the agency but elsewhere.
  Mr. Williams: The Minister anticipated quite well the subject that I had in mind—it was the issue of cost-benefit analysis. He spoke earlier about carbon dioxide emissions, and the great importance worldwide of limiting those CO2, emissions. It is difficult to calculate the benefits of that. How does one calculate the cost of global warming? It is an enormously complicated calculation. When considering that cost-benefit analysis, should not the Minister adopt the precautionary principle that the environment is sacrosanct, and that any benefit of doubt must be in favour of the environment?
  Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman says that, why was he not in the same Lobby as the Government on VAT on fuel? How does the hon. Gentleman come to the House, as usual, to say, "Let us make sure that someone else pays the costs as long as it is not someone who might vote for me in my constituency. Let us simply ensure that the cost falls on someone else"?
  The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the environment should be at the centre of our decisions, but I cannot understand his argument that it is difficult to judge the extent of the benefit of avoiding the dangers of global warming. The benefit is obvious. That is why Britain has taken the lead. That is why we persuaded the other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries to follow us instead of dragging their feet.
  The decisions of the EU were almost word for word written by this country, because we are determined to ensure that we face up to the damaging costs of global
  44
  warming, and do so on the precautionary principle, even at a stage at which, although the science seems to me to be pretty conclusive, there remain people who consider that perhaps it is not quite right. On the precautionary principle, it is sensible to take the measures we wish to take.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) will convince his party before he seeks to convince the House. Perhaps he would like to have one or two words with some of his friends in the coal mining districts, who did not seem to me to be entirely enthusiastic about the reality of what needed to be done to ensure that we met our Rio commitments. If he converts his own side first, we shall be pleased to allow them to join us on the environmentally friendly side of the House, because that would be an extremely beneficial thing for the nation as a whole.
  Mr. Peter Hardy rose—
  Mr. Frank Dobson rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I give way to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).
  Mr. Dobson: For fear of any confusion, will the Secretary of State tell us, in view of his most recent remarks about VAT on fuel, whether the Government have abandoned the proposal to increase VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent. or simply postponed it to a better day?
  Mr. Gummer: The House of Commons made it quite clear that it was not prepared to accept it. I was merely drawing attention to the fact that it was interesting to notice how ungreen the Labour party was about that issue when it thought that it might win a vote or two.
  The Government have made it quite clear that we are not reintroducing any such question. I am merely drawing attention to the fact that that means that we must find a different way of delivering what the Labour party is always talking about but is never prepared to put its vote behind when difficult decisions need to be taken.
  That is the problem with the Labour party—it is all talk, but never prepared to take the big decisions. We notice that in every aspect of life, and that is a great sadness. If the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras had been on the side of the environment, he would not have been in the Lobby that he was in on that night. That is very sad.
  We have yet to tackle many issues.
  Mr. Hardy rose—
  Mr. Tim Yeo rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I want to continue, but I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo).
  Mr. Yeo: While my right hon. Friend is on the subject of the Labour party, is he aware that, right on the doorstep that he and I share, we have an example of what happens when the Labour party has been in power for two years, propped up by its Liberal allies? So great is their contempt for the environment that they have produced lunatic schemes for a northern bypass in Ipswich. They have produced a lunatic traffic experiment scheme, disfiguring villages in my constituency such as Brantham, in a way that shows a complete disregard for the opinions of local residents and for the environment.
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend tempts me down a line that I shall be careful about, but I shall say that it is odd

  45
  that I have had to spend most of the Easter weekend dealing with my constituents who have been affronted by the fact that the Lib-Lab coalition in the Suffolk county council is pressing forward with plans for a north Ipswich bypass, although it has been told by the Department of Transport that there will be no money for it, it has been told by the Department of the Environment that it cannot put it in its plan because there is no likelihood of it being built, and I have told them that it is wholly contrary to any sensible environment policy.
  A bypass would pollute a series of villages, blight the houses in those villages and cut into the very attractive, unspoilt countryside. A perfectly proper southern bypass has been built, and there is no need for that northern bypass. The Liberal party especially, the chairman of the transport committee being a Liberal, is promoting the idea of that bypass, although it knows it to be environmentally unfriendly.
  That is the type of double-talk we hear throughout the country. Once the Liberals are in power, they become as unenvironmental as it is possible to be. Outside power, they are very environmental for those from whom they believe they might obtain support as a result, and very non-environmental for those from whom they suppose that they might obtain the odd vote or two in that respect.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), who will speak for the Liberals—
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What about this Bill? What has all this got to do with the Bill?
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman might wait for one moment, because I shall have a thing or two to say about Thurrock in a minute.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Truro will be able to explain to us why the Liberals, to advance the environment, busily want to build new roads in my constituency and to drive a new lorry route right through some of the smallest and most distant villages in Suffolk. Perhaps he would like to explain that in his speech. I shall listen carefully.
  I shall come to Thurrock in a minute—after I have dealt with contaminated land.
  There are balances to be struck in tackling such major environmental problems as contaminated land. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) rightly argued that we need to clear up as much contaminated land as possible as quickly as possible, and we must ensure that in future we do not leave land contaminated by today's industrial processes. However, we cannot possibly make the position such that people will not dare to take on the responsibility of contaminated land because of the huge costs that would inevitably be involved. We need to obtain the right balance, and I believe that our provisions in part II achieve that aim.
  There are important choices to be made: choices about how best to deal with environmental matters such as water pollution from abandoned mines. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who mentioned that issue, is not in the House at the moment, but I believe that it is important to ensure that industry's responsibilities for the environmental consequences of its actions are brought home to it.
  That includes packaging waste and old minerals permissions. It also includes the protection of valuable
  46
  hedgerows, in relation to which the agricultural industry needs to balance its responsibilities properly with the need to produce the food that the country demands.
  As far as abandoned mines are concerned—
  Sir Trevor Skeet: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I shall give way in a moment, if I may first discuss abandoned mines.
  Statutory protections in cases where a polluting discharge is permitted to flow from an abandoned mine will apply until 1999, but after 31 December 1999, those protections will no longer apply to the owner or operator of a mine, so the agency will be able to regulate discharges. In the meantime, we have made an absolutely clear commitment that the coal authority will take on the responsibilities delineated by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Construction and Planning.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: The Secretary of State has mentioned mining, and has tried to put forward a balanced case. There is a barytes mine in the United Kingdom which is perhaps one of the largest in the world for producing drilling mount, which is required for the North sea. Permission for the mine was rejected by the Department of the Environment, and now all the material has to be bought abroad. Is that the way to maintain the balance of which my right hon. Friend has spoken?
  Mr. Gummer: When I deal with planning permission—I understand that is what was involved in this case—I have to take individual circumstances into account. The planning decision will have been made entirely on the basis of the facts relating to that mine and the circumstances surrounding it—those involved will have tried to weigh the facts properly.
  A balance has to be struck—my hon. Friend has put one side of it and said how important it is to produce that material, but there will have been a range of other issues to take into account. One has had to try to get the balance right, and that is not easy. I cannot guarantee that, in every case, his decision would be exactly the same as mine, but I try to take such decisions in the most balanced way.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend referred to hedges and farmers. It will be crucial to the good running of agriculture for the definition of hedges to be clearly drawn up. Who decides whether a hedge is important? It could be difficult.
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to say how difficult such decisions are. A modern agricultural industry certainly cannot be run with farm fields as small as they were in the days when everything was carted by horse. There are a large number of ancient hedges, which are important to the environment and which need to be protected.
  The Government are introducing proposals that are not dissimilar to those introduced earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth). I hope that they will commend themselves to the House as part of the Bill, and provide us with the necessary balance. The balance enables the farmer to continue his role and job, and the countryside to be properly looked after.
  Producer responsibility is also necessary to ensure that the industry takes fuller account of the environmental consequences of its action. Up to now, that has operated

  47
  by means of a challenge from the Government to the key industries—seven separate waste streams have so far been involved. The response has shown that industry is prepared to take up its responsibilities.
  Concerns have been raised, most notably by the packaging industry, about the potential problem of free riders—those companies that might seek to gain a competitive advantage by refusing to accept their share of the responsibility. In response, we have agreed to introduce framework legislation in the Bill to provide the minimum necessary to ensure that the freeloaders will not be able to get away with their practices. That seems to be the proper balance—to get the industry to make cost-effective decisions, while ensuring that those who do what is right are not undermined by those who seek to make profits by doing what is clearly wrong.
  I have already mentioned hedgerows. I hope that clause 80 will be seen as a sensible and balanced approach to a difficult decision. We also have to establish clear priorities. If we continue to deal with such issues in the customary way—choosing what happens to be popular or fashionable at one time and placing emphasis on a policy because it seems to be convenient—we will not strike the right balance. Therefore, we must establish priorities. The Bill will clearly help considerably in certain sectors.
  Clause 75 requires national waste strategies to be drawn up in England, Wales and Scotland. I believe that that has been widely welcomed. There is an air quality strategy. In January, I launched "Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge", which set out our strategic proposals for air quality management. We intend to table amendments in Committee to give effect to those proposals.
  From what we have heard from the Opposition parties, the general view seems to be that the sort of ideas we have will be valuable, not only in the centres of big cities, but in many of the urban areas surrounding them. Many people who have known and loved areas such as Grays and Purfleet will know that the air quality strategy involves not simply Westminster, Lambeth and Wandsworth, but areas which, although possibly of smaller import in the great national scheme of things, are important to the people who live there. I hope that the proposals we introduce will commend themselves to the House.
  Further provisions will be made to provide for countryside grants, and fisheries and flood defence. In terms of countryside grants, the Bill will enable my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to operate the countryside stewardship scheme when it is transferred to him from the Countryside Commission at the end of its pilot period. It will benefit farmers and land managers by ensuring that all the schemes that make up England's agri-environment programme are administered by a single body.
  I was conscious when I was Minister that it was not possible under the legislative framework for the Minister of Agriculture to run such a scheme. Clearly, it should be run by the Agriculture Minister, which is why the Department of the Environment is, through legislation, giving the Ministry of Agriculture the opportunity to carry forward such a scheme in future.
  48
  The Bill transfers to the agency all the existing functions of the National Rivers Authority in respect of fisheries and flood defence, but with some limited changes. It provides for the introduction of a fixed penalty scheme for offences under salmon and freshwater fisheries legislation. It transfers to the agency responsibility for approving the design and installation of fish passes and gratings. It enables the agency to expand the remit and membership of its fisheries advisory committees to include recreation, conservation and navigation instruments.
  That last example shows just what we are seeking to do—to bring together a myriad of different interests to create the proper balance in countryside and town. We want to ensure that the environment takes into account all the interests of growth and sustainability, of those who want to walk, fish and participate in field sports, and of those who want to farm and participate in the myriad of countryside activities. We do not want one group, whether the ramblers or the Country Landowners Association, to have a monopoly on countryside interests. We want everyone to have a fair share in a limited resource, which we need to protect for the next generation.
  The Bill is only the latest in a long line of Bills to protect the British environment from pollution. Those Bills date back more than 100 years, to the legislation to protect our water and air from the worst effects of the industrial revolution. They include the clean air Acts of the 1950s, the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Bill now before the House.
  It is no mere accident of grammar that "Conservative" and "conservation" have the same root in our language. The legislation to conserve our environment has a common feature: it was introduced by Conservative Governments. All those great landmark Acts are Conservative Acts proposed by Conservative Governments. That is because we are concerned not just for this generation, but for future generations. Our concept of continuity and of passing on to the next generation something better than we have received in the past is uniquely understood and supported by this country's oldest political party, the Conservative party.
  It is not surprising that, when other Governments turn to see where the innovative ideas for conservation are coming from, they look to this Government. They look to us throughout the European Union and beyond. In Berlin only 10 days ago, the United States, the Canadians, the Australians and the New Zealanders had to face the fact that the British Conservative Government were leading the pack and setting the pace in international environmental control.
  We face a new century and a new millennium, in which sustainable development will be the watchword of well-being for all our people. The Bill puts in place a key instrument for preserving and enhancing the quality of life for the British people as we enter a new era. It will be of importance not only to us, but to the rest of Europe and beyond.
  We are setting the trend. We are creating a way in which, by a balanced approach to the environment, other countries can also ensure that the next generation has reason to be glad that this sort of legislation was introduced by a Government committed to its future.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Many of the Bill's proposals are in line with Labour party policy and we welcome them. We do not, therefore, propose to vote against the Bill at this stage.
  As the Secretary of State for the Environment has explained at some length, the Bill brings together in one environment agency the National Rivers Authority, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the waste regulation functions of local authorities. That integration is intended to make overall environment protection more effective. That is right and welcome. However, the Bill has many shortcomings and I hope that the Secretary of State will forgive me if I concentrate on the shortcomings rather than on votes of welcome for the provisions of which we approve.
  The Bill weakens the conservation obligations of the National Rivers Authority, and makes all the new agency's functions subject to challenge in the courts on the ground of cost. We believe that that is wrong and should be changed. The Bill proposes the establishment of a separate agency for Scotland but not for Wales, which presumably accounts for the absence of any Welsh Tories in the Chamber today. We believe that that omission is wrong and should be changed.
  Mr. Roy Thomason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No. Clearly, a large number of hon. Members want to speak. The Secretary of State has spoken for the best part of an hour and I should like to be brief.
  The Bill abandons the present statutory obligation on local councils to keep a register of contaminated land. That is wrong and should be changed. The Bill rightly repeals the law that permits contaminated water from abandoned mine workings to pollute rivers, streams and lakes. That repeal, however, will apply only to mine workings abandoned in the next century. That postponement is wrong and should be changed. We will seek to amend the Bill to put right those and other significant shortcomings.
  Our other major criticism of the Bill is what it leaves out—the opportunities that are missed. The Bill could have placed on all Government Departments and public bodies a general duty to further the protection and enhancement of the environment; it does not. It could have enshrined in law the precautionary principle that could be applied to new materials and processes; it does not. It could have taken action to deal with growing public concern about air pollution, especially from vehicles; it does not, although this afternoon the Secretary of State has made the welcome announcement that the Government intend to amend their own Bill to do something on those lines.
  The Bill proposes no action to tackle noise pollution. The Government have not taken the opportunity provided by the establishment of the new agencies to end the present confusion over responsibility, which is holding back an integrated and effective effort to reduce marine pollution, especially in the North and Irish seas. In short, the Bill is welcome in general, but it falls short of what is needed if the environment is to be given proper priority
  50
  as we approach the 21st century. However, we do not intend to vote against the Bill at this stage. We will not oppose it for the sake of opposing it.
  The Secretary of State claims to be deeply concerned about the environment. He claims to be committed to sustainable development and conservation. We propose to give him the opportunity to make good his claims. We will table amendments to strengthen the Bill's provisions and to extend its scope. We look forward to their being accepted by the Government. If they are rejected and the major shortcomings of the Bill are not corrected, we will vote against it on Third Reading.
  Some people cast doubts on the Secretary of State's commitment to the environment, but I suggest, if only for the sake of argument, that we accept that he is sincere in the concerns that he expresses. His problem is not lack of concern but lack of influence. He cannot get his Cabinet colleagues to accept what is really needed. He knows as well as anyone in the House that tough and effective regulation is necessary to protect and enhance the environment, but the rest of the Government do not believe in such regulation. Quite the reverse is the case—they regard all regulation as a burden on business. Instead, they glory in deregulation. That attitude dominates everything that the Government do, and it shows in the Bill.
  Most people would agree that the aim must be to make the environment agency more effective than the various organisations that it replaces—that it should add up to more than the sum of its parts. Surely that is the object of the whole exercise, but that is not what the Bill proposes.
  Under the Bill, the new agency will be in a weaker position than the present National Rivers Authority. The NRA has worked well and effectively. In all its activities, including pollution control, it was required to further conservation. That will not be the case any more. That obligation was to be removed all together. It is now to be retained, but the Secretary of State has excluded the agency's pollution control functions from its scope. That is simply not good enough. The agency should be required to promote conservation in every aspect of its work, including pollution control, which is one of its major functions. If a proposal on those lines is not accepted, the agency will be weaker than the NRA.
  My next major concern is about the agency's general aims and objectives. Those require the agency to take into account the likely costs and benefits of its actions. No such requirement was placed on the NRA, yet I know of no public criticism of the NRA for exercising its powers unreasonably or for imposing excessive costs on water companies or on any other bodies whose activities it has supervised. That requirement must place the new agency in a weaker position than the NRA by leaving its actions wide open to challenge in the courts. I am sure that the Secretary of State realises that, but he has had to give way to the deregulators in the Cabinet, who do not seem to understand the role of the new agencies.
  The new agency is there not to adjudicate between polluters and green pressure groups, but to protect and enhance the environment. It is not for the agency to act as a referee or umpire; it must be a player. To do its job properly, it must take sides. It must be on the side of the environment and against pollution.
  Under the Bill, the new agency would not even be a strong referee. It would have to think twice before showing a polluter the red card, in case he challenged the

  51
  decision in court. As one of my hon. Friends has already said, we all know that it will be much easier in court for a polluter to present a case against the immediate identifiable cost to his business than for the agency to present a case that demonstrates and quantifies the long-term benefits to people, animals or plants that may be harmed by the pollution.
  We understand that the Government's lawyers have advised that that proposition will not leave the agency open to challenge in the courts. I suggest to the Secretary of State that the Government's recent sad record in the courts suggests that he should be wary of complacent advice from Government lawyers. If the Council for the Protection of Rural England, at one end of the spectrum, and Greenpeace, at the other, both say that the provision will make it easy to challenge the agency in the courts, the Secretary of State had better take notice.
  Concern about the new emphasis on the cost of regulation is heightened by the Bill's failure to place on the agency a countervailing duty to achieve specific objectives in terms of environmental quality. If the agency were set quantifiable targets for air or water quality, that would go some way towards counter-balancing the cost-benefit obligation, and it would be a great help if the agency were to be challenged in the courts.
  Many other questions about the agency's powers and duties will need to be thrashed out in Committee, but I want to emphasise that, for the agency to work effectively, it must have the right structure, the right regional boundaries and the fullest involvement with local authorities in the regions concerned. Some people seem to think that, once the various separate agencies are brought together in one agency, everything is bound to be more effective. That is simply not true. Things could get worse.
  For a start, the new agency will be a bigger and more complex organisation. One of the merits of separate organisations is that they know that they have to liaise with one another. It is sometimes assumed that communications within one organisation are bound to be easier than between separate organisations. Effective liaison within an organisation does not happen by chance. Information does not flow by a process of osmosis; it has to be arranged, worked for and managed. In Committee, my hon. Friends will want to ensure that the best arrangements are made.
  Sir Cranley Onslow: I do not wish to press the hon. Gentleman too hard on this matter, but he mentioned the importance of the right to regional boundaries. Can he give us some idea of how he thinks those boundaries should be set?
  Mr. Dobson: My view is that the boundaries that roughly coincide with the watershed boundaries to which the NRA works now would probably be the best. There may have to be variations at the margins where some local authority boundaries do not coincide with them, but, with the limited knowledge at my disposal now, that would seem to be the best arrangement.
  We welcome some of the proposals in the Bill that deal with contaminated land. However, we do not support the proposal to repeal the requirement on local authorities to prepare and maintain a public register of contaminated land. That requirement was introduced by the Government
  52
  as recently as 1990, but they now propose to get rid of it. It has been suggested to me—not by the Government—that such a register would blight certain areas of contaminated land. In my view, it is the contamination, not the register, that causes the blight.
  People resent the way in which some landowners, developers and councils think that it is okay for them to have the facts at their disposal but want to keep local people in the dark. A good example of that arrogant attitude was the refusal of British Gas to disclose details of the 380 contaminated sites that it owns. It will disclose the information to property speculators, but not to local people or even to their Members of Parliament. The chairman of British Gas has admitted to me in a letter that the sites "need closer inspection". Indeed they do. He refused to disclose details because it is, as he describes it,
  "material which is extremely complex, publication of which might only serve to lead to an exaggeration of the actual risk".
  Not so much an example of big brother is watching as one of big rich brother knows best.
  The Government seem to approve of that approach. The Bill obliges councils to inspect their area and to identify contaminated land and some landfill sites. The agency and the Secretary of State will have access to the information that the councils put together and so, presumably, will potential developers. The only people who are to be kept in ignorance are the general public. So much for open government.
  The Bill proposes to repeal the law that permits the pollution of watercourses by water escaping from abandoned mine workings. That problem has become much worse recently because, in the past, pumping from operational mines has kept the water low in abandoned mine workings and there has not been a great deal of polluted water flowing out of them. Now that there are so few mines left in operation and a big reduction in pumping, the threat from minewater pollution is increasing.
  The Government, quite rightly, propose to repeal the statutory exemption. That is welcome, but it will take effect only in mines closed in the next century. That postponement is not just unwelcome; it is plain unacceptable. The repeal was postponed because the Government feared that it would reduce their takings from the sale of the coal industry. It is no good the Minister frowning and looking puzzled, or the Secretary of State attempting to dispute it—although to be fair, he is not. It is set out clearly in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill, which says:
  "Since these proposals are coming forward in parallel with the privatisation of the coal industry, there could be some adverse effects on proceeds to the Government. Accordingly, the removal of the statutory protections is being timed to reduce any possible effects."
  Whatever the claims of any Conservative Members, nothing could better illustrate where the Government's priorities lie. Given a choice between money for the Treasury and protecting the environment, the Treasury wins every time.
  The Government have it in for the coalfield communities. They close the mines and then fail to prevent them from polluting rivers, streams and lakes in the former mining areas. When the pit closure programme was being pushed through the House, they promised

  53
  enterprise zones in quite a few of the coalfield areas. Nothing has yet happened. They have treated the coalfield communities with contempt.
  The national parks were introduced by a Labour Government and have been a brilliant success. However, the increasing intensity of use of the parks, the uncontrolled development of noisy activities in some of them and the non-tourist economy of the parks have been a source of growing concern to all sorts of people.
  The Bill proposes the establishment of separate park authorities for each park, and we welcome that. However, consideration should be given to the membership of each authority. It should include representatives not just from the local authorities within the boundaries of the park but from the towns and cities neighbouring the national parks whose people depend on it for relaxation.
  For example, that could include representatives from Plymouth or Exeter on the Dartmoor authority. There are currently people from Plymouth and Exeter on that authority because, until the local government reorganisation, they are part of that county.
  Mr. McLoughlin rose—
  Mr. Dobson: Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, I should say that I believe that the people of Sheffield and Derby should have some representation on the Peak District authority, which is a great source of relaxation for them.
  Mr. McLoughlin: What is proposed in the Bill is an important step forward. People from Sheffield are appointed to the national park. The hon. Gentleman is missing the fact that, even in the Bill as drafted, the Secretary of State will be able to appoint people who can bring national significance to the parks. The Opposition should think carefully about this matter. I believe that people who are supposed to represent local authorities should be elected members of the national park authorities. As I have said, in the Bill as drafted, the Secretary of State will be able to appoint people to improve national significance. We need to protect those who live and work in the park.
  Mr. Dobson: My views do not differ from those of the hon. Gentleman. I believe that people who live in the national parks should have a say in who represents them on the park authority. I am saying that, when the Secretary of State considers who else should be on the authority, he should bear in mind the contribution that the Peak District authority makes to the lives of people in Sheffield and round about.
  Against the votes of the Government, the House of Lords voted to restrict noisy activities in national parks by making quiet enjoyment one of the statutory purposes of the parks. It may be that the wording of the Lords amendment will cause difficulties in legal interpretation, but I hope that the Government will accept the principle of quiet enjoyment. If they introduce amendments that improve the wording but retain the principle that there is a presumption in favour of quiet enjoyment, they will be supported by my hon. Friends in Committee and on Report.
  The Bill proposes some new protection for hedgerows, but it does not go far enough. It is confined to what Ministers are to conclude are important hedgerows. The mind boggles at the thought of how that great adjudication
  54
  will take place. It does not include drystone walls or other important threatened rural features such as ponds. We will press the Government to extend the coverage to drystone walls and ponds, and we will propose the extension of hedgerow protection to Scotland.
  As I have already explained, the Bill as drafted does not provide for any attempt to secure improvements in air quality. Such provisions were promised in another place and have just been promised again by the Secretary of State, so we hope that they will be forthcoming. However, to be satisfactory, such proposals must include the setting of air quality standards or targets because, without standards or targets, the Government would be reduced to trying to combat air pollution with pious hopes.
  In the time available, it has not been possible to deal with even all the important aspects of the Bill, but I have tried to highlight the improvements that we believe need to be made if the Bill is to achieve what the Government claim for it. Without these changes, the Bill will amount to little more than a technical consolidation of the existing statutes.
  In addition, we believe that, if they are to achieve what they want, the Government must reverse the cuts that they have made in the resources devoted to maintaining and enhancing the environment, and equally important—perhaps more important—they need a change of heart. They have to abandon their headstrong opposition to regulating business in order to protect the environment.
  No one believes that regulation alone will achieve what is needed. Regulation alone is not sufficient, but it is necessary. Without tough regulation and tough enforcement, we shall not make the necessary progress. In the long run, it is simply not true to say that environmental regulation is a burden on business. Regulation can raise standards of performance, clean up industrial processes, reduce engine emissions and increase energy efficiency.
  In this way, regulation can give companies that take up the challenge a competitive edge, an edge we need if we are to compete in world markets to supply plant, equipment and industrial techniques that abate pollution. Beyond that, we need to develop plant, equipment and processes that, through the use of clean technology, do not harm the environment in the first place.
  If we can secure a share of world markets for pollution abatement and clean technology, we can provide jobs for our people—jobs in research, design, development, manufacture, construction, installation, operation, maintenance and repair. We can provide good-quality, high-tech, well-paid jobs so that our people compete with the best in the world on quality and are not reduced to competing with the cheapest on price.
  There needs to be a change of heart, not only by the Government but by some people in business. Many are changing their views, but others still need to recognise that protecting and enhancing the environment are good not only for the air that we breathe or the water that we drink but for trade, prosperity and jobs.
  Tough environmental standards are not in conflict with industrial and commercial success—they go hand in hand with it, as has been seen in Germany, the United States and Japan. Those countries have far tougher regulations and a far better success rate in selling their pollution control equipment and their clean technology around the world. It may be that the Secretary of State understands that but has not managed to convince his Cabinet colleagues who are

  55
  still worshipping at the shrine of deregulation and still cutting funds for environmental protection. They still worship the market—so, for that matter, do the people they have appointed to quangos.
  The person they have appointed to regulate the gas industry believes that energy conservation must take second place to her crackpot idea of a free market in gas. The Government appointed her, but she is lousing up the Government's efforts to promote energy saving.
  The Government continue to cut funds for environmental protection and energy conservation. They have insisted in the Bill that the new agency must be weaker than the NRA whose functions it is intended it should take on.
  Mr. Gummer: I should not like the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House. I am sure that he will remember that I have announced a series of considerable increases in the money devoted to insulation for the purposes of energy efficiency, and I have protected that part of my budget that is to be spent on environmental protection against the cuts to which he refers. He may be able to attack me in other respects, but in this case he cannot say that the Government have cut the funds available—they have increased them. The hon. Gentleman has only to ask Neighbourhood Energy Action, whose funds have been increased considerably. Indeed, this year we are insulating the homes of 600,000 poorer people.
  Mr. Dobson: Let me take the right hon. Gentleman back to the gas regulator. The Energy Saving Trust is certainly being trussed by her. It was intended that it should receive public funds and funds from the gas industry, but it is not receiving the funds that it expected from the gas industry because she objects.
  The Secretary of State says that he has protected spending of environmental protection, but I hope that he is better at protecting the environment than he is at protecting his budget because, according to the Department of the Environment's annual report, he will be cutting spending on environmental protection by £86 million over the next four years. If he wants to quarrel with that figure, he had better quarrel with those who wrote the report. The Government have got their priorities wrong.
  As I said at the outset, we shall not vote against the Bill at this stage, because we support the basic principles behind it. However, its principles have been watered down and its scope is limited. It needs to be improved, and neither we nor the people of this country will be satisfied unless it is.
  5.34 pm
  Sir Cranley Onslow: This is an important, welcome and wide-ranging Bill, but, conscious of the 10-minute limit on speeches, I hope the House will forgive me if I concentrate on matters of interest in respect of the river environment, and issues of particular concern to anglers. I do not claim to speak for all anglers, but I have many friends in the angling community and I am a member of one or two organisations that are active in that sphere.
  As chairman of the fisheries committee of the British Field Sports Society, I recently chaired a meeting attended by representatives of angling bodies. They discussed the
  56
  state of the Bill when it left another place and identified the subjects on which it would be important to focus in this debate and in Committee. Some of the points that I shall make would no doubt be more appropriate to the Committee stage but I shall mention two general issues.
  The job of the agency—[Interruption.] It would be helpful if I could have had the attention of one or two of the chatterers on Labour's Front Bench. The job of the agency will not be easy. What it is able to do will depend largely on the resources and funding available to it. I congratulate the National Rivers Authority on what it has achieved under the leadership of Lord Crickhowell. Much progress has been made, but much remains to be done. We cannot pretend that the job of the combined body will be easy, but it is important that adequate funds should be available, especially in the context of angling, which I think is the only water sport whose participants make a substantial contribution to their own recreation.
  It would be helpful if we could have a reassurance from the Government that the present levels of funding can at least be maintained, if not increased. If the Government are looking for ways to increase funding, it may be possible in Committee to consider a public levy along the lines of an environmental services charge to contribute to general work on rivers and waterways.
  Before I deal with the structure and functions of the authority, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a question. Will he define exactly what is meant by sustainable development, which I do not see defined in the Bill? At least one of the bodies that has made representations—the National Farmers Union—says that the term has been left deliberately undefined. That may be the Government's intention, and the word "sustainable" may be a term of art not unlike another familiar term of art, the definition of the word "reasonable". That definition is subjective and, in my experience, varies from case to case. If the word "sustainable" has to vary from case to case, so be it.
  I was encouraged by what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the need to put right the mistakes of the past, because, without an element of retrospection in what is intended in the concept of sustainability, we shall not make much progress.
  I do not suppose that I need remind my right hon. Friend that a number of rivers are in great danger of running dry and, indeed, do so at various times of the year. For example, the West Beck in Yorkshire, the Piddle in the west country and the Darent in Kent have from time to time been reduced to bare beds. The only success so far has been the remedial work on the Darent.
  The over-abstraction of past years will not be put right unless some action is taken to put licensing back on an even keel. In some rivers, total abstraction licensing already exceeds the maximum flow of the waterway, and that clearly will not do. I hope that the agency and the Department will take a very strong line on, for example, the River Stour to ensure that such rivers are not literally pumped dry by water abstraction.
  I know that many anglers would like some individual to be designated as a fisheries representative on the shadow board, or whatever its proper title may be. I know that anglers' representatives who met Lord de Ramsey recently were encouraged to discover that he is a keen angler. That is a great advantage, but there is a feeling

  57
  that there needs to be some assignment of functions to an individual, so that fisheries interests may feel able to relate to one particular member of the board.
  I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on regional boundaries. I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman but I think that he tried to have it both ways. I understood him to say that he was in favour of river catchment boundaries being modified according to the varied boundaries of local authorities, with which the river catchment boundaries do not always coincide. So that he should not be in any doubt, I remind him—I shall quote from a letter from the Angling Governing Bodies Liaison Group—that:
  "river catchment boundaries have never impeded full interface with local authorities on such matters as planning liaison".
  There seems to be no reason why they should do so in future. I understand that the definitive solution on that matter may not be determined in the Bill. Perhaps the agency will sort it out. I assure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, however, that the river catchment boundary management system has the full support of the angling community and I hope that that system will remain.
  Mr. Dobson: I should make clear my view that the present NRA watershed boundaries should be the dominant boundaries. The only point that I was making was that there may be places where some minor modifications would be of no consequence but would fit in with local government boundaries. I do not think that we should go crazy about it—that is all.
  Sir Cranley Onslow: I am glad to join the hon. Gentleman in not going crazy about it, but it is rather crazy of him to advocate a separate agency for Wales. The existing system seems to have worked pretty well.
  In referring again to structure, I should put on record the fact that the present proposal of regional fisheries advisory committees, as set out in clause 13, broadly meets with the approval of anglers, who do not think that it would be helpful if the interests of recreation, conservation and navigation were by statute subsumed into the responsibilities of the same committees that would deal with fisheries interests. If a voluntary arrangement could be agreed, that would be a different matter. It would cause a good deal of difficulty, to say the least, if recreation, conservation and navigation matters were compelled to be the subject of regional fisheries advisory committees.
  I now turn to another matter on which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras touched: abandoned mines, which have concerned hon. Members of all parties for some time. I am not at all sure that the answers given in the House of Lords and the proposals in the Bill are as easy to justify as my right hon. Friend suggested. I say that in the knowledge that the recent news sheet of the National Rivers Authority contained an article headed
  "Pit disaster waiting to happen",
  which opened:
  "Durham faces an environmental disaster if the Coal Authority stops pumping water from mine workings.
  The NRA has warned that within months of the pumps being turned off there would be massive pollution of the River Wear, which could last for years.
  58
  The cost of the damage would run into many millions of pounds and there would be unquantifiable environmental costs. This compares with the £1 million annual price of running the nine pumping stations."
  It is good to know that the situation has been resolved in the interim by the Coal Authority having taken over responsibility for pumping.
  The problem does not apply only in Durham. It applies in south Wales, and may apply in other areas where abandoned mines are no longer being pumped out to the standard to which we have become accustomed. It is an extremely important matter, and I endorse the view expressed in the Coalfield Communities Campaign leaflet.
  The matter must be clarified and if there are reasons why the exemptions should not terminate until 1999, they need to be spelt out carefully and in detail because, on the face of it, there seems to be no good reason—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am afraid that the 10-minute rule has come down on the right hon. Gentleman.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Although I agree with some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow), I hope that he will forgive me if I first refer to the claim made by the Secretary of State about the Conservatives' pedigree in environmental concern.
  Conservatives have long had an interest in the environment. They were hanging and transporting poachers who were seeking to add a bit of meat to their diet 200 years ago. Many of us who have sought to enhance the environment by private Members' legislation in recent years have, on numerous occasions, been blocked and thwarted by Conservatives, either those on the Treasury Bench or their minions on the Back Benches.
  It was a pity that the Secretary of State sought to claim some monopoly of virtue because hon. Members from all parties have a genuine concern for the environment. The attitude adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), in welcoming the broad principles of the Bill and saying that we shall not vote against it tonight, should have encouraged the Minister to take a rather more constructive and less partisan view.
  The right hon. Member for Woking quite properly referred to a source of grave anxiety to many of us who live in coalfield areas. Abandoned mine workings and the effect of inadequate pumping and so on merit rather more consideration than has so far been given. We face the prospect of an orange, ochreous legacy in many former mining areas. There is a real danger to the quality of water supplies and of an adverse effect on streams, rivers and wetlands. There is certainly a risk of rising levels of groundwater, which could contribute to serious subsidence, and there is also, of course, the problem of the contamination—or worse—of methane. The part of the Bill that refers to such problems needs to be urgently reconsidered.
  I hope also—because of the time limit I shall rush through a number of points—that the Minister will reconsider planning permission for ironstone working, enhance the protection afforded to limestone pavements and reconsider the Government's approach to peat bogs. If the Government are to pursue a policy of sustainable

  59
  development, too lax an attitude to the safeguarding of our peat areas would certainly be inconsistent with their claim.
  I endorse the point made by the right hon. Member for Woking about excessive abstraction of water, which affects not only anglers. Those of us who are interested in conservation and wetland areas must accept excessive abstraction can have very serious consequences. There may also be serious consequences if we continue to grant permission for people to discharge unspecified materials into the water courses of our country.
  The Minister will probably be aware—I have corresponded with him recently—that for many years I have been trying to ensure the protection of hedgerows. I first tried to introduce measures under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) will recall that the Government were not prepared to accept my attempts. I presented a Bill on the subject in 1982. The Government then took the view that the problem had ended and that hedgerow destruction had virtually ceased. We have lost about 150,000 miles of hedgerows since then.
  I presented another Bill in 1987 on the very day when the then Prime Minister called for hedgerow protection at the centenary celebrations of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. On that very morning, she called for Parliament to enact legislation to protect hedgerows. I presented my Bill that very afternoon, but it was blocked on the instructions of the then Prime Minister, who said that we had many other things to think about as well as conservation. That hardly fits in with the pedigree of which the Secretary of State reminded us.
  Subsequent attempts were made to introduce legislation about hedgerows, including a distinguished attempt by the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth). He was greatly assisted by Opposition Members, but his attempt was blocked and ruined by the antics of a small number of Conservatives in 1993.
  The same fate befell the Bill that I presented again last year. The Government were not going to block that Bill, and I was grateful for that, but a small number of political gangsters from their Back Benches called out "Object" at the wrong time.
  We now have a promise of regulation. The Minister will understand that it is very important that regulations are valid and meaningful. The Secretary of State referred to agricultural change and the need to produce food. If we had not seen the grubbing of hedgerows on the scale that has occurred over the past 40 years, we would not have needed to set aside land at great cost to the taxpayer because we would be in agricultural balance. We simply released areas once covered by hedgerow into agriculture, the removal of which subsequent experience has shown was utterly unnecessary and uneconomic.
  I want to refer to another aspect of my current correspondence with the Minister. Many thousands of miles of hedgerow in Britain are sometimes called parliamentary hedgerows. Common land was enclosed by those hedgerows, and landowners were given the land on condition that it was perpetually surrounded and protected by thorn fences.
  I want to be sure that any regulations introduced under the Bill will not weaken the protection provided under the enclosure legislation. We are talking about 4,000 parishes
  60
  in England and 4,000 private Acts of enclosure before 1840. Those who were given the common land were given a considerable and historic advantage. They were also given a considerable condition of ownership—the maintenance of the hedgerow.
  As the legislation has been forgotten, the Minister may feel that these matters can be fobbed off by regulations. However, no law has been repealed and no obligation has been removed. When I pointed out to the Minister that successive Governments had given taxpayers' money to people to grub out hedgerows, and that sometimes they gave taxpayers' money to people to grub out hedgerows that were already protected, the Government decided to stop providing taxpayers' money for grubbing out hedgerows. Shortly afterwards, they commendably decided to provide grants to plant new hedgerows. The difficulty is that a new hedgerow may take 100 or 200 years to reach the ecological value of the hedgerow that was grubbed out. Such a proposal is not entirely helpful.
  The national parks authorities should have some say in relation to footpaths. My next comment may not be particularly fashionable, but I believe that the works of man are sometimes disadvantageous, if not always vile. It may be necessary for us to ensure that our conservation interest is made secure even at the cost of limits or inhibitions on the access of the general public.
  I have been dealing with a constituency case in which people are clamouring for a footpath to be established not far from a footpath for which I called a long time ago. A new footpath which would, in certain circumstances, disfigure the quality of wildlife and perhaps turn the area into a wildlife desert, is hardly likely to be advantageous. At some point, authorities will have to be asked to look carefully at the consequences of unfettered or uninhibited access.
  The need to protect the natural heritage is such that that interest should have a higher priority than it currently enjoys. I hope that there will be constructive consideration of the Bill in Committee, and that we shall secure from the Government an attitude to amendments which is necessary if the Bill is to be as valuable as it should be.
  5.54 pm
  Sir Kenneth Carlisle: This is the right Bill at the right time. The Bill is important and it is right that it responds to genuine concern in this country and elsewhere about the environment. It is responding to the feeling that we should do more to protect the environment and that we should do everything possible to control pollution.
  I am glad that the Government are responding in this way to genuine concerns. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister have made considerable progress over the past year or two in giving us the lead in this country and elsewhere with regard to promoting the environment.
  One of the themes of the Government's environment policy is sustainable development. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) that it is not always easy to know what that means, but I believe that it means leaving the environment in better heart for the next generation. Sustainable development will be a key issue in environmental policy.
  I am glad that another theme of the policy is integrated pollution control. It is right that we should control pollution in the round. The Government have taken on

  61
  board the need to enhance nature conservation. There have been a number of measures to improve the diversity and the richness of wildlife and to build on achievements which have occurred over the past 10 years. We must also consider the vital aspect of the control of industrial pollution. All those general and important themes are picked up by the Bill.
  When I read the Bill and prepared for the debate, I was very struck by the widespread welcome for this diverse Bill. The general view is that the Bill is taking us in the right direction. With that in mind, when the Bill enters Committee, the Government should be confident that the Bill is correct and they should be confident enough to accept that its detail may have to be amended. Given the general understanding that there is overall support for the Bill in the House, I hope that the Government will look sensibly and practically at proposed amendments.
  I have also been struck by the fact that, among most groups, there is support for the unity of direction in respect of pollution control which the Bill will provide. The Bill will provide clarity of purpose and it will concentrate control and policy in one agency. It will give a clear focus. However, we must also accept that there will be problems with regard to the reorganisation.
  The Bill brings together the National Rivers Authority, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the waste regulation authorities. They all employ people and pursue important functions in local areas. We do not want reorganisation to create more chaos so that the focus and intention are taken off the proper control of the environment. We do not want the reorganisation to be muddled and costly.
  We do not know yet what route the Government are taking, but it must be a practical way forward and it must take into account local feelings, local wishes and the need to pay attention to local problems. In addition, as the Environment Agency will be a very powerful body, it is absolutely crucial that what it decides is transparent. We should understand the reasons for its decisions, and we should also be able to look at the costs of the actions upon which it insists.
  One reason why I welcome the Bill is that it is practical. Clause 7 contains one of the central themes of the Bill, and it describes the duty to further conservation. That matter is at the heart of the Bill and it should be pursued. However, I am concerned that, in respect of pollution control, the duty is weak—the Bill imposes on the agency only the need to have regard to the desirability of the conservation of flora and fauna of special interest. One must ask the Government why, in that aspect of pollution, they have chosen a weaker imperative than for general conservation.
  On conservation, there are two aspects of action that I can welcome. We now have hedgerows legislation. I warn the Government that no one should expect the Bill to produce too much. Many people may be disappointed by the result, but I do not want to see a mass of hedgerows being put under special protection. That simply would not work. We must be very selective. We must select only those hedgerows which are truly of local and national importance.
  I fear that, by going too wide, we will create an industry of seeking grants to preserve and manage hedgerows throughout the country. That would be unwieldy and expensive and it would not work. Those who are involved
  62
  in maintaining hedgerows know that they can do so only by proper management and care. In the end, that is the responsibility of those who work the land.
  I welcome clause 81, on grants for conservation in the countryside. That might help us towards a better balance of agricultural support.
  It is always difficult to find a balance between conflicting interests. Clause 37 is important in that it helps to underline the practical nature of the Bill. It is always essential to take costs into account. The same applies to national parks. We cannot have beautiful national parks unless we create within them a balanced environment in which people can work effectively. Again, we must consider cost benefits, but I ask the Government to emphasise the need to protect the environment. I ask, too, that strong guidance be given that environmental benefits must form part of any cost-benefit analysis.
  In any conservation policy the reclamation of contaminated land must form a central part. I am glad that the Government have consulted widely on that matter in their "Framework for contaminated land" and have introduced the very practical principle of "suitable for use". That principle will help to bring contaminated land back into positive use. Those who are involved in environmental matters want wastelands—brown lands—brought back into proper development. Certainly in Lincoln, we are doing our best to develop city centre areas that have been part of our industrial heritage. Indeed, I am glad to say that we are building a university on some of that land. It must be right to pursue the principle of bringing polluted land back into use.
  In all that, much depends on the guidelines and instructions that the Government send out. We do not know enough about them yet, but, in all their instructions, I expect the Government to insist on giving the environment very high priority. Hon. Members will seek to know more about their views on that matter in Committee.
  I greatly welcome the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke about clear priorities for the environment. To date, his policies have delivered them. The Bill takes those priorities a step forward. They have to be put within a practical framework. In general, the Bill does that. Above all, we must ensure that, as it leaves the House, the Bill continues to give clear priority to conservation and to the enhancement of the environment.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: There is cross-party support for the main tenets of the Bill. I suspect that that is reflected in the fact that there is unlikely to be a vote tonight. Nevertheless, there is a strong turn-out, as reflected in the time limitation on Back-Bench Members' speeches. That shows hon. Members' great interest in several clauses.
  Liberal Democrats have argued for a single national environmental protection agency for many years and have emphasised the importance of taking an integrated approach to the environment. The Prime Minister conceded that such a body was needed more than four years ago. In that respect, the only complaint might be that it has taken a long time to be set up, which perhaps is explained by the Secretary of State's comment that he was a late convert to the agency.

  63
  The Bill presents a big opportunity not simply to integrate the control of pollution to air, land and water but to take real steps to protect and improve our environment—a chance to put action behind the Government's commitment to the environment at Rio and Berlin, and in the 1994 sustainable development strategy. We must ensure that the Bill results in stronger environmental protection than the sum of its constituent parts. My only regret about the Secretary of State's speech was how partisan he chose to make it. I do not think that the Bill's progress will be partisan, although there will be disagreement on individual items.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle), who called on the Government to show an open-minded approach to the concerns of hon. Members of all parties, to reflect what has been a relatively positive approach at least to some aspects of the Bill in the other place and, indeed, even the fairly positive approach to the Government's defeats, let alone when they have chosen to accept criticisms.
  I am disappointed that the Government have not taken the opportunity to integrate environmental concerns into every aspect of policy making. At present, the mechanisms of environmental integration within Government are limited, weak and, frankly, inadequate. In 1990, the Government introduced a Cabinet sub-committee on the environment and so-called green Ministers in every Department, but there has been little evidence that that has had a significant impact on Government decision making.
  The need to integrate environmental considerations into every aspect of Government policy has been acknowledged in Environment White Papers since 1990, with the most recent Department of the Environment annual report stating that a priority is to
  "ensure that environmental concerns are reflected in all areas of policy."
  At the Rio conference in 1992, the Government agreed to elevate environmental considerations in decision making, but I do not think that that has won acceptance in other Departments. Indeed, some of the very limitations of the Bill are, I strongly suspect, the result of other Departments resisting the environmental measures for which Environment Ministers were calling. With that in mind, the title of the Bill could allow a new clause to be included to give each Department a statutory duty to integrate environmental concerns into its policy making and policy reporting. That would ensure that environmental implications are taken into account by all Departments, Ministers and public bodies. I hope to table an amendment on that matter at a later stage.
  I want to raise my concern about four main aspects of the Bill, some of which have been subjected to debate in the House and all of which have been subjected to substantial debate and amendment in the other place. They are: the aim of the agency, the ministerial guidance, the costs and benefits clause and the duty to further conservation.
  I turn first to the aim of the agency. After concern was voiced in another place, the Government introduced a new clause 4 giving the agency a "principal aim" to
  "protect or enhance the environment".
  64
  That principal aim, however, does not apply to the Scottish environment protection agency, and Ministers should explain why not. Moreover, the Bill still fails to give even the environment agency a clearly defined purpose. Furthermore, the aim is qualified, in particular with the requirement to take into account any likely costs, which serves to weaken it and to which I will return later.
  If the agency is to be truly the guardian of the environment, its aim should be clear, simple and unqualified. There should be a clear purpose at the beginning of the Bill for both agencies to protect and enhance the environment, and as part of that, a duty to achieve environmental quality objectives should be put on the face of the Bill. Without such a duty recognising the importance of non-financial environmental quality objectives, the agency will fall short of the intentions that the Minister said were behind the Bill.
  It is good news that the Government decided to produce draft ministerial guidance in another place and allow Parliament to scrutinise it, but the present definition of sustainable development in the guidance, as was mentioned earlier, is open to many interpretations and can mean all things to all people. To be meaningful, the guidance has to adopt an accepted definition of sustainable development.
  Ministers have to clarify the position, and they should start with the accepted definition of sustainable development in the Brundtland report:
  "sustainable development means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.".
  I do not believe that the Secretary of State has a problem with that, but the fact that he has not put it in the Bill suggests that others in other Departments may have, and such a change would be a test of his ability to deliver on his fine words.
  In addition, the ministerial guidance should stress the importance of clear and ambitious targets for the improvement of environmental quality. Unless targets are set, the success or otherwise of the Bill and the Minister's fine words will be impossible to measure.
  Thirdly, I want to address costs and benefits—a subject that was raised on a number of occasions in the other place and, I suspect, will be discussed in great detail in the House. The impact on mainstream industry and competitiveness and the issue of costs and benefits have been central to political debate on the environment in the 1990s. Estimates of the cost of environmental improvement have won headlines in the press and have scared off some policy makers.
  Costs, however, are not the whole picture. They have to be offset by countervailing benefits of creating markets for the environmental industry and jobs. Environmental regulation can save pollution-related costs incurred by third parties, such as the NHS. For example, treating asthma, which is exacerbated by air pollution, cost the NHS £350 million in 1993.
  The emphasis that the Bill places on costs and benefits threatens the agency's role in protecting the environment. I question not the desirability of costs and benefits being taken into account, but a statutory duty being placed on the agency without proper definition or explanation of how it can be implemented. The clause on costs and benefits will make the agency vulnerable to judicial review, which may stop it carrying out its functions for

  65
  fear of expensive reprisals and for fear of losing. Perhaps, even when it believes it is likely to win a case, it may not be prepared to embark on the long and costly process of defending judicial action.
  The statutory duty to take costs and benefits into account should be removed from the face of the Bill and left to ministerial guidance. The Government responded to concerns voiced in another place as to the definition of costs and benefits by clarifying in the Bill that costs include environmental costs, but the question remains unanswered.
  There is no explanation of what "environmental costs" actually mean and no mention of how non-financial targets are to be given equal priority or comparability with financial targets. Frankly, until the methodology is in place, costs and benefits cannot be made a statutory duty on the agency in any meaningful way. Even those who take a different view on the record of the NRA and the costs that some of its actions have imposed on industries and others, have every reason to be suspicious of its place in the Bill as when the legislation is tested in the courts, it may move in a direction that they do not like. They have as much to fear as anyone else from the lack of clarity in the Bill.
  Lord Crickhowell, with his expertise as chairman of the National Rivers Authority, raised just such a concern, saying that there must be
  "a mechanism for discovering what those costs are and for putting values on the environmental benefits. If that mechanism is not provided, there is a real risk that almost all the Agency's decisions will be challenged to appeal, or worse in the courts."
  By setting targets for biodiversity, for example, environmental benefits could begin to be measured, though not in any easy cost-benefit way. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution recently suggested that an effective way of costing the environment would be to set targets for the protection and enhancement of certain aspects of the environment, but as yet Ministers have little or nothing to say about that. While I understand the politics of clause 37, I do not believe in the practice of it, even for meeting Ministers' objectives, let alone those of people concerned about the environment.
  My fourth point raises our misgivings about the duty to further conservation set out in the Bill as it does not apply to the agency's pollution control functions. The NRA has had a duty to further conservation when formulating or considering any proposals relating to any of its functions, including pollution control. That duty has been especially important in the protection of sites of special scientific interest.
  When more than 80 river and lake SSSIs are known to be threatened from pollution, a specific duty to further conservation must include pollution control. By excluding pollution control from the duty and saying there must just be regard to it, the new Environment Agency is being given powers substantially weaker than those of the NRA. We have to ask why, if we are to believe the Secretary of State's fine words about his commitment to the environment.
  I have highlighted my major concerns about the Bill which have been echoed by others. There are other misgivings about the Bill and areas about which hon. Members will be seeking assurances or changes in
  66
  Committee. They include national parks, contaminated land, abandoned mines, hedgerows, accountability and freedom of information.
  Before concluding, I shall touch on a couple of those points. On national parks, much of what is in the Bill is to be welcomed, but for national parks to be capable of meeting both national and local objectives, those who run them must be accountable to both levels. Clearly, the present arrangement causes confusion and we shall be seeking to strengthen the representative character of those responsible for national parks and tabling a amendment to that effect, particularly in relation to the local community within the national parks.
  From my own perspective as a Member of Parliament representing a Cornish constituency, I welcome the hedgerow provision, provided that it includes the traditional Cornish hedges or banks which have been excluded in the past. I shall return to the subject in Committee in far more detail, as I am quite happy to speak on it at great length.
  I am also concerned about the provisions relating to abandoned mines. I am probably the only hon. Member recently to have had a major pollution incident affecting their constituency. I refer to the closure of the Wheal Jane tin mine and the subsequent major pollution of the Fal estuary. That pollution is on-going and the costs of tackling it have escalated out of all proportion compared with the money saved from the original Government withdrawal of funding for the continued operation of the mine. Therefore, Ministers should be aware that the costs of not acting early can ultimately very much outweigh the apparent benefits.
  Ministers seek to justify the delay—which at least they do openly in the Government's commentary on the Bill—on the grounds that it will help privatisation, and that therefore the postponement is justified on financial grounds. That is in sharp contrast to the Secretary of State's fine words about the present generation meeting the costs for—rather than imposing them on—future generations. Frankly, a failure to act early when mines are abandoned imposes a massive pollution cost on future generations which they must live with or incur greater costs in trying to clear up. The Wheal Jane incident made that clear.
  I intend to introduce the Environmental Claims Bill as a new clause to the Bill. Too many misleading, meaningless and unsubstantiated environmental claims are made for products with the aim of inducing consumers to purchase them. As yet, there is nothing in statute to tackle that. I shall give one example. A type of sock is promoted as an ozone friendly sock, and the label states:
  "Helps prevent foot odour which is probably a major cause of the destruction of the ozone layer".
  I would be quite prepared to donate a pair of these socks to the Secretary of State as an initial effort to tackle this problem were it true, but I am afraid that it is not. While that is a ludicrous example, there are many environmental claims which are more likely than that to mislead the consumer and which ought to be tackled through government, as other misleading claims directed at the consumer are tackled.
  I hope to address in Committee our concerns about the Scottish environment protection agency. Scotland has been treated badly in the drafting of this legislation, and it is an example of the gap between the environmental concerns of some within the Department of the

  67
  Environment and the lack of environmental concerns of Ministers in other Departments. The Scottish agency bears the mark of being an afterthought, and appears to have been tacked on to the Bill. It has been given fewer and weaker powers that the English equivalent because, frankly, Scottish Ministers take even less interest than equivalent Ministers in England.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I must make clear that the other agency is not "the English equivalent", but the English and Welsh equivalent. We in Wales would have been glad to have had something "tacked on" to the Bill if it provided an independent agency.
  Mr. Taylor: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I believe that there should have been a separate Welsh agency. But I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman would have been happy to have had an agency tacked on in the manner of the Scottish agency, as that would have resulted in a worsening of the position for Wales. There is a democratic issue here, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would want to see a Welsh agency with the weaker powers provided to the Scottish agency.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): The hon. Gentleman is quite misinformed and out of order in saying that the Scottish section has been "tacked on". After the most careful consultation in Scotland, what the Scottish people want has been drafted in the Bill. As the Minister who took the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 through the House, I shall not renege in any way on my commitment to the environment.
  Mr. Taylor: The great majority of those who represent the people of Scotland in the House do not agree with the Minister about the views of the people of Scotland. If the Minister's commitment to environmental issues is so strong, why does the Scottish agency lack the principal aim to protect and enhance the environment which is given to the English agency?
  It is critical that both agencies are given adequate resources to meet the tasks which are ahead of them. The pressure on the new EPA during its start-up will be huge. If the Treasury—a Department which shows less interest in the issue than the Secretary of State claimed for the whole Government—under-resources the agency during that crucial period, the agency will find it hard to fulfil its role of protecting the environment.
  There have been cuts at the National Rivers Authority, but the agency believes that it can live with them. The widespread view among all those involved—including those who support what the Government have been doing—is that any further cuts in the resources available to the agency would make it simply impossible to see through this further major change.
  The Government have much support for what they are doing, but there are real misgivings which have been echoed across the House. The Bill must and should be a success, and it can be a success provided that Ministers—as the Bill progresses through this place—give a constructive response to the real concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides.
  6.24 pm
  Sir Anthony Durant: After listening to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and the intervention from my hon. Friend the Minister, I feel like telling the hon. Member for Truro to put a sock in it, as, frankly, he does not know what he is talking about.
  I wish to talk about inland waterways. I am the chairman of the all-party group on inland waterways, and I am president and vice-president of a number of waterway organisations. There is widespread concern about the Bill on the subject of navigation. I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the word "navigation" in his opening speech. That shows that there is at least some recognition of the subject, and that is important.
  The feeling in the boating and inland waterways industry—including those who use and hire boats and the chandleries—is that, because the National Rivers Authority is being abolished, the concentration on navigation will diminish. There is great anxiety about that. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside has issued a paper whose purpose is to review navigation functions. It is an interesting document, which the all-party group is studying, and it gives options about what should be done about navigation.
  One of the difficulties for inland waterways is that, after years of being in the doldrums, the industry is now going forward. There has been an enormous expansion in the use of the waterways. British Waterways now has 2,000 miles of navigable water, and a large amount of water is available through the Thames and other waterways. All concerned with waterways want some navigation co-ordination.
  Those involved in waterways all over the country have asked for greater recognition to be given to navigation in clause 6, because nowhere in the Bill does the word "navigation" appear. Now that the Secretary of State has mentioned it, however, perhaps it will appear later in the Bill. I hope that members of the Standing Committee will discuss that subject. It was debated in the other place at some length, where it was said that the subject should be included in the Bill. I wish to press the point that those who use inland waterways want recognition of the subject of navigation in the Bill.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome the Bill as far as it goes, but the jury must be out as to whether its epitaph will be "Better late than never" or "Too little, too late". In his opening speech, the Secretary of State said that he had been a late convert to the idea of a protection agency. It is sad that the Government did not listen to the Environment Select Committee in 1986 when it recommended the setting up of one agency. When the Government reorganised the National Rivers Authority in 1989, they insisted on not carrying out the recommendations of the Select Committee, in spite of the fact that the Opposition had, pressed them to set up a single agency.
  Having said that, I welcome the fact that the Government presented the Bill originally in consultation form, which allowed the Select Committee to have a series of hearings on the Bill. I also welcome the fact that the Government made concessions in the other place. The

  69
  Government listened, and I hope that they will go on listening. I also hope that, by the time we come back for Third Reading, the Bill will be further improved.
  I will particularly press the Government on clause 7 and the question of the extension of the conservation duty of the National Rivers Authority. I received a letter from English Nature—I am sure many other hon. Members received such a letter—which set out the way in which 17 areas of water have benefited from that power. The areas include Bassenthwaite in Cumbria, Malham Tarn, the Wye river, Slapton Ley and the Mere in Cheshire. The letter went on to list a further 50 sites where English Nature believes that a failure to extend the duty of further conservation may hinder and damage conservation. I see no reason why the Government cannot concede the point and put back into clause 7 the duty of further conservation.
  The Government were challenged in the other place to provide examples of where they believed there could be a conflict if those words were included. As I understand it, the Government have not been able to come up with any examples, so I hope that they can make that concession in clause 7.
  It is important that the Government include in the Bill environmental quality standards, particularly for air. I welcome the proposals on hedgerows, although I believe that the Government are taking very wide powers in statutory instruments. I particularly press the Government to consider the problem that is being created with set-aside land. Clearly, if a farmer sets aside land, he has no reason to maintain the hedgerows between the fields, or the walls for that matter. I hope that the Minister can give us assurances that he will carefully consider introducing some mechanism that will encourage the farmer to continue maintaining the hedgerows and walls between set-aside land.
  The hedgerow is important for conservation so long as it is a well-maintained hedge. It ceases to be of much conservation value if the hedge grows out and becomes a clump of trees along the edge of a field. There is a problem here. I hope that, in Committee, we shall be able to pursue with the Government how to prevent stock hedgerows being removed and ensure that they are maintained and laid back every 10 or 15 years, so that they continue to be not only stock-proof boundaries but good habitats for wildlife in general.
  I press the Government to consider how they can introduce protection for walls. It worries me that on many occasions I see farmers allow someone to come along with a bulldozer, scoop up a wall and stick it in the back of a lorry. Sooner or later, it ends up being sold off in a garden centre at an exorbitant price as a rock garden wall. That is a deplorable practice. We ought to find some ways in the legislation to stop that happening.
  I give a general welcome to the proposals in the Bill on the national parks, but I wish to place a question mark on the proposals that they should take over responsibility for footpaths. The boundaries of the national parks were drawn up carefully to exclude an awful lot of towns and their immediate environment. In Glossop, Buxton and one or two other areas, the footpaths leading out of town suddenly cross a national park boundary. It is important that there should be proper agency arrangements between local authorities, so that we do not have anomalies around some of the towns.
  70
  Although some national parks have a dynamic record, others do not. I should be worried if we handed over footpath powers to them and found that one or two of the newly constituted national parks did not pursue footpaths with vigour. The Countryside Commission has proposed that, by the year 2000, all footpaths should be free from obstructions and signposted where they leave the highway. I wonder whether the Government could insert a clause in the Bill saying that footpath powers will be transferred to the national park provided the national park gets on with the job. They could say that if, by the year 2000, the national park has not carried out its footpaths function with vigour, those powers will revert to the councils.
  I accept the argument that national park boards ought to include elected representatives, but it is important that most of the Secretary of State's appointments should be consumers, so to speak, from outside the area. There has been a tendency recently to appoint people to national park boards from within the board area. That seems to be a disadvantage. They are not elected, but their neighbours tend to think that they should represent their views. I stress that people who come from within the board area should, wherever possible, be elected but that the Secretary of State should balance that by appointing people who represent the national interest of people in the country at large who come in to use the park.
  The Environment Select Committee will publish a report tomorrow on air pollution and volatile organic compounds. I obviously cannot anticipate what will be in the report. The Secretary of State said at the beginning of his speech that he would consider the whole question of air pollution. I hope that that undertaking will be fulfilled as we go through the Committee proceedings, and that we can build some air quality standards into the legislation.
  Increasingly, people in Britain think environmentally. The trouble is that they do not act environmentally. It is still important that we turn the rhetoric into practical proposals. I hope that, during the passage of the Bill, we can ensure that it is a practical contribution to fulfilling that vague commitment to sustainable development.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: I should start by declaring my interests. I am a parliamentary adviser to the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors. I am also on the board of two companies that run recycling operations and a member of the National Farmers Union and of Lloyd's. Those organisations may well want to raise points with my hon. Friend the Minister, and I shall not make any detailed comments during the next 10 minutes or so on their behalf.
  I welcome the Bill. I particularly welcome the decision to set up an environment protection agency. I was a member of the Environment Select Committee that produced the report under Sir Hugh Rossi in 1989, which recommended that the best way to pursue integrated pollution control was to create a one-stop shop based on an environment protection agency. It is not necessarily a matter of regret that the Government have taken so long to introduce the Bill. They have listened, consulted and taken their time and, as a result, we have an excellent Bill. I only wish that the Government had adopted the same approach when setting up other agencies. They have taken a great deal of time. I believe that they have got it right

  71
  on this occasion. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister on the effort that they have put into the Bill.
  Concern has been expressed—I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has voiced it himself—that, when a new agency based on a number of existing organisations is set up, there can be a tendency to empire-build, set up new bureaucracies and to build something that is greater than the sum of the different elements. That is one reason why it is welcome that the Government have taken their time. The formula which they have introduced as a result of a great deal of consultation will obviate the need to build something bigger.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to create a streamlined organisation which will lead to a considerable element of saving when taken together with the different organisations. He must be held to his word. The danger is that, if we do not follow the agency closely, we shall have a body that wants to expand rather than become a thoroughly streamlined set-up that is readily identifiable to industry, business and the public as a whole.
  I want to say a quick word about the existing organisations. Not enough tribute has been paid today to the National Rivers Authority for the excellent work that it has done or to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the various local authorities involved in the waste regulation function.
  The NRA has a first-class reputation in East Anglia, especially for the control of watercourses. I very much welcome the fact that the Minister in the other place said in Committee that he would
  "consider, during the passage of the Bill through Parliament, whether it should be amended to introduce now a duty on water undertakers to promote water conservation."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 January 1995; Vol. 560, c. 823.]
  In Norfolk, we have had a great deal of rain recently, but during the great drought that lasted until about nine months ago, some rivers in my constituency either were reduced to a pathetic trickle or ran dry. At the time, I welcomed the NRA's work and research and its proactive stance. I hope that, under clause 6, the new environment protection agency will have similar powers and influence and a proactive approach and I hope that the Minister will comment briefly on that when he replies.
  I also hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on the NRA's recent work on integrated catchment management. I am sure that he read Lady David's speech in another place on Second Reading, when she mentioned the work that has been done in East Anglia on river catchment areas such as those of the Black Bourn, the Thet and the Little Ouse. Much research and a great deal of time has been put into setting up an integrated catchment management policy for that part of Norfolk and Suffolk, and I hope that that excellent work will continue apace.
  On contaminated land, one aspect causes me a degree of concern. As I understand it, we are creating a new liability for some landowners, which is a departure from existing liability in common law because, if the person who has caused the problems, the pollution or the contamination cannot be found, the liability will be placed on the landowner, who might not be a farmer or someone who owns an estate but could be a small smallholder, a
  72
  householder, or a person who owns a bit of rough ground outside a village. It is probably a mistake for the press to portray the measure as affecting only the large landowners.
  My hon. Friend the Minister and I have corresponded on the matter, and he made it clear that he did not feel that the Government were creating any new liability or laying down a tighter law. I am concerned that some categories of landowner could be faced with an immense liability and with on-going costs. I must declare an interest as a member of Lloyd's the insurers, although I am not affected by any measures in the Bill. Lloyd's has expressed grave concern that the insurance market could well be faced with considerable claims. It has flagged up what has happened in America, where civil fund legislation has led to expensive cases going backwards and forwards across the Atlantic, leading to nothing more than a good day out for the lawyers. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider that matter carefully?
  In the few remaining minutes, I must say something about hedgerows. My neighbour the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell) and I have had a lot of correspondence with farmers in our constituencies who were obviously concerned that, as the Bill was originally drafted, an unfair onus would be placed on them and too much power would be given to local authorities. They are also concerned that it would provide an opportunity for much meddling and scope for some organisations that might not have the best motives to take an intrusive look at everything going on on people's farms. We must bear in mind the fact that the vast majority of farmers are completely responsible. In Norfolk, more hedgerows have been planted in the past few years than destroyed.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Denton and Redditch (Mr. Bennett), that more effort and time need to be put into encouraging farmers to manage hedgerows. He rightly pointed out that as many hedgerows have been lost by lack of management as by removal by a bulldozer. I want the scheme to help farmers to improve hedgerows to be beefed up and made much more effective.
  The Bill underpins and underlines the Government's commitment to the environment. It is the fifth in a succession of Bills. The previous four have been enacted since I have been in Parliament, but this is the biggest so far. It is extremely ambitious and is really five Bills rolled into one. It shows the Government's total commitment to improving the environment into the next century. Above all else, it proves that the Government represent the party that believes in the environment. The 1992 election was not about the environment and green issues, because the economy was in recession, but the 1987 election was and the next election will focus on such issues. The Bill will put the Government and the party in a very strong position, which is why I welcome it.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham). The last time we met was during a debate in the Standing Committee on the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill, when his main contribution was a suggestion that we reintroduce wild boar and wolves into Scotland. He was not taken too seriously, but it is an idea whose time might come, as it is gaining more popularity as time goes by.

  73
  I shall deal with the Bill only as it affects Scotland, but I do not want people to think that I am dealing with it parochially. I am doing so because of the time limit. I realise that the principles behind these environmental issues do not stop at national borders. The practicalities might alter in different countries, but the principles are inherently the same, so please will hon. Members forgive me for limiting myself to the effects on Scotland?
  One of the Bill's functions is to set up the Scottish environment protection agency, which will take over the functions of the river purification boards, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, the hazardous waste inspectorate and the air pollution and waste management functions of local authorities. I welcome the introduction of that agency. The principle is correct, and it is important to have an over-arching body for areas of the environment and pollution that do not respect any boundary based on catchment areas. Pollution from the River Ayr may arise in one local authority, but it spreads to others, so the principle is correct.
  There are some general problems, which have been mentioned, such as the cost duty benefit analysis and the fact that the Bill creates a permissive power to take the environment into account, rather than a statutory duty.
  I shall deal with the problems for Scotland, because there are some differences there. First, the Scottish environment protection agency will have no control over extraction from rivers. We do not suffer the problem of rivers drying up, which affects hon. Members down here in England. I have never seen any Scottish river even come close to drying up, so we obviously do not have a similar problem, but there are principles involved—for example, pollution and the flow rates in rivers—that we may want to consider in Committee to decide whether the Bill should be extended to cover those areas.
  The Scottish environment protection agency will not have any control over river catchment areas, which is another deficiency that we might want to consider in Committee, especially as it relates to nutrition enhancement, acidification and so forth.
  Flood control has become important in Scotland recently. It may come as a surprise to hon. Members who represent English constituencies that the SEPA will not have any control over flood control, as it will rest with the local authorities. In Scotland, flooding is not the problem that it is in England. Recently, however, the River Kelvin and various tributaries around the Glasgow area flooded and severely affected my constituency and Kirkintilloch.
  We have had previous flooding around the Inverness area, down through the Beauly firth. We have also had trouble in Tayside. We are told that such floods happen once in a hundred years, although historical records show that, in my area, they happen every 25 years. Every year without fail, the flooding of the Kelvin spreads into the gardens of a number of my constituents.
  In recognition of that, the Minister introduced into the Bill some late measures giving the SEPA a statutory planning consultation role. That is important, and I welcome it. For the first time, the SEPA will have control over flood warning systems, but the problem of flood prevention is difficult, and I hope that we shall consider it in Committee.
  Local authorities currently have only a permissive power; they have no statutory powers to introduce flood prevention measures. The problem with leaving flood
  74
  prevention to local authorities is that even the River Kelvin, for example, which is just a tributary of the Clyde, runs through three local authorities. We may therefore wish to consider the matter in Committee.
  Although I welcome the SEPA, I object to the fact that it is a quango. More than half the Scottish Office budget is disbursed by quangos, and that will happen yet again under the SEPA. I hope that the Minister will consider how we might change the fact that all its members will be appointed, and recognise the need for links with local authorities. Although I do not oppose quangos in principle, there are far too many, and their functions would be greatly enhanced if some of their nominated members came from local authorities by statutory right. In that way, the two areas could work in co-operation rather than in conflict, as has happened in the past.
  All hon. Members will have noticed that the Bill does not mention national parks in Scotland. The reason is clear: there are no national parks in Scotland, for good historical reasons. When national parks were set up in England, there was great pressure from the conurbations, with people spreading out into areas of scenic beauty, but that was never a problem in Scotland, where scenic areas were vast and often distant from conurbations.
  That has now changed, and areas such as Loch Lomond are bursting at the seams, the environment is being eroded and distant wildernesses like the Cairngorms are undergoing great changes. When I was but a lad, one could climb the north face of Ben Nevis on a summer's day and meet nobody else. Now, in a white-out blizzard and avalanche conditions, one can be run over by other people coming down the hill at a great rate, which shows the significant changes that have occurred.
  There has been great pressure to have national parks in Scotland. The Countryside Commission brought forward proposals for the Cairngorms, Loch Lomond, Ben Nevis, Glencoe and Wester Ross. It eliminated Knoydart, on the basis that nobody knows where it is. In keeping with that principle, I shall not say where it is, so that no one goes there. In response to that growing pressure, the Government set up their own committees. The problem is that it is a voluntary scheme, and there is a joint committee for the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond.
  The importance of the Bill is that it sets a necessary and important template for Scotland, which we can use and judge when establishing our own legislation, as I am sure my party will enable us to do once we are in government, to set up national parks. I shall watch it with great interest as it develops. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), was wrongly accused of not being interested in conservation. He has a long record of interest in conservation measures in Scotland and the UK, but he was wrong to condemn the English national parks for not having worked or solved all the problems.
  I hope that legislation on hedgerows will apply also to Scotland and that, when we introduce an amendment to preserve dry stone walls, they will be called "dykes", as they are in Scotland, so that there can be no confusion. Dry stone dykes are important, as they last a long time and provide necessary protection for sheep, particularly during the lambing season, which has just started.
  I welcome the Bill and the principles behind it. There are problems in it for Scotland; some are general to the UK, and others are specific to Scotland. I hope that we can deal with them in Committee.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Like the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), I welcome the Bill. I was encouraged by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who referred several times to the Bill's holistic approach, which I particularly applaud.
  Pollution knows no departmental boundaries or national frontiers. I ask the Government to go further in their holistic approach and encourage greater co-operation between Departments. The Bill raises that matter several times, particularly with regard to the Ministry of Agriculture.
  Air pollution, for instance, is an environmental issue that also involves the Department of Transport, the Department of Trade and Industry with responsibility for energy, and the Department of Health; and air pollution from cars involves the Department for Education, because of children being driven to school. I recognise the interdepartmental co-operation that exists, but I trust that the approach in the Bill will be taken further, with interdepartmental discussion and joint action.
  I am sure that all hon. Members will recall that my maiden speech was on recycling, although I recognise no hon. Member who was there when I made it. I was pleased, therefore, to see that the Bill contains provisions for a national waste strategy.
  Producer responsibility is the route to follow, and that can be done without too much disagreement and with a great deal of common sense, and will benefit us all. The saving in landfill is of great benefit and, besides less energy usage, a national waste strategy will- mean less litter and a reduction in the profligate use of our natural resources and in pollution.
  I welcomed the landfill tax introduced in the last Budget as an example of interdepartmental co-operation and an holistic approach. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned VAT on fuel, and a carrot-and-stick approach to energy is essential. Paying more for fuel is a stick, while greater encouragement to save fuel, including such schemes as the home energy efficiency scheme funded by the Government, can be a carrot. Through such schemes, we can encourage a change in attitude.
  A change in attitude is also required on air pollution from motor vehicles. Almost all of us use cars. I received a letter today from a Leicestershire cycling group concerned at the police's attitude to a sponsored cycle ride that the group wished to do on lanes around my constituency. The letter from the police suggested that the group cancel the ride because it might interfere with car drivers.
  Such attitudes need to be changed. If no hon. Member ever used a car when he could walk, cycle or take public transport, that would be a change in attitude. Few of us, I fear, take that attitude—I am guilty along with everybody else. One of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench recently commented that he would not dream of taking public transport with his red boxes. We are in a position of being able to lead by both example and legislation—by carrot and by stick.
  Air pollution from motor vehicles could be curbed by further progress on vehicle emission tests. Westminster city council held an exhibition today in the Jubilee Room about its desire to introduce kerbside emission tests. The Government may also examine that matter in the Bill.
  76
  My right hon. Friend discussed energy—nuclear, wind and coal. The environment agency may be able to influence the use of alternative sources of energy, in which the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) and I share an interest. Combined heat and power currently finds little encouragement from the non-fossil fuel obligation. Moreover, the Energy Saving Trust is not receiving the support it should. We need an holistic approach, so that the left hand and right hand of Government work together.
  In common with other hon. Members, I welcome the fact that the provisions of the Bill will help to protect hedgerows. I am also pleased that the importance of close co-operation between the environment agency and the Ministry of Agriculture is recognised in the Bill. The agency should also concentrate some of its work on the common agricultural policy, because it is still encouraging intensive agriculture, which is the greatest threat to our hedges and landscape. Many farmers may disagree about that, but, once again, the carrot and the stick is the best approach.
  Conservation grants should be paid towards better hedgerow management, hedgerow conservation and hedge laying, and further legislation should be introduced to protect hedges. To combat the effects of some aspects of the CAP, economic conditions should be created that do not encourage hedge destruction. I believe that the CAP is unreformable, but at least the environment agency may influence the development of the countryside and of agriculture. The Bill will go some way towards that goal.
  I hope that the Government's examination of rural policy and the future of the countryside will be tied in closely to the work of the new environment protection agency. Undoubtedly, the NRA will already have made representations about rural policy, so the new agency must work hand in hand with such proposals and not in opposition to them when deciding any future rural policy.
  I should like to highlight the importance of wildlife conservation, which is referred to specifically in clauses 6 and 7, as well as elsewhere in the Bill. Although the agency will be responsible for the flora and fauna of the aquatic environment and wildlife habitat, it should be possible for it to adopt an holistic approach.
  It could consider conducting a research project on the feasibility of eradicating mink, because no one else seems to be responsible for controlling that pest. I recently introduced a Bill to that effect. I have since been told that, in my constituency, which is intensively farmed, one farmer has caught 36 mink in 20 months in one small stream. In the past year, 17 mink have also been caught near the village where I live in a stream over which everyone in the House could jump with ease.
  We must further investigate fixed penalties for fishing offences. The organised poaching of salmon and trout is big business, and it may also pose a threat to life and limb, especially for water bailiffs. Such poaching is treated too laxly by some courts. I hope that the introduction of fixed penalties will not reduce such organised major criminal activity to the same status as a parking fine.
  I share the concern of some of my constituents at the Government's intention to revoke some mineral extraction permissions. I applaud their decision to consider some provisions that may have been made before the last world war, and I accept that many are wholly inappropriate.

  77
  As a principle, however, the Government should not consider taking assets without some reasonable compensation. If companies or individuals have bought land with mineral extraction permission and invested money in development, research and inquiry, the Government and the House should be wary of taking away such an asset without considering how those individuals and companies should be compensated.
  I commend the trends in the Government's environmental policy of recent years—evident from, for example, policy planning guidance note 13 from the Department of the Environment; the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; the creation of the NFFO; the establishment of the NRA; and the Government's encouragement of cycling. I applaud those steps in the right direction, but we need to go further.
  The Bill represents another welcome step. I accept that it could be improved still further, and I hope that it will be in Committee, but it is designed to protect our environment through sustainable development, and to preserve our countryside for the future. I commend the Bill.
  7.3 pm
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: This is an important Bill. It disturbs me more than a little to see that neither the Secretary of State for Wales nor either of his Ministers has graced the Chamber during the debate on this fundamental measure, not least because it will have a huge impact on the Welsh environment. I hope that a precedent has not been set when a Bill of such importance does not merit the attention of Ministers of the Welsh Office.
  I shall confine my comments to four topics into which the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, of which I am the Chairman, has conducted inquiries—coastal protection, contaminated land, waste disposal and abandoned minewater discharges.
  As for the duties and powers that we will invest in the new environment agency for coastal protection, we must concede background information of the past few weeks, which has revealed further supporting evidence of global warming, with a consequent rise in sea levels. To provide the new agency with the flexibility to plan for and cope with that change, I hope that the coastal zone for planning will be extended to 12 miles, as recommended by the Select Committee on the Environment.
  The creation of the new agency offers the opportunity to effect that measure, which would enable integrated planning, involving the conflicting interests of land use, flood defences, coastal erosion, fisheries, conservation, aggregate dredging and discharges from ships at sea, which grossly pollute our beaches.
  I should like the new agency to have the power to negotiate agreements with local planning authorities for coastal exclusion zones, where no development should take place because of the risk of flooding. Anyone who saw the flooding of Towyn in north Wales will appreciate the need to strengthen existing practices governing coastal development.
  I also hope that the agency will be given powers to determine applications for aggregate dredging licences. It seems absolutely ridiculous that the NRA or the new agency could be busy liaising with local authorities to construct flood defences or coastal protection schemes while at the same time Crown Estates can issue licences to dredge sand and gravel, which could cause coastal erosion
  78
  affecting long stretches of coastline and strip beaches of sand. Now is the time to invest powers in an effective agency to deal with those long-standing problems with which, for too long, no one has come to grips.
  Thanks to our industrial heritage, contaminated land has long been recognised as problematic in Wales. I hope that certain problems with the relevant proposals in the Bill can be addressed. For instance, Swansea city council has practically cleared land in the Swansea valley that was originally designated as the most contaminated in Britain. As a result, that local authority has acquired considerable expertise. When the new agency takes over responsibility for defining remediation standards for every site, that expertise will be lost to local authorities, but the authorities will be responsible for supervising the site and the works.
  The effect of remediation notices served on landowners is not clear. I know that the Association of British Insurers is concerned at the implications of claiming on insurance policies the cost of carrying out remediation works. I am not clear how a potential threat or significant harm will be defined by the agency.
  If the threat is large and imminent, there is no problem with the serving of a statutory notice, but what happens about long-standing contamination? At what point does it become a potential threat, posing significant harm and to what? Will it pose a threat to plants, fish, birds or people? It seems that the Bill creates new liabilities. Statutory nuisance is, by definition, confined to effects on human beings, but, under the Bill, that nuisance will apply in respect to harm to any living organism and interference with ecological systems.
  The Bill also introduces another new liability, because it expands the present statutory nuisance provisions to contamination that has not migrated off site. That means that first party liability is created. At present, statutory nuisance liability for first party damage is wholly confined to health issues and is exceptionally rare.
  I am uncertain what will happen when a large development scheme contains a pocket of contaminated land. It appears to me that, if a remediation notice is served on one owner, there might be a real hindrance to developing the site, especially if a landowner is a man of straw.
  I hope that some of those matters will be clarified in Committee. I certainly hope that the new agency will be required to liaise closely with other interested parties, to ensure the most effective remediation on a site specific basis, taking into account the nature of the site and the relevant contaminants.
  It is vital that the Government reconsider the rationale in clause 54 for singling out some types of closed landfill sites, when they duplicate provisions requiring long-term care of landfills already enacted in the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
  On waste management, the Welsh Affairs Select Committee recommended that the functions of the regulation of sites and the disposal of waste should be operated separately. It is widely believed by professions such as the Institute of Waste Management that that has resulted in raising standards in the industry.
  The development of a national waste plan, to be incorporated into clause 61, is long overdue and is to be welcomed. However, I would say two things.

  79
  First, I share the anxiety of the Institute of Waste Management and the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors that the advisory committees to the agency have no access to a member with direct expertise in waste management. Indeed, I feel that it has been arrogant of the Government not to include NAWDC on the teams established by the Department of the Environment to help plan the basis for the agency. That field is highly technical, and it is vital that the Secretary of State appoints an experienced professional from the industry to the advisory committees and to the board.
  Secondly, a strategic framework for waste management will only be as solid, as effective and as well considered as local waste management plans will allow it to be. Waste management and disposal can have a profound effect on local communities. There is a distinct need, therefore, for local consultation and for the inclusion of local knowledge and experience in waste management plans. I hope that the final version of the Bill will contain a mechanism for ensuring that the regional advisory committees are responsive to local opinions.
  On discharges from abandoned mine workings, I have no hesitation in saying that, if various guarantees or commitments made in the other place will be honoured in the near future, the Government have the opportunity to amend the Bill to ensure that, between now and the end of the century, the coal advisory body will be able to take over responsibility and do far more than is being done at present.
  If the Government are honest about it, what is happening is that many hundreds of miles of streams contaminated by pollution from abandoned coal mine workings from the past are not being dealt with. In Wales, an experiment is under way regarding reed bed technology on the Pelena and Neath rivers. If the Government are honest, it is only at the very early stages of experimentation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) put his finger on it. The true nature of what is happening is that, because of coal privatisation, the Government did not want to put the onus on British Coal before privatisation to ensure that the policy was in place and the clean-up was occurring on a massive scale.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to make those few arguments, and I hope very much that the Bill will be amended in Committee and take on board some—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: This welcome Bill has received a great deal of attention outside the House. To judge from my mailbag, those who by and large represent industry feel that certain provisions are too tough whereas, predictably, those who represent environmental concerns tend to feel that the Bill is too weak in certain parts. That suggests that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has a well-earned reputation for being adroit, has got matters just about right.
  It is not surprising that the Bill has excited a great deal of interest outside the House, from the Confederation of British Industry to Lloyd's, the Royal Society for the
  80
  Protection of Birds, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and so on. Many of their arguments will be carefully considered in Committee.
  I say that that is not surprising because protection of the environment is the preserve of no special interest group; it affects us all. It affects the quality of the physical world around us, which can have an enormous effect on us as individuals, as well as on the cultural and spiritual well-being of the nation. It affects land and water, on which we all depend for sustenance, the air that we breathe and the integrity of the earth's atmosphere, on which all forms of life ultimately depend. It also involves something that should touch us deeply, and that raises most debate on environmental protection, way beyond party politics. That is the mighty responsibility that we carry in our generation for the world we shall pass on to our children and to future generations.
  Not even the most hardened of agnostics in matters such as global warming can fail to recognise that, although the aspiration to pass on to the future a healthy and beautiful world has been with mankind since time immemorial, in our age the stakes are higher, the pressures greater, the degradation more widespread and profound and the time perhaps shorter than in any previous generation. Because of that, although usually I yield to no one in my enthusiasm for deregulation, I believe that the Government have not only a right but a duty to regulate to protect the environment. That is becoming accepted throughout the developed world. Put bluntly, there is no point in having a thriving, deregulated wealth-creating economy if the price is to make the world in which we live at best squalid, at worst unendurable.
  We must recognise, however, that every regulation has a cost. The measures required to enhance and preserve the quality of our environment do not come cheap, and it is not the Government who pay, as some people would like to think. Parliament makes the law and sets down the regulations in the interests of the citizen, but it is the citizen who ultimately will be asked to pay. That is obviously the case at the moment with the enormous clean-up in the water industry that is going on. The CBI estimates that about 2.5 per cent. of gross domestic product is being spent on environmental protection.
  In order to make that investment—it is an investment that will grow, not least as a result of the Bill, in future years—industry must remain competitive and profitable. It will not do so if it is confronted with unreasonable, excessive demands, the costs of which are subsequently forced on to consumers. I am sure that hon. Members would agree this evening that the last thing that we want to do when trying to make progress in environmental protection is to sew the seeds of consumer resistance. That is why, although it has provoked controversy in some circles and has received some opposition today, clause 37, which requires the new agencies to conduct a cost-benefit analysis before exercising their powers in any individual circumstances, is so important.
  It would be unrealistic and irresponsible for the legislation to take account only of the environmental aspects of a specific case without considering the cost of putting matters right. The two are indissolubly joined. After all, no one in his right mind would seriously suggest that the Bill should take account only of the costs and disregard the environmental benefits of a specific measure. However, it will be important for my hon. Friend the Minister to assure the House that clause 37 as

  81
  drafted will not, as has been suggested by some people, permit a substantial loophole in the legislation and lead to a long series of judicial reviews.
  There is much to welcome in the bringing of the National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and waste regulators together into a single organisation. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) said about that. That should in itself make for a simpler, less cumbersome, less bureaucratic regime. I particularly welcome the fact that the agencies' principal aim will be to contribute towards attaining the objective of sustainable development.
  As a former member of the Select Committee on the Environment, I welcome clause 77, which enables the making of regulations imposing producer responsibility obligations for the promotion of the re-use, recycling and recovery of waste materials on those who, for whatever reason, are not registered under an industry scheme. That is a useful step forward. It is right to pay tribute to the producer responsibility group for the voluntary work that it has carried out towards that important target.
  The Government have shown a willingness for action on two matters that are not present in the Bill. I look forward to seeing what is recommended to enact the proposals contained in the policy document "Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge", which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned earlier. As concern about children with asthma is rising, surely the time has come for a new national air quality standard, for stronger powers in that sphere to be given to local authorities and, in particular, for the air quality implications of road transport to be effectively tackled.
  In another place, the Government expressed their willingness to review and update the law applying to old minerals development permissions. I part company with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) over that subject, as I know from a case that is causing concern in Nutfield marsh in my constituency that old permissions can lie dormant for many years, only to emerge unaltered into an environment that has fundamentally changed and moved on. The law could usefully be changed so that, when such revenant consents awake, they can be properly assessed in the light of contemporary circumstances.
  Clause 80 deals with hedgerows. My private Member's Bill to safeguard important hedgerows failed for lack of parliamentary time—to use the official euphemism—nearly two years ago. I said then that I still looked forward to a time when effective laws to protect our most important hedgerows would be forthcoming. Clause 80 brings that time nearer. Since the second world war, we have lost nearly half the hedgerows in our countryside. That has happened mainly through neglect, but a large number of them have been deliberately destroyed. That represents an appalling diminution in our landscape heritage and wildlife habitats. The knock-on effect in terms of biodiversity will be felt for many years.
  Latest statistics are more encouraging, but, as has already been said, new hedgerow plantings do not provide the quality and biodiversity of ancient hedgerows. There is a clear case for regulation to protect our most important hedgerows—and only the most important. I speak of those which form ancient parish boundaries, those which form
  82
  a vital part of a local landscape, those which are rich in wildlife and those which date back to medieval or even Roman times.
  I know that my right hon. Friend will consult widely on the details of the scheme, which will need to have a light touch on the farming industry, yet be effective in preserving what is best in our national heritage. Here, as elsewhere in the Bill, there is a need for a proper balance of interests to be maintained. Regulation simply will not work if it is felt to be clumsy, burdensome and unnecessarily costly. It is therefore right that proper account be taken of the short-term costs implied by the measures in the Bill. It is important that the interests of environmental protection and sustainable development are promoted and secured. If they are not, in the long term, the cost to all of us may be immeasurable.
  The Bill proves once again that the Government are at the forefront of international thinking on environmental protection. I applaud the Bill, which deserves the widespread support that it has received today.
  7.23 pm
  Mr. Nick Ainger: I, too, wish to comment on the absence of the Secretary of State for Wales and his Under-Secretaries, but, when we look at the Bill, we see that that is hardly any wonder. Clause 53 relates to interpretation, and the only Ministers mentioned are the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Bill does not appear to be particularly relevant to Wales, certainly not to the Welsh Office.
  In an earlier intervention, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), said that the Scottish environment protection agency had been established because that was what the people of Scotland wanted. Other than perhaps a few Conservative Members, that is certainly what the people of Wales want. All Opposition parties and environmental organisations support the idea of a separate Welsh environment protection agency. It is supported by the Assembly of Welsh Counties as well as by the Association of Welsh District Councils.
  Wales may be a small country, but it has three national parks and 42 per cent. of its long coastline has been designated as heritage coast. There is the problem of clashes between areas of outstanding natural beauty and areas of high industrialisation and high industrial dereliction. Large parts of Wales are now decimated by opencast mining. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) said, there is a problem because of the large number of abandoned mines.
  In Wales, responsibility for health, education and transport—excluding railways—lies with the Welsh Office. Responsibility for local government is vested in the Welsh Office. Industrial development and inward investment is, through the Welsh Development Agency, the direct responsibility of the Welsh Office. But environmental protection and pollution control are the responsibility of an England-Wales quango that will be remote from the people of Wales and will be perceived as yet another quango controlled from England. The advisory bodies, which are presumably meant to have some sort of accountability, do not have to meet more than once a year.

  83
  People in Wales will not have the faith in such an environment protection agency that they should have. That is particularly true of local authorities, which are having their responsibility for waste management and atmospheric pollution taken from them and given to a quango, an agency, that they will undoubtedly say cannot perform as well in terms of small, regular day-to-day problems encountered by every local authority.
  Earlier today, I had discussions with representatives from the Association of Welsh District Councils. One of its officers said that, over Easter, members of his staff had been called out because people were complaining about a factory that was emitting black smoke. Can we expect a centralised agency to have the personnel available to deal with such problems on the ground on a day-to-day basis? I have great reservations.
  While I want the overall policy and strategy on waste management and atmospheric pollution to be developed by the environment protection agency, I have grave doubts as to whether the quality of service currently provided by local government can be delivered by it. If we accept that we need to take an integrated, holistic approach—there seems to be support for that across the Chamber—and that in Wales the Welsh Office virtually does that, as it covers all aspects except for defence and Treasury functions, why cannot that integrated approach involve the agency? There is an overwhelming case for that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned the problem of designated boundaries between regions and, hopefully, a separate Welsh environment protection agency. Should boundaries be the local authority political boundaries or river catchment area boundaries, which is the strategy followed by the National Rivers Authority? No major problem exists here. The NRA undoubtedly sets itself up on a catchment basis, but let us not forget that, in Europe, countries have joint catchments covering the Rhine, the Meuse and the Maas. If they can come to reasonable agreements, I do not understand how it is beyond the wit of British people to establish a political boundary and joint working arrangements between bordering regions. It is not a particular problem.
  It would be wholly unacceptable if large parts of Wales were to be administered on a regional basis from elsewhere. The Severn and the Dee catchments cover a large part of Wales. It would be unacceptable to many people if pollution control and the functions of the NRA were administered from Chester—although I doubt that they would be administered from there—Liverpool or Manchester for north Wales, and Birmingham for east Wales. Those are significant parts of Wales. From a practical point of view, no problem exists in establishing political boundaries that would take account of particular concerns and the need for accountability in Wales.
  Virtually all the Pembrokeshire Coast national park is in my constituency. My colleague, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), represents the smaller bit of that national park. I know that he and many other people in Pembrokeshire are concerned about representation. I have had a number of letters, as, I am sure, have many other hon. Members who represent constituencies containing national parks, from community and town councils that fear the problem of not having
  84
  direct access to the national park board, particularly in relation to planning. One of the things that I shall be looking for in Committee is somehow to involve community and town councils. I see that the Secretary of State is nodding. I hope that we shall be able to come to an agreement on that.
  Some of us enjoy the national parks but do not happen to live in them. Unfortunately, some national park committees have a reputation among local people, which I do not believe is richly deserved, for acting in a remote and high-handed way in relation to planning, and for not taking account of the real needs of people in their parks.
  It is essential that environmental quality objectives are highlighted and improved in the Bill, and that the phrase "to further conservation" is put into the Bill. The NRA has achieved some excellent work in my constituency, particularly around Solva, where a flood control system was introduced to develop ponds, lagoons, bird hides and otter holts, which have radically improved the habitat. As that phrase appears to be missing from the Bill, my concern is that the environment agency will not be in a position to undertake the excellent work that the NRA has done in the past.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I begin by doing two things. First, I declare my interest in the environment as a farmer and, secondly, I apologise for my absence during the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and of the Opposition spokesman. I am afraid that I made arrangements many weeks ago, not knowing that this business was happening today. I apologise for my late arrival.
  Like others who have spoken, I welcome the Bill very much. It continues the creditable saga of measures that the Government have taken in the past 16 years to look after the environment. Reference has been made to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. If modesty may get the better of me—or rather, not get the better of me—perhaps I may be allowed to refer to my introduction, when Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, of environmentally sensitive areas, and to my decision to bring, for the first time, farm chemicals under statutory control.
  My principal concern in this evening's debate involves those clauses that deal with the national parks. You will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, last year, we had before us a Bill that has come to be known as the Norrie Bill. Many of us were utterly opposed to the fact that the Bill, which dealt with the reorganisation of national parks, could have got on the statute book without a single word being said in the House. That would have been intolerable. Now, we have similar clauses in the Bill and we are able properly to debate the matter. That must be the right way of doing it.
  As I have parts of two national parks in my constituency, I am especially concerned about national parks. I have the Lake District national park, which is already an independent authority of the sort that the Bill will set up for all other national parks. Over the years, that national park has done a reasonably good job. It has also done rather stupid things that I have made it my business to tell it about, but I shall not go into that now.

  85
  I also have in my constituency part of the Dales national park, which for a long time was highly disliked by my constituents, who had to put up with it and who lived in its area. It had appallingly bad public relations and, occasionally, it was guilty of extremely arrogant manners. The Dales has got infinitely better. I receive far fewer complaints than I used to. Its public relations are much improved, and I commend it for that.
  The Bill proposes a new structure of national parks. Three issues will need to be discussed and examined as the Bill goes through its stages. First, it is necessary for senior officials in the new national park authorities, which will succeed county council committees, to be competent enough to take on the extra responsibilities that will inevitably arise from the independence that the Bill will give them.
  It will not be satisfactory for those authorities to have a sort of Buggins' turn arrangement, whereby individuals who perhaps did their job perfectly competently when serving on a county council committee find themselves totally out of their depth in running an independent authority. Therefore, it is crucial that, before the Bill gets on the statute book, we ensure that we have fully competent officials running the new authorities.
  The second issue that I hope will be considered is the need for the Government to reconsider the prospect of securing a separate standard spending assessment for county councils that have national parks within their boundaries. At the moment, the arrangements work in a way that is extremely unfairly to county councils—I think of Cumbria—in bundling in national parks with councils' SSAs. That is unreasonable. The Government have gone rather hot and cold on the issue. They have considered it once or twice and they have not yet agreed to set up a separate SSA. I hope that we can look into that.
  Finally, I want to draw attention to the implications of the amendment made in another place to introduce the words "quiet enjoyment". We should not encourage extra noisy activities in the national parks, but at the same time, we must remember the historic business and leisure activities of those who live in the parks. We must ensure that the words "quiet enjoyment" do not clobber those perfectly reasonable and often historic and important activities.
  It is not enough for us to listen to what is said by Ministers or by those who propose amendments. They will say, "It does not mean that, it means something else." In the end, it will mean what the courts say. My real anxiety is that if we are not careful, over-zealous litigators in the future could make totally unacceptable decisions in the courts. What could be at risk are some of the traditional business and leisure activities of those who live in the parks.
  Reference was made in another place to chain saws. Their use is essential for forestry and for many farming activities that take place in national parks. Grouse shooting brings a vast amount of money each year—whether through keepers or hotels—into Swaledale in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). If some over-zealous litigator said that grouse shooting was illegal because the Bill requires "quiet enjoyment", that would be devastating for a place such as Swaledale.
  I declare an interest as I have the honour of being president of the Auto-Cycle Union, which is the governing body for motor cycle sport in this country.
  86
  There are many motor sport activities which do not upset people and which are admirably policed and controlled. For instance, there is the Royal Automobile Club rally which attracts hundreds of thousands of people and which often takes place in national parks. Those people do not do any damage to the environment. The rally lasts a short time and then all the people go away. In the motor cycle world, we have the famous Scott trial in the north of England, which is enjoyed by a huge number of people.
  While ensuring that we stop the cowboys—I have no patience with the idiotic cowboys who ride noisy motor cycles over the open land and moors upsetting all the local people—we must be sure that controlled activities which are properly organised and policed are not unnecessarily truncated by the words "quiet enjoyment". I want to see something in the Bill to clarify the meaning of the words "quiet enjoyment".
  I hope that the Bill will be successful, but those matters should be looked at.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am glad to have an opportunity to make a few comments about this important Bill. I am pleased to see the establishment of an environment agency, which will take over all the functions of the National Rivers Authority. I know that there has been some debate about this, but the NRA has the Opposition's strong support and is doing an effective job. It will be the senior partner in the agency, together with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the local authority waste authorities. I hope that the agency will serve the environment well for decades to come.
  For many years, the Opposition have advocated the establishment of an agency. I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Environmental Protection Bill in 1990. We moved amendments to establish the agency. The idea was taken up a year later, and has been promised year after year by the Government: here it is at last.
  We should like to see an agency with wider powers to take over responsibility for the drinking water inspectorate and carbon dioxide emissions, energy efficiency, pesticide safety, nuclear waste regulations and perhaps the nuclear installations inspectorate. At least we are now to have an agency on which we can build in the future.
  Reference has already been made to clauses 4 and 37. Clause 4 mentions "sustainable development", and I am pleased to see that. The Government have a mixed record on the environment. Whenever I see the phrase "sustainable development" I think of the dash for gas and wonder how we can possibly consider that part of the Government's energy policy as sustainable development. However, at least the principle is in the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) drew attention to our concern about clause 37 and the cost-benefit discussion. The clause is waffly and unclear and injects an element of doubt into the agency's role. As my hon. Friend pointed out, we want somebody to fight for environmental protection, not a referee. We want somebody to point out and work for all the benefits that environmental protection could bring. Those benefits are sometimes difficult to quantify and my strong feeling is that we should operate the precautionary principle and always judge in favour of the environment rather than in any other way.

  87
  I draw attention to clause 6. I understand that an amendment was moved in the other place to introduce a provision dealing with the efficient use of water. Of course we all want the efficient use of water, especially in East Anglia and the south-east, where there have been historic problems with water supply. Too strong an interpretation of that could be seen as a green light to the water regulator—Ofwat—to introduce compulsory metering. The Opposition would oppose that fiercely. In Committee, I hope that the meaning of that term is spelled out. If it means that water authorities should do something about the leaks in the system, which affect about 25 per cent. of the supply, that is fine, but we do not want widespread water metering.
  Clauses 11, 12 and 13 are disturbing. The structure involved in setting up the committees gives great powers to the Secretary of State and to the Secretary of State for Wales to decide who sits on them. The committee will become a super-quango with regional mini-quangos. The danger is that there will be no accountability to the local electorate. Today, I met members of district councils in my area and other parts of Wales—I have met them two or three times before—who told me of their concern at the loss of the responsibilities that they now hold once the agency is set up. They are concerned about the loss of accountability. People want to be able to go to their local council or to telephone their local councillor or the relevant officers so that they can make a complaint and have it seen to. I hope that the meaning of those clauses will be examined carefully as the Bill passes through all its stages.
  Contaminated land, abandoned mines and national parks are also important topics that require legislation. There will, of course, be differences in emphasis between the parties and between individual Members in Committee but, broadly speaking, we welcome the relevant parts of the Bill.
  I welcome clause 80, which deals with hedgerows, but I am puzzled about how one should define "important" hedgerows. All hedgerows are important to wildlife. As the amount of existing hedgerows has halved over the past 10 or 15 years, what remains is even more important.
  Clauses 81 and 82, which provide the powers for conservation grants to be made by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, are extremely important, and I should like a whole Bill to develop the content of those two clauses because they contain the future direction for agriculture. I look forward to an agricultural system that supports not production but environmental protection. In any event, we shall need wide-ranging legislation in the future.
  I shall confine my remaining remarks to what I regard as the big gap in the Bill—the control of air pollution. It has struck me for decades that we regulate water effluent quite well—we now have the NRA and previously we had the water authority structure. We also regulate solid waste disposal quite well through local authorities and other bodies. However, there is very little regulation or monitoring of what is pumped into the atmosphere and there are now major problems with atmospheric pollution. We have become aware of acid rain, the depletion of the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect, which are all major planetary problems caused by air pollution.
  88
  Increasingly, we have become aware of problems relating to transport. We now face an environmental crisis. Much thought needs to be given in the next few years to the problems caused by the motor car and exhaust emissions and their effects on the environment. The Bill provided an opportunity for the Government to do something; they could have devoted several clauses to the monitoring of air pollution.
  I understand that in Britain we have only 19 monitoring stations whereas there are 400 in Germany and 2,000 in Japan. In other words, the extent of our monitoring is feeble and pathetic compared to that of other countries and, indeed, compared to our monitoring of water pollution and solid waste disposal.
  I understand that in another place Lords Lewis and Nathan tabled amendments that would have committed the Government to introducing a national strategy to improve air quality. The Secretary of State said earlier today that the Government would table similar amendments or new clauses, and I look forward to that. We need strong legislation not only to monitor but to tackle the serious problem of air pollution.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: There is consensus about the Bill in which I shall join. It is an important and welcome Bill, and the fact that it has achieved such consensus is a great tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government who, once again, are at the forefront of sensible conservation.
  It is a weighty Bill, and a weighty Bill containing so much detail is bound to raise a number of concerns, some of which have, quite properly, been mentioned by other hon. Members on behalf of various interest groups, not least farmers, landowners and fishermen. To that list I shall add the quarry operating companies, which fear that their future viability might be affected by the Bill. That is especially true of those operating quarries in or near national parks. I shall say simply that such companies are important employers in remote upland areas and their views should be taken into account. However, the main force of my remarks is directed at those parts of the Bill that deal with national parks.
  I have the honour to represent a constituency that contains a large part of the Northumbrian national park and the large military training area at Otterburn. Sadly, I have to report that relations between the people who live and work in the Northumbrian national park and the national park committee have broken down. There is a considerable sense of alienation. I believe that the same is true in other national parks. Indeed, I have spoken to people who live and work in the Brecon Beacons national park who are also concerned about their relationship with their park authority. That authority has acquired 13 per cent. of the land in the park and is endeavouring to alter traditional farming practices.
  In the Northumbria national park, the matter came to a head because of plans outlined by the Ministry of Defence which, responding to the end of the cold war and "Options for Change", wanted to develop the Otterburn training area. The plans provoked howls of outrage from a number of environmental groups that are utterly opposed to the training of troops in the area. The locals are very supportive of the military training area at Otterburn, which they regard as an important asset. Like me and, I

  89
  am sure, all Conservative Members, they believe that military training is vital. Our soldiers need to be properly trained if they are to be sent to areas of conflict. Increasingly, Otterburn will be where that training is undertaken,
  As I said, there were howls of outrage from environmental groups and a demonstration was mounted by the Council for National Parks led by Chris Bonington who turned up one day with a placard to protest at the Army's plans. For the first time, the council was greeted by a counter-protest by local people. Local people, especially country people, are not prone to such politics but, when Bonington turned up, he was met with banners saying, "Bonington go home". I have great sympathy with people who believe that outside interests are affecting their ability to earn a living. The Otterburn training area makes an enormous contribution to the local economy in the Rede and Coquet valleys. It helps the hotel trade, local services and craftsmen, and is a vital part of the local community.
  Local people believe that there will never be peace in Otterburn until the training area is separated from the national park. They believe that the Secretary of State should alter the boundaries of the park and remove the training area from it. When they asked the Secretary of State if he could do that, they were told that he did not have the power and that it was up to the Countryside Commission to instigate any change in national park boundaries. However, the Countryside Commission's annual report for 1993–94 clearly states in black and white:
  "We have always advocated that military use of land in the National Parks is inconsistent with their purposes."
  In other words, the organisation responsible for setting the boundaries of national parks is in this case acting as judge and jury in its own court, and local people find that unacceptable.
  One solution would be for the Bill to enable the Secretary of State to take powers to change national park boundaries. There is a great deal of strong feeling about this issue. I presented to the House a petition of more than 1,500 signatures, all from local people. The Northumbria national park is the most sparsely populated, with only 1,900 inhabitants, so the fact that so many signatures were collected is proof of the strength of feeling.
  The Bill could also help people who live and work in national parks with the question of local representation. The Northumbria national park committee consists of 31 members, of whom three are district councillors. Of those three, two live close to the park and one lives many miles away. Local people feel that they have no representation and no influence on the election of people who play an important part in their lives. I suggest—I was pleased to see the wording of schedule 7—that, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is drawing up the detailed guidance, he ensures that people who represent the national parks are predominantly local district councillors, not county councillors. There is no reason for the county council to have a hand in the national park. We want representation from people who represent wards within or close to the national parks.
  Since the national parks committees are to become free-standing authorities, there is no reason why that form of representation cannot take place. If local people disagree with the way in which the national park runs its affairs, they could at least show their displeasure at the ballot box. That
  90
  would be a considerable improvement and do a great deal to enhance the relationships between local people and the national parks committees. The House wants to see the relationship between those committees and local people restored. In Northumberland's case, a sense of good will can be encouraged by taking the training area out of the national park and by introducing proper local democracy. Those would be two positive moves to help the situation considerably.
  I echo very much the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on the phrase "quiet enjoyment". I agree entirely with what he said. When parliamentary draftsmen introduced the words "reasonable" and "reasonably practicable" in legislation, they handed the lawyers a blank cheque. I hope that the phrase "quiet enjoyment" will not do the same. It must be properly defined, so that local interests may be properly represented.
  8 pm
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I shall concentrate particularly on the Welsh perspective—Welsh views, Welsh needs, Welsh priorities—and comment on the relevance of the Bill to Wales, as well as saying something on more general issues.
  The failure in part I of the Bill to establish an environmental agency for Wales is totally unacceptable. To accord Wales subordinate status in comparison to Scotland is, frankly, insulting. Wales is just as much a nation as Scotland. It is just as distinctive geographically as Scotland. The absence of a separate Welsh agency will be damaging to the efficient execution of the agency's functions because liaison with other spheres of government in Wales, on the basis of power to make decisions, will be more difficult.
  In virtually every area of government besides the Home Office, administrative devolution has advanced as far in Wales as it has in Scotland. A Welsh environmental agency would have the authority to deal with those matters without reference to any English masters. When emphasis is on the integration of the environment into all areas of policy, a separate agency is especially important on a practical level. I did not read anything in the House of Lords debates in Hansard to convince me that such a failure was not a step back in the governance of Wales.
  The failure in policy is going ahead while we are moving inexorably towards the establishment of a Welsh Parliament, which will have the environment at the centre of its policy development. There is unanimity in Wales on this matter and I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision even at this late stage.
  Failing that reconsideration though, let us ensure that the Welsh committees, including especially the advisory committee, will be truly representative of Welsh views and have a degree of autonomy which is sufficient to pursue Welsh priorities, which are in many cases distinct. Crucially, we must ensure that the Welsh region does not merely
  "consist wholly or mainly of, or most of, Wales",
  as the Bill says, but clearly and simply consists of Wales. That is perfectly consistent, of course, with effective cross-border arrangements on river flows and such matters.

  91
  I mentioned unanimity in Wales, and that includes the opinion of the Council of Welsh Districts, which has argued cogently for the retention of waste regulation as a local government function. Nobody else has mentioned this matter in any detail. The decision to transfer that function to a quango fits in well with the long-term strategy of the Government to weaken local authorities, but the case against the Bill's provisions in that regard is especially strong in Wales, where district councils are the waste regulation authorities and where they also have other important pollution and environmental control responsibilities.
  Responsibility for air pollution, noise control, fly tipping, duty of care, contaminated land, water pollution and so on rests with district councils. The CWD argues that integration already exists and that it would be further enhanced when the new unitary authorities come into existence with their comprehensive planning powers.
  In Wales, the existing waste regulation regime has worked well. The CWD's proposals for a division of functions between an England and Wales agency, a regional agency for Wales and the new Welsh unitary authorities is pragmatic and well thought out and deserves the Government's careful consideration in Committee. If the transfer of waste regulation goes ahead, the agency—to be perfectly frank—will be hard put to achieve standards as high as those currently delivered by local authorities in Wales.
  The CWD suggests five principles, which, if fully applied, would help. First, there should be a strong Welsh identity with a high degree of autonomy for a Welsh region based on the political boundaries. The territorial integrity of Wales should not be negotiable. Secondly, there should be accessibility, with at least 10 local offices, an urgent response service, which Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution currently does not have, and, of course, responsiveness to local communities. Thirdly, there should be transparency of licensing, consents, authorisation and enforcement policies. Fourthly, there should be effectiveness based on adequate resourcing and delegation of responsibility to front-line staff. Fifthly, there should be accountability through representation of elected members on agency committees. I commend those principles to the Government.
  To turn briefly to more general issues, the Government's failure to use the Bill to create a mechanism for promoting sustainable development is especially striking. The draft guidance to the agency, which was published on 17 January, contained some admirable sentiments, but there is nothing to show how the Government propose to ensure that sustainability permeates every facet of policy, particularly in the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Transport.
  Each Department has a green Minister, but those green Ministers seem to be primarily concerned with promoting environmentally friendly practice within their own estates. The Secretary of State told the House of Lords Select Committee on Sustainable Development that the occasional and infrequent meetings of such green Ministers confined their discussions to just such topics.
  Even more significant was the decision of Treasury officials on 6 February not to turn up to give oral evidence to the Lords Select Committee when they were expected
  92
  to do so. Following that, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give his reasons for that failure to turn up. The reply that I received from the Chancellor said:
  "The Government's strategy for Sustainable Development is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I was therefore not persuaded that it would be appropriate for Treasury officials to give oral evidence on the subject as a whole to the Committee on 7 February.
  The Accountability of Ministers and the Government to Parliament has always been based on the principle that each Minister answers for subjects within his or her own Departmental responsibilities."—[Official Report, 14 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 466.]
  Well, there we have it from the horse's mouth, as it were. That seems to say it all. Sustainable development has nothing to do with the Treasury and the Treasury has nothing to do with sustainable development. The Bill will do nothing to correct that fundamental deficiency.
  I return, in conclusion, to Wales, where the deficiencies of this Bill are writ large. A year last February, when the Government published their first sustainable development strategy document, the Secretary of State for Scotland announced the establishment of a Scottish advisory group on sustainable development. No such group was established in Wales at that time. We are now being denied our own environment agency. What does that mean? It means that we in Wales lack a national mechanism or structure to develop a sustainable development strategy for our country which is arguably the most important task facing us as we approach the new millennium.
  Such a strategy would encompass areas like transport and telecommunications, energy—particularly renewables—energy conservation, agriculture and rural policy, woodlands and, vitally, the encouragement of new environmental industries, urban planning and so on. That strategy is as relevant to urban areas as to rural areas.
  The fact that we in Wales are being prevented from getting on with that job is a serious indictment of Government policy in Wales and of the political system in Wales. I hope that my comments show that an Environment Bill for Wales would be a very different creation from the present Bill. Let us hope that, in the remaining stages, something can be done to correct some of the deficiencies.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Roy Thomason: I first declare an interest as I am a consultant with Dyson Bell Martin, solicitors and parliamentary agents. Inevitably, some of their clients, to a greater or lesser extent, will have an interest in the Bill. However, to the best of my knowledge, I have received no special briefing or lobbying by virtue of my position. I certainly do not speak at the behest of any client.
  The Bill has been a long time in gestation, but its birth has probably been all the better prepared for that. I welcome the introduction of the Bill and I support its passage. I am a great believer in the principle that, if it works, we should not interfere with it. The Government, and politicians of all persuasions, find it difficult to avoid the temptation to tinker and to seek another reorganisation almost for the sake of it. However, I believe that the reforms proposed in this Bill are necessary and desirable. They will do much to encourage the best.

  93
  The opportunities created by the establishment of the new agency are enormous. An overall view of environmental policies, an integrated approach, the availability of technical expertise and a breaking down of former barriers will provide an opportunity to create a better, cleaner, more diverse, healthier and safer place for all.
  However, before referring to the detailed aspects of the Bill, I want to consider the role of local authorities. As a former chairman of the Association of District Councils and currently a vice-president of that body, it is understandable that I approach these matters on the basis of wishing to enhance the role of local authorities, to foster local democracy and to encourage a broadening of local government functions.
  My initial reaction to the transfer of waste regulation from local government to the environment agency was disappointment. However, a little reflection changed my mind. Because of the overall advantages that I have already cited, I could see that much was to be gained from a transfer to a single, comprehensive agency. In addition, the current waste regulation advisory committees are involved more with operational than with strategic matters.
  Local democracy is all about making decisions for local communities by local communities. Matters relating to waste must be seen primarily in a national context and then applied locally in an administrative rather than a policy sense. Before it is alleged that I have turned my back on local government, let me make it clear that there are echoes of local government throughout the Bill. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will assure me that those echoes will be converted into substance.
  Much of the work of the agency and the new national park authorities will require good will from localities. What is sought from those new creatures will be imperilled if local authorities are not involved, consulted and represented. Conflict between councils and the agency will be disastrous. Can I be assured that the agency and the national park authorities will be advised and even instructed to develop local government links beyond those already established on the face of the Bill and that local government, with its own expertise, will be seen as a full partner?
  I want now to consider specific aspects of the Bill. In setting out the agency's general aims and objectives, clause 4 refers to the attainment of "sustainable development". I read somewhere that there are 50 definitions of the term "sustainable development". Whether or not so many exist, it is clearly an imprecise term and therefore unfortunately used on the face of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) referred earlier to the Brundtland definition, but that raises nearly as many questions. How can we be sure that something can be used safely now because it will not be required in the future, when we do not know what the requirements of future generations will be? The hon. Member for Truro is not right to think that the issue is as simple as that. What scales and values should be applied to the test of what is or is not sustainable? It is an easy expression to use, but its application is far harder. I assume that the guidelines will give more details about what sustainable development means.
  94
  I welcome the novel concept that the guidelines in clause 4 are to be laid before each House of Parliament like a statutory instrument. That is an important democratic control over what is at the very heart of the new agency and I am grateful to the Government for giving that potential decision to both Houses.
  While dealing with semantics, I want to probe the use of the words "costs and benefits". I can see all sorts of difficulties there. Clause 5(3)(b) states that the agency must advise the Minister of the "costs and benefits" of options for addressing pollution. I assume that that advice will not normally be published, unless it is leaked. Therefore, decisions of the Minister are not capable of challenge on the basis that the advice to him was deficient or his interpretation was wrong. Is that correct?
  Much more troublesome is the use of the expression in clause 37. The use of "costs" implies only financial tests, but benefit can be much wider. Does it include environmental and social as well as economic aspects? In case I am misunderstood, let me make it plain that, unlike some Opposition Members, I welcome the approach implicit in clause 37, that the agency must act prudently and the consequences of its actions must be judged by financial realities. However, the problem remains that the expression "costs and benefits" is loose and perhaps capable of judicial challenge. It would be a shame if the agency became shackled by narrow judgments that undermine the flexibility that must be applied to the agency's actions.
  Much has been said about the structure of the agency in England and Wales. It is a mistake not to keep operational and regulatory functions strictly apart. On geographic organisation, I started on the basis that local authority boundaries were the best, but I am now forced to admit that river basins are such a vital ingredient in the agency's workings that their existence must be acknowledged in the administrative arrangements. I say that with great reluctance, but I accept that the arguments are conclusive. For that reason, it is quite clear that one agency must cover England and Wales, as is envisaged in the Bill.
  The headwaters of the Severn do not change their characteristics suddenly where they cross the Welsh border. What happens upstream has a profound effect on that below. A particle of H2O does not understand when it crosses a boundary from Wales into England.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: How do you know?
  Mr. Thomason: I bow to the knowledge of Opposition Members about the intelligence of particles. Perhaps they are closer to particles than I am.
  Clause 6 refers to the agency's duty to promote inland and coastal waters and land associated with them for recreational purposes. My constituency is home to an important section of canal and I am a vice-president of the local society. I am conscious of the very real concern expressed by those who use our rivers and canals for recreational purposes that they will be regarded as the poor relations in the new agency, subjugated to the prior environmental claims of the nature conservationists and the financial claims of pollution control. If that were to occur, it would be a tragedy.

  95
  A substantial section of the public, estimated at 7 million people, would be prevented from messing about with boats or denied the pleasure of the towpath walk. A vital part of our industrial heritage would be lost.
  Part III introduces welcome changes in the administration of our national parks. The Environment Select Committee is currently reviewing the impact of leisure and tourism on the countryside and my remarks today should not be seen as prejudicial to the outcome of that report. I welcome the introduction of the words "quiet enjoyment" in clause 58(1) in the broadest sense, but I have reservations about the precise wording.
  In that sense, I echo comments that have already been made today. A national park is a living part of the countryside, not a museum. A quarter of a million people dwell in the parks, and many work there. It would be wrong to prevent legitimate country pursuits from being conducted in a reasonable manner because they interfered with a "quietness" that is not traditional to the area.
  In promoting the co-operation of national park authorities with those whose functions include economic and social development, the Government have gone a long way to meeting criticism from people who fear that the local economy in and around national parks might suffer. However, it is necessary to look at the possibility of income generation within national parks not just by virtue of the levy provided in clause 68 and the need to use fund raising as a means of easing pressure on honeypot sites where maximum recreational activity occurs.
  The clauses on waste are good news, but I should like to pass on, after emphasising the need to introduce waste reduction as an important part of waste management policy, to the provisions relating to contaminated land. I welcome those, but there are difficulties to which I shall refer.
  First, there is the lack of definition of "significant harm" in clause 54. Secondly, the extent of the clean-up costs likewise are not known and are a source of grave anxiety. Thirdly, the definition of "owner" creates a problem for landlords where tenants are the polluters, particularly if those tenants are people of straw. Fourthly, the Bill will replace reasonably foreseeable tests exemplified in the Cambridge Water case with legal tests that may be more difficult.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Like other hon. Members, I think that the fundamental idea behind the Bill is very good, but I have serious concerns about the structure and the powers in particular of the Scottish environment protection agency, which is what I intend to talk about. Those concerns are shared by a large number of organisations in Scotland, including local government bodies and environmental bodies. On structure, for example, there is great concern about the loss of accountability and the loss of the local dimension. At the moment, there are local authority representatives on river purification boards in Scotland. Also, local authorities have great powers in such matters. All that will be lost with the creation of a super-quango in Scotland.
  96
  Councils in Scotland will lose more powers than English councils. They will lose not only waste management powers but air pollution powers. I know of Edinburgh district council's good work in that respect. It responds to a complaint about air pollution within one hour by sending officials who have detailed local knowledge. Will that still occur under the new set-up? Many people have their doubts. Also, Edinburgh district council has been actively pursuing a company in my constituency about an air pollution matter. Unfortunately, I cannot speak about that because it is sub judice.
  That work of the district council will be taken away as a result of the Bill. That seems to many people to be a mockery of local Agenda 21 from Rio. Great emphasis was placed on the work of local bodies and local communities. I hope that something is done in Committee to amend at least the structure of the new body so that there can be more local involvement in the proposed local bodies. Perhaps Ministers could consider the common-sense initiative in America, where local people have been enlisted to take part in environmental protection work.
  I hope also that real local bodies are set up. It is proposed to have just four area SEPA boards in Scotland, but it would be much better to have more. Many environmental groups suggest that the existing boundaries of the river purification boards should be used as local boundaries. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board.
  Apart from concerns about structure, there are serious concerns about the powers of the new bodies. Clause 29 deals with the general powers for Scotland, and begins by stating:
  "The Secretary of State shall from time to time give guidance to SEPA with respect to aims and objectives which he considers it appropriate for SEPA to pursue in the performance of its functions."
  That is all we get. In the other place there was an amendment dealing with general powers and duties for England, but no such amendment for Scotland has yet been tabled. It is important that a positive duty is stated for SEPA to effect improvement in a proactive and integrated way. Detailed suggestions have been given by various environmental bodies in Scotland, but I do not have time to relate those proposed duties at the moment.
  One reason that the powers for the body are restricted is cost restraint. Clause 37 has already been referred to many times, but more generally the Bill does not state that the polluter should pay. That requirement should run through the Bill, but it does not. As a Scottish Member, I should mention one other cost restraint, and that is the curious discrepancy in clause 45 over the borrowing powers of the agencies. The English agency will be able to borrow £100 million to £160 million, whereas the Scottish agency's borrowing limits will be £2 million to £5 million. There are fewer people in Scotland than in England, but that is not the proportion that exists.
  There are many other aspects in which powers are lacking, and one was dealt with fully by my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who talked about the management of river catchments. The English agency will have many powers that will not be available to SEPA. Examples are water abstraction powers, land drainage powers, flood defence powers and powers over freshwater fisheries. Perhaps we could have an answer to why those powers are not granted to the body in Scotland.

  97
  There are also concerns about the lack of power in relation to contaminated land. Again, we welcome the principles in clause 54, but the powers are hedged in many different ways. The Bill talks about inspections from time to time instead of regular inspections. It talks about significant harm being necessary before action is taken—I think that there was an amendment on that in the other place—and about matters that are considered to be reasonable having regard to cost. There are many worries about whether the powers in relation to contaminated land will lead to any improvements in pursuing action. There is also a retrograde step in the Bill, because the power in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to have registers of contaminated land is abolished in the Bill.
  Abandoned mines are another concern. I am told that they are the second biggest cause of pollution in the Forth river purification board area. The Government have been quite upfront about delaying action, because they want privatisation of the coal mines completed before they hold mine owners responsible. That is quite openly stated in the explanatory notes:
  "Since these proposals are coming forward in parallel with privatisation of the coal industry there could be some adverse effect on proceeds to the Government. Accordingly, the removal of statutory protection is being timed to reduce any possible effect."
  The Government should get full marks for honesty in admitting that, but not much else. In fact, it is a case of making sure that the horse has bolted before shutting the stable door. By the 21st century, many of those problems will have become worse and it will be too late to take action.
  There are other aspects in which more powers would be necessary—for example, waste management. There are no percentage targets for reducing the amount of waste that is produced. That must be built into the Bill, as well as targets for recycling. One could increase the recycling component, but, if three times as much waste was produced in the first place, that would not be a significant effect. That is why we need targets for waste reduction written into the Bill.
  There is one thing that has been incorporated in Scotland which I welcome, and that is the extension of nuisance law. Again, I am told that there are various problems with implementation in England. For example, if someone has a consent under part I of the Environmental Protection Act, no action can be taken against that person under the nuisance law in part III. There seem to be problems with that, and I hope that they can be ironed out when nuisance law is introduced into Scotland.
  There are other provisions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden referred that we should like extended into Scotland, such as those referring to national parks and hedgerows.
  One concern in Scotland is that there has not been great success in pursuing people through the courts who are guilty of pollution. It appears that there has been less success in Scotland than in England. It is important that there should be a legal division in SEPA and an environmental division in the procurator fiscal service in Scotland so that proper action can be taken against those who pollute the environment. Ultimately, we can have as many fine-sounding words as we like in the Bill, but unless action is taken against those who pollute, the Bill will not have the desired effect.
  98
  Although we welcome the principle of the Bill and the aims behind it, we should like considerable amendments to be made in Committee to the structure and the powers of the agency in Scotland, so that it meets the widespread criticisms of environmental groups and local authority organisations in Scotland.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Paul Marland: I begin by reminding the House of my interest in the recycling industry. There is no need for me to remind my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside as he has been of immense help, and I shall pay tribute to him in a few moments.
  Environment protection and conservation appear in many forms, not just in preserving wildlife, the countryside, flora and fauna and the footpaths and in making sure that the rivers stay clean. All those activities are important, but I want to emphasise the role of the recycling industry, its current frustration and its fears for the future, despite the Department of the Environment's stated intent of encouraging reuse.
  The frustration revolves around regulation and its enforcement. The recycling industry accepts the need for regulation and wants to help, but as the DOE states:
  "As the standards and techniques of waste management become increasingly sophisticated, it is becoming more difficult for individual waste regulation authorities either to provide the necessary expertise or to co-ordinate policies and standards over a wide enough area."
  One can certainly say that again. The lack of uniformity and the different interpretations of the regulations by 140 different waste regulation authorities in the United Kingdom are causing some concern. There are 140 different interpretations and 140 different classes of WRA inspectors.
  I have first-hand experience of WRA inspectors. It is astonishing that they turn up to inspect a metal recycling yard where there is heavy machinery, moving vehicles and considerable danger for anyone on the premises without protective clothing, hard hats, boots or protective glasses. They often turn up in trainers, open-toed sandals and loose jumpers. Furthermore, they do not have a clue what they are inspecting. They seem to be freshly graduated from some college. That adds immensely to the frustration of those who deal with them.
  The inspectors then lay down the law as they interpret it, which is often wide of the mark of what the regulations intended. That breeds immense frustration and contempt among those in the industry. Furthermore, the number of visits that the inspectors choose to pay to various recycling establishments is extraordinary. They are themselves in danger of becoming a statutory nuisance. I am glad, however, that the Bill takes the first step towards uniformity.
  I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside. He has listened to the recycling industry and he has acted. I congratulate him on not letting the dark forces at the DOE turn his head and get the better of him, thereby making it much harder for those involved in the industry to help him to preserve the countryside, as he is so anxious to do.

  99
  It is certain that there will be change in future, but we need to take one step at a time. There is much good will in the recycling industry towards environmental legislation, but waste regulators must realise that their wish lists cost a great deal of money.
  The recycling industry and waste handling industry realise their obligations and want to honour them. As I have said many times in the House, the recycling industry is the original conservation industry, and without its help the proposals that we are discussing this evening would be going nowhere.
  The changes must be worked out in harmony and as a partnership, with both sides recognising each other's strengths as well as their difficulties. The industry would like uniform application of the rules in Guildford, Newcastle, Warwickshire and everywhere else.
  Furthermore, the regulations must apply to operators regardless of size. I like the idea of a level playing field, as too often the small operators have given the recycling industry a bad name. There should be no derogation in this legislation. There is a duty of care on legislators as well as operators, and we should show that duty of care by applying the same rules to everyone.
  Turning to the future, will the agency be able to give the recycling industry a steer? As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, there is considerable discussion and concern about the future of licensing. Should an enterprise go for exemption? If it does, what will be the future criteria? Will they change or remain the same? What time scales will be set by the regulatory authority with regard to licensing an operation? Currently, the WRAs are very slow to react. Perhaps they are overworked or do not know which way to turn.
  Let me turn to costs and quote the awful example of the Meat Hygiene Service, where the inspection costs have rocketed and caused much concern and anger in the industry. I know that the scales of fees and charges for the agency are currently being reviewed, but we must make absolutely certain that the costs are reasonable and can be borne by the industry. It would be a good idea if the industry were consulted beforehand. We do not want bureaucrats to build up too large an empire, taking up time with too frequent inspections. The Government seek to deregulate, despite the insults from the Opposition earlier in the debate. We should make the regulation simple and take pride in deregulating.
  Other speakers have referred to contaminated land and here I recognise that I am walking on eggshells. It is reassuring, however, that contaminated land will be classified in the Bill according to its future use, but the Bill also proposes a survey. Who will pay for the survey? The regulations state that the polluter should pay for cleaning up contaminated land, but what will happen if the polluter has already gone bust and there is nobody to foot the bill? The potential impact on many businesses throughout the country is awesome. We should tread very carefully with regard to contaminated land.
  There are grants available for
  "conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty or amenity of the countryside or features of archaeological interest"
  or for
  "the promotion of the enjoyment of the countryside by the public."
  100
  I totally approve of that, but if that is legitimate, why should there not be a grant for recyclers, who are doing so much to live by the Bill and often have to spend vast sums of money to make their contribution to cleaning up the environment?
  What if there are appeals under these proposals? They have to be heard before a magistrate, but we have heard how complicated the regulations are and I would ask only whether a magistrate is the right person to interpret them.
  Central to the legislation is the definition of waste. The Bill sets out:
  "Waste applies to articles that have been discarded or the holder intends to discard."
  How does that square with recycled material that is a by-product in a factory and is intended to be resold? Nickel scrap, for example, is worth £4,500 a tonne. Copper cuttings are worth £1,700 a tonne. They cannot be described as waste. Material that has a value to the holder will always be treated in a responsible manner, regardless of who holds it. I hope that that will be remembered when the Bill is considered in Committee.
  Finally, my attention has been caught by the names and description of those who will be appointed to the advisory committee to the agency. They include the leader of Kirklees council, the chief executive of Leicester city council, a nominee from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the director of the Institute of Environmental Policy and the chairman of the Green Alliance. Where are the practitioners among those appointed? Where are the representatives of the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors, the British Metals Federation, the Reclamation Association and the firms that handle glass, plastic and other materials? I believe that some practitioners should be on the advisory committee.
  It was rather chilling to note that the only person still in business who is serving on that advisory committee is Mrs. Shirley Jackson, an insolvency practitioner. I hope that that is not some black humour by the Department of the Environment and that she has not been appointed to pick up the pieces if the regulations become over-burdensome and too expensive on businesses in the recycling industry for them to survive.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Llew Smith: I wish to concentrate on the issue of the problem of minewater pollution from abandoned mines, which is covered by clauses 55 to 57. To a certain extent, many of the problems have been brought about by the destruction of the coal industry in the past decade by the Government. We all know that mines may have to close because of costs or safety, but neither of those is the main reason behind the closures of the past decade. The main reason is the Government's determination to destroy the coal industry.
  Recently, the Coalfield Communities Campaign produced a report entitled "Poisoned Legacy" which talked about the problems of water pollution and described how that could affect inward investment to the former mining communities in the future. The report also described the situation as an "environmental timebomb".
  The campaign argues that the Bill does not remove the loopholes which have been created by previous legislation. The root of the problem is the existing and

  101
  expected damage from mines which have already been closed. The legislative changes intend to cover only the 32 mines that are still in operation, but around 936 mines have been closed since nationalisation in 1947 and many more that were closed before then still have significant pollution potential.
  Why are the Government choosing to implement the legislative changes only at the end of 1999? Such a delay only makes the existing problem worse. Under the present situation, pollution from closed mines will be allowed to continue to increase for another five years. Mine owners choosing to avoid potentially costly liability may be tempted to close mines prematurely to beat the 1999 deadline. The Coal Authority—the inheritor of the abandoned mines—might be tempted to stop or reduce any costly remedial activities before 1999 if it can avoid liability.
  In June last year, the Government promised Parliament that they would set in train a comprehensive review which would look at the specific question of abandoned mines. The explanatory memorandum to the Bill states:
  "Where coal mines are leased to the private sector, the effect on expenditure should be neutral. For abandoned mines in the ownership of the coal authority, there could be an increase in public expenditure, since the cost of any action taken, including pumping of minewater, would fall on the authority.
  Since these proposals are coming forward in parallel with the privatisation of the industry, there could be some adverse effect on proceeds to the Government".
  The explanation concludes:
  "Accordingly, the removal of the statutory protection is being timed to reduce any possible effects".
  If that means that the Government intend to delay any environmental protection provision so as not to eat into the profits gained from selling the industry, it is an outrageous provision. It is an insult to people in the mining communities, whose environment has been damaged and sacrificed on the altar of profit.
  I was interested to hear the Secretary of State say this afternoon that, when decisions are made, the core of those decisions is how they will affect the environment. That is something that each and every of one of us would support. I would argue that, in relation to the problem that I am addressing, the environment does not seem to be any concern of the Secretary of State. What seems to be his concern—this does not surprise me—is money, and damn the environment and damn communities such as mine which have contributed so much to the wealth of the nation and have had so little back in return.
  This is an urgent problem which will not go away. The Department of Trade and Industry stated last year that £1 billion was raised from the sale of the coal industry. Surely it is reasonable to expect that a proportion of those profits will revert to the former mining communities to help them clear up years of pollution.
  I shall give the House an example of the outstanding problem in south Wales. Last year, the Welsh Office and the Welsh region of the NRA published two reports on iron contamination from minewater discharges and remedial options available to deal with the problem in the Welsh coalfields. A survey conducted in 1993 found that nearly 60 km of river had been contaminated by pollution. An area of 220,000 sq m was affected by hydroxide deposits, and some 90 minewater discharges were identified. A high biological impact was shown at 10 of the 33 larger sites.
  102
  The current issue of Environment Business reports that it is the view of the Welsh office and the NRA in Wales publication that,
  "because in many areas discharges have been occurring for many years in places where people either do not notice them or have got used to them, a key decision is whether to do anything at all, particularly if the environmental quality standards are partially achieved".
  The Minister will agree that that is an unacceptably complacent attitude. It is similar to telling people in Cumbria that, because they have got used to the fact that Sellafield makes continuous radioactive discharges into the environment and because British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. has introduced some filtration equipment to reduce the discharges, it is okay for Sellafield to keep dumping nuclear waste from its effluent pipeline and stacks. It is obviously not. If the Bill is really concerned with the environment, it will respond to problems such as that in a positive and urgent way.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I very much welcome the Bill and the intentions behind it. I wish to address my remarks to two matters, the first of which is national parks. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to help us by being more specific. I had always thought that the Government were trying to make legislation more specific. I was therefore somewhat surprised by schedule 7, which states:
  "A person shall not be appointed as a local authority member of a National Park authority unless he is a member of a principal council the area of which is wholly or partly comprised in the relevant park; and, in appointing local authority members of a National Park authority, a principal council shall have regard to the desirability of appointing members of the council who represent wards, or (in Wales) electoral divisions, situated wholly or partly within the relevant Park."
  I agree with that. My only question is, if it is desirable, why do we not make it a fact? Why do not we say that people appointed to national parks authorities must either live in the area or represent part of the ward within a national park? That is very important.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will have heard many people refer to local representation on national park authorities. I should like to see elected national park authorities, but I realise that some parks are sparsely populated, making it impossible to go down that route. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the matter closely. He has no idea of the animosity felt by local people about appointments to national park boards.
  Some slight improvements have been made as a result of our legislation on political balance. Until a few years ago, Derbyshire county council appointed eight people to the national park board, only one of whom lived and represented a ward within the national park. That is not right or fair and it caused great resentment. Like many other hon. Members who have spoken today, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to think carefully about giving greater representation as of right to local elected people.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) mentioned the way in which national parks should be financed. The Government have a responsibility to look carefully at the financing of national parks. The peak district national park covers a large part of my constituency. We have a huge number of visitors each year from Manchester and the Sheffield and west midlands conurbations, bringing extra pressures to

  103
  the area. They get enjoyment out of the national park. Their visits should be reflected in the standard spending assessment for our area. I go along wholeheartedly with what my right hon. Friend said.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale also echoed our concern about the words "quiet enjoyment". Everyone would applaud the idea of quiet enjoyment within the national parks, but we cannot allow national parks to become fossilised places. They are living areas; people work and live in them and get their enjoyment in them. We must not try to prevent the many recreational activities that have taken place in national parks over a long period. The Bill should not put a stop to those activities.
  Local representation is of immense importance. Appointments made by the Secretary of State should bring a national dimension to the national parks—the outside dimension to which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to examine the schedule carefully as the Bill goes through Committee and seek to improve it so that national park boards include a good proportion of elected local councillors who represent wards within the national parks. If that is desirable, as the Government say in the schedule, why do we not stipulate that representatives must be either local councillors or people living within the national park? Let us move away from the question of desirability. If it is desirable, let us do it. That is what the Government should do.
  I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister will table new clauses on old mineral planning permissions. The Government are to ensure that all active permissions granted from 1948 to 1982 will be reviewed within six years in two phases. Those in designated areas such as national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty will be reviewed in the first phase, within three years. The Government have also given commitments that they will provide for periodic reviews for all mineral sites every 15 years to ensure that the conditions keep pace with the standards of the day. I welcome those moves in the right direction.
  I understand that some of the aggregate companies have expressed concern about the proposals on mineral planning permissions. There is no question about the importance of the aggregate industry in Britain. If my hon. Friend the Minister needs to see the need for the new clauses and for a review of the conditions, he need only come to part of my constituency, Stanton Lees—I visited it last week and met some residents—where old planning permissions have been reactivated, damaging local roads.
  The large aggregate companies have made representations to other hon. Members and me on the issue. They seek a fair system, in which everyone has to abide by the same conditions. Companies such as Tarmac have been good in making environmental commitments. They should not be unduly worried about what the Government propose. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be prepared to meet them in due course so that they can express their anxieties to him.
  I welcome the proposed review of planning permissions. Once they have been reviewed, authorities must use their powers to ensure that old quarry workings
  104
  are brought up to the right standards and specifications. There is concern in my constituency that the national park has not fully implemented some of its powers on spoil.
  I give this wide-ranging and comprehensive Bill a broad welcome. The changes in the way in which national parks are administered and the review of old mineral planning permissions are welcome. They will make a significant difference to our countryside. I welcome the Bill.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: At last the beards are having a run on the Opposition Benches at the end of the debate.
  The number of declarations of interest from Conservative Members shows that there is a great deal of money in environmental protection—a point that I had not appreciated hitherto.
  Following the demonstrations by Greenpeace outside the THORP reprocessing plant at Aldermaston, one must realise just how seriously Greenpeace and many other people take issues of environmental pollution and the problems of nuclear pollution.
  Everyone else seems vaguely to welcome the Bill, but I feel that it is a huge missed opportunity. I look forward to an incoming Labour Government giving real teeth to an environment agency that can do something to clean up pollution both in policy methods and in the physical surroundings in which we live.
  The Secretary of State dealt with Britain's responsibility in the world on environmental protection and other such issues in a couple of sentences. That was a bit thin. We are living in very dangerous times. The effects of global warming are more obvious than they have ever been before. There are cracks in the Antarctic ice cap and huge holes in the ozone layer over the Antarctic, and holes are appearing in the ozone layer over the Arctic.
  Environmental protection cannot be dealt with merely nationally or locally; it has to be dealt with internationally. Britain signed the Rio treaty, as did most other countries, but it is not enough merely to sign and to say grandly that we are fulfilling our obligations, when plainly we are not, while at the same time promoting a worldwide economic strategy that promotes pollution and environmental destruction and is hastening, rather than reducing, global warming.
  We must consider the issues globally as well as locally and I hope that in future debates on the environment we can start to consider those problems. Having created much pollution, it is no good the western world lecturing the rest of the world on the need not to do so. Pollution comes from industry, lack of planning and a free enterprise economy. We must consider those questions very seriously.
  This rather lengthy and complicated Bill has some serious problems. Hon. Members have mentioned clause 37 and the problems with the cost-benefit analysis formula to be used. Conservative Members have said that it will lead to a lawyers' field day. That may be so, but how on earth can one make a cost-benefit analysis without considering long-term environmental problems and trying to put some sort of cost on them?
  Those of us who have argued against massive road developments in urban and rural areas have come across that cost-benefit analysis formula many times. It is very

  105
  good for measuring delays caused to road hauliers by traffic jams, or to business men by driving around in cars. It does not measure the increase in asthma among children because of increased car traffic, the problems for pedestrians when trying to cross major roads and the environmental destruction that goes with such a policy. Clause 37 offers polluters too many potential avenues to challenge the agency's decisions, and threatens to render useless all its other powers.
  Amendments are needed to bring Britain into line with the spirit of article 130 of the treaty of European union, which prioritises the precautionary, the preventive and the "polluter pays" principles. We must deal with that issue in Committee. It must be cleared up once and for all because unless we are specific we will end up with short-term economic considerations and avenues to profitability for particular economic interests taking precedence over the long-term environmental damage that is implicit in so many of the planning and industrial decisions taken in this country.
  What about waste recycling? The agency has responsibilities for co-ordinating waste recycling policy, but levels of recycling achieved by local authorities are pitiful. If we ask local authorities why they are so low—I talk to mine and I am sure that other hon. Members talk to theirs—they say that there is no one to buy the waste paper, glass, metals and plastics that are collected because there is no market for them. If one leaves it all to a marketplace philosophy, it simply will not happen and, as, I hope, relatively intelligent human beings every one of us realises that it is better to recycle paper, glass and plastics than to throw them away in landfill—perhaps it is better to produce far less in the first place.
  The Bill does not deal much with air pollution, but that problem must be dealt with more. I represent one of the most densely populated urban constituencies in this country and it probably has the least open space. The problems caused by air pollution and concern for the environment there are very great indeed. My constituents, like those represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), also have a love of the country and want access to it. They also love and respect the national parks movement and what the parks have achieved. They too have a voice that has to be heard.
  For many children growing up in the inner cities in high-rise flats, an opportunity to visit an open space such as a park, or better still a national park, is a huge excitement. They need to be able to gain access to the countryside, enjoy it and understand something of it. They too have a real concern about the environment.
  What of the problems faced by people in London? In 1991, between 12 and 15 December, pollution in London soared to a record level. It is reckoned that 160 people died in the four days because of bronchial illnesses occasioned by that astoundingly high pollution. Last winter and last summer there was an epidemic of asthma in London, which caused a great flurry of activity at the casualty units of our hospitals. Indeed, in my constituency it is reckoned that 20 per cent. of all children under the age of 10 suffer from some type of asthma or bronchial illness. Those illnesses are caused by a transport policy that discourages public transport and encourages private car motoring in urban and rural areas. One cannot deal with any one issue in isolation. There has to be a connection.
  106
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) pointed out in his excellent speech, the Government's unwillingness to fund proper pollution monitoring stations is a sign of their lack of concern for the causes of air and environmental pollution. Those are just some of the important issues faced by the Bill.
  My final general point is that we live in a world where environmental crises are happening all the time. Global warming is happening and serious signs of environmental destruction are all around us. The Bill is not enough. This country does not make a big enough contribution internationally and the Bill is not enough to protect our national environment.
  We must take a far tougher approach. Friends of the Earth believes that there is a strong case for a new clause that gives the Secretary of State and the Chancellor an overriding duty to integrate environmental protection requirements into the definition and implementation of other domestic policies. Those measures would give us an opportunity to do something to deal with the serious environmental problems that we face. The Bill is simply not strong or powerful enough to do that.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Paddy Tipping: In the time available to me, I shall tackle three issues. As colleagues have said, the Bill is a missed opportunity. It could have taken green politics to the heart of Government, but because an integrated approach has not been advocated across all Departments, that opportunity has been missed. If the Government are interested in putting environmental protection first, the Bill should contain a mechanism or duty to make all Departments work together.
  Despite that criticism, I hope that the environment agency has a good run and takes a strategic view of the way forward. If it is to achieve that, resources must be made available to it. The Secretary of State said that he wanted a lean animal; I hope that we have an animal strong enough to survive the important tasks that lie before it. We must recognise the transitional costs of setting up the agency. There may be savings in the long run, but I doubt it. Those transitional costs must be funded. Over the past three or four years, the National Rivers Authority has lost grant of some £240 million and is shedding 1,200 staff, and the same is happening within Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.
  If we are to be serious about this matter, we must resource the agency properly and allow it to work in partnership with other people. Local authorities are shadows in the Bill; we must realise that they are important tools for sustainable development and that they, too, are going through a period of transition. The move to smaller authorities does not necessarily mean that we shall have a wider view. The problem with small local authorities is that they may take a not-in-my-backyard view. There is certainly scope for arguing in Committee for a clear partnership arrangement with local authorities.
  Other hon. Members have discussed the problem of minewater discharge. May I highlight the issues that coalfield communities face with an example from my community, where Annersley colliery has been closed for more than a year on a care and maintenance basis? It costs £1.25 million a year to pump out water from the old Derbyshire coalfields as well as the western part of the Nottinghamshire coalfields, and British Coal is presently picking up the Bill.

  107
  What will happen to those pumping costs? A new private owner may take the pit on, but it will be a hard task. Who will pick up the cost of pumping if he goes into liquidation? The Government should first make a commitment that the Coal Authority will work in partnership with others to resolve that problem and, secondly, should give it the resources to do so. The resources are not in the Coal Authority's budget at present and coalfield communities have been neglected. The Government want to walk away from them and aspire to better. Having decimated the coalfields' economic base, the least that they can do now is clean up the landscape and give us a brighter future.
  I am interested also in the agro-ecological side of the Bill. I welcome hedgerow protection, but there is a strong case for considering dry stone walls and ponds in the countryside. The part of the Bill that relates to national parks is limited. The 11,000 miles of footpaths through national parks are the jewel in the crown of our national parks. The new national park authority does not take responsibility for the rights of way network, but it should. I hope that we can correct that omission in Committee.
  We should also consider the countryside stewardship scheme. I should like to commend to the Minister the recent report published by the Ramblers Association, which surveyed the countryside stewardship sites and found that provisions governing access are poor. The scheme may be experimental, but much more needs to be achieved. We plan to spend £8 million over 10 years on access provisions to those countryside stewardship schemes, but the public do not know about those sites. When they find them, they cannot get on to them. The Countryside Commission has accepted that survey, which also reveals that serious problems still persist on 40 per cent. of those sites.
  The countryside stewardship scheme is the right approach. We should be raising the importance of the landscape and of environmental enhancement, but I have doubts about paying for access. I am pleased that those schemes are to be transferred to the responsibility of MAFF. I hope that the Ministry will consider the range of agricultural policies, because it is bizarre to be paying landowners and farmers £1.2 billion under the arable areas scheme and £200 million in set-aside while getting so little reward from that. We need to work for change and to ensure that environmental issues are at the heart of our agricultural policy. Families are not prepared to pay £27 a week to get nothing back from the countryside. I hope that we will look closely at the notion of green stewardship schemes.
  The Bill is important because we all aspire for better things for our families and our children. We want to have a better standards of living and to see economic growth, but we also want to see the importance of the landscape lifted and the environment enhanced. People say that one cannot do both, but I believe that, with careful work and real commitment, and by seizing every opportunity, the Bill will offer us a real chance to try to resolve that dilemma.
  9.11 pm
  Mrs. Angela Knight: I am grateful to be called to speak on the Second Reading of this important
  108
  Bill, which covers a considerable number of issues. I believe that the measures proposed demonstrate a commitment to scientifically sound and economically sensible environmental protection. Like the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), I represent a constituency in the east midlands and I agree with him that particular problems and environmental considerations are associated with the region's industrial base.
  I should like to highlight three issues. The first is the need for an integrated environment agency. I look forward to its establishment as a strong and independent body because we require an independent voice for the environment; the adoption of better environmental standards and practices and sustainable development—the clause IV, if I can put it that way, of the Bill.
  The benefits of integration were clearly highlighted by a programme of the NRA to improve the River Erewash. I have a great respect for the NRA's work, but that programme showed better than anything else the need for integration of our environment agencies, environmental watchdogs and pollution controllers. The River Erewash was once described by D.H. Lawrence as a lovely river, which
  "twisted sluggishly through Alder trees, separating Derbyshire from Nottinghamshire."
  Life has long since changed in the region. The river now passes through several urban districts. It is a river of poor quality, fed largely by the local sewage works. When, in times of flood, one looks into the river, one needs to look away. It is devoid of fish and in many respects is a sad reflection of human neglect as a consequence of industrialisation of the region.
  Careful examination of the plan that the National Rivers Authority envisages shows that it encompasses a huge number of other organisations that will be needed to get to grips with the improvement of the area. They include not only the NRA but Severn Trent Water plc, and an industry to improve water quality. British Waterways is responsible for other aspects, such as the diversion that is needed in some of the watercourses. The opencast coal sites, both in use and disused, that are spread throughout the region also feed sludge, sewage and pollution into that river; and the Coal Authority must be involved in that respect. The redevelopments require the local authorities and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to be involved. They require industry to help to regulate its own pollution. Motorway widening creates other problems for that river.
  The NRA has produced an excellent document about ways to improve the River Erewash, but it is difficult for it to formulate a reasonable, achievable, quick solution to the problems without a proper environment agency encompassing all aspects of the control of pollution, from industry through to the effluent from sewage works. Therefore, I emphasise the necessity for that environment agency and welcome the Bill that sets it up.
  Another aspect of that integration is pertinent to local industry because, right now, part of industry's effluent is dealt with by HMIP and the other part by local authorities. A large company in my constituency which is in that situation has two, in some respects conflicting, regulators and a confusing and complicated system, under which it is expensive, and in many ways unreasonable, for it to operate.

  109
  By integrating those matters, one obtains a more coherent framework for industry and for BATNEEC—the best available technology not entailing excessive cost. From what I have heard in the Chamber this evening, it seems that the Opposition parties may question that, but I believe that we must maintain a balance between the cost and the benefit. There is no point in placing some purist environmental regulation on industry only to find that companies shut and there is no employment as a consequence. Best available techniques and reasonable costs—a cost-benefit analysis—are surely an essential for the agency.
  In his excellent opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke about the difficult judgments associated with environmental questions. I suspect that there is no more difficult judgment than that associated with the contaminated land proposals in the Bill. Some aspects of that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham).
  Contaminated land tends to go with the type of industrial area that I represent, and I want the contaminated land to be made good and made available for new industries or for other uses. The derelict land grant has contributed greatly to a slow improvement of some of those sites, and some of the smaller sites have been cleared up by the Erewash Groundwork Trust.
  However, I have a doubt about the way in which the contaminated land proposals will take effect. It seems to me that, whereas local authorities will be required to identify all contaminated land and have a statutory duty to serve a remediation notice on the appropriate person, there is a question mark about who that appropriate person might be. It is perfectly reasonable if the appropriate person is the person or organisation that contaminated the land in the first place, but it is a different matter if the original contaminator is an unknown quantity and notice is served on the individual or business which is now occupying the land.
  It is clearly possible for a company to operate on land which, to the best of its belief, is free or reasonably free of contamination, only for it to find at some future date that the local authority tries to make it responsible for clearing up the contamination caused by previous occupants. I question that process and the procedures outlined in the Bill. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside could clear up that point.
  The Bill rightly aims to improve and bring back into use much of the contaminated land that is often found in industrial areas, but we must ensure that the financial responsibility is placed on the correct person. We must also ensure that there is a proper definition to cover how much the land has to be cleaned up so that it can be used for its appropriate purpose. When such cleaning up has taken place, a local authority must state publicly that that duty has been done by the occupant and owner of that land, rather than leave the public in a quandary. In terms of land redemption, certainty must be restored to the market.
  I represent a Derbyshire constituency and know just how the name of that county conjures up in people's minds the beauty of the Peak park. There have been concerns over many years about that park, which is perhaps one of the most popular national parks in the country. There is concern because not only does the park attract visitors, but many people live and work in it. Any proposed change to the park authority must include
  110
  assurances, and a written requirement to ensure that the lives, occupations and livelihoods of the residents are not atrophied. There must also be an assurance that people appointed by local authorities to serve on the park authority live in, and represent, the park area.
  9.21 pm
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Two events in my diary stand out in the next couple of weeks and illustrate the Bill's significance. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and I are to visit a stream at a place called Sheep House wood—it starts in his constituency and flows into the Upper Don and through my area. Its water is a deep orange and no tadpoles, minnows or other fish can live in it. It comes from a small mine that was abandoned possibly 100 years ago, but only now are the effects being seen and felt in my constituency.
  The other event that comes to mind is VE day, when we shall remember events of 50 years ago. Shall we also be thinking about the environmental damage that the war has left? Should we also think of the cancer and disease from bombs dropped on Hiroshima or the pollution of the north Atlantic ocean, which was revealed publicly only last month? According to the Ministry of Defence, 145,000 tonnes of chemical weapons were dumped off Britain and Ireland after the second world war. The success or failure of the agency established by the Bill will be judged, not in a couple of years or by the millennium, but by future generations.
  If we are prepared to give the agency the scope and width so that it does not shy away from controversial matters such as traffic, air pollution, energy policy and radioactive waste disposal, if we give it the toughness and teeth to enforce speedily and effectively, if it is independent of the huge, vested interests of waste contractors, water companies, the military and the like, if it is accountable to the public in whose interests it is to act, this might be the best—indeed, the only good—piece of legislation that this Parliament comes up with. But if it falls short, it will be a tragic waste of an opportunity.
  The Bill talks about the three basic elements of air, water and earth. I hope that, in dealing with soil pollution, it also manages to control not just the big firms in the waste industry but the local fly tippers who operate without permission, or who apply for planning permission after the damage has been done.
  The agency can play a useful role in ensuring that water is recognised for what it is—a natural, essential and public resource—and that clean drinking water provision and the disposal of waste water and sewage are recognised as essential public services. By considering water cycle conservation as a whole, it will help to provide a balance in the debate about water conservation, putting the emphasis on controlling the 30 per cent. of clean drinking water that leaks away through old pipes and infrastructure, rather than try to limit by price essential domestic usage in the home.
  I read clause 37, about costs and benefits, carefully. I decided that it was a neat but rather meaningless clause that was better out than in the legislation. It tries to compare apples with potatoes. Costs can be seen on a balance sheet. They fall on a company, an individual or a multinational firm, but benefits are collective, public and cannot be quantified in the same way. It reminds me of

  111
  the same easy phrase that dominated the debate on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill last year—the "burden" on business compared with the public good. That phrase leaves me profoundly uneasy. The welcome that it has been given by the Confederation of British Industry, commercial interests and private companies only adds to my unease.
  Why does the need exist in the Bill to speak up strongly to prop up big industry? Can it not speak for itself? Can it not afford the litigation in which, unfortunately, it might become involved? Does it not have enough friends in high places? Who will speak up for the collective and the public interest in appeals? Who, indeed, will speak for the birds, animals and plants that cannot organise protests at the loss of their countryside and habitat?
  I looked to find out how appeals would be managed and dealt with in clause 96. That left me a little more uneasy because the clause assumes that appeals will always involve the polluter appealing against a control or regulation. I am not sure what provision exists in the Bill for the public to appeal against a licence to dispose of material or to pollute. That needs teasing out in Committee. The clause contains no presumption in favour of appeals being held in public. Advice and instruction exist that, on many occasions, appeals will be held in private. How can that be right when the agency is there to protect the public interest?
  Democracy without openness is a contradiction in terms. I scoured schedule 1 for guidance on access to information and found nothing but the tried, tested and discredited proposal to set up another quango by this quango-mad Government. We should be told what is involved in terms of property transactions in the course of setting up the agency. Will that involve the transfer of more land and assets out of public ownership? Who will determine the value? How will disputes be determined? Will that information be made available to Members of Parliament and to the public? Schedule 2 does not satisfactorily cover that point.
  The implicit closeness about the way in which the agency is to operate reflects a lack of accountability and an over-reliance on "ministerial guidance", whichever Minister we are talking about. The Environment Select Committee held a few preliminary sessions on the Bill before it was considered in the other place. We on the Committee felt that the role of policy maker and strategy developer was confused. It will be no good having a brand new environment agency to protect the environment if the powers and policy guidelines on which it is to act are waiting for a ministerial statement or guidance.
  Clause 4 and its subsections leave the objectives, resources and responsibilities open to question and to delay. I welcome the inclusion of parliamentary scrutiny in the process, but I am concerned that the agency will be used as a scapegoat to take the blame for poor policy or the absence of and delays in policy making by the Government or Ministers.
  We must ask whether the agency will have the toughness and teeth that it needs to be effective. I mention teeth particularly because I see the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), sitting on the Front Bench. Even if there is a hint that the agency will have a reduced or more constricted ability than the existing agencies to
  112
  take prompt and firm action to forestall pollution incidents and recover in full costs of breaches of regulations, the Bill will do a serious disservice to us and to future generations.
  I wondered why it was not to be called the environment protection agency, as it is in Scotland, rather than just the environment agency. Again I return with some unease to the CBI document on environment costs published last November. It is clear that the CBI sees the creation of the single environment agency as a "major deregulatory step". It hopes that it will meet "environmental objectives" rather than obligations in a way that enhances British competitiveness.
  I worry about whether the legislation is really a further tranche of deregulation rather than what the Opposition would want it to be, which is a firm statement of how we will care for, control and finance the protection of our environment now and way into the future.
  9.31 pm
  Ms Joan Ruddock: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), whose interest in and commitment to the environment are well known.
  This has been a serious and important debate befitting the significance of the subject. The concept of an environment agency is exciting, but it is also daunting. We are the first generation of politicians to be brought face to face with the knowledge that our man-made world is rapidly destroying our natural world, not just in isolated and remote places but here at home and virtually everywhere.
  In an era of global communications, only the profoundly ignorant or irresponsible could choose to deny the overwhelming evidence of environmental degradation. Yet denial is widespread. There are profit-hungry companies which calculate that they will never have to pay for the pollution that they leave behind. There are desperate workers who will argue for jobs at any price. There are Governments who subsidise practices that lead to dangerous resource depletion and there are armies of politicians denying their own responsibility. They trust in a sort of natural selection—future generations, the inventiveness of scientists and the rigours of the marketplace.
  The survival of the fittest in an overpopulated and densely polluted planet would be a highly brutal business. We still have a choice, and we in the developed world have a particular responsibility. In the words of the World Commission on Environment and Development—the Brundtland commission—we must embrace
  "development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
  That definition of sustainable development is the one that the Labour party accepts.
  In that context, the Environment Bill offers a unique opportunity, but, as drafted, it falls at the first hurdle. Where is the duty across Departments to ensure that all Government policies take account of environmental concerns? The Secretary of State no doubt believes that the environment should be at the heart of Government policies, but he has not included that notion in the Bill. We shall attempt to do so.

  113
  Where is the overriding duty on the environment agencies to be the champions of the environment? Where is the strategic purpose? Where is transparency and open government? Where are the citizens' environmental rights? Where, as the right hon. Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) asked, is the definition of sustainable development, of which the Secretary of State made so much? Everywhere the agencies' aims are hedged around with constraints, which is proof of the polluters' pressure on the Government and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, the Tory predilection for deregulation.
  The local authority associations put it another way. They said:
  "Government has proposed a clumsy bureaucratic amalgamation of pollution control operations without the strategic and standard-setting role that is indispensable to the future direction and coherence of environmental protection functions".
  In short, this is not the Environment Bill that we would have chosen but, because we support the setting up of the agencies in principle, we shall do our best to improve their composition, purpose and functions.
  In line with Labour's commitment to the devolution of power, we believe that Wales must have its own environment agency. Of course, we understand that rivers are no observers of national boundaries and, clearly, special co-operation would be required in operational matters along river catchments; but we believe that such arrangements are practicable and desirable. However, my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) spoke far more eloquently than I could about the needs of Wales and the Welsh environment—
  Mr. Dafis: So did I.
  Ms Ruddock: Indeed, I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's contribution.
  In other matters of composition, it is clear that the Government have not been able to win the support of local authority associations. We share the associations' concerns about the loss of local knowledge and accountability in the operation of waste regulation functions and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) pointed out in relation to Scotland, the additional loss of local air monitoring functions.
  We are yet to be convinced that the obvious gains to be made from having a strategic overview of waste functions in the agencies would be matched by gains from the transfer of operational functions. We shall explore those matters further in Committee. We shall also want to consider why other obvious functions, such as those carried out by the drinking water inspectorate, the coastal protection functions of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the pesticide monitoring functions of the Health and Safety Executive, are not also to be transferred.
  Overall, as many hon. Friends have said, we shall seek to establish environmental agencies that become more than the sum of their parts. Like our colleagues in another place, we shall press for the establishment of a wider remit, a clear purpose and greater public accountability for the agencies. We are conscious of the fact that the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Green Alliance and many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for
  114
  Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), believe that the agencies' work could be compromised by the emphasis on cost benefits and by the exclusion of pollution control functions from the duty to further conservation.
  As the World Wide Fund for Nature points out, the Government believe that it is incompatible for the agencies to issue discharge licences while having a duty to further conservation. However, the NRA has done so very successfully for the past five years. When it suits them, the Government insist on the importance of guidance rather than duties set out in the Bill, but they then insist on placing a statutory obligation on the agencies to take account of costs and benefits before they can exercise their powers.
  That cannot be acceptable, as many of my hon. Friends have made clear today. Fears of legal challenge are all too real, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said. Those fears have been given greater force by the independent legal opinions obtained by Greenpeace and the Council for the Protection of Rural England. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds put it particularly well, arguing that the lack of clear purpose may lead to environmental neglect as, in the absence of clear quality targets, the new agencies are forced to focus on financial targets.
  The Secretary of State in his opening speech made much of the need to look at the environment in the round and the need to bring together all the various functions, yet the Bill lacks the means of placing a duty on the water undertakers and the Office of Water Services to promote the efficient use of water and other resources. The Bill does little to encourage energy efficiency and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) pointed out, it totally fails to deliver a strategy for dealing with air pollution.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and other hon. Friends referred in some detail to our concerns over contaminated land and pollution from abandoned mines. Clearly, the contaminated land proposals are quite inadequate and must be amended in Committee. As my hon. Friends the Members for Gower, for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) mentioned, the plans for dealing with contaminated mine water refer only to those 32 pits remaining in operation. About 1,000 pits have been closed in the past 50 years, and their legacy is appalling.
  By their own admission, the Government still want to give advantage in that area to the polluters and to protect the profits of privatisation. The removal of exemption from prosecution—[Interruption.] It says so in the financial memorandum to the Bill, and I shall point it out to the Minister later if I have to. The removal of the exemption from prosecution should come into effect one year from now, not at the turn of the century, and we shall press that matter again in Committee.
  I turn finally to national parks and hedgerows, two areas in which my hon. Friends and I have welcomed many of the Bill's proposals. We applaud the great success of our colleagues in the other place in supporting the all-party amendment to provide for quiet enjoyment. We shall strive to defend that amendment in this House. We shall also strive to protect the national parks further from inappropriate and unnecessary development. We believe in principle that the national park authorities should have powers to manage rights of way. We shall,

  115
  of course, take the expert advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) in drafting such amendments.
  On hedgerows, the House has been given much sound advice from hon. Members of all parties, but I particularly commend the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Denton and Reddish and the plea for an extension of hedgerow protection to Scotland, which was made so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith).
  In the weeks ahead, we shall be engaged in vigorous debate over the details of the Bill. As I have said, there are whole areas of this legislation with which we cannot possibly agree, although we very much support the spirit behind it. There is much that we shall seek to change, but, in conclusion, I want to remind the House why environmentalists and politicians alike must take the matter seriously.
  In Britain today, more than half of all our trees are damaged by acid rain, one fifth of our beaches fail European quality standards, millions of households receive sub-standard drinking water and, perhaps most alarming of all—
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): That is not true.
  Ms Ruddock: It is true.
  Most alarming of all, the number of people with asthma triggered and aggravated by air pollution has doubled in a decade—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that that is not true. The facts should condition his attitude to environmental concern as they condition our attitude. If we ask the people of this country whether air pollution, substandard water and dirty beaches are matters of major concern, they say that they are. All the polls confirm that. The people want action, and so do we.
  We will respond positively to the Secretary of State's declared search for consensus. Our amendments will be tabled with the widest possible backing. We look forward to the co-operation of the Secretary of State and of his Ministers to improve the Bill.
  9.44 pm
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): I listened to the fine words from the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock). To a large extent, they sounded pretty good, until, in the closing stages of her speech, she made remarks about drinking water which were palpable and absolute nonsense. Everyone knows that to be the case. However, as I am grateful for the interest that hon. Members from across the House have shown in the Bill and for the desire to recognise that the Bill commands broad support, I do not want to be any more partisan than I have just been.
  I appreciate the concerns of hon. Members that the Bill should be effective legislation. It will come as no surprise that I, along with everybody else, share that concern. Where appropriate, we will table amendments to clarify our intentions for the legislation or to give effect to the development of our policies. My right hon. Friend the
  116
  Secretary of State has today given an indication of two areas—air quality and minerals planning—in respect of which we are committed to introducing new provisions.
  As for the measures already included in the Bill, many hon. Members have referred to important issues with which I will attempt to deal in the short time available to me, which will no doubt be raised in more detail as the Bill progresses through Committee and on the Floor of the House. Perhaps I may deal with some of those details as we reach them.
  Before I do that, I compliment my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken with knowledge and expertise. In that regard, I mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow), my hon. Friends the Members for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle), for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth), my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) and for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), whose compliments I particularly appreciated, and my hon. Friends the Members for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Erewash (Mrs. Knight). I am grateful for the contributions that they made and the way in which they made them, as I am for the contributions made by Opposition Members. I will try to address the concerns that have been raised pretty much in the order that they were raised.
  The definition of "sustainable development" was raised. The concept of sustainable development goes much wider than the concerns of the Bill and it continues to evolve as a result of discussions within the United Kingdom and internationally. Ministers must be able to take account of that continuing debate in the guidance that they intend to give under clause 4.
  Sustainable development involves reconciling the needs of achieving economic development and effective environmental protection. Regulators should not therefore be able to proceed without taking into account the likely costs and benefits of their actions wherever it is reasonable for them to do so. However, despite suggestions from Opposition Members, that will not be at the expense of environmental protection—[Interruption.]—or even environmental perfection.
  The provision as drafted requires the agencies to consider costs and benefits in the round, including environmental costs. It is drafted so as not to restrict that consideration either to only specified sorts of costs and benefits or to costs and benefits falling only on specified classes of organisations or people.
  It is set out clearly on the face of the Bill that costs include the cost to any person and cost to the environment. A great deal of work has already been done and continues to be done on the quantification of environmental costs and benefits, but I accept, as all hon. Members do, that not all costs and benefits can be quantified in financial terms. That is why the clause is not drafted so as to restrict consideration to those costs and benefits that can be quantified or to require the agencies to act only where they can demonstrate an excess of benefit over cost. The agencies must use their judgment, and the clause is intended to enable them to do so. By its nature, it requires judgment of the risks of the harm that might be done and of the reasonableness of the actions necessary to reduce or avoid that.

  117
  Mention was made of powers and duties. Clauses 7 and 30 are the two that are particularly relevant. Clause 7 represents an important extension to the agency's ability to take proper account of conservation in discharging its functions, which avoids the difficulties, ambiguities and inconsistencies that would otherwise arise.
  I have listened carefully to concerns that have been raised about that subject, but I believe, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends, that the duties that we have included in the Bill are the most appropriate ones for the agency, taking into account the breadth of the agency's function and responsibilities, the importance of ensuring that it is able to carry out all those functions, including its conservation duties, effectively, and the likely practical effect of those conservation duties. Clause 7 provides a specific duty on the agency to take account of conservation in exercising its functions under integrated pollution control, for example, and waste management licensing for the very first time.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking asked me about water discharge consents and the effect on the NRA. I do not believe that, in practice, the removal from the issuing of water discharge consents of a duty to further conservation represents a weakening. The existing duty under section 16 of the Water Resources Act 1991 is to further conservation so far as it is consistent with the purposes of any enactment relating to the functions of the NRA.
  Although the conservation considerations are therefore relevant to the issue of water discharge consents, they do not override all other considerations. The key purpose of establishing an environment agency is to encourage a more integrated approach to pollution control, which would be incompatible with placing its water pollution control functions under a different conservation duty from its other pollution control functions.
  The provisions will give the agency all the powers that it needs to protect the interests of nature conservation, and in certain respects it might be able to go further than would have been possible had that water discharge function continued to be subject to a provision along the lines of section 16 of the Water Resources Act. I believe that the Bill will be at least as effective as the current duty in the context of the agency's pollution control functions.
  Sir Cranley Onslow: Are members of Friends of the Earth wrong in their fear that the recent decision in the House of Lords on a legal case has created a situation in which anything that is not specifically prohibited under a discharge consent can be discharged with impunity?
  Mr. Atkins: Our understanding is that the recent case to which my right hon. Friend refers did not change the law, although the NRA may previously have adopted a different interpretation of the relevant provisions. The issue arises from the way in which consents have been drafted. There is always a difficult balance between the legitimate interests of the regulator to prevent polluting discharges and the proper concern of those subject to regulation to have certainty over their ability to discharge. In recent years, there have been extensive discussions between my Department, the NRA and the water industry on that balance. Following concerns expressed by my noble Friend in their Lordships' House, we have been in discussions with the NRA about whether the current balance needs to be corrected and, if so, how that could best be achieved.
  118
  I now refer to contaminated land, in particular in relation to abandoned mines. The new requirement, which has been mentioned by hon. Members, for mine operators to give the agency at least six months' notice of their intention to abandon a mine will allow steps to be taken to prevent minewater pollution in future. For mines abandoned after the end of 1999, the Bill removes, for the owner or operator of a mine, statutory protections in cases where polluted water is permitted to flow from an abandoned mine. That will enable the agency to regulate those discharges.
  The removal of the statutory protections for mines abandoned after the end of 1999 is a significant amendment to existing legislation. We sought to strike a balance between strengthening the additional controls and taking account of the additional liabilities that that would create.
  I should like to reiterate for the benefit of the House what my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde said during the debate on the Coal Industry Bill on 26 April 1994. There are many comments relating, for example, to Durham in column 541, but specifically in column 542 he says:
  "I can assure the Committee"—
  as it then was, of the whole House—
  "that it will in due course have a specific budget"—
  that is, the Coal Authority—
  "earmarked for these purposes—
  that is, of dealing with serious pollution—
  "and that this will enable it to carry forward in full the role and activities of British Coal in this area"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 April 1994; Vol. 554, c. 542.]
  That seems to be pretty specific.
  I now turn to contaminated land. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West raised the particular problems of owner liability. We have acknowledged in contaminated land considerations that the new provisions extend the potential liabilities of landowner in cases of water pollution resulting from the migration of contaminants. We intend to table an amendment to restore the status quo.
  It is the Government's intention to improve market confidence and certainty. We therefore looked closely at the test of "knowingly permitting", and we do not accept some of the wider constructions being placed on those words. We have agreed to consider the provisions by which liability might pass from the original polluter to the owner or occupier of the land. The intention is to ensure that contractual arrangements to transfer liability are respected. The onus of proof that liability has been transferred should rest with the polluter.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the problems of those such as Lloyd's or those involved in insurance to any depth about the super-fund or the so-called "deep pockets" argument in the United States. We are conscious of that. I have had consultations with those in the insurance and banking industries among others, to hear what they have to say and have taken action accordingly.
  As my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate, the provisions are based on the "suitable for use" approach which removes real environmental hazards without imposing unnecessary regulation or costs. That should provide greater legal clarity on what might be required and who might have to pay, but this is clearly a matter which will be discussed at length in Committee.

  119
  I now turn to the national parks. I missed the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, but I know what he was going to say, as he has said it before and others have said the same about the definition of quiet enjoyment.
  I know there is much interest in the second national park purpose as amended, to one of promoting opportunity for the quiet enjoyment and the understanding of the special qualities of the park by the public. Much has been said about quite enjoyment today. As a former Minister responsible for sport, and having seen for myself the RAC Lombard rally going through forests and other areas, I know how important the definition of quiet enjoyment is. It does not apply just to motor sport, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) said, but to legitimate sports such as shooting, cyclo-cross and other activities which could be misconstrued if quiet enjoyment is not defined as carefully as he and I and other colleagues believe to be the case.
  The parks are living, working landscapes and we intend to ensure that the second national park purpose cannot be used to justify restrictions on activities which are legitimate and in keeping with the traditions of the parks.
  I have listened to what has been said today and we intend to give very careful consideration to the wording of the second national park purpose and to table amendments in Committee that will clarify the issue.
  I should like to say a brief word about the membership of national parks authorities. I am extremely sympathetic to those hon. Members who have talked about their concerns about the representation of national parks. That will also be discussed in Committee and I hope to be as helpful as I possibly can to the concerns raised.
  Finally, in the context of the matters dealt with today I should like to turn to hedgerows, particularly in the context of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East, who made an excellent speech on the back of his particular knowledge of hedgerows and other considerations which, as he said, honour a long-standing commitment to bring forward measures to protect such hedgerows. We are mindful of the need to strike a balance between the demands of conservation and the burdens of regulation, so we aim to introduce a scheme which is fair, reasonable and practical and which focuses protection on the most important hedges for which replanting is no substitute.
  I have tried to deal as briefly as possible with a number of issues that have been raised today. Undoubtedly, they will form part of the debate in Committee. I consider the Bill to be an important piece of legislation on a most important subject.
  The Bill is wide-ranging, but with a common theme. Put simply, all the measures will help protect and maintain the environment as we are committed to doing. It gives expression to the Government's commitment to sustainable development and the new environment agencies will be leaders in the field of environment protection in Britain. The other measures in the Bill provide a number of important steps along that path.
  I have no doubt that we will have some lively discussions on the subjects contained in the Bill and I hope that they will be productive and positive and we will end up as everyone in the House would wish, with an excellent piece of environmental legislation. Judging from today's debate
  120
  and the context in which remarks have been made, we are not far away from that now. I believe that the Bill deserves to be warmly welcomed, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

ENVIRONMENT BILL [Lords] [Money]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December],
That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Environment Bill [Lords] it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the payment out of the National Loans Fund or out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by a Minister of the Crown for making loans under or by virtue of the Act to the Environment Agency or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency;
(2) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any sums required by a Minister of the Crown—

(i) for making grants under or by virtue of the Act;

(ii) for fulfilling guarantees given under or by virtue of the Act;

(b) any administrative expenses of a Minister of the Crown which are attributable to the Act;

(c) any other expenditure of a Minister of the Crown which is attributable to the Act;

(d) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other enactment out of money so provided;

(3) any payment out of the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund resulting from increases attributable to the Act in the sums which are payable out of that Fund under any other enactment.
In this Resolution, "Minister of the Crown" has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975.—[Mr. Willetts.]
Question agreed to.

ENVIRONMENT BILL [Lords] [Ways and Means]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December],
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Environment Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the imposition of charges in connection with any environmental licences, as defined in that Act, or any other licences, approvals, authorisations, consents or other permissions or registrations required by or under that Act or any Act amended by that Act; and

(b) the payment of sums into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr.Willetts.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(a) (European Standing Committees),
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  INOPERABILITY OF HIGH SPEED TRAINS
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6495/94, relating to the interoperability of the European high speed train network, and endorses the Government's approach to negotiations on the proposal in the Council.
  PROTECTION OF THE COMMUNITY'S FINANCIAL INTERESTS
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8076/94, relating to the protection of the Community's financial interests; and supports the Government's efforts to fight fraud and maintain European Community budget discipline.—[Mr. Willetts.]

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (AMENDMENT) BILL [Money]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred under provisions of the Act about payments in consequence of suspension, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Willetts.]

Question agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Mr. James Couchman be added to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee on Selection.]

SOCIAL SECURITY
Ordered,
That Mr. Peter Thurnham be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Mr. Robert G. Hughes be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee on Selection.]

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Mrs. Jacqui Lait be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Mr. Terry Dicks be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Social Services (Leicester)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Willetts.]
10 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: Almost six years ago, I was fortunate enough to secure a debate during the summer Adjournment proceedings, in which I first raised my concerns about the crisis of underfunding and understaffing in the occupational therapy service in Leicestershire. I had high hopes that, because we had secured parliamentary time in the debate on 28 July 1989, the human misery and anxiety to which I referred during the debate would be time-limited, and that a combination of Government action and local authority efficiency would mean that I would not have to do so again.
Sadly, I must report to the House that—six years on—the situation appears not to have changed, and may have got worse. I am glad to have the opportunity of raising this important matter in the House.
I and others have been outraged by the treatment by Leicestershire social services of Alice Hawse. Those who are entrusted by a local authority with the overall responsibility for the care and support of people such as Alice Hawse should be ashamed of themselves that it has taken a parliamentary debate to ensure that they act to alleviate her suffering and distress.
In the world of today, those in public service must deal with a multiplicity of competing priorities. It is, of course, an unenviable task, but no sane or compassionate person who takes public service seriously would, in my view, have any problem in identifying the plight of Alice Hawse as a priority. She is an 83–year-old widow who lives in Braybrook road, West Humberstone, Leicester, on the Northfields estate. She has lived in that house for 60 years, during which time she has seen all of her seven children grow up there. She is elderly and infirm. She suffers from a complaint called restrictive air passages, which means that she has difficulty in breathing when she has to exert herself. In addition, she is registered as partially sighted and, in recent years, she has broken a hip as a result of a domestic fall. Those conditions add to her general disability and render her unable to carry out daily functions which all of us take for granted, such as bathing.
Like other pensioners, Mrs. Hawse relies on the help given to her by her family. It is for those reasons that, three years ago, her daughter and son-in-law left their own home to live with her to look after her. Because of her poor state of health, Mrs. Hawse finds it impossible to lift herself in and out of the bath. Her daughter has to help her bathe, and has lifted Mrs. Hawse in and out of the bath for several years. As a result, her daughter has a serious back complaint, and now finds the process extremely painful.
In May 1992, Mrs. Hawse applied to the social services for the installation of a walk-in shower, as she felt then—as she does now—that that was the most effective way of dealing with the situation. Once the shower was installed, she would be able to bathe alone and in comfort. That was three years ago, and she is still waiting.
In April 1994, I was visited at my weekly surgery by Mr. and Mrs. Bennett, Mrs. Hawse's daughter, and her son-in-law. They informed me that, after they had

123
contacted social services, there had been no effective response to their plea for help. I wrote to the social services department.
Mr. Steve Goodman, the divisional manager for Leicester city east, wrote to me on 29 April 1994. He said:
"it is unacceptable to me that service users are waiting so long for assessments. A range of measures are being taken to reduce the waiting times and I hope that service users will see the benefit in the near future."
On the face of it, that was an admirable response.
Almost a year later, Mr. and Mrs. Bennett called again at my surgery. They said that social services had visited them four times and spoken to the family, but that nothing had been done. I regard that inaction as bureaucratic complacency of the worst kind.
I went to see Mrs. Hawse on Sunday 26 March. I looked at her bathroom, and she described to me the steps that had been taken. She told me that social services had offered her a hoist to hoist her into the bath. Any sensible person, on viewing the situation in which she found herself and the size of the landing and the bathroom, would know that that was not only the wrong option, but the expensive option. It was also impractical.
There is a much better solution. It is to create a walk-in shower on the ground floor, in a space that is readily identifiable. That would save Mrs. Hawse from having to climb the very steep stairs every time she wanted to bathe.
When the House last debated this matter, concern was expressed by both myself and the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) about the national and local rate of vacancies in the occupational therapy service. Perhaps that is at the root of the problem.
Nationally, 15 per cent. of occupational therapy posts are currently unfilled. The vacancy rate in Leicestershire for full-time occupational therapists is 32 per cent. There are 17 full-time posts with eight full-time vacancies. The vacancy rate for part-time therapists is 15 per cent. There are 17 in post, with three vacancies. Assuming that two part-timers equal one full-timer, the vacancy rate of full-time equivalents is 27 per cent. That is a large figure.
Nationally, 3,343,000 referrals are made each year to social services. Just over one fifth—679,000—are for occupational therapy services. The Minister was present at a meeting to discuss the results of a survey conducted by the Association of Directors of Social Services. Following the meeting, Councillor Clive Jordan from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities said:
"We are running to keep still and even then we aren't getting there. We told the Minister we needed a concerted effort by central and local government including an investment strategy with the NHS and the Department of the Environment …Mr. Bowis seemed to be sympathetic."
We shall hear tonight how sympathetic he really is, but we shall need from the Minister more than sympathy.
Mrs. Hawse is not alone in her difficult situation. Following an article in the Leicester Mercury highlighting Mrs. Hawse's case, several other Leicestershire residents came forward. I commend the Leicester Mercury for the sensitive and forthright way in which it has handled the matter.
124
I shall give just a few examples of the elderly people who have come forward. Olive Hutchins, aged 72, of Longstone Green, Thurnby lodge in Leicester, one of my constituents, says:
"Social services gave me a bath seat. I don't want to seem ungrateful but I know I could slip. I am frightened of falling and breaking my neck. I am housebound because of a spinal problem and am registered disabled. At the moment I cope by standing up and washing myself down because the bath is too low and actually so is the toilet. But I was turned down for a shower because they said I was not entitled to one."
Mrs. Kathleen Perkins, aged 72, said:
"I wanted a special shower. I was given a stair lift to help me to the bathroom but no help once I was in there…I can't use the bath. I use a bucket to wash from and have trouble carrying the water from the bathroom to the bedroom."
Mrs. Neale, aged 77, who is registered disabled and partially sighted, said:
"I bought my own electric shower after the social services turned me down for one two years ago. But it still means I need to climb in and out of the bath which I am unable to do.
My daughter used to help me but she cannot now because she has a bad back. I have got a bath seat, but once I'm in, it is difficult to get out.
We desperately need elderly people with experience and knowledge of our difficulties to advise social services staff."
Mrs. Maureen Martins of Leicester, the grandmother of 10-year-old Simone McCollin, said:
"I look after my granddaughter who is physically and mentally disabled. At the moment I have to lift her into the bath but it isn't doing me any good and is getting more difficult as I grow older.
I was told a year ago that my bathroom would be changed to a walk-in shower. I rang my housing association in January and they said they were waiting for a response from social services."
The son of an 80-year-old woman contacted the paper, and said:
"My mother applied for a shower two years ago and she is still waiting. She has arthritis in her legs and arms and cannot use the bath. She needs to be given a strip bath. I know how Mrs. Hawse feels. The elderly cannot be swept under the carpet."
There is the case of young Valerie Wrighton, who is only seven years old. Her parents have been waiting two years—almost a third of her life—for adaptations to their home. Valerie suffers from cerebral palsy and desperately needs the adaptations. Mrs. Wrighton originally contacted social services in August 1993—19 months ago. She was finally seen in October 1994. The excuse was that the papers had been lost. I wrote about the long delay in the case on 2 March, and she was visited on 13 March 1995.
Why should council tax payers be treated in that appalling way? Why should citizens with disabilities have to continue to endure discomfort on such a scale? Why has the benchmark for what constitutes a civilised society—our civilised society—been moved so callously? Those who run Leicestershire social services department need to take a long hard look at the situation.
I understand that their response is that they have thousands of satisfied customers, and these are only a very small number of cases, but I raise an important point of principle in the House today. Of course the director, Brian Waller, and his team can be proud of the pioneering work they have done in a number of areas, such as the creation of the first child rights officer, but there is huge scope for improvement in this area. There needs to be firm action.

125
These horrendous delays must be put to a speedy end. If they are not resolved within four weeks of this debate to the satisfaction of those concerned, I shall refer the matter to the ombudsman, and I will apply again and again for a debate until the matter is resolved.
Earlier today, a journalist asked me why I was using parliamentary time to discuss a very minor issue—his words, not mine—when the House must have other issues of much more earth-shattering importance to discuss. I told him, as I have told the House, that hon. Members are here to represent their constituents. When the day comes that this House is too busy to discuss the plight and injustices suffered by someone like Alice Hawse, we forfeit our right to be here, and Parliament forfeits its right to be the forum of the nation.
10.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) for initiating this debate. He asked for a sympathetic reply, so I shall do my best to be sympathetic to him and his constituents. He referred to a number of constituents, but, as the debate is on the case of Mrs. Alice Hawse, he will understand if I concentrate on her. He will no doubt wish to raise the other cases on other occasions if, as he said, he is not wholly satisfied with progress on those, too.
The debate enables me to restate some of the objectives of our community care policy, and to illustrate how it should work in practice.
The primary aim of community care is to ensure that vulnerable people, including those with disabilities, receive the type of care most appropriate to their needs. For some people, residential care will be the positive choice. Others will wish to remain in their own homes within the community. Under the new arrangements, they should be able to receive the support services that they need to make that a reality.
Our departmental guidance to local authorities makes it clear that we expect them to work alongside and consult clients and their carers in needs assessment. It is a matter for local authorities to meet needs according to local eligibility and priority criteria, and within available resources.
This debate highlights a case in which the social services department attempted to solve the problems of a client to fulfil their duty to meet assessed needs. The case highlights the key role of occupational therapists in the delivery of community care. A recent social services inspectorate report illustrated the need to bring down waiting times for assessments, including for aids and equipment, and they are coming down. That is evidence of the high priority that we give to ensuring that those vital services are available promptly.
In Leicestershire, occupational therapists have been regraded on to pay scales equivalent to social work colleagues, which has improved both recruitment and morale. The authority has also introduced improved management systems, achieving a more appropriate mix between qualified and support staff. Other strategies include improving partnerships with the voluntary sector and establishing more effective joint working practices with the NHS.
However, we acknowledge that improved working methods and management are not the only answer. As a result of our discussions with the local authority
126
associations, a survey on recruitment and retention of occupational therapists is under way. That will form a basis for further consideration with local authority and NHS interests. Our objective is to secure sufficient numbers of occupational therapists to meet the needs of all employers, including local authorities.
Leicestershire social services department has improved its staffing levels to 35 whole-time equivalent trained occupational therapists and 14 occupational therapy assistants. Recruitment within the authority is now good, and at April 1994, only two out of four divisions had vacancies, amounting to 1.5 whole-time equivalent occupational therapists and a half-time assistant.
The social services committee has established its own service standard for response times to referrals for assessment or occupational therapy services, which establishes a four-week response to priority cases where quick or less urgent attention is needed. Cases requiring immediate attention should be responded to within one week of the original request for assistance.
My inquiries into the specific case of Mrs. Alice Hawse, an 83-year-old lady who lives with her family, show clearly that Leicestershire county council has attempted to meet her needs in a variety of ways over a three-year period. I understand that Mrs. Hawse has not waited three years for a shower to be installed, as was suggested in the early-day motion. It is three years since she was first referred to Leicestershire social services department.
In the intervening period, the social services department provided bathing aids and an electric bath lifter. We all agree that, when re-referred in 1993, Mrs. Hawse had to wait an unacceptably long time—nine months—before being visited. That was due to occupational therapy staffing difficulties in the Leicester east division at that time, which have since been put right.
Despite the provision that has been made, Mrs. Hawse's family continue to press for the installation of a shower. In the light of that, further consideration is being given to such an installation as a possible further alternative way of meeting her needs.
As I have outlined, the authority has taken a series of positive measures that have been successful in improving the level and quality of service to all its clients. The community care reforms were designed to promote user choice, independence, and the ability, where possible, for people to remain at home or in their local community. To meet those objectives, it was—and remains—important to secure the most responsive and cost-effective range of services.
There is, of course, no central blueprint as to how each local authority should achieve that. Social services departments need to focus on the needs of their populations and to tailor the services they provide to those needs, and to offer the widest possible choice.
Mr. Vaz: When the Minister went through the circumstances of Mrs. Hawse' case, he stated that there was a delay of nine months between the time her case was referred and the first visit. Does he not accept that that was an unreasonable and unacceptable length of time? Does he not feel that it is incumbent upon him, as the

127
Minister, to give guidance to the social services department, so that such delay is not experienced in the future cases?
Mr. Bowis: I believe that I said that I thought that that delay was unacceptably long, and that, through the social services inspectorate, we have issued guidance on that matter. As I said, we want waiting times for occupational therapy and other services reduced.
There have been some significant shifts nationally in understanding and attitudes on the part of local authorities since the outset of the community care reforms. Social services departments are now actively encouraging real and informed choice in social care. Every locality is looking for a different range and pattern of services. Each authority must decide how to work with users and providers of services to provide that better balance and choice.
The key change that happened two years ago was the transfer of responsibility from the Department of Social Security to local authorities for those who were entering residential or nursing home care. That was no simple technical adjustment. By bringing together, under the aegis of social services authorities, the arranging and financing of community care, a massive potential for better and more innovative ways of doing things was released.
We shall encourage local authorities, with social services in the lead, to produce local community care charters by 1 April 1996. We think that the public has a right to know what community care services are available locally, and the standards of performance and delivery to which the relevant agencies are committed. Most authorities already set standards for occupational therapy assessment waiting times.
I said that Leicestershire has done that. The question is whether it meets its own standards and whether it should keep the pressure on to improve those standards in the future. No doubt local charters will build on that, which will improve local accountability and help guide people through the range of services and providers.
Mr. Vaz: On the issue of charters and the Government's commitment to the choice of individuals in respect to the type of services that they are entitled to expect, one of the key features of the case is that Mrs. Hawse and her family have stated continuously that they believe that a shower is the best solution to the problem. Social services keep on insisting, however, that a hoist to get Mrs. Hawse into the bath is the best solution.
The Minister has not seen the bathroom, but will he take it from me that social services' suggestion was not a practical solution to the problem? In such cases, social
128
services should listen carefully to the needs of the consumers. After all, they pay for the service, and their views must be taken into consideration.
Mr. Bowis: Short of a site visit, which I am not sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could authorise at this late hour, I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's description of the bathroom. I think that the hon. Gentleman's arguments are fair when he says that social services should listen to the individual and the individual's family. That is what community care is all about—placing the individual at the centre of decision making about ways to meet needs.
In the specific case, the circumstances of that family have changed, with the other members of the family moving in to live with Mrs. Hawse. That had an impact on the type. of need that existed and the way in which one might meet that need. Initially, the bathing solutions might have been acceptable—and indeed were, I understand, acceptable—to Mrs. Hawse, but once the family were there as well, the matter needed to be reconsidered, and that, happily, is what is happening.
Community care has the potential to bring significant benefits to a large number of people who are elderly, frail or vulnerable. The essence of community care is attitudinal and cultural change among all the key players—not only social services and health and housing authorities but private sector providers, the voluntary sector, users, carers and a wide range of other interests.
It means being responsive—the hon. Gentleman is right to use that term—to individuals who have needs, and, indeed, who have their own opinions on the way in which those needs might best be met to suit them. It means creative and innovative thinking being brought to bear to collaborate on solving problems and enhancing quality of life.
The case of Mrs. Hawse illustrates very well the wider responsibilities of the local authorities to meet the needs of elderly people living at home but in a home occupied by other members of the family. It obviously demonstrates the needs for sensitivity in responding to the needs and wishes of clients and carers and in providing appropriate packages of care.
Mrs. Hawse and her family have, I understand, already been visited at home by the area director of Leicestershire social services, and an appointment has been made for an occupational therapist to visit on 20 April 1995—two days away—to discuss the suitability of a shower. Social services appear to be taking appropriate action, therefore, to ensure that any outstanding matters in Mrs. Hawse's case are now speedily resolved. I have no doubt—indeed, we have had due warning this evening—that the hon. Gentleman will keep his beady eye on them to ensure that that does happen.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  EU Institutions (Visits)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what steps he is taking to encourage hon. Members to take up their annual entitlement to visit EU institutions; and if he will consider organising such visits.

  Mr. Newton
  Hon. Members were made aware of the administrative arrangements covering this facility in December 1991. Members elected since then have had the facility drawn to their attention. I do not have any plans to organise such visits.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the number of hon. Members who have used their entitlement to a visit to the EU institutions in each of the financial years since the scheme was instituted.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is as follows:

  (i) 31 Members in the period 1 January 1992 to 31 March 1992.

  (ii) 88 Members in the year ended 31 March 1993.

  (iii) 75 Members in the year ended 31 March 1994.

  (iv) 68 Members in the year ended 31 March 1995.

  Senior Salaries Review Body
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 4 April,Official Report, columns 986–87, on what date the letter to which he refers was sent to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe; and whether his letter of 23 March to the Government Actuary Department indicated the Government's response to the SSRB's current recommendations other than their proposed increase in the death-in-service benefit.

  Mr. Newton
  The letter to the right hon. Member was sent on 4 April. The letter of 23 March indicated the Government's response to the two SSRB recommendations relating to benefit improvements. This was to allow the necessary considerations to be given to the Exchequer contribution level in the Actuary's valuation report.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if it is the practice for an official in his Department to reply to letters from hon. Members. [18675]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is the practice for either the Lord Chancellor or me to reply substantively to all correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members, save 2
  where the correspondence concerns a specific operational matter within the responsibilities of an agency, in which case the relevant chief executive will reply. On occasions an official may write direct in advance of a substantive ministerial reply being sent. Typically this would happen in the following cases:
  —where further information is required from right hon. or hon. Member to assist with the preparation of a substantive reply; or
  —if the correspondence is being transferred to another Government Department or an agency; or
  —when it is anticipated that there will be a delay in a substantive reply.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what considerations led to the interval between his receipt of the letter of 21 February from the hon. Member for the South Hams, regarding John Halsey, and his reply of 30 March, with particular reference to the content of the answer. [19400]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is my normal practice to try to reply to all letters which I receive from hon. Members within one month, unless the letter raises a matter of particular urgency, in which case it is given priority. In this case the reply took a little longer than I would have liked, for which I apologise.

  Immigration
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what co-ordination has occurred between the Foreign Office and his Department over the appeal of Sukhwinder Kaur who was refused entry clearance in New Delhi by Imm ECRO 548/95/5; what is the normal practice in such cases where an appeal is lodged; how soon on average such appeals are heard by an adjudicator; and if he will make a statement. [18673]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is not the practice of my Department to approach the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about such appeals. Ms Sukhwinder Kaur's appeal was lodged in New Delhi in the normal way. Once the entry clearance officer's explanatory statement of the reasons for refusal has been completed, it will be sent to the immigration appellate authorities in London together with the notice of appeal. Upon receipt of these documents, the appellate authorities will send copies of them to the representatives of both parties in this country.

  At present, once the parties have indicated they are ready to proceed, the immigration appellate authorities are able to arrange a hearing, on average, within 17 weeks.

  Court Dress
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the usefulness of the wearing of wigs in court. [18713]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 12 April 1995:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION: THE USEFULNESS OF WEARING WIGS IN COURT
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department, has asked me to reply to your question about the usefulness of wearing wigs in court.

  3
  On 19 July 1994 a Practice Direction on court dress was issued by the Lord Chief Justice on behalf of the Lord Chancellor. The Direction arose because of the need to maintain consistency in the court dress worn by solicitors following the extensions to the rights of audience under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The Direction indicated that the current dress requirements for advocates appearing in the Supreme Court and the county courts continued to apply. This meant that while Queens Counsel and junior counsel could wear a short wig in court, solicitors could not.
  The Lord Chancellor recognised the need for further consultation on court dress before arriving at a long-term decision. In August 1994 views were therefore sought from organisations and individuals closely concerned with the working of the courts, on whether solicitors should be allowed to wear wigs in court. Comments were also invited from members of the public. Because there was no consensus among respondents, the Lord Chancellor concluded that the case for change was not made out. A Practice Direction was issued by the Lord Chancellor on 11 April 1995 to re-affirm the position on court dress as stated in the Practice Direction of 19 July 1994.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures his Department will be implementing to ensure that all future transfers of military, security and police equipment, including dual-use technologies, will comply with the European Parliament resolution passed on 19 January. [17780]

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology on 5 April,Official Report, column 1191.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report; [18445]

  (2) how many parliamentary questions to his Department in each year since 1979–80 requesting a priority written answer or answer on a named day, were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further five, 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18444]

  (3) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has written to a right hon. or hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question. [18446]

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is a matter of public record but it could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many parliamentary questions to his Department were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence; [18447]
  4
  (2) how many parliamentary questions to his Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence. [18448]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department has transferred no parliamentary questions to non-departmental public bodies since 1979–80.

  The number of written parliamentary questions referred to next steps agencies by this Department is as follows:

  Session 1992–93: 7

  Session 1993–94: 4

  Session 1994–95: 6

  Information for previous Sessions is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  It is normal practice to print answers from the heads of our agencies in the Official Report.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by his Department in each year since 1979–80; and how many such questions received a substantive answer within 10, 15, 20 days or longer. [18443]

  Mr. Baldry
  The number of written parliamentary questions for ordinary answer received by the Department, excluding the Overseas Development Administration, are as follows:

  Session 1991–92: 223

  Session 1992–93: 1,461

  Session 1993–94: 1,054

  Current session to date—587

  The figures for the Overseas Development Administration are as follows:

  Session 1990–91: 256

  Session 1991–92: 197

  Session 1992–93: 685

  Session 1993–94: 799

  Current session to date—305

  It is not possible to identify those questions that received an answer within a given time period without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Refugee Status (Application)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are being made for applications from people residing in Iran for family reunion with relatives granted refugee status in Britain to be processed without requiring applicants to travel to another country to make the application. [18779]

  Mr. Baldry
  The embassy in Tehran cannot normally handle such applications because the number of UK-based staff there is limited. However the embassy does have discretion to consider applications in exceptionally compassionate circumstances.

  Iraq
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information has been received from Mr. Rolf Ekeus of the Special UN
  5
  Committee for the Destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction on the amount of materials for biological weapons supplied to Iraq by western companies; and which were these companies. [18909]

  Mr. David Davis
  The UN Special Commission makes information available in a regular series of reports to the Security Council. The last of these were published on 10 April and commented on iraq's past biological weapons programme. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  It is not our practice to comment in detail on information given to us by UNSCOM on companies which have trade with Iraq. Any information about potential offences will be investigated and, if substantiated, will be a matter for the courts.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the ceasefire in Sudan brokered by President Carter and about the intended next steps. [18873]

  Mr. David Davis
  We welcome the announcement of a two month ceasefire in the conflict in southern Sudan to which the Government of Sudan, the Sudanese People's Liberation Army and the South Sudan Independence Movement have agreed. We hope that the ceasefire will give new impetus to the peace initiative sponsored by four east African states, which we fully support.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development has now referred the issue of peace in Sudan to the UN Security Council; and what proposals he has to increase pressure on all participants in the Sudanese civil war to find a peaceful solution. [18910]

  Mr. David Davis
  The peace initiative of the Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development is continuing and the issue has not been referred to the Security Council. We shall continue to urge all participants in the civil war in Sudan to find a peaceful solution and have decided to participate in the recently founded Friends of IGADD, which will consider ways to support this initiative.

  Immigration
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what co-ordination has occurred between the Lord Chancellor's Department and his own over the appeal of Sukhwinder Kaur who was refused entry clearance in New Delhi by Imm ECRO 548/94/5; and if he will make a statement. [18674]

  Mr. Baldry
  None. Mrs. Kaur's appeal has been received in New Delhi and the entry clearance officers explanatory statement is now being prepared. This will be forwarded as soon as possible to the immigration appellate authority which falls under the aegis of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Colonel Oliver North
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what meetings his 6
  officials had with Colonel Oliver North between 12 November and 19 November 1984; [18955]

  (2) for what reasons Andrew Green of his Department met Colonel Oliver North on 24 July 1984 to discuss hostage rescue missions; [18954]

  (3) for what reasons Mr. Derek Thomas of his Department met Colonel Oliver North in April 1984 in relation to anti-terrorist and hostage rescue activities in the middle east; [18962]

  (4) for what reasons on 10 May 1984 Mr. Andrew Green of his Department and the British embassy in Washington met Colonel Oliver North to discuss Monzer El Kassar; [18953]

  (5) why Mr. Andrew Green of his Department on 10 May 1984 discussed with Colonel North the role of the British Parliament in the hostage situation. [18961]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the mid-1980s members of the British embassy in Washington kept in close touch with the US Administration, including the National Security Council, on matters concerning hostages and on terrorism more generally. This was, and remains, a normal part of the embassy's work.

  Yousef Haidar
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions he has had with United States officials about the pictures taken of President Bush in Damascus in the possession of Yousef Haidar; [18959]

  (2) what discussions he has had with United States officials of a visit by Yousef Haidar to the United States. [18958]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings his officials had with Yousef Haidar in Beirut. [18960]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are aware of no such meetings.

  Iran
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it was with his authority that Monzer E1 Kassar was authorised in June 1984 to ship arms to Iran. [18952]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Vice-President Bush
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with Untied States officials about the visits to Damascus in 1986 by Vice-President Bush. [18956]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have had no such discussions. Mr. Bush did not visit Damascus in 1986. British and US officials have regular discussions about the situation in the middle east.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussion he had with
  7
  Lily Boustanny about Vice-President Bush's plans to visit Syria in 1988 to arrange a hostage release. [18957]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the practice for an official in his Department to reply to letters from hon. Members. [18672]

  Mr. Baldry
  All correspondence to Ministers from hon. Members receive substantive replies from Ministers with the exception of the correspondence unit of migration and visa department of the FCO and the head of Wilton Park, an agency, who have authority to reply to hon. Members directly.

  The exception for the correspondence unit of migration and visa department was reaffirmed by the then Under-Secretary of State in his letter to hon. Members dated 10 October 1991. A copy of this letter was placed in the Library of the House.

  Wilton Park
  Mr. Mackinley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of Wilton Parks activities is devoted to conferences organised for private sector customers; and what proportion is devoted to conferences for or on behalf of the new democracies of central and eastern Europe. [18677]

  Mr. Goodlad
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to Wilton Park under its chief executive, Richard Langhorne. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from R.T.B. Langhorne to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay dated 10 April 1995:
  I have been asked to respond to your questions about Wilton Park.
  Wilton Park does not itself organise conferences for private sector customers, though it does from time to time cooperate with other organisations, such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, where there is a joint interest in a particular topic. During the periods when Wiston House, which is the home of Wilton Park, is not being used for Wilton Park meetings, it can be used as a host venue for private sector customers for training courses and other functions. In the year 1994–95, the proportion of income was 62.4 per cent. from Wilton Park activities and 37.6 per cent. from commercial operations.
  No Wilton Park conferences are directly organised on behalf of foreign governments, but Wilton Park has recently much increased its coverage of issues related to Eastern and Central Europe. In 1994–95, six conferences out of 32 were devoted to such issues and they are listed below. In addition there were Eastern European speakers and participation in 21 of the conferences during the same period. At the invitation of the Polish government, a special and outstandingly successful Wilton Park conference was held in Warsaw in September 1994.

  412: Economic reform and privatisation in Central and Eastern Europe.

  415: Europe's Balkan Wars

  419: Nordic and Baltic Security

  424: Russian Security Dilemmas

  430: Civil society in Central and Eastern Europe

  Warsaw Special: The EU and Central Europe: from Association to Membership
  8
  Later on this year, we will be covering: candidates for membership of the EU; Russian foreign policy in post-communist Europe; Longer-term stability in the Balkans; and the future of Ukraine.
  If you need any further information, please let me know, and I will do my best to provide it.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many rules and regulations he repealed in the first three months of 1995; and how many new rules and regulations were introduced in that period by way of statutory instruments, motions or orders. [19361]

  Mr. Goodlad
  No rules or regulations were repealed or introduced during that period.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requirements there are for officials in his Department to introduce a compliance cost assessment for all rules and regulations coming before him and his Ministers; and how many compliance cost assessments have been issued in his Department in the first three months of this year. [19347]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office issues very few rules and regulations. There are therefore no plans to introduce a compliance cost assessment; accordingly, none have been issued this year.

  Mr. Zia Rahman Farooqi
  Mr. John Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 27 March,Official Report, column 444, and his answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) of 16 March, Official Report, column 657, if he will list the dates on which Ministers considered the entry visa for Mr. Zia Rahman Farooqi; if he will list the written submissions Ministers in his Department received on this subject; and if he will place such submissions in the Library. [19237]

  Mr. Baldry
  As I said in the answer given on 16 March, there was no ministerial involvement in the issue of a visa to Mr. Farooqi.

  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the Ministers and civil servants who will attend the conference on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, in New York from 17 April; and if he will give the dates or periods of time Ministers and civil servants will be in attendance. [19318]

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the conference from 18 to 19 April. I will attend the latter part of the conference if a ministerial presence is necessary at the end of the negotiations. Up to 26 officials from different Departments will attend the conference at various times. The official delegation will be led by Sir Michael Weston, UK permanent representative to the conference on disarmament, Geneva.

  BIOMED 2 Grant Applications
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has
  9
  made to the European Commission concerning the difficulties being experienced with the Directorate General XII in Brussels with regard to accessing English language proposal forms for BIOMED 2 grant applications; and if he will make a statement. [18880]

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have been asked to reply. The Office of Science and Technology is responsible for the oversight of the management of this programme.

  United Kingdom officials have on many occasions expressed concern to the Commission about the fact that too few English language forms are made available for applicants. Forms for the recent call for proposals ran out in mid-February. Additional forms were made available early March. My officials have again urged the Commission to make better estimates of demand in future.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Military Goods (Export)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade under which military list specification, as specified in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No. 3092, goods for export to(a) Egypt, (b) Gambia and (c) Germany were refused an export licence in 1993. [18284]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The goods in question were classified under ML4 in respect of Egypt, ML1 in respect of Gambia and ML11 in respect of Germany.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many civil servants since January 1988 have left the Export Credits Guarantee Department to join companies that have business contacts with the Department; and what was(a) the date on which each civil servant left the Department and (b) the company they went to work for. [19520]

  Mr. Needham
  Since January 1988, 11 civil servants have left the ECGD to join companies who have business contacts with the Department. In all cases they obtained the required prior approval under the civil service rules governing the acceptance of outside business appointments. The details are as follows:

  Date left

  Company

  29 January 1988

  Lazard Bros

  05 August 1988

  Bowring T. L. Dallas Ltd.

  31 January 1989

  Varity Corporation

  14 July 1989

  Banque Paribas

  11 August 1989

  Moscow Narodny Bank

  12 January 1990

  Trade Indemnity

  04 February 1990

  Alexander Stenhouse UK Ltd.

  31 August 1990

  J. Henry Schroder Wagg and Co Ltd.

  18 October 1991

  GEC

  05 January 1993

  GEC Alsthorn Ltd.

  24 February 1995

  Bank of America

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the expenditure from the Export Credits Guarantee Department in the current financial year due to non-payment by Iraqi authorities; and what proportion of these funds relates to exports of military-related equipment. [18116]

  Mr. Needham
  The ECGD paid £46 million in 1994–95 in respect of claims on business supported in Iraq. The ECGD's current exposure on Iraq is estimated at £652 million, of which £596 million relates to un-recovered claims payments. These figures are provisional pending publication of the ECGD's trading accounts.

  Over the period 1985–1990, the ECGD supported about £52 million for exports with potential defence applications. The ECGD's information systems, which reflect the Department's business needs, do not provide a sectoral analysis of claims payments. Extracting the data with reasonable accuracy would involve disproportionate expense.

  Ms Lestor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy that the Export Credits Guarantee Department will not be called on to provide additional export credits to Balfour Beatty and Cementation to cover increases in the cost of the Pergau dam. [18686]

  Mr. Needham
  No approach has been made to the ECGD to provide additional export credits for the Pergau dam project. Any such approach would be considered in the light of the circumstances involved and the ECGD's normal policies and practice.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who within his Department is to be authorised to have direct access to the police national computer; and what procedures are being established for ensuring that information gained from this source is handled correctly. [18115]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Direct access to police national computer information for security vetting purposes within the DTI will be confined to a small number of personnel within the DTI security section. Staff already handle information from the national identification service and similar levels of operational, technical and physical security will be applied to information obtained from the PNC. In addition, compliance audits will be undertaken by representatives of the police service and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the expenditure by his Department on preparations for the implementation of the chemical weapons convention by Her Majesty's Government in(a) the current financial year and (b) the financial year 1995–96; and from which subheads of which votes this expenditure is taken. [18117]

  Mr. Heseltine
  The provisional outturn of expenditure in 1994–95 by my Department in preparation for implementation of the chemical weapons convention is
  11
  £247,000. All such expenditure falls within class IV vote 1, subhead C1 of the estimates. For the current financial year, it is estimated that the corresponding expenditure could be up to £600,000 and will fall within class IV vote 1, subhead I1 of the estimates.

  Employee Ownership
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to ensure that employee ownership is preserved in companies formed as a result of management/employee buyouts; and if he will make a statement. [19138]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  This is a matter for individual companies. It is open to companies, for example, to include provisions in their articles of association having the effect of preserving employee ownership.

  Company Directors (Duties)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what legal provisions govern the duties of company directors as regards the reading of papers and minutes for board meetings. [18922]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The reading of papers and minutes for board meetings by a director would be an aspect of his or her conduct which could be taken into account by a court in determining whether the director had complied with the general duties of skill and care imposed on directors under the case law developed by the courts.

  EU Directives (Compliance)
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints against failure by Italian companies to comply with EU directives have been brought to the attention of his Departments single market compliance unit in the past two years. [18349]

  Mr. Needham
  The single market compliance unit took up no complaints in 1993 and 1994 against Italian companies for non-compliance with EU directives.

  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the effect on United Kingdom companies of the Italian Government's failure to enforce EU directives with particular reference to the IT sector. [18350]

  Mr. Needham
  My Department's single market compliance unit, which helps British companies overcome illegal barriers to trade in other countries of the EU, is not aware of any particular problem with the non-enforcement by Italy of EC directives covering the IT sector. If companies have any information which points towards such a problem, the SMCU would like to hear from them.

  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he takes to satisfy himself that EU directives are being enforced in(a) Italy and (b) Spain. [18351]

  Mr. Needham
  It is for the Commission and all member states to seek to ensure that Community law is properly enforced. Officials from my Department participate in the Internal Market Advisory Committee,12
  where the Commission chairs meetings of national single market co-ordinators with the tasks of ensuring transposition of legislation, dealing with specific complaints from member states, monitoring the system of co-operation between enforcement officials and exchanging the results of studies of the effectiveness of single market measures. Also in my Department, the single market compliance unit works to help British firms tackle illegal barriers to trade encountered in other member states.

  Cable Laying
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the cable companies which are laying(a) fibre optic and (b) copper cable to the kerb. [17808]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  All cable companies have hybrid optical fibre/copper cable networks. According to industry sources copper cable typically accounts for one in every 5km of cable laid and is mainly in the last drop to the home. In this, cable companies are similar to BT.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many hours per week he and each member of his ministerial team spend on deregulation issues. [19398]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  It would be difficult to estimate how many hours are spent on deregulation issues. Deregulation is a central objective of this Department and as such it is taken into account in all policy matters which are brought before Ministers. In addition, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I are responsible for managing the Governments deregulation initiative; I am also the Minister responsible for deregulation within the DTI.

  "Energy Paper 65"
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 13 March,Official Report, column 391, what factors underlie the difference between the figures provided in the answer and those in table 3.2 of "Energy Paper 65" regarding assumptions on gross domestic product growth. [19324]

  Mr. Eggar
  The growth rates in table 3.2 of Energy Paper 65 are long-run average growth rates, which take effect early in the next century and continue until the end of the projection period. The growth rate for the period to 2000, given in the answer of 13 March,Official Report, column 391, reflects the period of above-trend growth which is expected to follow the period of below-trend growth in the early 1990s.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assumptions are made concerning the proportion of vehicles fueled by diesel on the road in 2000, under the central forecasts for 2000 in "Energy Paper 65."

  Mr. Eggar
  In the "Energy Paper 65" central GDP growth scenarios the percentage of diesel powered vehicles on the road in 2000 is 20 per cent. for cars and 76 per cent. for light goods vehicles.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current balance of trade between the United Kingdom and(a) Italy, (b) Spain, (c) Germany and (d) France. [19092]

  Mr. Needham
  Information on United Kingdom visible trade is published by the Central Statistical Office in "The Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", available in the Library of the House.

  Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what benefits the European Union EMC directive 89/336/EEC will bring to United Kingdom industry and distribution. [17416]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Electromagnetic Compatibility directive harmonises relevant technical requirements throughout the European economic area, thus providing manufacturers with access to a very large market free from barriers created by national regulations. It will help to increase UK competitiveness in the international market place.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many parliamentary questions to his Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence; [18504]

  (2) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has written to a right hon. or hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question; [18502]

  (3) how many parliamentary questions to his Department in each year since 1979–80 requesting a priority written answer or answer on a named day, were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further five, 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18500]

  (4) how many parliamentary questions to his Department were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence; [18503]

  (5) how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by his Department in each year since 1979–80; and how many such questions received a substantive answer within 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18499]

  (6) how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report. [18501]

  Mr. Heseltine
  The information requested is a matter of public record but it could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Business Links
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to meet the criticisms contained in the internal audit report on business links development and funding published in January. [18107]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The report was an internal management document. It is not the Governments practice to comment on leaked documents.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Battle) by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 5 April 1995, Official Report, columns 1726–27.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the business links outlets so far established and the principal funders in each instance. [18108]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  75 business links are currently open in the areas shown.

  Funding in cash and in kind is provided by a number of partners including the local training and enterprise council, the local authority, the chamber of commerce, and local enterprise agencies, and my own Department.

  Barnsley

  Birmingham

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  Chester and Ellesmere Port

  Devon and Cornwall

  Doncaster

  Dorset

  Dudley

  Gloucestershire

  Hereford and Worcester

  Hertfordshire

  Isle of Wight

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Manchester

  Merseyside

  North and Mid-Cheshire

  Shropshire

  South Derbyshire

  South and East Cheshire

  Thames Valley

  Tyneside

  Walsall

  Sunderland

  Wigan

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people are now employed in business links outlets. [18109]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  business links are private companies and as such DTI does not keep this information.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what programme is currently envisaged for the expansion of business links. [18111]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Some 75 business links outlets are currently open and I have already approved plans for a further 146. By the end of May, over 100 business links should be operational and we are well on course towards our target of a national network of over 200 outlets, covering all parts of England, by the end of this year.

  Pergau Dam
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what approaches he has received from the Government of Malaysia following cost escalation on the Pergau dam project. [19689]

  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will outline the measures taken, facilities offered and adjustments made in his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to facilitate access for disabled people; what plans he has to improve access; and if he will make a statement. [18583]

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 5 April 1995]: The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation has carried out site surveys of the buildings my Department occupies in central London. We are acting on the recommendations, and encouraging chief executives of DTI agencies to take similar actions in their buildings where appropriate. We will continue to build on this approach.

  The Disability Discrimination Bill, which will apply to all Government Departments, contains new rights for disabled people in employment and creates a right of access to goods, facilities and services. It also establishes the National Disability Council to advise the Government on eliminating discrimination against disabled people.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will instruct the Child Support Agency (Northern Ireland) to advise all clients in writing that at least four working days should be allowed to ensure that payments arrive with the agency on the due date and that deduction from earnings orders should be withdrawn by the agency when the agency has failed to give proper instruction without requiring appeal through the magistrates courts.

  Mr. Moss
  When absent parents maintenance accounts are set up, they are advised of the amount payable, the due date and the method of payment. Where payments are to be made by paying-in slip through a bank or post office, clients are advised in writing that at least four working days should be allowed for payments to reach the agency.

  The circumstances in which a deduction from earnings order may be discharged are contained in the recently amended regulation 20 of the Child Support (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1992 and there is no provision for a deduction from earnings order to be discharged in the circumstances described.

  Tourist Board Grants
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the Northern Ireland tourist board defines as being within the Greater Belfast area for the purposes of deciding upon grant applications for new hotels.
  16
  Mr. Ancram
  The Northern Ireland tourist board currently defines the Greater Belfast area as the area within a 10-mile radius of Belfast city centre.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many grants or loans have been approved by the Northern Ireland tourist board for(a) new hotels, (b) extensions to existing hotels and (c) licensed guest inns in the Greater Belfast area in the first three months of 1995.

  Mr. Ancram
  In the first three months of 1995, no grants or loans were approved by the Northern Ireland tourist board for new hotels, extensions to existing hotels or licensed guest inns in the Greater Belfast area.

  Trade Missions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the occasions on which he and his ministerial colleagues have been on overseas trade missions in(a) 1992–93; (b) 1993–94; and (c) 1994–95: how many such visits are programmed for 1995–96; and if he will give the outturn, estimated or anticipated cost for each year.

  Mr. Ancram
  Ministers did not accompany any trade missions from Northern Ireland in 1992–93 or 1993–94.

  My noble Friend Baroness Denton accompanied three missions in 1994–95, and plans to accompany five missions in 1995–96.

  The cost in 1994–95 of ministerial involvement with trade missions amounted to £9,878.96.

  It is not possible at this stage to provide a precise figure of the expenditure likely to be incurred in 1995–96. A number of variable factors will influence the final outturn including the length of stay, location and transport costs.

  Educational Administration
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many responses he has received regarding proposed changes to further education in Northern Ireland; and of these, how many were in favour of change;

  (2) what plans he has to disband the South Eastern Education and Library Board;

  (3) when he plans to publish his policy document on education strategy for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Governments proposals for the future system of educational administration in Northern Ireland were published on 10 April. Copies are available in the Library and the consultation period on the proposals extends until 9 June 1995.

  Equine Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of cases of equine encephalomyelitis in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Warble Fly
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of cases of warble fly in(a) 1984, and (b)

  Mr. Ancram
  There were 17 cases in 1984 and none in 1994.

  Sinn Fein Manifestos
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will investigate the printing of Sinn Fein manifestos at the Belfast institute Brunswick site; what authorisation was given by the institute; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  I have been assured that the Belfast institute has not authorised the printing of manifestos for any political organisation and that, as far as it is possible to determine, no such material has been printed at the Brunswick street campus.

  Punishment Beatings
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) the total number of punishment beatings recorded since the start of the ceasefires, (b) the numbers attributable to the various paramilitary organisations and (c) the types of injury inflicted.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Between 1 September and 5 April, a total of 90 so-called punishment beatings took place of which 33 were attributed to Loyalist and 57 to Republican groups. Some 78 of these have taken place since 13 October 1994.

  The question of the type of injury suffered by the victims of these assaults is a medical one.

  Strangford-Portaferry Ferry Service
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much it cost to operate the Strangford to Portaferry service in each of the years from 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1995.

  Mr. Moss
  Expenditure on the operation of the Strangford ferry for the period in question has been as follows:

  £000

  Year

  1991–1992

  1992–1993

  1993–1994

  1994–19951

  Operational costs

  556

  650

  722

  688

  1 Provisional figure.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many visits were made by industrialists in connection with potential inward investment projects to each district council area in Northern Ireland from 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995 and of these how many were repeat visits.

  Mr. Ancram
  During the period 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995, 480 visits were made to Northern Ireland in connection with potential inward investment projects. Of this number, 315 were first time visits and 165 were repeat visits.

  A breakdown of the visits in terms of district council areas is set out in the table.
  18

  Annex A

  District council areas

  First visits

  Repeat visits

  Antrim

  32

  20

  Ards

  2

  3

  Armagh

  1

  —

  Ballymena

  10

  4

  Ballymoney

  5

  —

  Banbridge

  1

  1

  Belfast: IDB only

  120

  78

  Belfast: Making Belfast

  Work Areas

  Belfast: Others

  Carrickfergus

  12

  6

  Castlereagh

  2

  —

  Coleraine

  5

  3

  Cookstown

  3

  1

  Craigavon

  12

  5

  Derry

  16

  8

  Down

  7

  7

  Dungannon

  11

  6

  Fermanagh

  2

  1

  Larne

  7

  2

  Limavady

  3

  —

  Lisburn

  14

  10

  Magherafelt

  5

  —

  Moyle

  —

  —

  Newry/Mourne

  14

  4

  Newtownabbey

  19

  6

  North Down

  6

  —

  Omagh

  3

  —

  Strabane

  3

  —

  Total

  315

  165

  Roads (Expenditure)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the capital expenditure on major roads provision in each of the roads divisions from 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1995.

  Mr. Moss
  Expenditure on major roads schemes—that is, mainly those costing over £200,000—in each division of DOE roads service for the period in question, has been as follows:

  Expenditure in £000s

  Financial Year

  1993–94

  1994–951

  Bally Mena

  1,859

  1,564

  Belfast

  12,713

  11,281

  Coleraine

  1,623

  1,321

  Craigavon

  1,369

  4,248

  Downpatrick

  1,026

  558

  Omagh

  320

  827

  Total

  18,910

  19,799

  1 Provisional figures.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the capital expenditure on minor roads provision in each of the roads divisions from 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1995.

  Mr. Moss
  Expenditure on minor roads schemes—that is, mainly those costing less than £200,000—in each division of DOE roads service for the period in question, has been as follows:
  19

  Expenditure in £000s

  Financial year

  1993–94

  1994–951

  Bally Mena

  2,258

  2,373

  Belfast

  2,583

  2,814

  Coleraine

  2,663

  2,517

  Craigavon

  2,677

  2,722

  Downpatrick

  2,379

  2,314

  Omagh

  2,598

  2,448

  Total

  15,158

  15,188

  1 Provisional figures.

  Job Creation
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs have been created by the Local Enterprise Development Unit from 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995; and if he will list the location of these jobs.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on job creation by the Local Enterprise Development Unit client companies during 1994–95 is not yet available. It will be included in the Local Enterprise Development Unit's end of year results, which will be published in mid-May.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs were created by the Industrial Development Board from 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995; how many were the result of inward, investment contracts; and what are the location of these jobs.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on job creations is not available in the manner requested or by location. However, details of jobs promoted by the Industrial Development Board during the period 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995 are currently being collated and will be available after the publication of IDB's end of year statement in mid-May.

  Advisers
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many advisers his Department employs broken down to show(a) political advisers and (b) economic advisers; at what grade and salary they are employed; and what are their minimum working hours in each case.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office employ one political adviser at special adviser grade and one part-time economic adviser.

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special adviser's salary spine of 34 points ranging from £19,503 to £67,609, for 41 conditioned hours per week.

  The part-time economic adviser works at least one half-day per week and is paid £12,000 per annum.

  In addition, economic advice is obtained from career civil servants who may be employed on a variety of working patterns.

  Blood Transfusion Agency
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the contract was signed for the new blood transfusion building at Belfast City hospital; what was the contract period for completion; when the 20
  building will be ready for occupation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moss
  The contract for the construction of the headquarters of the Northern Ireland Blood Transfusion Agency at the Belfast City hospital site commenced on 15 March 1993.

  Practical completion of the project will be achieved on 15 April 1995 with phased occupancy commencing on 1 May 1995.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Service College
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil servants have attended courses on delegated pay at the Civil Service college in the last 12 months; and what information he has on the numbers who will attend courses in the period up to April 1996. [19220]

  Mr. Horam
  This question concerns operational matters and I have asked the chief executive of the Civil Service college to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from S.H.F. Hickey to Mrs. Ann Taylor dated 11 April 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to your question about courses on delegated pay at the Civil Service College (Ref PQ 19220).
  The College has run a number of courses and seminars which were wholly or mainly concerned with delegated pay. In the year to 31 March 1995, 329 civil servants attended these events and since then a further 40 have attended.
  We have a number of events already planned for the remainder of the year to 31 March 1996 and our current estimate is that these will attract 400 civil servants.

  Official Report
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the annual discounted prices to a school and to a library for the daily and weekly Official Reports. [19234]

  Mr. Horam
  The annual subscription price of the daily Official Report to a school is £1,275 and to a publicly funded library £637.50. The annual subscription price of the weekly Official Report to a school is £775 and to a publicly funded library £387.50.

  Top People's Seminars
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many top people's seminars have been held in 1994–95; how many are proposed for 1995–96; and what is the estimated outturn cost to public funds for 1994–95 and the cost allocated or 1995–96. [18420]

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Cabinet Office runs a development course for grade 3s known as the top management programme. During 1994–95, there were four four-week and five two-week courses and during 1995–96 there is provision for four four-week and four two-week courses. The cost to public funds in 1994–95 was £497,500, the allocated funds for 1995–96 are £539,050.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the latest figures showing the volume of correspondence received by Ministers and agency chief executives from hon. Members, the targets

  Annex A Correspondence from Members of Parliament to Ministers and Agency Chief Executives

  1993

  1994

  Department/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

  11,150

  69

  15

  9,429

  80

  —Intervention Board

  —

  —

  —

  10

  109

  96

  Cabinet Office (OPSS)

  15

  911

  59

  15

  941

  71

  —Recruitment and Assessment Services

  —

  —

  —

  15

  25

  100

  Central Statistical Office

  10

  63

  77

  110

  70

  67

  Crown Prosecution Service

  15

  229

  66

  15

  206

  76

  Customs and Excise

  18

  6,457

  55

  18

  24,969

  62

  Ministry of Defence

  15

  6,374

  75

  15

  7,769

  69

  —Defence Accounts Agency

  —

  —

  —

  10

  51

  90

  —Defence Research Agency

  15

  53

  66

  15

  48

  63

  Department for Education

  20

  17,049

  84

  20

  212,615

  85

  —Teachers' Pensions Agency

  10

  98

  92

  10

  70

  97

  Office for Standards in Education3

  —

  —

  —

  10

  96

  90

  Department of Employment

  15

  7,604

  85

  15

  6,821

  82

  —Employment Service

  15

  313

  92

  15

  1,156

  85

  Department of the Environment

  15

  21,057

  54

  15

  17,767

  57

  —Planning Inspectorate Agency

  8

  555

  80

  8

  4604

  80

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  10

  9,641

  83

  10

  11,178

  89

  Department of Health

  20

  19,822

  72

  20

  16,311

  84

  —NHS Pensions Agency

  20

  14

  100

  8

  93

  100

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  5

  11

  100

  5

  11

  91

  Home Office

  15

  15,950

  25

  515

  14,830

  20

  25

  11,381

  52

  525

  12,845

  51

  —Her Majesty's Prison Service

  25

  348

  54

  15

  1,569

  673

  —UK Passport Agency

  15

  40

  83

  15

  172

  95

  Inland Revenue

  18

  4,202

  45

  18

  2,75,063

  50

  23

  805

  39

  23

  2, 81,048

  60

  —Valuation Office

  23

  74

  45

  15

  2, 923

  78

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  15

  675

  77

  15

  10549

  76

  Lord Chancellors Department

  20

  6,716

  84

  20

  5,166

  83

  —Her Majesty's Land Registry

  20

  40

  100

  20

  31

  90

  —Public Trust Office11

  —

  —

  —

  15

  36

  75

  Department of National Heritage

  18

  1,145

  83

  18

  3,490

  83

  —Royal Parks Agency

  —

  —

  —

  18

  15

  80

  Northern Ireland Office

  10

  3,814

  66

  1210

  23,468

  65

  —(inc Northern Ireland Depts)

  15

  2,057

  73

  1315

  21,924

  75

  —Child Support Agency (NI)

  10

  27

  96

  10

  48

  88

  —Compensation Agency (NI)

  7

  80

  85

  7

  102

  94

  —Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency (NI)

  —

  —

  —

  5

  14

  100

  —Social Security Agency (NI)

  10

  28

  82

  10

  28

  93

  —Valuation and Lands Agency (NI)

  —

  —

  —

  10

  14

  100

  Overseas Development Administration

  15

  4,218

  87

  15

  3,962

  93

  The Scottish Office

  17

  6,860

  52

  17

  5,562

  49

  —Scottish Prison Service

  —

  —

  —

  17

  68

  76

  —Historical Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  17

  13

  92

  Department of Social Security

  20

  23,518

  76

  20

  23,193

  64

  —Benefits Agency

  20

  28,242

  84

  20

  1421,411

  93

  —Child Support Agency

  20

  2,222

  13

  20

  9,092

  25

  —Contributions Agency

  20

  264

  70

  20

  299

  67

  —War Pensions15

  —

  —

  —

  20

  522

  99

  Department of Trade and Industry

  10

  25,988

  66

  10

  223,171

  74

  —Companies House

  10

  159

  46

  10

  79

  66

  —Insolvency Service

  10

  30

  97

  10

  33

  88

  —Radiocommunications Agency

  10

  43

  100

  10

  38

  100

  Department of Transport

  15

  24,754

  71

  15

  220,905

  72

  —Coastguard Agency

  —

  —

  —

  15

  1620

  100

  —Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  10

  345

  95

  10

  357

  95

  —Driving Standards Agency

  10

  91

  96

  10

  87

  87

  22
  set for reply and the percentage of replies sent within target. [19750]

  Mr. Horam
  The 1994 correspondence figures are set out in the table. The table also sets out the corresponding figures for 1993, first published on 24 June 1994,Official Report, columns 334–38.
  23

  Annex A Correspondence from Members of Parliament to Ministers and Agency Chief Executives

  1993

  1994

  Department/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

  —Highway Agency

  —

  —

  —

  15

  16422

  47

  —Marine Safety Agency

  —

  —

  —

  15

  1721

  100

  —Transport Research Laboratory

  —

  —

  —

  15

  10

  90

  —Vehicle Inspectorate

  15

  15

  93

  15

  17

  100

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  15

  11,396

  58

  15

  24,728

  54

  Welsh Office

  12

  3,468

  81

  12

  3,062

  73

  —CADW: Welsh Historic Monuments

  12

  31

  91

  12

  47

  93

  Notes on 1994 figures18:

  1 Represents target set for CSO to submit replies to Her Majesty's Treasury. In addition, the Chief Executive received 3 letters direct from Members of Parliament, of which 2 were replied to within the 10 working day target.

  2 Includes all ministerial replies, not only those letters to Members of Parliament.

  3 Replies sent by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools.

  4 Figure includes letters received direct from Members of Parliament as well as via ministers' offices. Figure also includes 43 cases which relate to Wales.

  5 Targets within the Home Office are expressed in calendar days and because of bank holidays, performance will occasionally be measured against fewer than the 15 or 25 working day target. The 25 day target is for replies to Immigration and Nationality Department, Prison Service and UK Passport Agency subjects; the 15 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.

  6 Due to the installation of a new computerised correspondence tracking system it is not possible to give a figure for replies within target for the whole period. The figure of 73 per cent. is based on 241 cases from 1 October 1994.

  7 Head Office figures.

  8 Local Office figures. Includes 664 "delegated cases", where local officials replied direct to MPs.

  9 In addition the Valuation Office replied to 122 letters on behalf of Treasury Ministers, of which 56 per cent. were replied to within the 23 day target.

  10 This figure excludes letters received by the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers which were subsequently replied to by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  11 The Public Trust Office became an Executive Agency on 1 July 1994, and figures given are for all correspondence replied to by the Chief Executive between that date and the 31 December 1994.

  12 Replies signed by the Minister.

  13 Replies signed by Private Secretary to the Minister.

  14 Includes correspondence from Members of Parliament sent direct to district offices.

  15 War Pensions Agency was launched on 1 April 1994.

  16 Figures provided for period 1 April 1994–31 December 1994.

  17 Includes figures for Surveyor General's Organisation for 1 January 1994–31 March 1994.

  18 The 1993 figures are taken from the Official Report, 24 June 1994, columns 334–338. Please also refer to notes given with that reply.

  In addition the following Departments and Agencies received between 1 and 10 letters from Members of Parliament during 1994 but are not shown in the table.

  —Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: Central Science Laboratory, Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Central Veterinary Laboratory.

  —Cabinet Office: Central Office of Information.

  —Ministry of Defence: Army Base Repair Organisation, Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Defence Animal Centre, Duke of Yorks Royal Military School, Meterological Office and the RAF Training Group.

  —Department of the Environment: The Buying Agency and the Building Research Establishment Agency.

  —Department of Health: Medicines Control Agency and NHS Estates.

  —Export Credit Guarantee Department.

  —Home Office: Forensic Science Service.

  —Attorney General: Government Property Lawyers Agency.

  —Lord Chancellor's Department: Public Record Office.

  —Northern Ireland Office: Rate Collection Agency, Ordnance Survey of NI and Training and Employment Agency (NI).

  —Scottish Office: Scottish Agricultural Science Agency.

  —Serious Fraud Office.

  —Department of Social Security: IT Services Agency and Resettlement Agency.

  —Department of Trade and Industry: Accounts Services Agency, National Physical Laboratory, Patent Office and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist.

  —Department of Transport: Vehicle Certification Agency.

  Written Answers
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the agencies and other bodies to whom questions from hon. Members for written answer are referred for reply and the Departments which answered before the agencies were established. [18848]
  24
  Mr. Horam
  I can answer only for the civil service. It is for Ministers in each Department to decide the best way in which to reply to questions from hon. Members. Where the question concerns operational matters dealt with by an executive agency, the Minister will usually decide that it would be more appropriate and helpful for a reply to be sent by the agency chief executive, who has the detailed
  25
  knowledge which the hon. Member is seeking and has the necessary delegated authority to take appropriate action.

  All agencies, which are in the following list, remain part of the same Department to which they belonged before they were established.

  MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR AGENCIES

  Lord Chancellor

  Court Service

  HM Land Registry1

  Public Record Office1

  Public Trust Office

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Wilton Park

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Central Statistical Office1

  HM Customs and Excise2

  Inland Revenue2

  PAYMASTER1

  Royal Mint1

  Valuation Office

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Fire Service College

  Forensic Science Service

  HM Prison Service

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  President of the Board of Trade

  Companies House

  Insolvency Service

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  National Physical Laboratory

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  NEL

  Patent Office

  Radiocommunications Agency

  Secretary of State for Transport

  COASTGUARD

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Driving Standards Agency

  Highways Agency

  Marine Safety Agency

  Transport Research Laboratory

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Army Base Repair Organisation

  Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment

  Defence Accounts Agency

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  Defence Animal Centre

  Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency

  Defence Operational Analysis Centre

  Defence Postal and Courier Services

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency

  Defence Transport and Movements Executive

  Disposal Sales Agency

  Duke of York's Royal Military School

  Hydrographic Office

  Logistic Information Systems Agency

  Maintenance Group Defence Agency

  Meteorological Office

  Military Survey

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency

  Queen Victoria School

  RAF Signals Engineering Establishment

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency

  Service Children's Schools (North West Europe)

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  ADAS3

  Central Science Laboratory

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  Intervention Board14

  Meat Hygiene Service

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  26

  Royal Parks Agency

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Building Research Establishment

  Ordnance Survey1

  Planning Inspectorate5

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  Security Facilities Executive

  The Buying Agency

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Cadw (Welsh Historic Monuments)

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  Social Security Child Support Agency

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  Social Security Information Technology Services Agency

  Social Security Resettlement Agency

  Social Security War Pensions Agency

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Central Office of Information1

  Chessington Computer Centre

  Civil Service College

  HMSO1

  Occupational Health Service

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Historic Scotland

  Registers of Scotland1

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  Scottish Court Service

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  Scottish Prison Service

  Scottish Record Office1

  Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Compensation Agency

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing (NI)

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  Industrial Research and Technology Unit

  Northern Ireland Child Support Agency

  Northern Ireland Prison Service

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  Public Record Office of Northern Ireland

  Rate Collection Agency

  Social Security Agency (NI)

  Training and Employment Agency (NI)

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  Secretary of State for Education

  Teachers' Pensions Agency

  Secretary of State for Health

  Medical Devices Agency

  Medicines Control Agency

  NHS Estates

  NHS Pensions

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Employment Service

  Attorney General

  Government Property Lawyers

  Minister for Overseas Development

  Natural Resources Institute

  Notes:

  1 Agencies that are Government Departments.

  2 Government Department operating fully on Next Steps lines.

  3 The Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for ADAS in Wales.

  4 The Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are responsible for the Intervention Board in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively.

  5 The Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for the Planning Inspectorate in Wales.

ENVIRONMENT

  Homelessness
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he intends to introduce legislation to change the provisions of part III of the Housing Act 1985 in respect of homelessness; and if he will make a statement. [17480]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We are planning to include measures to reform the homelessness legislation in the next Housing Bill.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement for timetabling on the next round of bidding for the single regeneration budget. [17874]

  Mr. Curry
  The guidance for the second round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund was issued on 12 April 1995. Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Library of the House. Outline bids for challenge fund support should be submitted to Government offices for the regions by 16 June 1995, and final bids by 18 September 1995. It is hoped to announce final decisions on bids by Christmas 1995.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by whom and on what occasion representatives of the Birmingham bid for support from the single regeneration budget 1995–96 were told by his Department to prioritise the two components of that bid. [19459]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government office for the west midlands advised all applicants seeking support from the single regeneration budget 1995–96 that bids would need to be prioritised. In Birmingham's case, this advice was contained in a letter dated 29 June 1994 to Birmingham city council.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals on the relationship between international trade and sustainable development he will be taking to, or supporting at, the Commission on Sustainable Development meeting. [18353]

  Mr. Atkins
  At the invitation of the UN conference on trade and development and the UN environment programme, my right hon. Friend intends to present to the Commission on Sustainable Development the conclusions of UNCTAD and UNEP's joint high-level meeting on trade, environment and sustainable development held in Geneva on 21 and 22 November 1994.

  Birmingham International Airport
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will call-in for a full public inquiry into the first stage of Birmingham international airport's master plan involving extending the aircraft parking apron and widening the taxiway. [18850]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may give a direction requiring planning applications to be referred to him for decision instead of being dealt with by the local authority, but he cannot use these powers in relation to a master plan. Once a planning 28
  application has been submitted to Solihull metropolitan borough council, a decision will be taken as to whether a direction should be issued.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what requirements there are for officials in his Department to introduce a compliance cost assessment for all rules and regulations coming before him and his Ministers: and how many compliance cost assessments have been issued in his Department in the first three months of this year. [19346]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department issued three compliance cost assessments in the first three months of this year, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many rules and regulations he repealed in the first three months of 1995; and how many new rules and regulations were introduced in that period by way of statutory instruments, motions and orders. [19360]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Twenty-seven rules and regulations were repealed in the first three months of 1995. In the same period 67 rules and regulations were introduced, not including commencement orders, Orders in Council and instruments not subject to parliamentary procedure, of which:

  18 revoked earlier instruments or substituted a more favourable regime for business;

  2 implemented EU obligations;

  2 updated fees and charges.

  The remainder related to other issues such as local government and its reorganisation.

  None of the rules and regulations introduced new regulatory regimes which had costs for business.

  Stellar's Sea Eagles
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 8 March,Official Report, columns 187–88, (1) how many applications his Department has received to import specimens of Stellar's sea eagle since the licence referred to was granted; how many birds were involved and from where they originated; [19230]

  (2) how many Stellar's sea eagles (a) have been imported or (b) have been authorised to be imported to any other EU countries; [19231]

  (3) if the imported Stellar's sea eagle was intended for a bird zoo; and what were the conservation reasons for the import; [19232]

  (4) what is the application of EC regulation 3626/82 to the import of Stellar's sea eagles. [19233]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  EC regulation 3626/82 implements the provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora throughout the European Union. For some species it also introduces stricter controls on import, export and sale than those contained in CITES. The Stellar's sea eagle is listed in appendix II of CITES which means that commercial trade would normally be allowed. However, the EC regulation provides that, within the EU, the species should be treated as if listed in appendix I, and commercial trade is effectively banned. Sale of the species within the EU would also need to be covered by a sales exemption issued by my Department.
  29
  The permit allowing the import of two birds was issued to an organisation which is licensed under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. The birds are intended for use in a captive breeding programme, and strict conditions were applied to the permit to ensure that the birds are used for this purpose.

  No further applications to import Stellar's sea eagles have been received since the above permit was granted. The European Commission has not yet published records of imports into other EU states during the past two years.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has discovered the source of the drums containing radioactive uranium waste which were found at Chelverston in January; and if he will make a statement. [19041]

  Mr. Atkins
  Investigations by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution are still under way.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Bennet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the research project on developing a hedgerow evaluation scheme currently being carried out by the Agricultural Development Advisory Service was won by competitive tender; how his Department commissioned the project; and if he will make a statement. [19399]

  Mr. Atkins
  This research project was won by competitive tender. It was commissioned through a research contract under the Department's countryside research and long-term monitoring programme. The tender submitted by the Agricultural Development Advisory Service represented best value for money.

  Caravans
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what impact the Valuation Office's increase in valuation for caravans will have on the entitlement of caravan owners to stay on holiday caravan sites. [19390]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  None, as far as I am aware.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many competitive tendering exercises carried out by his Department in each of the last two years were caught by the provisions of the public services directive but were not subsequently advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union in compliance with the relevant regulations. [19223]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None.

  Lancashire County Council
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the most recent information on the current reserves held by Lancashire county council; and what the figures were 12 and 24 months previously. [19053]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The available information is as follows.

  The latest available estimates of the level of reserves as at 1 April 1992 to 1 April 1994 follow. These are split,
  30
  where possible, into schools' reserves and other—non-local management of schools non—LMS reserves include funds, which may be substantial, held for specified purposes which may not be available to the council for general use—funds to finance capital projects to which the authority is committed; and insurance funds where the authority is bearing its own insurance risks.

  These estimates are subject to amendment as authorities finalise their accounts. Compatible data on the use of balances in 1994–95 which would be needed to derive an estimate of the level of reserves at 1 April 1995 are not yet available.

  1 April 19921 £000

  1 April 19932 £000

  1 April 19943 £000

  LMS

  n/a

  31,043

  32,976

  Non-LMS

  n/a

  38,322

  39,138

  Total

  26,241

  69,365

  72,114

  Source:

  1 Level of reserves, outturn at 1–4–92—RS returns for 1993–93

  2 Level of reserves, outturn at 1–4–93—RS returns for 1993–94

  3 Level of reserves, outturn at 1–4–93 +/- appropriations to/withdrawals from reserves 1993–94—RS returns for 1993–94.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total rateable value of all businesses after the revaluations in(a) 1988 and (b) 1993; and what was the total revenue from uniform business rate from the 1988 and 1993 valuations. [19056]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The total rateable value for all businesses for 1 April 1990—based on the market as at 1 April 1988—was £31,882 million. Total revenue from the uniform business rate in 1990–91 was £9,988 million.

  The total rateable value of all businesses for 1 April 1995—based on the market as at 1 April 1993—was £32,697 million. Total revenue from the uniform business rate in 1995–96 is expected to be £11,245 million.

  Allowances
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total amount paid by his central Department and each agency for which he is responsible in subsistence allowances for travel(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) outside the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [19553]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Details of my Department's spend on subsistence are as follows—UK only:

  £000

  1992–93

  631

  1993–94

  571

  1994–95 (forecast)

  533

  Figures for subsistence for overseas staff are not separately available. Figures for Property Holdings and the Department's agencies are not available without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible(a) the total amount of removal costs and associated expenses reimbursed to officials who were required to relocate as

  31
  part of their employment, (b) the amount of each of the highest three claims that were concluded and settled and (c) the average amount of each claim in each of the last three years. [19661]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Advisers
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many advisers his Department employs broken down to show(a) political advisers and (b) economic advisers; at what grade and salary they are employed; and what are their minimum working hours in each case. [19424]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This Department employs two political advisers. The Department also employs, on special adviser terms, one full-time and one part-time expert advisers on environmental and architectural matters respectively. Their salaries and conditions of work are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. Economic advice is obtained from career civil servants, who may be employed on a variety of working patterns. The following numbers by grade are full-time equivalents:

  Grade 3

  1

  Grade 5

  2

  Grade 6

  2

  Grade 7

  14.6

  Assistant Economic Adviser

  9

  Lindane
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has yet located the container of toxic lindane that was washed overboard in the English channel some years ago. [19697]

  Mr. Atkins
  No. Monitoring by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did not reveal any traces. I understand that the French authorities have also been involved in the search.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many refugees are being housed in temporary accommodation; how many refugee families have been accommodated in one or two rooms; and what proposals he has to end the practice of accommodating refugees in one or two-room units. [19462]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  At the end of December 1994, 1,018 asylum-seeker households who had been accepted by local authorities as statutorily homeless were occupying temporary accommodation pending the outcome of their application for asylum. Details of the accommodation occupied are not held centrally.

  Cement
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the response of his Department to the formal complaint against the United Kingdom to Ritt Bjerregaard, Commissioner of the European Union, with regard to the use of recycled liquid fuel in the manufacture of cement. [19693]

  Mr. Atkins
  We have received no such complaint.

TREASURY

  Consultants
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to ensure early retirees are not re-employed by the Treasury as consultants; and if he will ensure that early retirees fully comply with rules not to seek paid employment in the private sector, where market sensitive information may have been obtained during the Treasury employment. [17314]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury has no plans to re-employ early retirees as consultants. Civil servants must abide by the rules governing the acceptance of outside appointments within two years of leaving Crown employment. The rules are set out in the civil service management code—a copy of which is available in the Members' Library.

  All Treasury staff were recently issued with a booklet, "Information on Outplacement Services and Redundancy Terms", which includes details of the business appointment rules. In addition, staff are reminded of these rules when they leave Crown employment.

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff(a) volunteered and (b) were accepted for early retirement in his Department in 1994–95 and 1995–96; what will be the cost of such early retirement to public funds, and if he will indicate the grades and size of lump sum payments being made by grade and service length. [17313]

  Mr. Nelson
  Since 1 April 1994, 20 staff volunteered for early retirement, and 20 were accepted. In addition, 12 staff were granted early retirements on grounds of ill-health, and there were 12 other approved early retirements.

  The total estimated cost to public funds—including lump sum redundancy compensation payment, enhancement of pension lump sum payments and payment of annual compensation up to age 60 will be £4,493,410. This figure may be a slight underestimate since calculations for those whose retirement date is not yet known—but which is likely to be in 1995–96—have been done on the basis of a retirement date of 31 March 95.

  Information about lump sum payments in 1994–95 and 1995–96 by grade is as follows:

  Number of staff

  Grade

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Range of payments1 £

  Range of service length (years)

  2–3

  2

  5

  86,016 to 137,086

  23–33

  4–5

  3

  8

  47,665 to 90,984

  16–39

  6–7

  5

  2

  24,147 to 59,225

  10–36

  SEO-EO

  7

  0

  17,656 to 38,926

  22–40

  AO/AA/PS

  6

  0

  2,189 to 23,861

  3–34

  SGB/SM/Typ

  6

  0

  4,283 to 27,627

  6–33

  1Figures include both lump sum compensation and superannuation lump sum, where appropriate.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 9, on how many of the 29 projects for the private finance initiative contracts have been signed; and on how many construction work has commenced. [17717]

  Sir George Young
  Contracts have been signed on two of the projects cited in the original list, of which one is under construction and one is fully operational. In addition, preferred bidders have been announced on three of the 29 projects, and bids received on eight more.

  A further two private finance projects were not included in the original list, of which one is under construction and one fully operational.

  Projects worth less than £5 million are not recorded centrally, but are considerable in sum. For instance, in the health field over 50 schemes worth over £100 million have already been completed.

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each non-departmental public body and agency for which he has responsibility and, for each, list separate figures for the spending by that body or agency on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotional materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising, for each year since 1979–80 or for each year of its existence if it has been created since then; and what are his latest estimates of (a) to (f) 1994–95; and 1995–96. [17626]

  Mr. Nelson
  Expenditure by the Chancellor's agencies is shown in the table. Information relating to all years back to 1979–80 and separate figures for the different types of advertising are not available. There was no expenditure by the non-departmental public bodies on advertising.

  £

  Recruitment advertising Percentage

  Paymaster

  1993–94

  6,777

  96.9

  1994–95

  53,055

  95.6

  1995–96

  27,500

  30.9

  Valuation Office

  1991–92

  1,900

  80.0

  1992–93

  1,200

  100.0

  1993–94

  3,800

  70.0

  1994–95

  8,900

  53.0

  1995–96

  5,000

  50.0

  Royal Mint

  1992–93

  254,635

  0.3

  1993–94

  411,331

  1.5

  1994–95

  296,570

  7.7

  1995–96

  1,000,000

  2.5

  Central Statistical Office

  1989–90

  42,200

  1—

  1990–91

  69,000

  1—

  35

  £

  Recruitment advertising Percentage

  1991–92

  113,100

  26.7

  1992–93

  125,100

  15.6

  1993–94

  123,000

  18.8

  1994–95

  423,800

  11.3

  1995–96

  546,500

  10.5

  1 Figures unavailable.

  Internet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the Internet electronic mail addresses of(a) his Department and (b) each Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement on his Department's approach to the information super-highway. [17731]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury already sends out information electronically. Its Internet service was launched on 15 November 1994.

  Material is provided on the Treasury's own Internet server on the world wide web. In addition to the world wide web, the same information can be obtained by electronic mail or by file transfer—FTP.

  The addresses are:

  E-mail mailing lists: maillist@hm-treasury.gov.uk

  E-mail file transfer: ftpmail@hm-treasury.gov.uk

  File transfer (FTP): ftp.hm-treasury.gov.uk

  World Wide Web: http: //www.hm-treasury.gov.uk

  The Treasury is currently working on expanding the service we offer and it is anticipated that individual e-mail addresses will be allocated later this year.

  At the moment, users can also obtain help about the service using electronic mail. The address is info@hm-treasury.gov.uk.

  Paye T/Ps

  Assessed tax O/S tax£

  Totals T/Ps

  O/S tax£

  T/Ps

  O/S tax£

  £0–1,000

  1,065

  219,977

  2,340

  943,240

  3,405

  1,163,217

  £1,001–5,000

  765

  1,936,894

  2,046

  4,943,254

  2,811

  6,880,148

  £5,001–10,000

  158

  1,113,710

  598

  4,213,844

  756

  5,327,554

  £10,001–50,000

  108

  2,070,946

  459

  8,743,422

  567

  10,814,368

  £50,000+

  20

  2,960,152

  32

  3,270,320

  52,

  5,960,472

  Totals

  2,116

  8,031,679

  5,475

  22,114,080

  7,591

  30,145,759

  Inland Revenue Purchases
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances it is his policy to buy British and to encourage executive agencies responsible to the Treasury to do the same; what consideration was given to this policy in the purchase of furniture, fittings and building materials for the Inland Revenue office at Castle Meadow, Nottingham; and what considerations were present in this specific case to create a preference for foreign products. [17819]

  Sir George Young
  The Government's approach to the purchasing of goods and services is to seek best value for money in terms of cost and quality; the "whole life cost". If a British firm can offer best value for money, it will be awarded the business. The approach for the construction, fitting out and furnishing of the new Inland Revenue

  Tax Planning and Avoidance
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) of 27 March,Official Report, column 431, on determining the difference between tax planning and tax avoidance by what means he determines the intention of Parliament; and if this is indistinguishable from the intention of Her Majesty's Government. [17680]

  Sir George Young
  In deciding whether to legislate to counter tax avoidance, the Government will consider all the implications, including the apparent artificiality and the extent of the tax potentially at risk, of a particular scheme. Any proposed legislation is open to scrutiny by Parliament, whose intentions are reflected in the statutory provisions as finally enacted.

  Unpaid Taxation
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total present tax outstanding unpaid by firms covered by the Inland Revenue at 8 Ruby house, Aberdeen; how many firms at this location have outstanding unpaid tax; and how many of these firms have outstanding tax amounts between(a) zero and £1,000, (b) £1,001 and £5,000, (c) £5,001 and £10,000, (d) £10,001 and £50,000 and (e) over £50,000. [17890]

  Sir George Young
  Details of unpaid tax currently being pursued by the Inland Revenue at 8 Ruby house, Aberdeen are set out. These are the amounts outstanding from all self-employed individuals, partnerships and companies. It is not possible separately to identify tax unpaid by firms. The figures include tax arrears which have been referred to the enforcement office, Scotland. Amounts payable to the accounts office, Cumbernauld are not included as it is not possible to distinguish tax due from Aberdeen taxpayers.

  centre in Nottingham was entirely consistent with this approach. There is a legal obligation for contracts above a certain value—currently just under £150,000—to be advertised in the Official Journal of the EC.

  The total construction cost of the new Inland Revenue centre, which will house 1,800 staff when fully occupied, will be about £55 million, excluding VAT and other overheads. All contracts were awarded in accordance with the approach described above, after a full tender process, and only £3 million-worth of work, excluding VAT, was let to overseas contractors.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will amend the Government Stock Regulations 1965 to reduce the risk of gilt-edged securities that are owned
  37
  by pension funds trustees and are registered in a central gilts office account at the Bank of England being vulnerable to misappropriation or erroneous misallocation by the account holder. [18927]

  Mr. Nelson
  Placing a duty upon the Bank of England, as registrar of gilts and operator of the central gilts office service, to inquire about the propriety of stock transactions made in the name of trustees would reduce the speed and efficiency of the settlement service without adding materially to the protection of pension fund beneficiaries. Such protection is more effectively given by the measures in the Pensions Bill, currently before Parliament.

  Construction Industry
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what measures he will take to ensure that the introduction of a turnover test with regard to the 714 tax exemption system for construction workers will not be set at a level that will exclude a substantial proportion of those self-employed in the industry. [18868]

  (2) if he will reconsider the proposal to introduce a turnover test with regard to the 714 tax exemption system for construction workers; [18869]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the effect that the introduction of a turnover test with regard to the 714 tax exemption system for construction workers will have on the ability of employers to take on additional workers. [18867]

  Sir George Young
  The Government intend to proceed with the introduction of the turnover test, which will become one of the statutory conditions that a business must satisfy before qualifying for a subcontractor's 714 certificate. This approach has been recently ratified by the House in the Finance Bill. The test will be an objective means of restricting certificates to the more substantial business in the construction industry, which the Government's intention, thereby reducing the opportunities for certificate misuse and associated tax evasion. A compliance cost assessment, published by the Inland Revenue, and based on input from the industry, indicates that the resulting additional burden on contractors will be minimal. The test should not, therefore, have any significant effect on the ability of employers or contractors to take on additional workers.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the gross domestic product per person on Merseyside; and what is the national average. [18950]

  Mr. Nelson
  Estimates for gross domestic product by county are calculated only for years when there is an annual census of employment. The latest available information for GDP per head by county is for 1987, 1989 and 1991 which was published in the December 1993 issue of "Economic Trends", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Incomes
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the change in real take-home pay for families with one earner and two children since 1979 and between 1974 and 1979 in the Lancaster travel-to-work area. [18795]
  38
  Sir George Young
  Real take-home pay for a one-earner couple on male average earnings in Great Britain with two children has risen by around 40 per cent.—over £80 a week—since 1978–79. It rose by less than 1 per cent. between 1973–74 and 1978–79. No figures are available for the Lancaster travel-to-work area.

  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the change in real take-home pay for single men in the lowest 10 per cent. of earnings since 1979 and between 1974 and 1979 in the Lancaster travel-to-work area. [18794]

  Sir George Young
  Real take-home pay for a single man at the lowest decile of male earnings in Great Britain has risen by nearly a quarter since 1978–79. It fell slightly between 1973–74 and 1978–79. No figures are available on a regional or sub-regional basis.

  Caravans
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis the Valuation Office has changed the basis for valuation for caravans; and what assessment he has made of the implications of the increase in the rateable assessment for caravans. [18667]

  Mr. Nelson
  The basis of assessment for business rates remains rental value. The last revaluation in 1990 had regard to April 1988 rental levels whereas for the 1995 revaluation assessments is based on valuation officers' opinions of values in April 1993. Valuation officers have also reconsidered their assessments of caravans so that they are more comparable with other classes of holiday accommodation.

  The Government have considered the implications of substantial increases in rating assessments for various types of property and have introduced a scheme of transitional relief to ensure that no ratepayers will face increases of more than 10 per cent. plus inflation.

  Chargeable Gains
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the total chargeable capital gains and the number of individuals having them in each year between 1979 and 1991–92 for those people having gains of(a) over £500,000, (b) £100,000 (c) £50,000 and (d) £5,000. [19088]

  Sir George Young
  Figures on assessed chargeable gains for individuals, including trusts, and estimated numbers of taxpayers since 1978–79 are published in table 14.1 and table 1.4 respectively in the 1994 edition of "Inland Revenue Statistics"—a copy of which is available in the Library. Because of time lags, assessment figures for the more recent years are less complete.

  A more detailed breakdown for individuals, including trusts, who sold assets in 1991–92 with net chargeable gains exceeding the specified limits is given:

  Net chargeable gains over (£)

  Number of taxpayers

  Net chargeable gains (£ million)

  500,000

  1,300

  1,488

  100,000

  7,400

  2,514

  50,000

  14,700

  2,930

  5,5001

  90,000

  3,971

  1 £2,750 for trusts.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what allowances will be taken into account when the Benefits Agency issues a tax code and deducts tax at source from someone liable to pay tax but whose only income is incapacity benefit. [19279]

  Sir George Young
  Initial tax codes allocated by the Benefits Agency to new claimants of incapacity benefit will take account of entitlement to the basic personal tax allowance and, depending on information supplied by the individual on the incapacity benefit claim form, the married couple's allowance and blind person's allowance. In most cases, that initial code is likely to be the correct one. However, in some cases a new tax code may be issued soon afterwards by the Inland Revenue where further information comes to light after checking its records. That subsequent code—selected from the limited number of further codes available—may take account, where relevant, of entitlement to other allowances.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the procedures for reclaiming an overpayment of tax in cases where deductions have been made at source by the Benefits Agency as a result of the decision to tax incapacity benefit. [19280]

  Sir George Young
  Where deductions of tax from incapacity benefit have been made at source by the Benefits Agency, any overpayment of tax which arises will automatically be refunded by the Inland Revenue at the end of the tax year or when the claim to incapacity benefit ceases, whichever is the sooner. Alternatively, taxpayers can claim a repayment during the tax year from the Inland Revenue. In addition, from October, any overpayments which arise because too much tax has been deducted by the Benefits Agency will be remedied automatically under the pay-as-you-earn system operated by the Benefits Agency.

  Inland Revenue, Bradford
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the proposed building development plans for the Inland Revenue in Bradford. [19135]

  Sir George Young
  The Inland Revenue is planning to bring its operations currently housed in four buildings in the Bradford area into a single occupation by the spring of 1997.

  Options to meet this requirement are under consideration.

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will happen to the leases on buildings that the Inland Revenue holds in Bradford when the Inland Revenue moves into new buildings.

  Sir George Young
  All the leases will be terminated at the break dates and the Inland Revenue will seek to relet or reuse any vacant accommodation in the interim.

  Mr. D. C. Cartman
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the inspector of taxes at Newcastle 3 district to advise Mr. D. C. Cartman of Wooler, Northumberland, of the outcome of the consideration of the taxation of 40
  subsistence expenses to which the Financial Secretary referred in his letter to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed of 14 October 1994. [19087]

  Sir George Young
  The Inland Revenue wrote to the taxpayer concerned on 11 April 1995, explaining the current position about his tax affairs.

  Civil Service Pay
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Treasury officials are involved in supporting national civil service pay negotiations; and what is the cost. [19229]

  Sir George Young
  In 1994–95, there were 135 staff in the Treasury directorate which looks after civil service management and pay, excluding staff administering the principal civil service pension scheme. The cost of these staff was £6.5 million.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Jon. Owen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide figures for corporation tax paid in each of the financial years since 1987–88 for(a) building societies, (b) friendly societies, (c) industrial and provident societies, (d) credit unions and (e) co-operative societies which are currently aggregated in "Inland Revenue Statistics"; and if he will take steps to provide this information in future editions of "Inland Revenue Statistics". [19452]

  Sir George Young
  Figures of mainstream corporation tax paid by industrial and provident societies, building societies, and co-operative societies published in "Inland Revenue Statistics", as shown, are based on a sample of cases and cannot reliably be broken down at the level of detail requested. However, it is estimated that building societies typically account for in excess of 99 per cent. of the tax shown.

  Mainstream corporation tax paid by industrial and provident societies, building societies, co-operative societies

  £ million

  1987–88

  620

  1988–89

  820

  1989–90

  650

  1990–91

  600

  1991–92

  860

  1992–93

  690

  1993–94

  720

  Source:

  "Inland Revenue Statistics."

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the jobs that have been lost to agencies in his Department in the past two years that have(a) been taken over by contractors and (b) disappeared. [18336]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: The following functions formerly undertaken in the Treasury have been transferred to agencies in the past two years. The numbers of posts are those which existed in the Treasury immediately prior to the transfer. The agencies will make a commercial decision on the number of staff required to undertake these functions in future:
  41

  Function

  Number of posts

  Date transferred

  Agency

  Security Guard

  44

  1 February 1995

  Security Facilities Executive (SAFE) (DOE Agency)

  Superannuation Awarding

  36.5

  1 April 1995

  Paymaster

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the House will be formally advised before any decision is taken to link the value of sterling, formally or informally, to other currencies. [18151]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: As the Prime Minister has made clear, the Government have no plans to rejoin the ERM in the lifetime of this Parliament. He has also made it clear that any future decision to seek to join a single currency would need the approval of Parliament. The details of exchange rate arrangements are, of course, market sensitive and it has been the practice of successive Governments not to announce them in advance.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will outline the measures taken, facilities offered and adjustments made in his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to facilitate access for disabled people; what plans he has to improve access; and if he will make a statement. [18599]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 5 April 1995]: The Chancellor's Departments and agencies have an on-going programme to ensure that the disabled have access to buildings and services. Many measures have already been taken to improve access including building adaptations and the provision of equipment and services. The Departments and agencies concerned are committed to keeping the situation under review and building on these initiatives.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  War Widows
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the annual cost of paying war widows a pension for life regardless of their marital status and other income or savings. [18155]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It is estimated that the additional gross cost would be about £220 million in a full year. That estimate does not take into account savings in other benefits which would normally be offset against the war widow's pension.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of women who will be entitled(a) to enhanced invalidity benefit payments and (b) back payment of benefits if his
  42
  Department's appeal against the commissioner's decision in the case of Mrs. Rose Graham fails; and what estimate he has made of the additional costs to be met by his Department in that event. [17345]

  Mr. Hague
  Increased awards of invalidity benefit are being made by adjudication officers with effect from 1 April 1992, the date of the commissioner's decision. Increases are being suspended pending the outcome of the appeal by the Secretary of State and the chief adjudication officer, except in cases of hardship. Any benefit which has been suspended will be paid in full if the commissioner's decision is upheld. Information about the number of women affected and the estimated costs is in the tables.

  Suspensions of increased Invalidity Benefit awarded as a result of commissioner's decision CS 27/91

  Cases in which suspension applied

  Hardship applications

  Cases in which suspension lifted on hardship grounds

  41,560

  1,604

  994

  Note:

  1. Figures relate to 31 March 1994, the latest date for which information is available centrally.

  Source: Manual count in Benefits Agency offices.

  Estimated net costs if the commissioner's decision CS 27/91 is upheld

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  £210 million

  £85 million

  £95 million

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are net offsetting reductions in income-related benefit expenditure.

  2. Estimates for 1995–96 include arrears to 1 April 1992, the date of the commissioners decision.

  3. Estimates assume the commissioners decision is upheld on the same terms. Actual costs will depend on the precise terms of the final ruling.

  4. Estimates are provisional, and subject to revision.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were refused income support due to the habitual residence requirement, in each month since the requirement was introduced; and how many of those affected were(a) British nationals, (b) European economic area nationals and (c) others. [17878]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  British nationals

  EEA nationals

  Others

  August 1994

  238

  474

  290

  September 1994

  372

  1,094

  934

  October 1994

  454

  1,500

  1,224

  November 1994

  584

  1,308

  1,433

  December 1994

  444

  801

  1,427

  January 1995

  507

  849

  1,631

  February 1995

  558

  878

  971

  Notes:

  1. Others include asylum seekers who had the test applied to them but were paid benefit under other provisions.

  2. The figures for January and February are provisional.
  43
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if crisis loans are available, as interim payments, to those claimants who have been refused income support because they have failed the habitual residence test and are now waiting for their appeal to be heard by the Independent Tribunal Service; and what is the latest information on the number of such claimants who go on to win their appeals. [18899]

  Mr. Hague
  Crisis Loans are available to applicants who are not in receipt of benefit and may be paid to those who fail the habitual residence test. The information requested on the number who succeed at appeal is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Benefit Expenditure
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), of 23 March,Official Report, column 342, why the figures for benefit expenditure as a percentage of GDP are different for the years 1978–79, 1980–81, 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 from those given in The Growth of Social Security, Department of Social Security 1993. [17776]

  Mr. Hague
  The Growth of Social Security was published in 1993 and since then benefit expenditure has reflected certain changes.(a) From 3 October 1994 responsibility for special pension payments to certain categories of war widows was transferred to DSS from the Ministry of Defence. Total benefit expenditure from 1990–91, when the special payments began, has been adjusted to reflect the transfer.
  These figures have been shown in the 1995 departmental report, table 1.
  (b) Outturn figures for housing benefit have been adjusted from 1989–90 to reflect actual costs incurred in respect of each financial year and have been updated in line with the latest actual outturn data available from the local authorities. Previous totals had included interim estimates from the local authorities.
  These figures have been shown in the 1995 departmental report, tables 2 and 3.

  The differences for 1978–79 and 1980–81 are caused by different rounding conventions.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people, not on other benefits, are now receiving a disability premium with council tax benefit on the ground that they are incapable of work; and how many(a) existing recipients of the premium and (b) new claimants he estimates will be found capable of work in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98. [18801]

  Mr. Hague
  Within council tax benefit, the number of people receiving the disability premium without other benefits is negligible. It is therefore not possible to estimate how many will be found capable of work in future years.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the savings expected to arise from the introduction of incapacity benefit, including the application of the new incapacity test to people on a disability premium and severe disablement 44
  allowance for each of the years 1995–96, 1996–97, 199798 and total for the years 1995 to 1998. [18802]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on 27 January,Official Report, Column 425.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his statement of 23 February,Official Report, Standing Committee B, column 555, what discussions took place with the Social Security Advisory Committee regarding the Governments proposals to reduce by 20 per cent, the income support paid to people who choose to appeal on the decision to withdraw their incapacity benefit; and if he will publish the information given to the Social Security Advisory Committee which led to its decision to waive its right to be consulted on the proposals. [18804]

  Mr. Hague
  The proposal was considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee on 3 February 1995, and as a consequence a revised proposal was submitted for discussion on 16 February 1995. Copies of the original and revised proposals presented to the Committee have been placed in the Library.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people, not on other benefits, are now receiving a disability premium with their housing benefit on the ground that they are incapable of work; and how many(a) existing recipients of the premium and (b) new claimants he estimates will be found capable of work in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98. [18803]

  Mr. Hague
  Within housing benefit, the number of people receiving the disability premium without other benefits is negligible. It is therefore not possible to estimate how many will be found capable of work in future years.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what requirements there are for officials in his Department to introduce a compliance cost assessment for all rules and regulations coming before him and his Ministers; and how many compliance cost assessments have been issued in his Department in the first three months of this year. [19353]

  Mr. Hague
  Officials in this Department follow the guidance set out by the Department of Trade and Industry and agreed by the Government that a compliance cost assessment should be prepared in the following circumstances:in support of all papers for Cabinet and Cabinet Committees, and minutes to the Prime Minister for collective discussion that deal with proposals which may have an impact on business;
  in support of all regulatory proposals which may have an impact on business submitted for consideration under the annual legislative bids process;
  as part of the advice to Ministers on the line to be taken on a private Members Bill which affects business;
  when preparing statistical surveys which will involve business;
  alongside all draft primary, secondary and EC legislation having an impact on business when it is presented to Parliament.

  All compliance cost assessments accompanying draft legislation are published. This Department issued eight of

  45
  these in the first three months of this year, copies of which are in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April. [17981]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April 1995. [17982]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

EDUCATION

  Foreign Language Institutions
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of primary schools in England

  Pupils under 5 years of age1 in maintained nursery and primary schools and independent schools 1974–1994

  Position in January each year

  Maintained Nursery Schools

  Maintained Primary Schools

  Independent Schools

  Year

  Full-time pupils

  Part-time pupils

  Total pupils as a percentage of the population2

  Full-time pupils

  Part-time pupils

  Total pupils as a percentage of the population2

  Full-time pupils

  Part-time pupils

  Total pupils as a percentage of the population2

  1974

  13,696

  27,614

  3

  268,335

  74,260

  24

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1975

  13,740

  29,777

  3

  270,642

  89,727

  25

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1976

  13,497

  32,062

  3

  285,235

  109,205

  29

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1977

  13,657

  34,043

  4

  250,873

  133,098

  30

  16,687

  11,198

  2

  1978

  14,138

  34,359

  4

  224,240

  142,328

  30

  16,758

  11,576

  2

  1979

  14,219

  34,258

  4

  232,690

  147,473

  33

  17,588

  11,297

  2

  1980

  14,079

  34,377

  4

  230,342

  150,122

  35

  18,910

  10,832

  3

  1981

  13,717

  34,437

  4

  224,544

  155,399

  36

  18,050

  11,500

  3

  1982

  13,295

  35,694

  4

  220,052

  167,639

  36

  18,533

  11,033

  3

  1983

  12,611

  36,940

  4

  225,328

  183,318

  36

  16,723

  12,770

  3

  1984

  12,214

  37,192

  4

  251,340

  194,272

  37

  17,520

  13,836

  3

  1985

  11,890

  37,723

  4

  257,409

  205,545

  39

  18,501

  14,274

  3

  1986

  11,698

  37,685

  4

  247,079

  212,161

  39

  18,450

  14,519

  3

  1987

  11,478

  38,024

  4

  252,401

  214,861

  40

  19,028

  15,586

  3

  1988

  11,216

  38,570

  4

  257,089

  226,058

  41

  20,579

  16,580

  3

  1989

  10,931

  39,239

  4

  259,440

  237,954

  41

  23,134

  18,158

  3

  1990

  10,429

  41,096

  4

  275,183

  250,513

  42

  24,639

  18,910

  3

  1991

  10,085

  42,009

  4

  286,410

  265,082

  44

  25,869

  19,330

  4

  1992

  9,734

  42,470

  4

  299,699

  277,808

  45

  26,461

  19,405

  4

  1993

  9,461

  43,527

  4

  316,788

  286,417

  47

  26,477

  20,620

  4

  1994

  8,930

  43,332

  4

  326,447

  295,887

  48

  26,402

  21,212

  4

  Learning Credits
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what discussions she has had with the Cabinets Home Social Affairs Committee on the report from Coopers and Lybrand on the feasibility of learning credits; and if she will make a statement; [19477]

  (2) what plans she has to introduce learning credits for 16 to 19-year-olds; and if she will make a statement. [19442]
  46
  teach a foreign language; and which languages are most commonly taught. [19057]

  Mr. Forth
  The Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research recently carried out a survey, Modern Foreign Languages in Primary Schools, which covered England, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Fifty three out of 125 local education authorities responded, 48 of those being English authorities. The results showed that some 1,919 primary schools, or 22 per cent. of those in the sample, provided some foreign language tuition. The most commonly taught language was French—1,795 schools—followed by German—67 schools—and Italian—64 schools.

  Under-five Provision
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will publish a table showing the number of children under five years in(a) public sector nursery schools, (b) public sector primary schools, broken down into full and part-time and (c) non-maintained schools, broken down into full and part-time and showing what proportion of children aged three or four years is accounted for by each category in each year since 1970 until the most recent date available. [19368]

  Mr. Forth
  Information is shown in the table.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government are considering the issue of learning credits for 16 to 19-year-olds in the light of advice from Coopers and Lybrand, and will announce their conclusions in due course.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 23 March,Official Report, columns 358–59, when the Further Education

  47
  Funding Councils chief executive will write to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley. [19497]

  Mr. Boswell
  Sir William Stubbs, chief executive of the Further Education Funding Council, wrote to the hon. Member on 7 April.

  Education means Business
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many copies of the booklet, Education means Business have been produced; to whom it has been circulated; and what was the total cost. [18851]

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchcliffe) on Friday 17 March,Official Report, column 735.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many rules and regulations she repealed in the first three months of 1995; and how many new rules and regulations were introduced in that period by way of statutory instruments, motions or orders. [19358]

  Mr. Boswell
  Some 24 statutory instruments were revoked in the first three months of 1995. In the same period, 29 statutory instruments were introduced. These figures do not include local instruments.

  The great majority of these concerned the maintained, system of education and imposed no regulatory requirements on business.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what requirements there are for officials in her Department to introduce a compliance cost assessment for all the rules and regulations coming before her and her Ministers; and how many compliance cost assessments have been issued by her Department in the first three months of this year. [19344]

  Mr. Forth
  My Department issued one compliance cost assessment in the first three months of this year, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Higher Education (Staff)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of(a) university professors and (b) heads of university departments are women. [19099]

  Mr. Boswell
  Some 5 per cent. of full-time professors at former University Funding Councils funded universities in Great Britain in 1992–93 were women. For the same year in former Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Councils funded English polytechnics granted university status, 15 per cent. of full-time professors wholly institute-financed were women.

  Data on the gender of the heads of university departments are not collected centrally.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of staff in United Kingdom universities are women. [19101]

  Mr. Boswell
  Some 23 per cent. of full-time academic staff in former UFC funded universities in England in 1992–93 are women. For the same year in former PCFC-funded English polytechnics granted university status, 34 per cent. of full-time academic staff wholly institute-financed were women.
  48
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many university staff in United kingdom universities are now on short-term contracts. [19097]

  (2) how many staff in the university of Wales are now on short-term contracts. [19086]

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Responsibility for employment conditions of university staff, however funded, rests with the universities as employers.

  I stated in a reply to the hon. Member on 21 March 1995, Official Report, column 165, the Higher Educational Statistical Agency, which has now assumed responsibility for the collection of statics on staff, students and finance in all UK higher education institutions, will identify, in its 1994–95 academic staff record, data on staff numbers in institutions on permanent or other form of contracts.

  The University Statistical Record has collected staff data on behalf of former University Funding Council-funded universities, but does not distinguish by type of staff contracts.

  Higher Education (Students)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what percentage and numbers of students in United Kingdom universities are women; [19102]

  (2) what percentage of postgraduate students in United Kingdom universities are women. [19100]

  Mr. Boswell
  The numbers of home-domiciled women students in former UFC-funded universities and former PCFO-polytechnics in England in academic year 1993–94 was 386,600, 47 per cent. of all home-domiciled students. The numbers of home-domiciled women postgraduate students was 63,100, 46 per cent. of home-domiciled postgraduate students.

  Higher Education Applicants (Qualifications)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage and how many students are now admitted to higher education courses on the basis of national vocational qualifications rather then A-levels. [19098]

  Mr. Boswell
  Information published in the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service annual report 1993–94 shows that 159,300 applicants were accepted to first degree and HND courses in autumn 1994 with A-level qualifications—63 per cent. of home acceptances. The remainder gained entry with a range of other qualifications, including the new general national vocational qualifications, NVQs, and predecessor vocational qualifications.

  Postgraduate Vocational Training Courses
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many language graduates have taken up bursaries for postgraduate vocational interpreter and translator training courses over the last three years. [18902]
  49
  Mr. Boswell
  The number of language graduates who have taken up bursaries through the Departments postgraduate awards scheme for postgraduate vocational interpreter and translator training courses over the last three academic years is 136.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many people have taken up bursaries for postgraduate vocational training courses over the last three years. [18901]

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of people who have taken up bursaries through the Departments postgraduate awards scheme for postgraduate vocational training courses in the last three academic years is 1,905.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many bursaries will be available for language graduates wishing to take vocational interpreter and translator training courses next year. [18903]

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has reviewed the provision of bursaries for postgraduate studies in interpreting and translating studies and has now agreed to provide 20 bursaries for language graduates wishing to take postgraduate vocational interpreter and translator training courses in the next academic year.

  Allowances
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the total amount paid by her central Department and each agency for which she is responsible in subsistence allowances for travel(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) outside the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [19551]

  Mr. Boswell
  The subsistence costs in respect of UK travel for the Department and Teachers Pension Agency are as follows. The Department does not keep separate figures of the subsistence costs incurred in foreign travel. No foreign travel and subsistence costs have been incurred by the TPA.

  Net running costs (in thousands) of all non-departmental public bodies sponsored by DFE

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 outturn

  1989–90 outturn

  1990–91 outturn

  1991–92 outturn

  1992–93 outturn

  1993–94 outturn

  1994–95 estimated outturn

  1995–96 forecast

  Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges (CBEVE)

  1

  1,760

  1,813

  2,184

  3,021

  3,498

  3,848

  4,052

  4,194

  3,867

  Centre for Information on Language Teaching and research (CILT)

  —

  398

  435

  501

  576

  670

  937

  816

  964

  930

  Education Assets Board (EAB)

  2

  —

  —

  1,420

  551

  537

  839

  764

  858

  986

  Funding Agency for Schools (FAS)

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10,927

  11,500

  Further Education Funding Council for England (FEFCE)

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,300

  18,800

  23,800

  24,200

  Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  500

  10,355

  11,775

  12,025

  League for Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers (LECT)

  —

  440

  497

  507

  524

  585

  668

  636

  617

  569

  National Council of Educational Technology (NCET)

  6

  —

  1,152

  2,072

  2,387

  2,960

  3,003

  3,334

  3,336

  3,157

  50

  DFE £

  Teachers pension agency £

  1992–931

  290,847

  34,642

  1993–94

  207,189

  56,550

  1994–95

  216,936

  44,375

  1 Figures exclude T and S provision for HM inspectorate, now Ofsted.

  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list for each agency and the central Department for which she is responsible(a) the total amount of removal costs and associated expenses reimbursed to officials who were required to relocate as part of their employment, (b) the amount of each of the highest three claims that were concluded and settled and (c) the average amount of each claim in each of the last three years. [19663]

  Mr. Boswell
  No removal costs were incurred by the Teachers Pension Agency. The information requested in respect of the Department is as follows:

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Total

  60,457

  62,650

  19,785

  Highest claim

  10,163

  10,281

  11,250

  The average costs were:

  5,496

  5,695

  9,892

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the total running costs of all non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department including the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and Ofsted for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Boswell
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 March 1995 c. 718]: The running cost of non departmental public bodies that are the responsibility of my Department are given in the table.
  51

  Net running costs (in thousands) of all non-departmental public bodies sponsored by DFE

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 outturn

  1989–90 outturn

  1990–91 outturn

  1991–92 outturn

  1992–93 outturn

  1993–94 outturn

  1994–95 estimated outturn

  1995–96 forecast

  National Youth Agency (NYA)

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,691

  1,574

  1,566

  1,649

  1—

  National Curriculum Council (NCC) (superseded by SCAA)

  8

  —

  —

  4,293

  3,401

  3,780

  3,734

  2,255

  —

  —

  School Examinations and Assessment Council (superseded by SCAA)

  8

  —

  —

  4,278

  4,930

  6,195

  7,226

  3,142

  —

  —

  School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA)

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,310

  9,339

  9,140

  Teaching as a Career Unit (TASC) (superseded by TTA)

  10

  346

  375

  400

  699

  954

  818

  752

  366

  —

  Teaching Training Agency (TTA)

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,640

  2,618

  Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED)

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22,145

  30,908

  28,755

  28,150

  Total net expenditure

  2,944

  4,272

  15,655

  16,089

  20,870

  49,592

  81,690

  98,220

  97,142

  Notes:

  1. Until December 1993 CBEVE was a NDPB. Since then it has been part of the British Council. However DFE, SOED and DENI continue to have full funding and policy responsibility for CBEVE.

  2. EAB was set up in August 1988. However it was agreed that the initial start-up costs etc., should be accounted for as part of a single twenty month accounting period in 1989–90. All the figures quoted include expenditure on sub-contracted legal work and regional caseworkers.

  3. FAS was set up with effect from 1 April 1994.

  4. The figure for 1992–93 reflects the establishment of FEFCE in July 1992.

  5. HEFCE was established on 6 May 1992, but did not assume its full responsibilities until 1 April 1993.

  6. NCET was formed on 1 April 1988 by the merger of the Microelectronics Education Support Unit and the Council for Educational Technology.

  7. NYA was formed out of the National Youth Bureau on 1 April 1991.

  8. The first years figures cover the period from the establishment of NCC and SEAC on 15 August 1988 to 31 March 1990. 1993–94 figures do not include redundancy payments to NCC and SEAC employees.

  9. SCAA was established on 1 October 1993 after which NCC and SEAC were wound up on 31 December 1993.

  10. The figure quoted in 1993–94 covers the period 1 April to 13 October 1994, when TASC was subsumed within TTA.

  11. The 1993–94 figure includes the running costs of the information section (formally TASC) from 13 October 1994 to 31 March 1995, and expenditure on establishing the TTA as well as running costs.

  12. This figure does not include part-year costs incurred in 1991–92 and transferred from DFE.

  1 still under negotiation

  Distance Learning
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many educational institutions in the United Kingdom use new technology to facilitate distance learning; and if she will list them. [18689]

  Mr. Forth
  Many educational institutions offer programmes through distance learning and it is not possible to list them individually. Opportunities to study by both open and distance learning are increasing rapidly and particularly in the further and higher education sectors. The Department is funding a number of pilot projects in the use of new technologies including their use in distance learning.

  Information Super-highway
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what research her Department has funded into the educational potential of the information super-highway. [18691]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has funded several initiatives, including projects piloting multi-media technologies, which help to indicate the educational potential of information super-highways. The UK Education Departments will shortly publish a consultation 52
  paper which will explore the use of broadband communications in education and encourage the development of broadband pilot projects in all sectors of education.

EMPLOYMENT

  Asbestos
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the findings of the Health and Safety Executive/Peto report Continuing Increase in Mesothelioma Mortality in Britain and its consequences for his Departments policy. [17075]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The report predicts that the number of deaths from mesothelioma in British men will continue to grow for at least 15, and more likely 25 years, reaching a peak of between 1,300 and 3,300 annual deaths. The most recent available annual total is for 1991 and was 861. Virtually all these deaths are associated with exposure to asbestos. The latent period between first exposure to asbestos and the development and diagnosis of mesothelioma is seldom less than 15 years and can be as long as 60 years. The deaths now occurring and most
  53
  of those expected to occur in the future reflect industrial conditions of the past rather than the effectiveness of current law and work practices. The report further showed that those employed in the building industry, such as plumbers, carpenters and electricians, account for about a quarter of all mesothelioma deaths to date. It concluded that workers in these trades may still be at risk from exposure to asbestos dust from materials put into buildings many years ago. The Health and Safety Executives current asbestos awareness campaign is specifically targeted at building maintenance workers. The findings of the report underline the need to maintain the UK's strict policy on asbestos, supported by the comprehensive regulatory controls already in place.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many deaths from asbestos-related diseases have occurred in each year since 1979. [17079]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The number of death certificates mentioning asbestosis or the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma were published in the Health and Safety Commissions statistical supplement to the 1993–94 annual report, a copy of which was placed in the Library.

  Asbestos-related diseases also include lung cancer caused by asbestos exposure. Such cases cannot be distinguished medically from lung cancer due to other causes, principally smoking. Based on epidemiological evidence, there are likely to be one or two deaths from asbestos-related lung cancer for each death from mesothelioma.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the cost to public funds of the current early retirement scheme in the Health and Safety Executive; and how many more such schemes are envisaged for the fiscal year 1995–96. [17306]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The cost to public funds of the Health and Safety Executive 1994–95 early retirement scheme was £2.77 million during the 1994–95 financial year. On-going costs of the scheme will be approximately £1.15 million a year, diminishing as individuals reach the age of 60.

  Currently there are no plans for any further early retirement schemes for HSE professional grades in HSE during the 1995–96 fiscal year.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the employees of the Health and Safety Executive have qualifications in(a) computing, (b) personnel management, (c) accountancy, (d) management and (e) training; and how many are currently undergoing study for qualifications in these areas. [17316]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff who have taken early retirement from the Health and Safety Executive have subsequently been offered contracts as consultants with the Health and Safety Executive. [17307]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I will write to the hon. Member, and place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current salary of the director general of the Health and Safety Executive; at what rate 54
  his successors position is being advertised and for what reasons; who will sit on the appointing panel; and whether salary bargaining will take place at, or before, the interviews of the shortlisted candidates. [17315]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The current salary of the director general of the Health and Safety Executive is £87,435 for the financial year 1994–95. The salary of a successor was advertised as circa £90,000, with more available for an exceptional candidate, for an appointment in June 1995. The appointing panel consists of members of the Health and Safety Commission together with a representative of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whose approval is required both of the appointment and the salary. No salary bargaining took place during the interviews or before them.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the Health and Safety Executives buildings adjacent to St. Johns house in Bootle suffer from sick building syndrome; and if he will make a statement on their future. [17309]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive has no evidence suggesting that any of its headquarters buildings at Bootle, adjacent to St. Johns house, suffer from sick building syndrome. The majority of leases at HSEs offices at Bootle headquarters expire in approximately 10 years time. HSE will be undertaking a review of its headquarters accommodation needs over the short, medium and longer terms. The outcome of that review will determine its future strategy.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the extent to which the procedure for recruiting and salary level offered to the new director general of the Health and Safety Executive complies with current public sector pay policy. [17317]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The procedure for recruitment and salary determination in the appointment of director general of the Health and Safety Executive reflects the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Governments announced policies on the pay of the senior civil service.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, what are the implications for both inspection and supply services staff of the Health and Safety Executive of the Gas Bill. [18044]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: The Health and Safety Executive will carry out a number of new tasks following the opening up to competition of the British domestic gas market. Those are set out in the Health and Safety Commissions report, Britains Gas Supply: A Safety Framework.

  Copies of the report were placed in the Library on 1 March 1995.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will place in the Library all Health and Safety Executive reports on the assessment of risk management to deal with the consequences of the Gas Bill; [18047]

  (2) if he will place in the Library all Health and Safety Executive reports setting out the implications, including resources, for the executive as a consequence of the Gas Bill. [18045]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: Copies of the Health and Safety Commissions report

  55
  Britains Gas Supply: A Safety Framework were placed in the Library on 1 March 1995.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish details of the numbers of additional inspection and supply staff the Health and Safety Executive will have to recruit to deal directly with the consequences of the Gas Bill. [18046]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: The issue of how many additional staff the Health and Safety Executive will require following the opening up to competition of the British domestic gas market is still under consideration.

  However, an estimate of the likely costs of the additional resources was included in the Health and Safety Commissions report Britains Gas Supply: A Safety Framework, copies of which were placed in the Library on 1 March 1995.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many competitive tendering exercises carried out by his Department in each of the last two years were caught by the provisions of the public services directive but were not subsequently advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union in compliance with the relevant regulations. [19226]

  Miss Widdecombe
  In each of the last two years there have been no recorded cases in any of the constituent parts of the Employment Department group of non-compliance with EC Council directive 92/50/EEC regulating the award of public services contracts.

  Workstart
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) where the pilot scheme for workstart in Coventry is to be located; [19063]

  (2) which Department is responsible for the workstart scheme in Coventry; [19059]

  (3) if an approved qualification will be granted at the end of the workstart course in Coventry; [19065]

  (4) what is the level of subsidies that an employer would be entitled to under the workstart scheme in Coventry; [19061]

  (5) what is to be the content of the training for the workstart scheme in Coventry; and what will be the duration of that training; [19064]

  (6) what is the level of funding for the workstart scheme in Coventry; [19060]

  (7) what is the target number of people to be involved in the workstart scheme in Coventry. [19062]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Workstart pays a subsidy to employers who recruit very long-term unemployed people. Initial pilots were run in four areas between July 1993 and December 1994. Further pilots, offering 5,000 places, were announced in last Novembers Budget. These new workstart pilots begin this month in the west midlands conurbation, Greater Manchester and Cheshire and are administered through local Employment Service jobcentres. All jobcentres in Coventry will be involved.

  In the west midlands, lower and upper limits of £700 and £2,800 have been set for the subsidy with a duration
  56
  varying between three and 12 months. No targets have been set for the number of people who will participate on workstart in Coventry, and no financial ceilings have been set for individual areas. Some £8 million is available for the pilots as a whole.

  Employers receiving a workstart subsidy are not required to offer training leading to an approved qualification. The purpose of the scheme is to help people unemployed over two years back into work.

  I wrote on 6 April 1995 to all hon. Members whose constituencies are covered by the workstart pilots informing them of the pilots and enclosing a copy of the press notice.

  Training
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy towards individuals being obliged by their employers to contribute to the costs of national vocational qualification training schemes as a condition of their continued employment. [19391]

  Mr. Paice
  Matters such as whether or not employees should contribute towards the costs of training are for discussion and agreement between employers and employees, or their representatives, without Government intervention.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently engaged under Government sponsored training schemes by multiple retailers, retail co-operative societies, and other retailers; and what proportion of the total number of people undergoing such training is represented by those engaged in retail distribution. [19068]

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is not available.

  Grays Unemployment Benefit Office
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for what purpose Permetherin pesticide was sprayed in the Grays benefit office on 8 October 1991. [19394]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, dated 18 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the use of Permethrin pesticide in the Grays Unemployment Benefit Office on 8 October 1991.
  A product known as Stapro Insecticide, which contains Permethrin, was used in the Grays office on 8 October 1991, in response to a suspected infestation of insects. Spraying was carried out by an external contractor.
  The contractor has assured the Employment Service that the insecticide used was approved under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 and that the manufacturers instructions were followed. I am further assured by the Health and Safety. Executive that this pesticide is approved for use under these circumstances. Indeed, Permethrin is an active ingredient in a wide range of products, including household fly sprays and flea treatments.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Allerton Outreach Team
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the activities undertaken by the Allerton outreach team; what funding his Department has made to support the project; if he will extend such funding to enable the team to maintain its presence in the local community; and what plans there are to fund similar projects in other parts of Bradford and the United Kingdom. [19066]

  Mr. Paice
  Performance figures for the Allerton outreach team to 6 April 1995 are: 56 clients into employment, target 10, and 25 training starts, target 20. A summary report of the project for the period funded by the Employment Service is currently being produced. ES contributed £5,894.00 to the project from the programme development fund which equated to 50 per cent. of salary costs for a three month period. The PDF has now been absorbed into the single regeneration budget challenge fund which provides flexible support for local initiatives. Whilst outreach work, both in Bradford and elsewhere in the country, falls clearly within the scope of the SRB challenge fund objectives, its inclusion in round 2 bids is an option which it is appropriate for local partnerships to consider alongside other needs and priorities. The Bradford training and enterprise council has offered to part-fund an outreach worker for 1995–96 and discussions between the TEC and Bradford council are continuing.

  Allowances
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible(a) the total amount of removal costs and associated expenses reimbursed to officials who were required to relocate as part of their employment, (b) the amount of each of the highest three claims that were concluded and settled and (c) the average amount of each claim in each of the last three years. [19662]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested in(a) is set out in the following table. The information requested in (b) and (c) is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Rest of the Employment Department Group1

  9,264,436

  5,192,388

  4,599,474

  Employment Service

  5,171,919

  4,537,032

  3,480,173

  Total

  14,436,355

  9,729,420

  8,079,647

  1 Comprises Employment Department, Health and Safety Executive and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the total amount paid by his central Department and each agency for which he is responsible in subsistence allowances for travel(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) outside the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [19552]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The following table shows the total cost of travel and subsistence payments for journeys within the United Kingdom.
  58

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Rest of the Employment Department Group1

  10,493,206

  9,752,161

  9,461,173

  Employment Service

  5,624,341

  4,045,228

  3,579,461

  Total

  16,117,547

  13,797,389

  13,040,634

  1 Comprises the Employment Department, Health and Safety Executive and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

  Overtime
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible(a) the total hours of overtime worked for which payment has been made, (b) the total amount paid in overtime and (c) the total time in days and its monetary equivalent lost through sickness in each of the last three years. [19671]

  Miss Widdecombe
  (a) The total hours of overtime worked for the last three financial years is shown in the following table:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Employment Department (ED)

  257,755

  261,128

  216,771

  Employment Service (ES)

  427,031

  590,624

  276,599

  Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

  52,308

  48,867

  58,927

  Arbitration, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS)

  2,597

  1,406

  2,324

  Total

  739,691

  902,025

  554,621

  (b) The total amount paid in overtime for the last three financial years in pounds is shown in the following table:

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  ED

  1,905,659

  1,970,987

  1,726,760

  ES

  2,714,692

  3,849,480

  2,029,850

  HSE

  344,814

  372,940

  444,900

  ACAS

  18,674

  9,505

  18,243

  Total

  4,983,839

  6,202,912

  4,219,753

  (c) Data on total time in days lost through sickness for 1994 are not yet available. However, the figures for 1992 and 1993 calendar years in days are shown in the following table:

  1992

  1993

  ED

  71,953

  80,620

  ES

  482,875

  595,291

  HSE

  30,917

  40,576

  ACAS

  4,166

  6,116

  Total

  589,911

  722,603

  No records are available which give figures for the monetary equivalent for time lost through sickness.

  Advisers
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many advisers his Department employs
  59
  broken down to show (a) political advisers and (b) economic advisers; at what grade and salary they are employed; and what are their minimum working hours in each case. [19425]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department employs one political adviser. Salaries and conditions of work for political advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential.

  Economic advice is obtained from career civil servants, who may be employed on a variety of working patterns. Their grades range from grade 3 to assistant economist.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many elected councillors are currently serving on training and enterprise council boards; and what was the number in 1992, 1993 and 1994. [19534]

  Mr. Paice
  There are currently 14 elected councillors on training and enterprise council boards representing local authorities. There are seven other board members who are councillors, although they are appointed to TEC boards to represent private sector companies.

  I am unable to provide the information requested for previous years as this information is not held centrally.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will outline the measures taken, facilities offered and adjustments made in his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to facilitate access for disabled people; what plans he has to improve access; and if he will make a statement. [18582]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 5 April 1995]: The Employment Department group is committed to estates and accommodation policies which seek to ensure that access and facilities are suitable for disabled people, whether staff or the public. These policies will be adapted to take account of the Cabinet Office Programme for Action for Disabled People and in future to embody the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Bill in all estates provision and accommodation facilities. In many cases, existing buildings and offices have been modified to provide or improve access for disabled people, both staff and the public. New buildings and refurbishment projects take the need for this provision into account from their beginning. Some 3.9 per cent. of the employees of the Employment Department group are registered disabled people, compared with the quota of 3 per cent.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what targets he has for withdrawing regulations within his Department. [15547]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 27 March by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, Official Report, column 410, explaining the Governments deregulation initiative. Within the Employment Department group, the recent review of health and safety regulations by the Health and Safety Commission has recommended substantial simplification and modernisation of health and safety legislation. Seven pieces of primary legislation and 100 sets of regulations have been identified for removal, and HSC has included
  60
  a programme of legislative reform in its Plan of Work, which will be published shortly.

TRANSPORT

  Design, Build, Finance and Operate Projects
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in assessing if DBFO contracts could be extended to the whole road building programme. [18842]

  Mr. Watts
  Four DBFO projects were tendered on 9 January and expressions of interest in a further four were requested on 15 February. All contain road building schemes which have been legally authorised following completion of statutory procedures, including public inquiry. Much of the road programme is in earlier stages of preparation.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what PFI projects(a) have been completed, (b) are at construction stage, (c) are at planning state and (d) are under consideration; and what is the value of each project. [18841]

  Mr. Watts
  In November 1994, the Department published its document, Building Tomorrows Transport Network, which described developments in private funding for transport projects. It included projects under construction, such as the Heathrow express rail link and second Severn crossing, and the Queen Elizabeth II bridge at Dartford, which was opened in 1991. The document also set out a wide range of future opportunities for private sector participation under the PFI.

  Since then the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill has begun its passage through Parliament, and bids have been received to build and run the new line; we have announced that the signalling and train control system for the upgraded west coast main line will be secured with private finance; we have announced a second tranche of four design, build, finance and operate road schemes; London Transport has signed the final contract with GEC Alsthom for the supply of privately financed new trains for the Northern line; BR has invited tenders for a possible further trunk of Networker express trains; and we have approved funding in principle for the Croydon Tramlink and line one of the Midland Metro light rail schemes, subject to satisfactory contributions from the private sector.

  ScotRail
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he was consulted by ScotRail over its proposal to include in its draft timetable additional passenger services involving Cowlairs north curve and south-west junction, Springburn junction and Cumbernauld; and if he will make a statement. [19832]

  Mr. Watts
  No.
  61
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the costs and passenger fare revenue involved in the provision of additional passenger services by ScotRail, involving Cowlairs north curve and south-west junction, Springburn and Cumbernauld, respectively, as outlined in its draft timetable; and if he will make a statement. [19833]

  Mr. Watts
  These are matters for the management of British Rail.

WALES

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of Aujeskys disease were reported in each year since 1985. [17810]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  One case of Aujesky's disease was reported in Wales in 1988.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of blue tongue were reported in each year since 1980. [17815]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No cases of blue tongue have occurred in Wales since 1 June 1991. This disease only became notifiable on that date and official records prior to that were not collected, although I am not aware that there has ever been a case of this disease in Great Britain.

  Year

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  GPs

  6

  2

  6

  2

  1

  4

  4

  6

  4

  3

  6

  11

  Locums

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. One of the GPs erased from the Register in 1994 currently has an appeal against the Professional Conduct Committee's direction pending.

  2. These figures have not been validated.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what plans he has to review the situation whereby general practitioners struck from the register of the General Medical Council for serious professional misconduct might continue to practice while considering an appeal; and if he will make a statement. [18098]

  Mr. Richards
  The General Medical Council is an independent statutory body whose constitution and functions are regulated by the Medical Act 1983. Adequate powers already exist to ensure that practitioners shall remain suspended from the register during the appeal process in circumstances where the GMC is satisfied that this is necessary for the protection of members of the public or would be in the best interest of the doctor. The way in which those powers are exercised is entirely a matter for the GMC.

  Free School Meals, Clwyd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate or the(a) percentage and (b) number of school children in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools entitled to free schools meals in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement. [18145]
  62
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of cattle plague were reported in each year since 1985. [18616]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No cases of cattle plague have occurred in Wales since 1985. As far as I am aware the last known case in Great Britain was in 1877.

  Raytheon Corporate Jets
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the United States Administration on asking Raytheon to reconsider its decision to close its Broughton factory in Britain and move production to the United States of America. [17835]

  Mr. Redwood
  I have asked Raytheon on a number of occasions to reverse its decision to close its plant at Broughton. These representations have been drawn to the attention of the US embassy.

  General Medical Council
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioners have been struck from the register by the General Medical Council for serious professional misconduct in each year since 1983. [18097]

  Mr. Richards
  The General Medical Council has provided the following information about the number of general practitioners and locums in the United Kingdom erased from the medical register for serious professional misconduct each year since 1983.

  Mr. Richards
  The number and percentage of children entitled to free school meals in maintained primary and secondary schools in Clwyd, as at January 1994, are shown as follows:

  Number

  Percentage of total

  Primary schools

  7,540

  18.5

  Secondary schools

  3,815

  14.3

  Source:

  School Census, January 1994.

  Hospices
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning hospices, and if he will list each of the hospices in each of the counties of Wales. [18102]

  Mr. Richards
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Nursing Home Residents
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many residents there are in private nursing homes; and what was the total in 1980. [18103]
  63
  Mr. Richards
  Not all nursing homes provide information on the number of residents. On 31 March 1994, there were 10,661 residents in the private nursing homes which did provide data. Information was collected for the first time in 1991 when private nursing homes reported 7,964 residents.

  Clinical Outcome Indicators
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report column 666, if his office is seeking to agree suitable clinical outcome indicators for individual hospitals and trusts in Wales in addition to those for Welsh health authorities. [18411]

  Mr. Richards
  Clinical outcome indicators currently being considered by the medical and nursing professions in Wales are national indictors of value both to health authorities and hospitals.

  Any additional local indicators will be a matter for health authorities to negotiate in contracts with their local providers.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of homeless people in each of the parliamentary constituencies in Wales. [18104]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not available by parliamentary constituency. Numbers of people who were accepted as homeless for each local authority in 1994 are shown in the following table.

  People accepted as homeless by local authority, 1994

  Number of people

  Aberconwy

  187

  Alyn and Deeside

  476

  Arfon

  74

  Blaenau Gwent

  591

  Brecknock

  359

  Cardiff

  4,638

  Carmarthen

  282

  Ceredigion

  266

  Colwyn

  241

  Cynon Valley

  241

  Delyn

  414

  Dinefwr

  519

  Dwyfor

  65

  Glyndwr

  58

  Islwyn

  807

  Llanelli

  241

  Lliw Valley

  190

  Meirionnydd

  145

  Merthyr Tydfil

  296

  Monmouth

  355

  Montgomery

  251

  Neath

  526

  Newport

  1,540

  Ogwr

  2,258

  Port Talbot

  308

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  269

  Radnor

  100

  Rhondda

  192

  Rhuddlan

  111

  Rhymney Valley

  340

  South Pembrokeshire

  192

  Swansea

  3,072

  Taff-Ely

  612

  Torfaen

  737

  64

  People accepted as homeless by local authority, 1994

  Number of people

  Vale of Glamorgan

  391

  Wrexham Maelor

  692

  Ynys Mon

  176

  Wales

  22,212

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the current estimated waiting times for spinal surgery in Wales by county. [18141]

  Mr. Richards
  The numbers of people currently on waiting lists and their current waiting times are recorded centrally by consultant specialty and not by surgical or other procedure. Under the specialty of spinal injury, the numbers reported as waiting at 31 December 1994 were as follows:

  Number waiting for in-patient admission

  Clwyd District Health Authority

  1

  Gwynedd District Health Authority

  5

  All of these patients had been waiting for less than 12 months.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each specialty and each health district in Wales the new target waiting times for NHS treatment. [18876]

  Mr. Richards
  The national standards and guarantees for hospital waiting times are shown in the patients charter for Wales. Information on any detailed local targets can be obtained from individual health authorities.

  Press Releases (E-mail)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to introduce E-mail for his press releases. [18916]

  Mr. Redwood
  Some press notices are distributed to the media in London by the Central Office of Informations electronic service. My Department keeps in touch with the demands of the media and the matter is kept under review.

  Trade Missions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions he or his junior Ministers have taken part in trade missions in 1993–94 and 1994–95; what is the proposed number for 1995–96; and if he will list the destinations. [18791]

  Mr. Redwood
  In 1993–94, my hon. Friends led Welsh Office trade missions on six occasions. In 1994–95 parliamentary business allowed them to lead missions on only three occasions, although four other missions were led by officials.

  During 1995–96, my ministerial colleagues hope to lead five trade missions to Argentina/Chile, Italy, Spain, the Gulf states, and Indonesia/Singapore. Three other trade missions led by officials will visit Japan, the United States of America, and India.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the capital value of Welsh Development Agency factories where new rents were negotiated in 1989; what was the average rental per £100,000 of capital value; and what is the estimated capital value of these factories currently; [18864]

  (2) how many tenants of the Welsh Development Agency have been offered the opportunity of purchasing their factories before block sales of whole estates, or significant parts of them, in each of the last five years; what percentage of tenants were made such an offer; and what percentage accepted; [18860]

  (3) how many companies have approached the Welsh Development Agency seeking reductions in their rent during the last year, and how many people they employ; [18862]

  (4) how many jobs have been lost in factories rented from the Welsh Development Agency following factory closures following the rises in each of the last three years; and what estimate has been made of the likely job losses in the current year. [18863]

  Mr. Redwood
  I will arrange for the chief executive of the agency to write to the hon. Member and for a copy of his letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 12 December to the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney),Official Report, column 515–16, if he will list the papers reported to be derived by Cynon Valley borough council to the Grant Thornton inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [18928]

  Mr. Redwood
  The papers to which the Grant Thornton inquiry was not granted access concerned the decision of the council to put Cynon Valley Transport into members voluntary liquidation.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what dates operating guidelines have been issued to the Welsh Development Agency during the past 10 years; on what dates they have come into effect; and to what degree new guidelines have superseded previous ones. [18879]

  £ million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  11994–95

  1995–96 Plans

  1996–97 Plans

  1997–98 Plans

  GIA

  61.9

  69.8

  81.2

  87.2

  78.4

  69.5

  51.7

  25.4

  228

  285

  Rental and sale of property

  32.5

  43.4

  54.8

  56.9

  79.5

  70.7

  80.3

  103.6

  6—

  6—

  Grants received from European Community

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11.0

  315.03

  4—

  4—

  Total domestic budget plus estimated ERDF

  115.1

  133.4

  149.2

  158.3

  165.2

  151.7

  157.1

  5153.4

  —

  —

  1 Estimated outturn. 2 Central Government expenditure: cash plans (CM 2815).

  3 Agency's estimate of grant for additional projects to be funded from ERDF.

  4 No firm estimates have been made for future years, although the Agency has made indicative estimates of possible additional items of expenditure in compiling its corporate plan.

  5 Gross expenditure which takes into account GIA and Agency estimates of all receipts.

  6 Not yet available

  Nu-Kote International Ltd.
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has asked the Welsh Development Agency to assist Nu-Kote International, Deeside industrial park; and if he will make a statement. [18783]
  66
  Mr. Redwood
  In the last 10 years, guidelines have come into effect as follows:

  Date

  Guidelines

  May 1988

  General Advisory Function

  August 1989

  DRIVE

  May 1992

  Urban Development

  September 1993

  Rural Conversion Grant (1st revise)

  July 1994

  Urban Development (1st revise)

  July 1994

  Land Reclamation (1st revise)

  July 1994

  Property Development (1st revise)

  July 1994

  Environmental Improvement (1st revise)

  July 1994

  Rural Development

  April 1995

  Urban Development (2nd revise)

  April 1995

  Land Reclamation (2nd revise)

  April 1995

  Property Development (2nd revise)

  April 1995

  Environmental Improvement (2nd revise)

  April 1995

  Rural Development (1st revise)

  April 1995

  Business Services (replaced General Advisory Function)

  April 1995

  Investment (replaced Industrial Investment, 1980)

  April 1995

  Inward Investment

  April 1995

  Marketing

  New or revised guidelines replace earlier versions in their entirety.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received regarding plans by the Welsh Development Agency to recover derelict land in south Wales. [19322]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend received one letter from a member of the public this year about the land reclamation scheme at Rhoose point, South Glamorgan.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for every financial year since 1988–89 and the plans until 1997–98 for(a) the amount of the Welsh Office grant in aid to the Welsh Development Agency, (b) the amount raised internally by rental and sale of its property, (c) the total revenue received in grants from the European Community and (d) its total budget. [17698]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Mr. Redwood
  I have not asked the Welsh Development Agency to assist NK International, but the agency stands ready to help in any way that it can.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, on what occasions he has visited NK
  67
  International, Deeside industrial park; and if he will make a statement. [18781]

  Mr. Redwood
  I have not visited Nu-Kote International.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the amount his Department and the Welsh Development Agency have paid in grants since the NK International factory was located on Deeside industrial park; and if he will make a statement. [18784]

  Mr. Redwood
  A regional development grant of £92,500 was paid to the company in 1991–92. A subsequent offer of regional selective assistance was made to the company in 1992–93, although no RSA payments have been claimed. The Welsh Development Agency has not paid any grants to the company.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many redundancies are proposed at NK International Deeside industrial park; and if he will make a statement. [18782]

  Mr. Redwood
  Nu-Kote International Ltd. has announced that it proposes to make 140 people redundant at its premises on the Deeside industrial park.

  I very much regret these job losses which, I understand, are due to take place by the end of the year. This was, however, a commercial decision for the company.

  The local training and enterprise council and the development agencies stand ready to help in any way that they can.

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) in what form his direction to the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, in relation to the option appraisals for National Blood Transfusion Services Wales and the Artificial Limb and Appliance Service Wales set pre-conditions requiring their separation from the authority on the same basis as in the option appraisal for Breast Test Wales; [18798]

  (2) by what means he instructed the Welsh Health Common Services Authority in its review of its own future that the three clinical divisions should not be permitted to consider the option of remaining within the authority. [18790]

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department wrote initially on 28 March 1994, on a management in confidence basis, to advise the authority that the three clinical services would transfer out for management purposes. No further pre-conditions were established for the option appraisals undertaken by the services.

  Trainee Dentists
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many trainee dentists there are in the county of Mid Glamorgan; how many there were in 1989; and if he will make a statement; [18891]

  (2) how many trainee dentists there are in the county of Gwynedd; how many there were in 1990; and if he will make a statement. [18883]

  Mr. Richards
  At 31 December 1994, there were four dentists undergoing vocational training in general dental practice in Mid Glamorgan FHSA and none in Gwynedd FHSA. The earliest date at which this data are available is 30 September 1991 when the figures were the same.

  Dental Services, Gwynedd
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dental practitioners with fewer than two years post-qualification experience there are in the county of Gwynedd; and if he will make a statement. [18227]

  Mr. Richards
  According to information supplied by the family health services authority, there is one dentist in Gwynedd with fewer than two years post-qualification experience.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many representations his Department has received from people in Gwynedd on the subject of the provision of dental services in the county; and if he will make a statement; [18882]

  (2) what.proposals he has to improve the provision of dental services in the county of Gwynedd, and if he will make a statement. [18885]

  (3) how many representations he has received from people in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy during the past 12 months on the subject of the provision of dental services; and if he will make a statement. [18888]

  Mr. Richards
  In the past 12 months, 93 representations have been received about dental services in Gwynedd, including 57 from Members of Parliament. Information relating only to people living in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is not readily available.

  During the same period, the Gwynedd family health services authority has received nearly £7,000 to cover the cost of local initiatives aimed at increasing NHS dental provision. A location incentive grant has also been agreed by the Welsh Office to assist a dentist to open a new practice in Dolgellau.

  The Welsh Office has also provided a grant of £50,000 to the health authority to enable it to purchase extra community dental sessions and continues to support the Gwynedd family health service authority salaried dental service.

  On 30 January, the Secretary of State announced that he is making a further £2.5 million available to improve dental services in the community. Proposals from the Gwynedd health authorities are being considered.

  On 5 April, the Government announced their plans for the reform of NHS dentistry following consultation on their Green Paper, Improving NHS Dentistry. The Government believe that the measures proposed will provide stability and security for NHS dentistry, deliver increased quality of treatment for patients and promote better use of resources by targeting care on areas of greatest need.

  Dental Services, Gwent
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received in the last 12 months from persons living in Gwent on the question of the delivery of dental services; and if he will make a statement. [18893]

  Mr. Richards
  In the past 12 months, seven representations on the subject of general dental services have been received either from or on behalf of persons living in Gwent.

  Mr Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dental practitioners with less than four years
  69
  post-qualification experience there are in practice in the county of Gwent. [18886]

  Mr. Richards
  According to information supplied by Gwent health commission, there are 13 general dental practitioners with less than four years, post-qualification experience, in practise in the county of Gwent.

  Dental Services, Mid Glamorgan
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dental practitioners there are in the county of Mid Glamorgan taking new NHS patients; and if he will make a statement. [18884]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is not available centrally in the form requested.

  Family health services authorities are best placed to provide information on local availability of NHS general dental services, and to provide advice and assistance to any patient seeking to register with a dentist under NHS arrangements.

  Dental Services, Clwyd
  Mr. Llywd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dental technicians there are in practice in the county of Clwyd; how many there were in 1990; and if he will make a statement. [18892]

  Mr. Richards
  Information on the number of dental technicians employed by general dental practitioners or self employed is not collected centrally.

  However, at 31 December 1994, there were six whole-time equivalent dental technicians directly employed by the NHS in the Clwyd health authority area. At 30 September 1990 the equivalent figure was five.

  Childrens Teeth
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children in Wales had one or more teeth extracted in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [18890]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is not available centrally.

  Breast Test Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the Breast Test Wales Option appraisal document date 30 November 1994 and the comparable document concerning the Artificial Limb and Appliance Service Wales and the Blood Transfusion Service Wales. [18788]

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 31 January 1995, column 639.

  Natural Beauty Products Ltd., Bridgend
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the capital value of the factory rented by Natural Beauty Products Ltd., at Weston avenue, Bridgend, when its rent was re-negotiated in 1989; what is the estimated value currently; and if he will make it his policy to allow flexibility in rental charges to reflect market conditions. [18861]

  Mr. Redwood
  The setting of rental levels is an operational matter. I will arrange for the chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency to write to the hon.70
  Member with details of this particular property and for a copy of his letter to be placed in the Library of House.

  Crickhowell House
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority concerning covenants restricting the use of Crickhowell house to public sector purposes; and if he will make a statement. [18874]

  Mr. Redwood
  None. There are no covenants restricting the use of Crickhowell House to the public sector.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Ron. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what subjects he discussed with the Countryside Council for Wales during their meeting on 24 January. [18834]

  Mr. Redwood
  We discussed a wide-range of subjects including the proposed action plan, Tir Cymen, the Countryside Council for Waless green housekeeping policies, the role of local authorities in local environmental management, the protection of designated sites and the environmental agenda for Wales.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what requirements there are for officials in his Department to introduce a compliance cost assessment for all rules and regulations coming before him and his Ministers; and how many compliance cost assessments have been issued in his Department in the first three months of this year. [19357]

  Mr. Redwood
  My officials are expected to comply with Government-wide requirements for the preparation and publication of compliance cost assessments for all legislation with an impact on business. No Wales-only legislation affecting business and hence requiring a compliance cost assessment was brought forward in the first three months of this year.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many rules and regulations he repealed in the first three months of 1995; and how many new rules and regulations were introduced in that period by way of statutory instruments, motions or orders. [19373]

  Mr. Redwood
  Eleven regulations and orders were repealed in the first three months of 1995. In the same period, 78 regulations and orders were introduced, none of which placed a burden on business. Most of them related to NHS trusts, local government, the council tax, education and roads.

  Health Promotion Authority For Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what proposals he has for revamping the structure of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales; and if he will make a statement. [19257]

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Friday 31 March 1995, column 871.

  NHS Pay Increases
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he has made for awarding pay
  71
  increases to the chairmen and board members of NHS trusts and health authorities in Wales. [18246]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: Chairmen's pay has not increased since 1991; non-executive directors since 1990.

  Executive directors holding national contracts received a pay award of 2.2 per cent. from September 1994, excluding individual performance awards. Those on NHS trust terms have pay determined by the trust's remuneration committee. The director, Welsh Office Health Department wrote on 25 January 1995 to authorities and NHS trusts informing them that increases in pay for executive directors must be justifiable and publicly defensible, since all NHS bodies are parts of the public sector.

  NHS Forms
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, how many forms he has extended in respect of the numbers of questions requiring an answer, in a manner analogous to the extension to form PHS1 as provided for in guidance note FHSL [W] 50/94 of 16 December 1994 on local pharmacy budgets; and if he will make a statement. [17996]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: Of the 106 Welsh Office forms to the NHS reviewed in 1993–94 and 1994–95, additional information needs were identified on six occasions. Some 35 forms were' discontinued in the first phase of the review. On 28 March, I announced a further reduction of 30 per cent. on the information collected on remaining statistical returns.

  Form PHS1 is issued by the Department of Health and is included in its rolling programme of information reviews.

SCOTLAND

  Blue Tongue
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, how many cases of blue tongue were reported in each year since 1980. [17814]

  Sir Hector Monro
  No cases of blue tongue have been reported since it was made notifiable on 1 June 1991. Official records are not available before that date.

  Aujeszkys Disease
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of Aujeszkys disease were reported in each year since 1985. [17809]

  Sir Hector Monro
  No cases of Aujeszky's disease have been recorded in Scotland since 1985.

  Homicide
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the ratio and the causes of the difference in the homicide rates in Scotland as compared with England and Wales. [18920]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  For the period 1989 to 1993 the homicide rate in Scotland per million population, measured by the number of victims, for cases currently recorded as homicide as at 15 October 1994,72
  was 20.4. In England and Wales, over the same period for cases currently recorded as homicide as at 5 August 1994, it was 11.4. Thus the ratio of the homicide rate in Scotland to that in England and Wales for the period was 1.8:1.

  The higher rate for Scotland may in part be attributed to different recording practices. The numbers of homicides are those recorded by the police, but allowing for changes as a result of decisions that may arise during the course of criminal proceedings. However, in England and Wales cases cease to be recorded as homicide where an accused is acquitted of homicide on grounds of self-defence or accident or where the prosecution subsequently concludes that no homicide has occurred, whereas in Scotland such cases continue to be recorded as homicides. This difference in practice may account for up to one quarter of the difference in the recorded homicide rate. Differences may also arise from differences in the criminal law in each jurisdiction.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those further education colleges in Scotland which, by 8 March, had received that portion of their grant in aid from 1994–95 which had previously been withheld subject to flexibility arrangements on conditions for their staff; and on what date the sum was released for each college. [18685]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  By 8 March 1995, 20 colleges had received the 2 per cent. of recurrent grant being held back pending progress towards the introduction of more flexible conditions. These colleges are listed, together with the date when the sum was released.

  College

  Date

  Aberdeen college

  24 January

  Angus college

  21 February

  Anniesland college

  24 January

  Ayr college

  24 January

  Borders college

  21 February

  Cambuslang college

  21 February

  Cardonald college

  21 February

  Cumbernauld college

  24 January

  Dumfries and Galloway college

  24 January

  Elmwood college

  24 January

  Glasgow college of building and printing

  21 February

  Inverness college

  21 February

  James Watt college of further and higher education

  24 January

  Moray college

  24 January

  Motherwell college

  21 February

  North Glasgow college

  24 January

  Perth college

  21 February

  Stow college

  24 January

  Telford college

  24 January

  Thurso college

  24 January

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contacts he had with the Scottish Sunday Mail over the affairs of Dr. Barbouti in relation to Lockerbie. [18951]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Historic Scotland about window replacements proposed to
  73
  listed buildings in Campbell street, Thurso, Breadalbane crescent, Wick and the Customs house, Helmsdale; and what response he has given. [18965]

  Sir Hector Monro
  It would not be appropriate to comment on the advice which Ministers received from their officials. I can, however, confirm that in respect of those listed buildings my right. hon. Friend has decided to call in for his own decision applications for listed building consent. The applicants and the councils may now decide whether they wish the application to be determined by a public local inquiry or by an exchange of written submissions and a site inspection.

  Witness Protection
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the protection available to witnesses and informants who pass on to the police information relating to the protection of drug dealers. [19029]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Decisions about the appropriate protection to provide in individual cases are an operational matter for the police.

  Eider Ducks
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many field visits his staff made in 1994 to assess reported damage by eider ducks at shellfish farms prior to the issue of a licence for the killing of this bird. [19149]

  Sir Hector Monro
  A site visit was made prior to the approval of the one licence to shoot eiders issued during 1994.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications his staff have received for licences to kill eider ducks at shellfish farms during each year since 1987. [19141]

  Sir Hector Monro
  Since 1987 three applications have been received under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to kill eider ducks at shellfish farms in Scotland. One application was received in 1991, one in 1994 and one in 1995.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many licences have been issued during each year since 1981 under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for the killing of eider ducks at shellfish farms; and what bag limits were imposed on these licences. [19147]

  Sir Hector Monro
  Two licences have been issued since 1981 both in respect of the same site. The first, for the period 23 November to 31 December 1994, had a limit of 50 eider ducks and eight were reported as shot. The second was from 14 March to 30 April 1995 with a limit of 20 birds.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Scottish Natural Heritage about the siting of mussel farms in relation to eider duck populations. [19139]

  Sir Hector Monro
  None. The siting of mussel farms is primarily a matter for the Crown Estate Commissioners, who consult SNH and other appropriate interests before granting leases for such developments.
  74
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has received from Scottish Natural Heritage on the issuing of licences to kill eider ducks during 1994; and if he will publish it. [19150]

  Sir Hector Monro
  SNH advised against the issue of a licence on the single application received in 1994. The basis of SNH's advice was that the farm had been badly sited and that the solution to the predation problem was to relocate it.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evidence is used to justify the granting of a licence to allow the killing of eider ducks at a shellfish farm; and if he will make it his practice to publish it. [19148]

  Sir Hector Monro
  Before any licence application is considered, evidence is required on the amount and significance of the expected damage to shellfish at the farm. It is not the practice to publish information on actual or likely damage in relation to specific businesses.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what methods of non-lethal predator control his staff insist must be tried at shellfish farms before any licence is issued for the killing of eider ducks. [19140]

  Sir Hector Monro
  Each application is assessed on its merits. However a range of non-lethal methods, such as nets and scarers, must have been tried before a licence to shoot is considered.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average time his Department takes in replying to letters from right hon. and hon. Members; what is the(a) shortest and (b) longest time it has taken to reply in full in the last calendar year; and if he will make a statement. [18989]

  Mr. Lang
  My Department has a target of replying to correspondence received from right hon. and hon. Members within 17 working days of receipt. The average time taken to reply to the 5,562 letters received during the 1994 calendar year was 19.6 working days. The shortest time taken to reply in full was one working day and the longest time was 92 working days.

  Economic Statistics
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statistics he keeps on the effect of Renfrew district on the Scottish economy; and if he will make a statement. [18997]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Available official economic data include employment and unemployment statistics, data from the annual census of production, number of manufacturing and other units, data on the size and characteristics of the labour force from the labour force survey, VAT registrations and deregistrations, and detailed data on economic activity from the census of population. Because of the different dates and frequency of compilation, and the possible changes in boundary definitions over time, data from different sources cannot be reliably compared. Further details are given in the table.
  75

  Source

  Frequency

  Latest available data

  Key statistics

  Census of Employment

  Biennial

  1991

  Employment by industry and gender status number of units

  Scottish Register of Employment

  Annual

  1992

  Manufacturing employment units

  Unemployment

  Monthly

  March 1995

  Gender, age and duration (Note: rates are not available at district level)

  Annual Census of Production

  Annual

  1992

  Output, employment and purchases for production industries

  Labour Force Survey

  Quarterly

  Winter 1994/95

  Characteristics of the labour force, numbers economically active, inactive. Data is limited at district level

  VAT Registrations

  Annual

  1993

  Registrations, deregistrations and end of year stocks, by broad industry group

  Census of Population

  Decennial

  1991

  Wealth of detail on economic activity, by industry, social class, and socio-economic group

  Availability of official data at district level or for similar sized areas is, in general, limited due to the relatively small sample sizes of key national surveys falling within districts. This applies across the United Kingdom/Great Britain. Further, districts do not match travel-to-work areas, creating conceptual and practical difficulties in providing some labour market statistics. Key statistics such as earnings and gross domestic product estimates have been produced at district level on an ad hoc basis, but are generally available only at Scottish regional level or above. Planned developments in data on services are at an all Scotland level, and not below in geographical terms.

  Photo-identity Passes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the current uses of photo-identity passes by central and local government in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [19007]

  Mr. Lang
  Photographic security passes which are issued by my Department to staff and other authorised personnel form part of the access control security procedures in place in the main Scottish Office buildings. In addition, photographic identity cards are issued to staff who, during the course of their official or statutory duties, may be required to identify themselves. Arrangements in local government are a matter for local authorities.

  Loitering
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to amend the laws on loitering; and if he will make a statement. [18983]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is no criminal offence of loitering in Scotland and there are no plans to introduce one.

  A law against loitering would unduly restrict the rights of assembly and movement of law-abiding citizens. Instead, there are a number of common law and statutory offences which target specific types of anti-social and criminal behaviour associated with loitering. In particular, section 46 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 makes it an offence for any person to loiter in a public place for the purposes of prostitution. Section 53 of the same Act makes it an offence for a pedestrian in a public
  76
  place wilfully to obstruct the lawful passage of others. In addition, behaviour likely to cause alarm or annoyance may constitute the common law crime of breach of the peace.

  Street Traders
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the laws governing street traders, with particular reference to regulating their right to compete with bona fide shopkeepers; what plans he has to legislate on the council tax liability of street traders; and if he will make a statement. [18988]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The licensing provisions governing street traders are contained in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. A review of the Act will be carried out once reorganisation of local government is complete.

  Barnacle Geese
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what bag limit was imposed on licences to kill barnacle geese under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in Orkney in the last year; and what non-lethal measures were taken to avoid serious damage to crops before the licence was issued. [19146]

  Sir Hector Monro
  Only one licence has been issued in respect of barnacle geese in Orkney. The licence is not subject to a bag limit but can be revoked at any time.

  The applicant carried out non-lethal scaring measures as recommended by the Department before a licence was issued.

  Police (Court Time)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to make legislative and procedural changes to ensure that the time spent in court by police officers waiting to give evidence which is not heard on the date or at the time they are called to give evidence is minimised; and if he will make a statement. [19030]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Proposals in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, including mandatory first and intermediate diets and provisions for the leading of
  77
  certificate evidence and the agreement of evidence in advance of trial, will lead to a substantial reduction in the time spent by police officers waiting to give evidence in court. Additionally, police forces and courts are currently introducing a number of administrative changes to reduce police waiting times.

  Urban Aid, Glasgow
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are employed(a) full time and (b) part time in urban aid projects in the east end of Glasgow; and of these, how many reside in the area. [19142]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information obtained—which from Strathclyde regional council and Glasgow district council are responsible for the management of urban programme projects in the area—shows that 161 people are employed full time and 37 part time in such projects in the east end of Glasgow. Information on how many of these people are resident in the area is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mining Subsidence
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the most recent information available to him on the stability of the disused coal mineworkings which lie under the town of Johnstone and the village of Elderslie; if he will commission a study into the need for further ground stabilisation measures; and if he will make a statement. [18990]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Where properties suffer damage as a result of coal mining subsidence, the Coal Authority or the relevant mine owner is responsible for repair or compensation under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 as amended by the Coal Industry Act 1994. I understand that the Coal Authority is not aware of any stability problems relating to the mineworkings under the town of Johnstone or the village of Elderslie.

  Table 1

  £ thousand

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Capital allocation for introduction of community charge

  6,000

  15,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community charge grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  437,000

  16,000

  9,000

  7,400

  Community charge transitional relief

  —

  —

  —

  24,000

  2,000

  —

  —

  —

  Community charge reduction scheme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  140,000

  107,000

  3,050

  900

  Community charge rebilling grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,000

  —

  —

  —

  Council tax transitional relief

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17,000

  3,100

  Council tax valuation grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,000

  7,000

  1,600

  0

  Table 2

  £ thousand

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–951

  Community charge registration

  9,645

  11,709

  14,048

  —

  —

  —

  Council tax valuation

  —

  —

  —

  11,342

  13,798

  9,176

  Community charge collection

  10,426

  25,817

  25,618

  29,595

  —

  —

  Advisers
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many advisers his Department employs broken down to show(a) political advisers and (b) economic advisers; at what grade and salary they are employed; and what are their minimum working hours in each case. [19417]

  Mr. Lang
  My Department employs two political advisers. Their salaries and conditions of work are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings.

  Economic advice is obtained from career civil servants, who are employed on standard civil service terms and conditions. The following numbers by grade are full-time equivalents:

  Senior economic adviser—unified grade 5–3

  Economic adviser—unified grade 7–10.6

  Economic assistant/senior economic assistant–11.6

  Council Tax
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average council tax band D bill for the changeover period between the poll tax and the council tax. [19523]

  Mr. Lang
  In 1993–94, the Scottish average band D council tax levels excluding council water charge were as follows: regional average, £397; islands average, £423; district average, £163. In calculating the averages, no allowance has been made for the effects of council tax transitional relief and council tax benefit in reducing the amounts to be paid.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of establishing(a) the poll tax and (b) the council tax. [17902]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: Costs incurred by local authorities in establishing the community charge and the council tax, which were reimbursed by my Department through grant schemes and capital allocations are set out in table 1. Known costs for administering local taxation collection are shown in table 2.
  79

  Table 2

  £ thousand

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–951

  Local tax collection

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40,128

  28,800

  Council tax preparation costs

  —

  —

  —

  7,302

  —

  —

  1 Figures based on budget estimates.

  Public Information Telephone Lines
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the public information telephone inquiry lines operated by his Department, in each case indicating the costs of establishing, operating and publicising these lines and the number of calls made to them up until this point; when they were established; and what assessment his Department has made of their effectiveness. [17460]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: The Scottish Office inquiry line and the free telephone lines from Scottish Office information points were established in October 1993. The cost of establishing these lines was £8,864 and telephone operating costs are approximately £5,000 per annum. All calls to these lines are dealt with by the Scottish Office central inquiry unit. The handling cost per call is less than £1. Initial publicity for the information points and lines cost £150,000. No further, publicity costs have been incurred.

  There have been some 6,600 calls to the inquiry line from all sources since its inception to 24 March 1995.

  Advertising expenditure by agencies within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland

  £ thousand

  Date of agency launch

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95 estimate outturn

  1995–96 plans

  Historic Scotland

  April 1991

  a. television

  n/a

  42

  Nil

  Nil

  129

  129

  b. radio

  n/a

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  5

  5

  c. newspaper

  n/a

  380

  253

  260

  93

  93

  d. other promotion

  n/a

  Nil

  65

  65

  70

  70

  e. total

  n/a

  422

  318

  325

  297

  297

  f. proportion of total spent on recruitment

  n/a

  3.6 per cent.

  3.5 per cent.

  3.4 per cent.

  7.1 per cent.

  5.4 per cent.

  Registers of Scotland

  April 1991

  a. television

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  b. radio

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  c. newspaper

  Nil

  Nil

  11

  7

  1

  5

  d. other promotion

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  e. total

  Nil

  Nil

  1

  7

  1

  5

  f. proportion of total spent of recruitment

  Nil

  Nil

  3.0 per cent.

  29.9 per cent.

  29.9 per cent.

  9.0 per cent.

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  April 1992

  a. television

  n/a

  n/a

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  b. radio

  n/a

  n/a

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  c. newspaper

  n/a

  n/a

  6

  6

  11

  10

  d. other promotion

  n/a

  n/a

  Nil

  1

  1

  1

  e. total

  n/a

  n/a

  6

  7

  12

  11

  f. proportion of total spent on recruitment

  n/a

  n/a

  100per cent.

  85.7 per cent.

  91.7 per cent.

  90.9 per cent.

  80
  A telephone call back survey to assess customer satisfaction levels with the service on these lines has just been completed.

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each non-departmental public body and agency for which he has responsibility and, for each, list separate figures for the spending by that body or agency on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotion materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising for each year since 1979–80 or for each year of its existence if it has been created since 1979–80; and what are his latest estimates of (a) to (f) for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17608]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: Details of the relevant expenditure by agencies for which I have responsibility are set out in the following table. Information on individual items of expenditure by non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally.
  81

  Advertising expenditure by agencies within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland

  £ thousand

  Date of agency launch

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95 estimate outturn

  1995–96 plans

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  April 1991

  a. television

  n/a

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  b. radio

  n/a

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  c. newspaper

  n/a

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  d. other promotion

  n/a

  5

  Nil

  14

  20

  Nil

  e. total

  n/a

  6

  1

  15

  21

  1

  f. proportion of total spent on recruitment

  n/a

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Scottish Prison Service

  April 1993

  a. television

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  b. radio

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  c. newspaper

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  37

  66

  15

  d. other promotion

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  e. total

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  37

  66

  15

  f. proportion of total spent on recruitment

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  100 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  Scottish Record Office

  April 1993

  a. television

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  b. radio

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  c. newspaper

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  3

  1

  2

  d. other promotion

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  e. total

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  3

  1

  2

  f. proportion of total spent on recruitment

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Scottish Court Service

  April 1995

  Nil in all years

  Scottish Office

  Pensions Agency

  April 1993

  Student Awards

  Agency for Scotland

  April 1994

  1 Estimate: not separately identified.

  82

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police, Hampshire
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the chief constable is required to report the promised increase in police numbers for the Isle of Wight and Hampshire to his Department. [18806]

  Mr. Maclean
  Police complements are now a local matter, and there are no formal requirements for reporting recruitment plans.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requirements there are for officials in his Department to introduce a compliance cost assessment for all rules and regulations coming before him and his Ministers; and how many compliance cost assessments have been issued in his Department in the first three months of this year. [19349]

  Mr. Howard
  Details of when a compliance cost assessment is required are set out in today's reply by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, in response to a similar question. In the Home Office no compliance cost assessments have been prepared in the first three months of 1995.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount of section 11 funding for each of the last two years; and what are the projected totals for 1995–96 and 1996–97. [19085]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The following table shows expenditure out-turn figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95, and current financial provision figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  £ million

  1993–94

  131.20

  1994–95

  115.02

  1995–96

  91.55

  1996–97

  86.76

  The figures take into account projects originally approved by the Home Office under section 11, but for which responsibility for funding was transferred with effect from 1 April 1994 to the Department of the Environment's single regeneration budget.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest estimate of the number of teaching posts likely to be lost in 1995–96 as a result of reductions in section 11 grant. [19129]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  It is not possible to make such an estimate. Increases or reductions in the numbers of section 11–funded posts in particular areas between 1994–95—when many projects ended their planned life—and 1995–96 may be due to a variety of factors. These include changes in levels of need, changes of approach adopted by local authorities in addressing such need, changes in the priorities of local authorities, and the availability of funding under other programmes—such as the single regeneration budget, which embraces such need but is 84
  structured quite differently. It is not possible to gauge the effect of a single factor.

  Refugees
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were assisted by the Refugee Council in the last year when figures were recorded. [19463]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  During 1993, 5,613 cases were assisted by the Refugee Council's advice service. The number of individuals assisted will have been higher than this, as a case may comprise an individual or an individual plus dependants. In the first ten months of 1994–figures are not yet available for the full year—the advice service assisted 5,970 cases.

  The Refugee Council also administers a panel of advisers to assist unaccompanied child asylum seekers. Between March 1994, when the panel started operations, and February 1995, the latest date for which figures are available, 324 children were assisted by the panel.

  The Refugee Council has a leading role in assisting those received under the Government's scheme to accept 1,000 vulnerable people from the former Yugoslavia, and their dependants. During 1994–95, 562 were assisted by the Refugee Council.

  The Refugee Council also has a substantial role in advising and supporting local refugee organisations, and in the training and employment of refugees.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the funding available to refugees in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) each of the other EU member states. [19465]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Home Office funding is available to national and regional refugee organisations to assist refugees and asylum seekers in the United Kingdom. In 1994–95, this funding amounted to £3.3 million, with additional sums for the reception and settlement of refugees from the former Yugoslavia. No information is available about funding for refugees in EU member states.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies have been made by his Department of the needs of refugees in the last five years; and what proposals have been brought forward as a result of these studies. [19464]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The report of a study by the Home Office into the settlement of refugees in Britain was published on 31 March. The report does not make specific recommendations, but its possible implications for policy are being considered. The report of a similar study of the settlement of Vietnamese refugees is in the final stages of preparation.

  Political Advisers
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many advisers his Department employs broken down to show(a) political advisers and (b) economic advisers; at what grade and salary they are employed; and what are their minimum working hours in each case. [19421]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department employs two political advisers. Their salaries and conditions of work are
  85
  negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. Economic advice is obtained from career civil servants, who may be employed on a variety of working patterns. The following numbers by grade are full-time equivalents:

  Grade 6–1

  Grade 7–1

  Senior Economic Assistant—1

  Senior Scientific Officer—1

  Police
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many beat officers in each police authority have been replaced with special constables in each of the last three years. [18708]

  Mr. Maclean
  The deployment of all police officers, whether regulars or specials, is a matter for chief officers. But, according to the information we have available centrally, no chief officer has cut the number of regular beat officers in order to replace them with special constables. Specials are volunteers who work part-time to supplement, rather than to replace, the efforts of the regular police.

  Asylum Seekers
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the last 10 years(a) the number of asylum seekers, (b) the number of persons granted refugee status, (c) the number of persons granted exceptional leave to remain and (d) the total number of applicants held in detention; and if he will list for each year the six major countries of origin of the applicants. [18870]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information on the number of asylum applications and decisions made during 1994 is given in the table. The countries with the largest number of nationals applying for asylum in the United Kingdom in 1994 were Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Turkey, India, Ghana and Somalia.

  Information on asylum applications and decisions for the years 1985 to 1993 is published in table 1.2 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin, "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1993", issue 17/94. Information on the nationalities of asylum applicants in the years 1985 to 1993 is published in table 2.1 of the same publication, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  As at 29 March 1995, 619 persons who had sought asylum were detained. This included persons awaiting an initial decision on their claim for asylum and those pending appeal or awaiting the setting of removal directions. Information on the number of persons who have applied for asylum held in detention during 1990 to 1995 is not available.

  Decisions on applications for asylum1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1994

  Numbers of principal applicants

  Asylum applications2

  32,830

  Total Decisions2 3

  20,990

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  825

  86

  Decisions on applications for asylum1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1994

  Numbers of principal applicants

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain4

  3,660

  Total refused5

  16,500

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5, with = 1 or 2.2 Figures exclude information on applications made overseas.

  3 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same year.

  4 Usually granted for a year in the first instance, subject then to further review.

  5 Includes refusals made after full consideration, refusals under para 340 (para 180F prior to 1 October 1994) for failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, and refusals on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.

  Combat 18
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what actions his Department will take against the organisation known as Combat 18; and if he will make a statement. [18580]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government consider the activities of Combat 18, and any other group which advocates violence, reprehensible. I am satisfied that the police have the resources and powers they need effectively to respond to such groups. For instance, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made the offence of publication and distribution of material likely to incite racial hatred an arrestable one, and created an imprisonable offence of intentional racial harassment.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many access requests are expected to be made by Government Departments and agencies to the police national computer in the coming year for security vetting purposes and if those subject to the vetting procedure give prior consent to the police national computer check. [18413]

  Mr. Maclean
  About 150,000 PNC checks per year are currently made on employees, potential employees, and contractors through the national identification service at the request of the Departments and agencies concerned. The introduction of direct access is not expected to affect either the number of checks carried out or the existing arrangements for obtaining the prior consent of subjects.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if access requests made by Government Departments and agencies to the police national computer will return information on bind-overs, cautions and the seriousness of the crime; [18145]

  (2) what categories of information outside departments and agencies will have access to on the police national computer. [18146]

  Mr. Maclean
  Access to the police national Computer by the Departments and agencies concerned will be by means of a discrete application, which will indicate only whether or not a subject is recorded on the criminal names index or listed as wanted or missing. No details of any criminal convictions or other disposals or of the circumstances in which the subject may be reported wanted or missing will be revealed. The response will
  87
  confirm the name, age, sex, colour, and height of the subject of the inquiry.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) under what terms and conditions outside Departments and agencies will have access to information held on the police national computer; [18119]

  (2) what restrictions will be placed on the use of information from the police national computer by outside Departments and agencies when they have access to information held there; [18120]

  (3) what measures he has taken to ensure that Government Departments and agencies do not misuse direct access to the police national computer; and if he is able to trace each access request to the individual making the request. [18412]

  Mr. Maclean
  The arrangements under which each of the Departments and agencies concerned will have limited access to the police national computer will be set out in a memorandum of agreement. The first of these memoranda, with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, has now been signed. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  All security vetting transactions on the police national computer are logged and the automatic record made identifies both the user's identification code and the terminal from which the inquiry originated. Users will also be required to enter details of the relevant subject file as part of the police national computer transaction. The memoranda of agreement will specify that the information is to be used solely for the purpose of undertaking security vetting checks on employees, potential employees, and contractors.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the safeguards he has put in place in relation to access requests made by Government Departments and agencies to the police national computer to protect those subject to the vetting procedure, should a false positive be indicated. [18414]

  Mr. Maclean
  The limited access provided to the six Departments and agencies concerned will be sufficient to eliminate those who have no record on the police national computer, but not to identify positively those who do have records. For those who appear to have a record, recourse will be made to the national identification service, who will, as now, make the definitive identification.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who, within his Department, is to be authorised to have direct access to the police national computer; and what procedures are being established for ensuring that information gained from this source is handled correctly. [18118]

  Mr. Maclean
  Access to the police national computer within the Home Office is currently restricted to authorised staff at the Hendon data centre, which operates the computer, and in the technical and policy division for maintenance and development purposes.

  Access by the Home Office security division for security vetting purposes has also been approved but not yet implemented. As is the case under the existing manual arrangements, any direct access to police national computer information for security vetting purposes within the Home Office will be confined to a small number of personnel within the security division who already handle information from the national identification service. Guidelines will ensure operational, technical and physical
  88
  security. Regular internal audits will take place to ensure that correct procedures are adhered to. In addition, compliance audits will be undertaken by representatives of the police service and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary.

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the current ratio of prisoner custody officers to prisoners at Buckley Hall prison; and what is the current prisoner population; [18286]

  (2) on what date Buckley Hall prison started to admit prisoners; what was the full staff complement by grade on that date; how many ex-prison personnel and what grade were initially employed by Group 4; how many and what grade of staff have been sacked to date; how many of these were ex-prison service staff; and on what dates staff have left and on what dates they have been replaced; [18287]

  (3) what is the latest figure for the total number of assaults on (a) custody officers and (b) prisoners at Buckley Hall prison. [18285]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for these matters 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. George Howarth, dated 18 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about Buckley Hall prison.
  On 31 March, Buckley Hall prison held 90 prisoners. The ratio of custody officers to prisoners was 70 custody officers to 90 prisoners which equates to 1 custody officer to 1.28 prisoners.
  Buckley Hall started to admit prisoners on 14 December 1994. The staffing complement by grade was as follows:

  1 Director

  1 Head of Programmes

  2 Residential Managers

  2 Duty Security Managers

  67 Prison Custody Officers (PCO)

  14 Administrative Staff

  Of these the Director, Head of Programmes, Residential Managers and Duty Security Managers were former Prison Service personnel.
  Their former Prison Service grades were as follows:

  Buckley Hall grade

  Former Prison Service grade

  Director

  Governor 3

  Head of Programmes

  Senior Psychologist

  2 Residential Managers

  1 x Supervisor

  1 x Prison Officer

  2 Duty Security Managers

  1 x Governor 4

  1 x Supervisor

  To date no staff at Buckley Hall have been sacked. Details of resignations and recruitment are contained in the attached table.

  There has been one assault on a member of staff at Buckley Hall prison since it was re-opened, and no assaults on prisoners.

  Details of resignations and staff recruitment at Buckley Hall prison

  Date

  Resigned

  Recruited

  10 October 94

  PCO

  7 November 94

  PCO x 2

  30 November 94

  PCO

  89

  Details of resignations and staff recruitment at Buckley Hall prison

  Date

  Resigned

  Recruited

  16 January 95

  PCO x 8

  P/T PCO x 22

  17 January 95

  PCO

  Security Officer1

  19 January 95

  PCO

  23 January 95

  PCO

  7 February 95

  P/T PCO

  23 February 95

  PCO

  Personnel Clerk

  Facilities Co-ordinator

  24 February 95

  Facilities Co-ordinator

  20 March 95

  PCO

  24 March 95

  Security Officer1

  27 March 95

  Personnel Clerk

  1 The Security Officers have not been replaced to date and their duties are being covered by PCOs.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions to date Group 4 has defaulted in its contract for Buckley Hall prison; which of the terms of the contract for Buckley Hall prison Group 4 has failed to comply with; what penalties have been incurred for each failure to comply with the contract; and what was the basis of the Prison Service's decision not to penalise on each occasion on, which that decision was reached. [18288]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  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. George Howarth, dated 18 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of occasions Group 4 has defaulted in its contract for Buckley Hall prison.
  Buckley Hall prison opened in December 1994. There has been no occasion since opening when Group 4 has been in default of contract.

  Strip Searches
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his answer of 14 April 1993,Official Report, column 286, what new methods have been introduced since April 1993 to detect syringe needles concealed within a person's clothing or body as an alternative to strip searching; [18136]

  (2) what is the amount of drugs and explosives that have been detected for each of the past five years as a result of strip searching of convicted and remand prisoners in (a) female and (b) male establishments; [18135]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact the availability of hand held search tools to locate metal objects concealed under a person's clothing and methods to detect whether a person has been in contact with explosives or drugs have had on the number of strip searchings being carried out in prisons or in other locations where strip searches are permitted. [18137]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  90
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 18 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the strip searching of prisoners.
  Since April 1993 the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch has sponsored work on new methods to detect syringe needles concealed within a person's clothing or body as an alternative to strip searching, but it is still at the developmental stage and there is not yet a metal detector available which is sufficiently sensitive to detect syringe needles with any degree of certainty.
  Information on the number of strip searches conducted in prisons is not recorded and there are no figures available on drugs and explosives found as the result of particular types of search.
  It is not possible to say whether the availability of either hand held or fixed metal detectors, or the availability of new methods of detecting traces of drugs or explosives have affected the number of strip searches.

  Open Prisons
  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used in deciding whether a person convicted of theft should serve all or part of his sentence in an open prison. [18401]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  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. Gordon Prentice, dated 18 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the criteria used in deciding whether a person convicted of theft should serve all or part of his sentence in an open prison.
  The type of establishment to which a sentenced adult male prisoner is allocated depends on his security category which is decided on the basis of the level of risk he is assessed to present. Only those adult male prisoners placed in category D, the lowest security category, are allocated to open prisons.
  The criteria and procedures to be used in decisions on the categorisation and allocation of adult male prisoners are set out in Circular Instruction 7/1988 and the Prison Service Manual on Security, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Security category assessment is a continuous responsibility of Prison Service staff both at establishments, in the case of prisoners categorised B, C and D, and at headquarters, in the case of Category A prisoners.
  The criteria and procedures for the allocation of sentenced females and young offenders are set out in Circular Instruction 2/1991, a copy of which is also available in the Library of the House. These prisoners, apart from those who are considered to warrant category A conditions, are not categorised but are allocated to either closed or open conditions according to their level of risk.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the costs that will be incurred by(a) the police, (b) the courts and (c) prisons, as a result of released short sentence prisoners re-offending because of homelessness arising from changes to their housing benefit entitlement; and what assessment he has made of the likelihood of increases in re-offending caused by this factor. [18218]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Changes to housing benefit for persons serving a custodial sentence are not expected to result in increased rates of re-offending on release.

  Prisoner Statistics
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the proportion of prisoners held in establishments where prisoners are normally unlocked for a total of at least 12 hours a day from Monday to Friday inclusive, excluding prisoners who are in segregated or a special secure unit, for each of the past 12 months in prisons in England and Wales. [16268]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  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. George Howarth, dated 18 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the proportion of prisoners held in establishments where prisoners are normally unlocked for a total of a least 12 hours per weekday.
  The latest available information is as follows:

  Percentage of prisoners unlocked for 12 hours per day

  Months

  1994

  February

  27

  March

  29

  April

  31

  May

  32

  June

  33

  July

  35

  August

  36

  September

  37

  October

  38

  November

  36

  December

  39

  1995

  January

  38

  February

  40

  In my response to your Question of 27 January and my letter to you of 1 March, I indicated that 36% of prisoners were being unlocked for at least 12 hours on weekdays in January 1995. This has been revised to a final figure of 38%. The figure for September 1994 has also been revised from 36% to 37%.

  Transfers of prisoners to hospital by direction of the Home Secretary under Sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  11994

  After sentence S47

  100

  107

  127

  121

  131

  156

  193

  230

  290

  234

  Before sentence S48

  41

  53

  77

  85

  100

  181

  264

  380

  486

  512

  Total

  141

  160

  204

  206

  231

  337

  457

  610

  776

  746

  1 Provisional figures.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Arable Land Subsidies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many individuals, partnerships or agricultural companies received agricultural subsidy

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his most recent estimate of the percentage of prisoners who(a) use illegal drugs and (b) are addicted to illegal drugs. [18157]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: 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. Paul Flynn, dated 18 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question on the extent of drug misuse and addiction in prisons.
  Information on prisoners who use illegal drugs is not currently available. However, the first phase of a mandatory drug testing programme has already begun in seven establishments. This is being carefully monitored and will help to guide the implementation of testing in all Prison Service establishments. As part of the programme, prisoners are required to participate in random drug testing. This will provide information on the level of drug misuse in prison.
  The information currently available on the extent of drug addition amongst prisoners is limited to that provided by the Home Office Addicts Index. During 1994 4,784 drug addicts were identified by prison medical officers in England, Scotland and Wales.

  Mentally Ill Prisoners
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of prisoners who were judged to be mentally ill in each of the past 10 years who were transferred from prison to mental institutions. [18161]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 4 April 1995]: 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. Paul Flynn, Dated 18 April 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question seeking an estimate of the number of prisoners who were judged to be mentally ill in each of the past 10 years who were transferred from prison to mental institutions.
  The enclosed table gives the number of transfers to hospital from 1985 onwards under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This shows that there has been a marked increase in the number of transfers over the last 10 years, with more than double the number of transfers in 1994 when compared with 1990.

  payments for arable land (a) in excess of £50,000 per annum (b) in excess of £100,000 per annum and (c) in excess of £200,000 per annum in each year since 1991. [17224]

  Mr. Jack
  Statistics for 1991 and 1992 are not available as payments under the arable area payments
  93
  scheme did not begin until 1993. Since 1993, under the integrated administration and control system, applicants have had to make a single application covering all the land which they farm in the United Kingdom and some applications may, therefore, cover a number of holdings which are farmed quite separately on a day-to-day basis. Figures are not gathered which distinguish between individuals, partnerships and agricultural companies.

  The following information relates to 1993 UK IACS applications, rather than to individual farms and farmers:

  Number

  Total number of AAPS claims

  45,774

  Number of claims receiving in excess of £50,000 pa

  3,246

  Number of claims receiving in excess of £100,000 pa

  6941

  Number of claims receiving in excess of £200,00 pa

  1061

  1 Each of these is included in the total immediately above.

  ADAS

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (a) Television

  —

  —

  —

  Not available

  (b) Radio

  —

  —

  —

  Not available

  (c) Newspaper

  Minimal

  Minimal

  Minimal

  Not available

  (d) Other

  £278,000

  £313,000

  £359,000

  Not available

  (e) Total

  £278,000

  £313,000

  £359,000

  Not available

  (f) Proportion of (e) spent on recruitment advertising

  Minimal

  Minimal

  Minimal

  Not available

  1. "Other" expenditure includes costs of exhibitions and shows.

  Central science laboratory

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (a) Television

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (b) Radio

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (c) Newspaper

  £47,000

  £81,000

  £78,000

  £58,000

  (d) Other

  £3,000

  £7,000

  £15,000

  £15,000

  (e) Total

  £50,000

  £88,000

  £93,000

  £73,000

  (f) Proportion of (e) spent on recruitment advertising

  88 per cent.

  89 per cent.

  81 percent.

  75 per cent.

  1. "Other" expenditure in 1994–95 includes costs of promotional materials and activities in connection with launch of the enlarged agency.

  Central veterinary laboratory

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (a) Television

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (b) Radio

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (c) Newspaper

  £24,011

  £24,593

  £63,686

  £7,656

  £13,429

  £15,780

  (d) Other

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (e) Total

  £24,011

  £24,593

  £63,686

  £7,656

  £13,429

  £15,780

  (f) Proportion of (e) spent on recruitment advertising

  99 per cent.

  99 per cent.

  99 per cent.

  99 per cent

  99 per cent.

  99 per cent.

  1. CVL figures for 1990–91 to 1993–94 inclusive are at 1994 prices. The figures shown under c) for these years include associated administration and other costs.

  Intervention board

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (a) Television

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (b) Radio

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (c) Newspaper

  £19,409

  £14,210

  £1,640

  £2,108

  £4,469

  £16,000

  (d) Other

  £6,000

  £6,200

  £8,833

  £6,500

  £6,500

  £6,500

  (e) Total

  £25,409

  £20,410

  £10,473

  £8,608

  £10,969

  £22,500

  (f) Proportion of (e) spent on recruitment advertising

  76 per cent.

  70 percent.

  16 per cent.

  24 per cent.

  41 per cent.

  71 per cent.

  94
  Figures for 1994–95 are not yet available as the final oilseed payments are still being made. I will write to the hon. Member when they are.

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list each non-departmental public body and agency for which he has responsibility and, for each, list separate figures for the spending by that body or agency on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotion materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising for each year since 1979–80 or for each year of its existence if it has been created since 1979–80; and what are his latest estimates of (a) to (f) for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17610]

  Mr. Jack
  Listed are the details requested for each of the agencies for which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has responsibility:
  95

  Pesticides safety directorate

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (a) Television

  —

  —

  —

  (b) Radio

  —

  —

  —

  (c) Newspaper

  £481

  £4,400

  £5,000

  (d) Other

  £14,990

  —

  —

  (e) Total

  £19,471

  £4,400

  £5,000

  (f) Proportion of (e) spent on recruitment advertising

  2.5 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  1. "Other" expenditure in 1993–94 includes costs of promotional materials and activities in connection with the agency launch.

  Veterinary medicines directorate

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  (a) Television

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (b) Radio

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (c) Newspaper

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (d) Other

  £15,505

  £11,515

  £3,378

  —

  —

  (e) Total

  £15,505

  £11,515

  £3,378

  —

  —

  (f) Proportion of (e) spent on recruitment advertising

  100 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  —

  —

  Notes:

  Although the VMD was established as an agency in April 1990 it did not maintain its own accounts until 1991–92. Expenditure in 1990–91 was included in core-MAFF figures.

  Figures do not include costs of publications and reports.

  The relevant information in respect of non-departmental public bodies could be provided only at disproportionate cost and is not included.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list, for 1992–93 and 1993–94, separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c)

  £

  Recruitment advertising

  Television advertising

  Radio advertising

  Press advertising

  Other publicity and promotional activities

  1992–93

  n/a

  494,000

  nil

  nil

  3,723,000

  1993–94

  125,000

  371,000

  nil

  21,000

  3,920,000

  1994–95

  31,000

  nil

  nil

  181,000

  14,450,000

  1995–96

  65,000

  nil

  nil

  350,000

  14,050,000

  1 Forecasts.

  Figures for 1992–93 include expenditure for recruitment advertising but they can be separated out only at disproportionate cost.

  The purpose of MAFF's publicity and promotional activities is to provide information, on a wide range of issues, to the general public and the agriculture/food industry.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by his Department in each year since 1979–80; and how many such questions received a substantive answer within 10, 15, 20 days or longer. [18467]

  Mr. Jack
  The information which is available only from 1993–94 is as follows:
  96
  newspaper advertising, (d) other promotion materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising; and what are his latest estimates for the years 1994–95. [17609]

  Mr. Jack
  Expenditure by the Department in 1992–93 and for each subsequent year was as follows:

  Parliamentary Session

  Number

  1993–94

  1994–95 upto 5 April 1995

  Total received:

  943

  411

  Answered within:

  10 days

  889

  388

  15 days

  33

  6

  20 days or longer

  21

  17

  Details for the earlier years are a matter of public record but could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many parliamentary questions to his Department in each year since 1979–80 requesting a priority written answer or answer on a named day, were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further five, 10, 15, 20 days or longer. [18468]
  97
  Mr. Jack
  The information which is available only from 1993–94 is as follows:

  Parliamentary Session

  Number

  1993–94

  1994–95 upto 5 April 1995

  Answered on named day

  564

  317

  Answered within:

  5 days

  86

  83

  10 days

  37

  14

  15 days

  6

  3

  20 days or longer

  45

  2

  Details for the earlier years are a matter of public record but could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many parliamentary questions to his Department that were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence. [18472]

  Mr. Jack
  Parliamentary questions are not transferred to chief executives or other officials, although chief executives are asked to write to the Member concerned when the question seeks information about operational matters delegated to them. Information on the number of occasions letters have been written since 1979–80 which were not printed in the Official Report could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has written to an hon. or right hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question. [18470]

  Mr. Jack
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times in each year since 1979–80 his Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report. [18469]

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is a matter of public record but it could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many parliamentary questions to his Department were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a nondepartmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility in each year since 1979–80 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence. [18471]

  Mr. Jack
  Parliamentary questions are not transferred to chief executives or other officials, although chief executives are asked to write to the Member concerned when the question seeks information about operational matters delegated to them. Information on the number of occasions this has happened is readily available only from the 1993–94 Session of Parliament and is as follows:
  98

  1993–94

  1994–95 upto 5 April 95

  Agency Chief Executives invited to write as a result of Parliamentary Questions

  16

  6

  Details for the earlier years are a matter of public record but could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Notifiable Animal Diseases
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the notifiable diseases of animals in(a) 1975, (b) 1980, (c) 1985, (d) 1990 and (e) 1995. [18268]

  Mrs. Browning
  The information is as follows:

  (a) 1975

  African horse sickness

  Anthrax

  Bovine tuberculosis

  Brucellosis melitensis (in cattle)

  Cattle plague

  Dourine

  Epizootic lymphangitis (in equines)

  Equine viral encephalomyelitis

  Equine infectious anaemia

  Foot and mouth disease

  Fowl pest (includes fowl plague and Newcastle disease)

  Glanders or farcy (in equines)

  Parasitic mange (in equines)

  Pleuropneumonia (in cattle)

  Rabies

  Sheep pox

  Sheep scab

  Swine fever

  Swine vesicular disease

  Teschen disease

  (b) 1980

  African horse sickness

  African swine fever

  Anthrax

  Aujeszkys disease

  Bovine tuberculosis

  Brucellosis melitensis (in cattle)

  Cattle plague

  Dourine

  Enzootic bovine leucosis

  Epizootic lymphangitis (in equines)

  Equine viral encephalomyelitis

  Equine infectious anaemia

  Foot and mouth disease

  Fowl pest (includes fowl plague and Newcastle disease)

  Glanders and Farcy (in equines)

  Parasitic Mange (in equines)

  Pleuropneumonia (in cattle)

  Rabies

  Sheep pox

  Sheep scab

  Swine fever

  Swine vesicular disease

  Teschen disease

  (c) 1985

  African horse sickness

  African swine fever

  Anthrax

  Aujeszky's disease

  Brucella melitensis (cattle)

  99

  Cattle plague

  Classical swine fever

  Dourine

  Enzootic bovine leukosis

  Enzootic lymphangitis

  Equine infectious anaemia

  Equine viral encephalomyelitis

  Foot and mouth disease

  Fowl pest (includes fowl plague and Newcastle disease)

  Glanders and farcy (in equines)

  Pleuropneumonia (in cattle)

  Rabies

  Sheep pox

  Sheep scab

  Swine vesicular disease

  Teschen disease

  Tuberculosis (in cattle)

  Warble fly

  (d) 1990

  African horse sickness

  African swine fever

  Anthrax

  Aujeszky's disease

  Bovine spongiform encephalopathy

  Brucella melitensis (cattle)

  Cattle plague

  Classical swine fever

  Dourine

  Enzootic bovine leukosis

  Enzootic lymphangitis

  Equine viral encephalomyelitis

  Equine infectious anaemia

  Foot and mouth disease

  Fowl pest (includes fowl plague, Newcastle disease, avian influenza and paromyxovirus)

  Glanders and farcy (in equines)

  Pleuropneumonia (in cattle)

  Rabies

  Sheep pox

  Sheep scab

  Swine vesicular disease

  Teschen disease

  Tuberculosis (in cattle and deer)

  Warble fly

  (e) 1995

  African horse sickness

  African swine fever

  Anthrax

  Aujeszkys disease

  Bovine spongiform encephalopathy

  Blue tongue

  Brucella melitensis (cattle, sheep and goats)

  Cattle plague

  Classical swine fever

  Contagious agalactia

  Contagious epidydimitis

  Contagious equine metritis

  Dourine

  Enzootic bovine leukosis

  Enzootic lymphangitis

  Equine viral encephalomyelitis

  Equine infectious anaemia

  Foot and mouth disease

  Fowl pest (includes Newcastle disease and avian influenza)

  Glanders or farcy (in equines)

  Goat pox

  Lumpy skin disease

  Paromyxovirus in pigeons

  Peste des petits ruminants

  100

  Pleuropneumonia

  Rabies

  Rift valley fever

  Scrapie

  Sheep pox

  Swine vesicular disease

  Teschen disease

  Tuberculosis (in cattle and deer)

  Vesicular stomatitis

  Viral haemorrhagic disease (rabbits)

  Warble fly

  Rabies
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many reported cases there were of fox vectored rabies in Belgium in(a) 1993 and (b) 1994 or to the latest available date for which figures are available. [18410]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Ministry does not hold comprehensive data on the vector species for rabies cases outside the United Kingdom.

  Cattle (Tuberculosis)
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about the extent of tuberculosis in cattle; and if he will make a statement. [18825]

  Mrs. Browning
  There were 362 new confirmed TB cattle herd breakdowns in Great Britain during 1994. They are largely confined to the south west of England—274 new confirmed outbreaks—and Wales—62 new confirmed outbreaks. Following investigations, 88 per cent, of new and continuing confirmed outbreaks in the south west of England and 3 per cent, in Wales are considered to have resulted from infection by badgers.

  Sheep Quota
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what part was played in the refusal by the Exeter office to register the special quota leased and purchased by Spence and Sons Ltd, of New Barn farm for 1993, 1994 and 1995 by the delay in informing Spence and Sons Ltd of the outcome of their application, ref.16006001; and what plans he has to assist Spence and Sons Ltd. on this matter; [19154]

  (2) if he will set out the reasons for the delay in informing Spence and Sons Ltd. of New Barn farm, reference number 16006001 about their application for special quota. [19155]

  Mr. Jack
  My hon. Friend has written to me about this complex case which involves an application to the sheep quota national reserve and the transfer and lease of sheep quota and I will write to the hon. Gentlemen shortly explaining the matter in full.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Luxembourg on 10 April; and if he will make a statement. [19236]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This Council, at which I represented the United kingdom, again discussed the situation created by the strengthening of the German, Dutch, Belgian, Austrian and Danish currencies, which should result in
  101
  the revaluation of the corresponding green rates of exchange used in the common agricultural policy. All other member states could agree to a proposal that these revaluations, which the Commission had already delayed under its own powers, should be further delayed until after the Councils next meeting on 29 May.

  I objected on the grounds that neither the trade distortions generated by these delays nor the budgetary costs of alternative courses of action had been properly considered; and that no clear indication had been given of how these problems would be tackled at the end of any further period of delay. The proposal was not adopted and it was agreed that these matters would be discussed urgently.

  The Council adopted, with Portugal voting against, an extension of the existing sugar arrangements with some changes. The main changes are to enable beet sugar production quotas to be cut if necessary to enable the Community to observe its obligation under the GATT to restrict subsidised net exports; and to improve the guarantee of supplies of imported raw cane sugar to refiners.

  I made it clear, as did the Swedish Minister, that I would have preferred a genuine reform of the sugar system but there was no support for this from others. The formula for allocating quota reductions, which all other member states were ready to accept as a compromise, means that the share of any cut that would fall on the United Kingdom is a lot less than our share of Community sugar production. It will be important to work for the export limit to be met by means other than quota cuts. The guarantee of raw sugar supplies is welcome and the details of the guarantee are considerably better than those in the Commissions original proposal.

  Veal Crates
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has received from Gerald Barling QC on the lawfulness of export restrictions on calves to be reared in veal crates, and if he will make a statement. [18622]

  (2) if he will make a further statement on the export of calves to be reared in veal crates. [18623]

  (3) if he will make a further statement on the use of article 36 of the treaty of Rome to stop the export of calves to be reared in veal crates. [18624]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) on 4 April 1995,Official Report column 1057–58.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 15 March,Official Report, column 630, whether he expects veal crates to be banned throughout Europe before or after 2000. [17771]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 5 March 1995]: The timetable for phasing out veal crates in the European Union under any Council measure requiring this will depend on the terms of the measure when it is adopted.

  Cattle Plague
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of cattle plague were reported in each year since 1985. [18613]
  102
  Mrs. Browning
  There have been no confirmed cases of cattle plague in England since 1877.

  Ostriches
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many ostriches were slaughtered in Britain in each year since 1991 for meat or plumage; how many of these were reared from eggs in Britain and how many were imported; and if he will make a statement on the welfare of farmed ostriches. [18614]

  Mrs. Browning
  There is no commercial slaughter industry for ostriches at present in Great Britain, and the breeding population is still being established. Some small numbers will have been killed on farms since 1991, but no figures are available. The welfare of ostriches is protected on the farm by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 and regulations made under that Act, and by the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976; in transit by the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1994, as amended, and by standards set by the International Air Transport Association; and at slaughter by the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 which came into operation on 1 April 1995. Guidelines on the welfare of farmed ostriches, prepared by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, were issued in February 1994. In addition, the Council of Europe is currently drawing up a recommendation on the welfare of ostriches and other ratites.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what area of England is designated as being environmentally sensitive; how much Government funding is spent annually on environmentally sensitive areas; how this formula is calculated; and if he will make a statement. [17793]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: There are 22 environmentally sensitive areas covering 1,149,217 hectares. Payments to farmers opting to join the schemes in these areas are based on calculations of estimated average income losses and additional costs resulting from compliance with the land management conditions, and may include an incentive element. In 1993–94 payments totalled £16.5 million. The financial provision rises to £43.3 million by 1996–97. A public information pack on the English environmentally sensitive areas is being sent to the hon. Member.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer 27 March,Official Report, column 501, which company was responsible for transporting animals to Brightlingsea; and what plans he has to prosecute it for breaking the 15-hour rule. [18038]

  Mrs. Browning
  I am not, for reasons of commercial confidentiality, in a position to disclose the identity of the company concerned. Prosecution for breaking the 15-hour rule would not be sensible in this case where feeding and watering were precluded by the presence of protesters.

  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers he has to prevent vessels carrying live animals from putting to sea in bad weather. [17468]
  103
  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]: Inspectors and veterinary inspectors of the ministry have powers to prohibit the transport of animals where they consider the animals are about to be transported in a way which may cause them unnecessary suffering, or in any way which does not comply with any provision of the welfare legislation made under sections 37, 38, or 39 of the Animal Health Act 1981.

  The Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1994, made under the 1981 Act, places a duty on masters of vessels not to carry animals if, in their judgment, there are grounds for believing that, due to adverse weather conditions, the voyage will be attended by serious risk to the animals of injury, suffering or death. A number of sailings from various ports this winter were cancelled for this reason.

  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what inspections were carried out by officials to check that the carriage of live animals by the vessel Northern Cruiser was in conformity with all the provisions of the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1994; what provisions existed for isolation of ill or injured animals during the voyage and first aid treatment, schedule 3 section 18; and if he will make a statement. [17467]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 3 March 1995]: Before the vessel was used to carry animals it was inspected by the ministry's livestock transport adviser to, ensure that the facilities met the requirements of the legislation. Veterinary inspectors have also accompanied sailings with animals on board to monitor conditions during the voyage.

  The Department is not of the view that point 18 of schedule 3 to the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1994, which implements a requirement of EC directive 91/628, applies when animals are being carried on a roll-on/roll-off ferry.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) how many parliamentary questions to his Department in each year since 1992–93 requesting a priority written answer or answer on a named day, were answered within three days; how many received a holding reply; and how many of those which received a holding reply then received a substantive answer within a further five, 10, 15, 20 days or longer; [18482]

  (2) how many parliamentary questions to his Department that were transferred for answer to the chief

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Historic Royal Palaces

  (a), (b) and (c)1

  228,350

  183,682

  205,089

  678,814

  502,238

  (d)

  70,000

  70,000

  80,000

  108,000

  138,000

  (e) = total (a) to (d)

  298,350

  253,682

  285,089

  786,814

  640,238

  (f) proportion of (e) spent on recruitment (per cent.)

  4.1

  5.6

  5.8

  2.3

  3.9

  104
  executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility received an answer which was not printed in the Official Report in each year since 1992–93 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence; [18486.1

  (3) how many times in each year since 1992–93 his Department has written to an hon. or right hon. Member correcting an answer to a parliamentary question; [18484]

  (4) how many times in each year since 1992–93 his Department has given a reply to a parliamentary question which has resulted in the information requested being placed in the Library and not printed in the Official Report; [18483]

  (5) how many parliamentary questions to his Department were transferred for answer to the chief executive or other senior official of a non-departmental public body or agency for which he has responsibility in each year since 1992–93 or for each year that the body or agency has been in existence; [18485]

  (6) how many parliamentary questions requesting an ordinary written answer were received by his Department in each year since 1992–93; and how many such questions received a substantive answer within 10, 15, 20 days or longer. [18481]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is a matter of public record, but it could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Advertising
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, if he will list each non-departmental public body and agency for which he has responsibility and, for each, list separate figures for the spending by that body or agency on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) other promotional materials and activities, (e) the totals in each year of (a) to (d) and (f) the proportion of (e) that was spent on recruitment advertising for year since 1979–80 or for each year of its existence if it has been created since then; and what are his latest estimates of (a) to (f) for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [17620]

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department is responsible for two agencies: Historic Royal Palaces and Royal Parks. Details of their expenditure on advertising and promotional materials is given in the following chart. Figures for 1995–96 have not been finalised.

  The non-departmental public bodies which are sponsored by my Department are listed in Public Bodies 1994, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. These operate at arm's length from my Department and the provision of information on their expenditure on advertising and promotional materials is an operational matter for them. The information could not be obtained by my Department without incurring disproportionate cost.
  105

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  The Royal Parks2

  (a) and (b)

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  (c)

  —

  —

  —

  240

  16,597

  (d)

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  (e) = total (a) to (d)

  —

  —

  —

  240

  16,597

  (f) proportion of (e) spent of recruitment (per cent.)

  —

  —

  —

  0

  66

  Notes:

  1 Costs cannot be desegregated without involving disproportionate cost.

  2 Established on 1 April 1993.

  Television (Violence)
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to introduce further controls on the amount of violence broadcast on television. [18671]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Broadcasters in the United Kingdom are independent of Government but have clear responsibilities with regard to programme content. In May last year, my predecessor held meetings with the chairman of the BBC, the Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council to discuss public concern about television violence. Both the BBC and ITC undertook to monitor the amount of violence shown on television and report back. We have received interim reports from both bodies and are now awaiting the findings of joint research they have commissioned. The research will be completed later this year, and I intend to discuss its findings with the chairmen of the two bodies and consider whether any further action is called for.

  Robert Burns
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the plans of his Department to celebrate the life and times of Robert Burns during the next year. [18999]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on 3 March 1995 at column 772.

  Local Television
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy towards encouraging the development of local television; and if he will make a statement. [18690]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Broadcasting Act 1990 has increased the scope of broadcasting in the United Kingdom, including opportunities for local television services delivered by cable. For the future, the introduction of digital television services may open up further prospects.

  Green Policy
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will name the green Minister for his Department and list(a) the green initiatives taken by that Minister in respect of the Departments functions, (b) the representations made by the Minister in respect of functions carried out by other departments and (c) the input made by the Minister into consultations on the Environment Bill. [18645]
  106
  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 5 April 1995]: The green Minister for my Department is Viscount Astor. My Department, the English Tourist Board, and the Countryside and Rural Development Commissions have commissioned consultants to produce a study on the local visitor management initiatives set up since the 1991 Maintaining the Balance report. This will result in the publication of a good practice guide later this year. My Department is in regular contact with other Departments on environmental issues which affect its policy interests.

HEALTH

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accidents and emergency departments have been temporarily closed in each of the last 12 months and in total. [17567]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on closures of accident and emergency departments is not available centrally.

  Consultants
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the proportion of time spent by NHS consultant doctors on working in the private sector. [17568]

  Mr. Malone
  It is a statutory requirement and underpinning principle of the conduct of private practice in national health service hospitals that private work should not significantly interfere with a hospitals NHS contracts. Within this framework, consultants are free to undertake private work in addition to their NHS duties and in their own time. The combination of private practice and NHS treatment means that overall more patients are treated than if health care were available only through the NHS. There is a contractual obligation on NHS consultants to devote substantially the whole of their professional time to their NHS duties.

  Cardiac Surgery, Plymouth
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the provision of a specialist cardiac surgery unit in Plymouth. [17569]

  Mr. Sackville
  The £4.3 million development of the new cardiac surgery unit at Derriford hospital is progressing well and is on target to be opened in 1997.

  Acute Beds
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the number of acute beds in(a) Birmingham and (b) the west midlands since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is as follows:

  1979

  1993–94

  Birmingham

  4,391

  2,918

  West Midlands

  14,668

  11,305

  Source:

  1979, SH3 returns; 1993–94 KHO3 returns.

  Over this period in the west midlands, the number of in-patient cases increased by 42 per cent, to 670,000 and day cases by 308 per cent. to 207,000.

  Low Income
  Mr. Bill Mitchie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made on the effects of low income on health. [17583]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 23 March 1995, columns 353–54.

  Community Care
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will review the criteria for the distribution and expenditure of the special transitional grant for community care; and if she will make a statement. [17584]

  Mr. Bowis
  The distribution of the special transitional grant for 1995–96 and the conditions attached to its payment were agreed by Parliament on 30 March. We review and consult on these matters before laying each year's special transitional grant report.

  Diabetics
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has about the number and types of diabetes in the United Kingdom and the incidence of coma deaths amongst diabetics who live alone. [17585]

  Mr. Sackville
  In the United Kingdom, an estimated 1.2 per cent, of the population have clinically diagnosed diabetes, while the number of currently undiagnosed individuals is considered to increase this to 2 per cent, or more. No information is available centrally on the numbers of diabetics who live alone or on the incidence of coma deaths among them.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for health what research her Department has undertaken into the administrative costs of general practitioner fundholding; and if she will make a statement. [17586]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department keeps the management costs of general practitioner fundholding under regular review. In the first three years of the scheme, GP fundholding management costs were about 2 per cent, of budgets set. Figures are not yet available for 1994–95, but we expect them to be of the same order.

  Hospital Closures
  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to collate information about hospital closures. [17587]

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mortality Rates, London
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether mortality rates in London have improved over the last 10 years. [17589]

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

  Year

  Total number of deaths

  Population (000s)

  Deaths per thousand population

  1983

  76,135

  6,764.8

  11.3

  1984

  73,756

  6,772.4

  10.9

  1985

  75,909

  6,790.2

  11.2

  1986

  73,882

  6,803.4

  10.9

  1987

  71,949

  6,800.5

  10.6

  1988

  71,217

  6,770.3

  10.5

  1989

  70,631

  6,798.7

  10.4

  1990

  64,481

  6,852.5

  9.4

  1991

  68,856

  6,889.9

  10.0

  1992

  66,461

  6,904.6

  9.6

  19931

  68,399

  6,933.0

  9.9

  Notes:

  1 Provisional information.

  Source:

  OPCS.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she has taken to prevent potential conflicts of interest between those who hold senior posts in NHS trusts and also in private sector health service consultancies. [17570]

  Mr. Sackville
  The codes of conduct and accountability, which were issued to all national health service board members in April last year, introduced stringent measures to prevent conflicts of interest arising at board level. All NHS boards now maintain a register of members relevant private interests and these are available for inspection by the public.

  Mental Health Care
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the cost of the use of private beds for mental health care. [17581]

  Mr. Bowis
  National health service returns do not separately identify expenditure incurred specifically on the purchase of care outside the NHS.

  Chorionic Villus Sampling
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research she has commissioned into the use of chorionic villus sampling; and what evidence she has of the links between the use of villus sampling and subsequent disabilities. [17588]

  Mr. Sackville
  None. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 27 March 1995, columns 420–21.

  NHS Tenders
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many tenders for NHS services or capital projects have been won by private sector organisations, where private sector organisations have been in competition with NHS organisations; and what percentage that represents of all tenders open to the private sector. [15771]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available in the form requested. Of 3,927 service contracts for which information is available, 1,226 were awarded to the in-house team, and 2,701 were awarded to other contractors, including other national health service trusts or authorities. Not all of these contracts would have involved an in-house bid, and in some cases there may have been no external bidder.

  Mesothelioma
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the findings of the health and safety executive/Peto report, Continuing Increase in Mesothelioma Mortality in Britain, and its consequences for her Departments policy. [17074]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment gave him today.

  It is for the individual health authorities to ensure that, the health care needs of their populations are being met, including those with Mesothelioma.

  Medicines
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if(a) Seatone green lipped mussel extract capsules and (b) Kwai concentrated garlic tablets have been subjected to the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations etc) Regulations 1994. [19137]

  Mr. Sackville
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Medicines Control Agency under its chief executive, Dr. Keith Jones. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from K. Jones to Mr. Roger Stott, dated 18 April 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about Seatone capsules and Kwai tablets, and the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations etc.) Regulations 1994.
  The Regulations provide that from 1 January 1995, unless exempt, no medicinal product may be placed on the market in the United Kingdom without a marketing authorisation. Article 1.2 of Directive 65/66 EEC defines a medicinal product as one which is presented for treating or preventing disease, or one which "may be administered with a view to making a medical diagnosis or to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions". (Most medicinal products in fact qualify on both the "presentation" and "function criteria".)
  In the case of the products you have asked about, the Agency has regularly monitored their status. On the basis of the information currently before it, the Agency considers they do not fall within either limb of the definition of a medicinal product. They are not, therefore, subject to the Marketing Authorisation etc. Regulations.

  Foster Placement (Children) Regulations 1991
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what parliamentary proceedings will be necessary to implement proposed changes to the Foster Placement 110
  (Children) Regulations 1991; and if she will make a statement. [19287]

  Mr. Bowis
  Regulations are subject to negative resolution.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what fostering duties in the Foster Placement (Children) Regulations 1991 she proposes to allow local authorities to delegate to profit-making bodies through amendments to those regulations. [19285]

  Mr. Bowis
  The proposed amendments to the Foster Placement (Children) Regulations 1991 will permit social services departments to delegate fostering duties, specified by part II of the Foster Placement (Children) Regulations 1991, to private sector organisations on the same basis as to voluntary organisations.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with whom she proposes to consult in respect of the draft amendments to the Foster Placement (Children) Regulations 1991. [19286]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Health issued a consultation document to a wide range of interested authorities, voluntary and independent agencies.

  Psychiatrists
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to ensure that psychiatrists are members of the community teams to help mentally ill people. [19048]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is usual for consultant psychiatrists to be members of community mental health teams and this is a practice which we encourage.

  Leeds Healthcare
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been placed by Leeds Healthcare with private sector health organisations during 1994–95; and at what cost. [19252]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for Leeds Healthcare. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mrs. Pam Smith, chairman of Leeds Healthcare, for details.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the Audit Commission's concerns about district health authorities having the resources to meet their own unique mental health needs are going to be met; [19046]

  (2) how she will apportion funds for the health and social care of the mentally ill, as recommended by the Audit Commission. [19049]

  Mr. Bowis
  The national weighted capitation formula used to allocate hospital and community health service funds to regional health authorities has recently been revised and modified to include a separate index of factors which affect the need for psychiatric services.

  The greater part of funding for personal social services is allocated to local authorities on the basis of standard spending assessments which indicate the Governments view of the need for particular services in individual local authorities, which then decide how to spend these resources in the light of their individual assessments of local needs and priorities.
  111
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of steps taken in reducing the socio-economic problems for those who are mentally ill in Wales; and what plans she has to implement this policy in England. [19045]

  Mr. Bowis
  The policy for both England and Wales is to provide a range of care appropriate to the needs of the individual. Our guidance for England is set out in the Mental Illness Key Area Handbook, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for those people suffering from less severe forms of mental illness receiving help in a primary care setting. [19047]

  Mr. Bowis
  In many cases, such illnesses can be dealt with in a primary care setting by a suitably qualified member of the team. We have initiated a programme of action to improve the understanding of mental health issues among primary care staff.

  Mentally Disordered Offenders
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what decisions have been made between herself and the Home Secretary to fund the care of mentally disordered offenders. [19050]

  Mr. Bowis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department work closely together in developing services for mentally disordered offenders. Funding is determined through the annual public expenditure survey process.

  Housing and Mental Illness
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the desirability of providing affordable housing for the mentally ill; and what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment on the subject. [19051]

  Mr. Bowis
  The provision of suitable housing plays an important role in providing care for mentally ill people. Housing for those requiring community care is the responsibility of local statutory agencies, which should work closely together to meet local needs.

  To help develop effective inter-agency working, the Department of Health, in partnership with the Department of the Environment, will host four regional seminars in June to consider housing for groups with special needs. The seminars will have mental illness as a linking theme. Ministers from both Departments met in December 1994 to discuss a range of housing and community care issues and will attend the seminars.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the world campaigns against TB and on the United Kingdom contributions. [19120]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Overseas Development Agency has identified the control of communicable diseases, and particularly mentioned tuberculosis, as one of its priority themes for health and population assistance. During 1994 and 1995, the United Kingdom contributed £625,000 to the World Health Organisation tuberculosis programme and almost £2,500,000 has been paid in grants for tuberculosis-related activities. This includes £175,000 112
  channelled through British non-governmental organisations.

  NHS Prescriptions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in each of the last five years received help with NHS prescriptions under the low income scheme. [19396]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available. Information on free prescriptions is collected for the numbers of prescribed items dispensed, rather than for the numbers of people to whom the prescriptions are dispensed.

  NHS Sight Tests
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population was eligible for free NHS eye examinations in each of the last 10 available years. [19002]

  Mr. Malone
  Before April 1989, everybody was eligible. Since that time, when universal eligibility was removed, about 40 per cent, of the population have been eligible.

  Since 1 April 1989, the groups entitled to a national health service sight test have been:

  children under 16

  students under 19 in full-time education

  people on income support or family credit and their partners

  holders of exemption certificate AG2

  the registered blind or partially sighted

  those who need certain complex lenses

  diagnosed diabetics and glaucoma sufferers

  close relatives aged 40 or over of diagnosed glaucoma sufferers

  Since 1 April 1995, people receiving disability working allowance are also eligible to receive free NHS sight tests.

  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to her answer of 4 April,Official Report, column 1039, about the pharmaceutical industry, when she expects the report on the contribution of the pharmaceutical industry to the United Kingdom economy will be (a) completed by the Office of Health Economics and (b) submitted to her Department; and what proportion of the cost of this study is being contributed by (i) the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry and (ii) her Department. [19401]

  Mr. Malone
  The paper has been prepared by the Office of Health Economics in consultation with Government economists, and was discussed by the pharmaceutical industry strategy working group, which includes senior Government officials. The Office of Health Economics will meet all costs, and hope to publish the paper in May.

  Peto Institute
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how the current funding for the British Peto institute was calculated; [19516]

  (2) what proposals she has to offer temporary assistance to the British Peto fund; [19518]

  (3) what assessments she has made of the work of the British Peto institute; [19517]
  113
  (4) how much public funding in the current financial year has been provided to the Peto institute in the west midlands; and if the outreach services provided by the Peto institute in Britain is recognised in its funding. [19515]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Health does not currently provide funding to the Foundation for Conductive Education in Birmingham, although funding has been provided in the past. It is open to the foundation to apply for funding under the Departments section 64 scheme, but no application has been received.

  It is also open to the foundation to seek funding from health authorities, local authorities and other public bodies for services provided. The Department for Education funded an assessment of the Foundations work with children by the University of Birmingham, which was published in 1993.

  In September last year, I visited the Peto institute in Budapest to see for myself the work being undertaken. I was also able to discuss this with the Hungarian Minister of Health.

  Psychiatric Disorders
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if she will list the numbers and proportion of people broken down into age bands admitted to NHS hospitals by psychiatric disorders in each year since 1970 until the most recent date available on a consistent basis. [19519]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on admissions to national health service hospitals by age group and age-specific rates per 100,000 home population for mental illness in each year since 1970 will be placed in the Library.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice West Kent health authority has sought from her Department in respect of the most efficacious provision of infertility diagnosis and treatment; [19531]

  (2) what contacts her Department has had with West Kent health authority in respect of infertility treatment and investigation in the United Kingdom. [19530]

  Mr. Sackville
  The provision of infertility diagnosis and treatment locally is a matter for West Kent health authority. Guidance on infertility services has been provided by the Department of Health. As far as we are aware West Kent health authority has not sought any additional advice from the Department.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of the efficacy of one infertility treatment against another; [19533]

  (2) what recent assessment her Department has made of the efficacy of provision of infertility treatments and investigation in the United Kingdom. [19532]

  Mr. Sackville
  Advice on the effectiveness of infertility treatments in England is available to health authorities and clinicians in two publications drawn to the attention of the national health service in 1992:

  (a) The effective health care bulletin, Management of Subfertility, published for the NHS Management Executive by a consortium of Leeds and York Universities and the Research Unit of the Royal College of Physicians.

  114

  (b) The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists publication Infertility—Guidelines for Practice.

  Copies of these documents are available in the Library.

  Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which bodies funded by her Department have undertaken studies into the effectiveness of infertility treatment; and on what dates the studies were undertaken. [19480]

  Mr. Sackville
  The effective health care bulletin The Management of Subfertility contains a comprehensive list of references to published research papers, including those concerning the effectiveness of various infertility treatments. The bulletin was published for the national health service executive by a consortium of York and Leeds universities and the research unit of the Royal College of Physicians and was made available to health authorities and clinicians in 1992.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice Sunderland health authority has sought from her Department in respect of the most efficacious provision of infertility treatment and diagnosis in the last five years; [19479]

  (2) what contacts her Department has had with Sunderland health authority in respect of infertility treatment and investigation in the United Kingdom in the last five years. [19478]

  Mr. Sackville
  The provision of infertility diagnosis and treatment locally is a matter for Sunderland district health authority. Guidance on infertility services has been provided by the Department of Health. As far as we are aware, the health authority has not sought additional advice from the Department.

  Maudsley Hospital
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement concerning the future of the centre for epilepsy at Maudsley hospital. [19473]

  Mr. Bowis
  I was pleased to participate in the launch of the centre for epilepsy in July last year. The centre is established at the Maudsley hospital where it is expected to remain for the foreseeable future.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each agency and the central Department for which she is responsible(a) the total hours of overtime worked for which payment has been made, (b) the total amount paid in overtime and (c) the total time in days and its monetary equivalent lost through sickness in each of the last three years. [19684]

  Mr. Sackville
  The total hours of overtime worked and the total amount paid in overtime in each of the last three years for the Department of Health, excluding its agencies, is shown in the table. Figures for the number of hours worked in 1992–93 are not available.
  115

  Overtime hours worked

  Overtime cost of hours worked (£)

  1992–93

  —

  1,372,671

  1993–94

  80,764

  1,034,738

  1994–95

  68,939

  795,737

  The total days lost through sickness were:

  1992: 38,938

  1993: 50,382

  The figures for 1994 are not yet available, the sickness absence data are not analysed by cost.

  Asthma
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the total expenditure on general practitioner prescribed anti-asthma medication and preparations, per family health service authority, for the last year for which figures are available; [19430]

  (2) what was the total number of prescriptions for the treatment of asthma, per family health service authority, for the last year for which figures are available; [19509]

  (3) what was the total expenditure on general practitioner prescribed anti-asthma medication and preparations, per drug prescribed, for the last year for which figures are available. [19472]

  Mr. Malone
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Acute Breathing Difficulties
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of patients receiving hospital treatment for acute breathing difficulties per region, for each month from September 1994 until the last month for which figures are available. [19471]

  Mr. Sackville
  Acute breathing difficulties occur as a symptom of a wide range of medical conditions. Central returns do not include numbers of hospital admissions classified by symptom. Information on hospital admissions for asthma for the 1994–95 financial year is not yet available.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the bleaching of teeth using peroxide-based agents by dental practitioners.
  [19475]

  Mr. Malone
  Many products used by dentists will, given their nature, be subject to specific consumer safety requirements designed to ensure that products on the market are safe and are accompanied by adequate information. Medicinal products, cosmetic products and medical devices are all—subject to certain transitional arrangements in the case of medical devices—covered by such legislation. Within this legal framework, dentists use their clinical judgment in determining appropriate treatment for their patients.

  Hospital Services
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will quantify the substantial revenue savings which she expects to be released from bringing hospital services together following her announcement of 4 April. [19704]
  116
  Mr. Malone
  The revenue savings expected to be released are currently estimated at around £75 million per year.

  Occupational Health
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the occupational health guidelines covering NHS trusts; and if she will make a statement. [19474]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave him on 5 April, columns 1217–18.

  Ambulances
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice is given to ambulance authorities and trusts on buying British ambulances. [19527]

  Mr. Sackville
  Specification and selection of ambulances is a matter for each individual trust, but it is the suppliers responsibility to ensure the specification requirements are fully met, or to indicate where they are not.

  Primary Care
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the pressure on acute services in the demand for more resources resulting from the increased investments in primary care in London. [19702]

  Mr. Malone
  It is for local health commissions to manage the implementation of change within the available resources; assessing future service requirements and the balance between hospital, primary care and community care in their area. Changes to acute services will be paced over a number of years to ensure continuity of provision as alternative services are built up.

  Residential Care
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on the sale of homes of patients who have been taken into residential care to defray costs incurred; what consideration is given to carers who were long-term residents in such houses; and what assistance is given to carers who find themselves with no alternative accommodation or funds. [19525]

  Mr. Bowis
  In the assessment of charges for residential accommodation, local authorities do not have powers to force the sale of property without first seeking a court order. Under the local authority charging regulations, local authorities are required to ignore the value of property if the residents spouse or a relative who is over 60 or under 16 or ill still lives there. They also have discretion to ignore the value in other circumstances, for example where a long-term carer or elderly companion still occupies the property. This discretion has been highlighted in guidance issued by both the Department of Health and the Scottish Office.

  Mixed Sex Wards
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of hospital wards are of mixed sex; and if she will make a statement. [17983]
  117
  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available.

  NHS and the public
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to publish the information collected from the chairman of health authorities as a result of the letter sent to them and published in her Department's press release of 21 January 1994 entitled, "Is the NHS listening to the public?—Mawhinney asks health authorities for answers"; and if she will make a statement. [18932]

  Mr. Malone
  My right hon. Friend the then Minister for Health announced the results of his letter of 12 January 1994 to chairmen of district health authorities at a national conference for national health staff on 13 April 1994. Copies of the Ministers speech and a good practice booklet, "Involving Local People", which drew on survey findings, were issued to all district health authorities, family health services authorities, NHS trusts and community health councils on 13 May 1994. Copies of both documents are available in the Library.

  Community Care Social Services
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS beds are being blocked by the Isle of Wight community care social services decisions for a period in excess of five days. [18805]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally., My hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of the Isle of Wight health authority for details.

  Hospital Developments (Tenders)
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria have been issued to hospital trusts regarding the assessment of bids from groups of companies for development of new hospitals through the private finance initiative. [19694]

  Mr. Sackville
  There is general guidance on the appraisal of proposals and assessment of tenders for hospital developments in the national health service executives capital investment manual and in the NHS estates guidance CONCODE. The specific criteria used for individual schemes are decided locally. Copies of these documents are available in the Library.

  St. Bartholomew's and Guy's Hospitals
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the service to patients provided at present by(a) St. Bartholomew's hospital and (b) Guy's hospital. [19711]

  Mr. Malone
  St. Bartholomew's hospital provides in-patient, out-patient and day-case services in the following specialities:

  Pain Relief

  Dialysis Unit

  General Medicine

  General Surgery

  Haematology Clinical

  Ophthalmology

  Paediatrics

  Renal

  Trauma and Orthopaedic

  Cancer Services

  Endocrinology

  ENT

  118

  GUMS/AIDS/HIV

  Nephrology/Renal

  Oral Maxillo Facial Surgery

  Plastic Surgery

  Specialised Immunology

  Urology

  Cardiac Services

  Gastroenterology

  Dermatology

  Gynaecology

  Neurosciences

  Orthodontics

  Regional Amputee Unit

  Thoracic Medicine

  Over time, the services will be relocated on a single Whitechapel site.

  Guy's hospital currently provides the following in-patient, out-patient and day-case services:

  Accident and Emergency

  Trauma and Orthopaedics

  Paediatrics

  Gynaecology

  Dermatology

  Gastroenterology

  Oral and Maxillo Facial

  Surgery

  Urology

  Paediatric Surgery

  Paediatric

  Renal

  Genetics Centre

  Dental

  General Medicine

  Geriatrics

  Anaesthetics

  ENT

  GUM

  Palliative Care

  Lithotripsy

  Cardiac

  Cancer

  Neurology, including Neurophysiology

  General Surgery

  Intensive Care

  Obstetrics

  Clinical Haematology

  Diabetes and Endocrinology

  Ophthalmology

  Rheumatology

  Neonatology

  Foetal Medicine and Cardiology

  Plastic Surgery

  Over time, the main site for acute specialist services will be at St. Thomas hospital with Guy's developing as a local hospital and academic centre.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds, on average, there are at Guys hospital; and what information she has on the likely number of in-patients beds remaining at Guys hospital after the changes announced on 4 April. [19708]

  Mr. Malone
  There are currently 702 beds in use at Guy's hospital. By 1998–99, after the changes announced on 4 April, there will be 112 in-patient beds on the Guy's site dedicated to planned surgery for patients. As proposed in the recent public consultation exercise, changes at Guy's will take place over a period of time.
  119
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of whether the St. Bartholomew's hospital site is able to house a private hospital. [19709]

  Mr. Malone
  A project team, led by Sir Ronald Grierson, has been set up to look at options for the future use of the St. Bartholomew's site. The Royal Hospitals trust has also been in discussion with the city initiative on possible uses of the site for health-related services.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for the future of the St. Bartholomew's site once NHS services have terminated there. [19707]

  Mr. Malone
  A project team has been set up to look at practical options for the future use of the St. Bartholomew's site. This will be chaired by Sir Ronald Grierson and will include a number of distinguished academics and clinicians.

  London Chest Hospital
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the service provided by the London Chest hospital. [18719]

  Mr. Malone
  The London Chest hospital provides cardio thoracic surgical and medical services, primarily for the residents of North Thames regional health authority. Services will transfer over time to the Royal London hospital site at Whitechapel.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has given to the Royal London Hospital trust in relation to the closure of cardiothoracic services at St. Bartholomew's and the London Chest hospital prior to the development of the new unit on the Royal London hospital site. [19705]

  Mr. Malone
  The relocation of cardiothoracic services from St. Bartholomew's and the London Chest hospitals forms part of the Royal Hospitals trust's proposals to concentrate acute services on a single site at Whitechapel. The trust is required to meet all patients charter standards and make full and adequate provision for all its services which may need to be relocated, either permanently or temporarily, whilst building work is undertaken.

  No services will transfer or close until adequate alternative facilities are in place.

  London Hospitals
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 4 April,Official Report, columns 1043–45, relating to changes to London hospitals, when she received the final documents from the four comprehensive consultation exercises carried out by the district health authorities. [19723]

  Mr. Malone
  The conclusions of the consideration by South Thames regional health authority were received on 16 March 1995 and the conclusions of the consideration by North Thames regional health authority were received on 23 March 1995.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what weight was put on the opinion of local people in making the decision about changes to London hospitals. [19717]

  Mr. Malone
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took full account of all comments made during the consultation processes in reaching her decision.
  120
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which London hospitals closed in the last five years; and which are due to close in the next 10 years. [18716]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department does not routinely collect information on hospital closures or proposals for closure. Information has been held centrally, since 1992, on cases where proposals to change the use of health service facilities are referred to Ministers for decision following objections from a community health council. A list of such closures and changes of use for the period January 1992 to March 1995 will be placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates she has made of the changes to the London hospitals being a consequence of the internal market. [19710]

  Mr. Malone
  The changes being made to health services in London address many of the issues identified in the Tomlinson report on London's health services, medical education and research, and take forward the Government's strategy set out in "Making London Better". They are intended to improve health care in London by concentrating specialist services in fewer, better, centres of excellence, providing modern acute hospitals closer to major centres of population and releasing resources for investment in primary and community health services, while preserving and enhancing London's reputation for treatment, teaching and research.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will break down by hospital the £400 million capital investment announced for London hospitals; and from which budget it will come. [19713]

  Mr. Malone
  Latest estimates of planned gross capital investment are as follows:

  £ million

  Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  239

  Guy's/St. Thomas' NHS Trust

  90

  Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  35

  Wellhouse NHS Trust

  68

  Total

  432

  These estimates may be subject to revision as more detailed plans are prepared. Exchequer capital funding for "Making London Better" projects is available from the national health service capital allocation. Funding arrangements for individual projects, including the exploration of private finance, will be considered as part of detailed implementation of proposals.

  Primary Care, London
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the recommendations of the Acheson report into primary care services in London in the early 1980s which were not carried out. [18721]

  Mr. Malone
  The individual recommendations of the Acheson report are no longer relevant as the 1990 general practitioner contract and the national health service reforms have changed the framework within which primary care services are provided. However, these changes did take full account of the Acheson report, and the further development of services in the London initiative zone following the Tomlinson report have
  121
  continued the improvement of primary care services in London.

  Brook and Edgware Hospitals
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the service to patients provided by(a) the Brook hospital and (b) Edgware hospital. [19712]

  Mr. Malone
  The Brook hospital currently provides:

  General Medicine

  Cardiac

  General Surgery

  Neurosciences

  Geriatric Medicine

  Minor injuries unit

  Out-patient services supported by on site diagnostic, X-ray, pathology, nuclear medicine, occupational therapy and physiotherapy services.

  Services provided at the Brook hospital will transfer to the new hospital at Greenwich, the Queen Elizabeth Military hospital, with tertiary cardiac and neurosciences services transferring to the Guy's and St. Thomas' trust and King's Healthcare trust.

  Edgware Hospital currently provides the following services:

  General Surgery

  ENT

  Plastic Surgery

  General Medicine

  Haematology

  Neurology

  Obstetrics

  Urology

  Ophthalmology

  Thoracic Surgery

  Dermatology

  Geriatric Medicine

  Clinical Oncology

  Gynaecology

  Orthopaedics

  Oral Surgery

  Accident and Emergency

  Rheumatology

  Anaesthetics

  Paediatrics

  Main acute services will be relocated to Barnet General hospital and Northwick Park hospital.

  Services currently provided at the Brook and Edgware hospitals will not transfer or close until adequate alternative facilities are in place.

  London Hospitals (Research)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was each London hospital's research rating in each of the last five years. [18720]

  Mr. Malone
  The research of London hospitals is not subject to an annual rating review. The last review which concerned the R and D of any of the London hospitals was the special health authorities research review. The review report was published in July 1993 and a copy is in the Library. The UK higher education funding councils undertake reviews of higher education institutions, including medical schools in the University of London, every four years. Research ratings are used to determine 122
  the allocation of research grants. The next research assessment exercise is to be held in 1996.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria she will use for deciding whether or not the London Ambulance Service is fully equipped to provide an improved service for Londoners in relation to the announcement on 4 April on changes to health services in London. [18718]

  Mr. Sackville
  The London Ambulance Service has recently achieved better response times and considerable improvements have been made to its vehicle fleet and equipment, including 180 new emergency ambulances. The need for further developments and improvements to accommodate the decisions made on changes to London's health services have been identified, and changes planned to ensure a satisfactory standard of service to patients.

  Royal London Hospitals Trust
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of concentrating acute and specialist services over time at the Royal London hospital in capital terms; and what is the expected revenue saving from this capital investment. [19714]

  Mr. Malone
  The estimated net cost of rationalising the services of the Royal London Hospitals national health service trust at the Royal London hospital is £173 million, once land sales are taken into account; £35 million of this cost is backlog maintenance. In addition, the completed development is expected to produce NHS revenue savings of £30 million per annum.

  Deprivation Scores
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average deprivation score for the areas of each hospital listed as due to change in London in the announcement of 4 April. [18715]

  Mr. Malone
  The following figures for the relevant district health authorities are calculated using the same method as the Department of the Environment's ward index of local conditions.

  A positive score shows relatively high levels of deprivation, while a negative score shows relatively low levels.

  District Health Authority (DHA)

  DOE index

  Barnet

  -2.065

  Brent and Harrow

  13.530

  East London and the City

  28.203

  Bexley and Greenwich

  13.289

  South East London

  27.250

  Source:

  Public Health Common Data Set 1994

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the correspondence she has received
  123
  on her changes to London's hospitals' services was in favour of them. [18722]

  Mr. Malone
  Figures are not available.

  Nursing Numbers
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses were employed by the NHS and how many employed by the private sector in each of the last four years(a) in total, (b) by region and (c) by district health authority. [13371]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 16 March 1995]: Available information on whole-time equivalent numbers of nursing and midwifery staff in the national health service is shown in the attached table. The table includes nursing and midwifery staff directly employed by the NHS in hospital and community health services, those working in the general medical services who are employed by general practitioners, and England totals for numbers of Project 2000 students.

  Students undertaking traditional forms of training are included in the hospital and community health service figures shown.

  Numbers of nursing and midwifery staff by district health authorities can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The publication "Private hospitals, homes and clinics registered under Section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984" contains whole-time equivalent numbers of staff in post for non-NHS establishments in England, by region and by district health authority. The latest data available relate to 1993–94, and copies of this year and the preceding three years are available in the Library.

  Nursing and midwifery staff in the NHS by region as at 30 September 1990–1993 (including Project 2000 students in England totals and excluding agency)

  Whole-time Equivalents

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  England

  Total HCHS, GMS and Project 2000

  406,100

  411,480

  406,210

  399,060

  HCHS Nurses and Midwives

  395,360

  392,200

  378,790

  361,460

  GMS Practice Nurses

  7,740

  8,780

  9,120

  9,600

  Project 2000 Students

  3,000

  10,500

  18,300

  28,000

  Northern

  Total HCHS and GMS

  27,730

  27,770

  25,670

  25,130

  HCHS Nurses and Midwives

  27,310

  27,270

  25,120

  24,580

  GMS Practice Nurses

  430

  500

  550

  550

  Yorkshire

  Total HCHS and GMS

  30,590

  30,070

  28,210

  27,890

  HCHS Nurses and Midwives

  30,020

  29,460

  27,560

  27,140

  GMS Practice Nurses

  570

  610

  650

  750

  Trent

  Total HCHS and GMS

  38,980

  38,800

  36,720

  36,540

  HCHS Nurses and Midwives

  38,210

  37,950

  35,790

  35,580

  GMS Practice Nurses

  770

  850

  930

  960

  East Anglia

  Total HCHS and GMS

  16,580

  16,270

  15,900

  15,360

  124

  Nursing and midwifery staff in the NHS by region as at 30 September 1990–1993 (including Project 2000 students in England totals and excluding agency)

  Whole-time Equivalents

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  HCHS Nurses and Midwives

  16,140

  15,730

  15,390

  14,810

  GMS Practice Nurses

  440

  550

  510

  550

  North West Thames

  Total HCHS and GMS

  27,100

  27,160

  25,470

  22,300

  HCHS Nurses and Midwives

  26,480

  26,480

  24,770

  21,550

  GMS Practice Nurses

  610

  680

  700

  750

  North East Thames

  Total HCHS and GMS

  33,510

  33,480

  31,950

  29,040

  HCHS Nurses and Midwives

  32,980

  32,750

  31,250

  28,280

  GMS Practice Nurses

  540

  730

  700

  760

  South East Thames

  Total HCHS and GMS

  29,790

  28,910

  29,220

  24,990

  HCHS Nurses and Midwives

  29,110

  28,280

  29,570

  24,250

  GMS Practice Nurses

  660

  630

  650

  740

  South West Thames

  Total HCHS and GMS

  22,610

  22,140

  22,930

  21,910

  HCHS Nurses and Midwives

  22,120

  21,590

  22,380

  21,350

  GMS Practice Nurses

  490

  550

  560

  560

  Wessex

  Total HCHS and GMS

  24,230

  24,240

  22,760

  23,610

  HCHS Nurses and Midwives

  23,690

  23,570

  22,170

  23,000

  GMS Practice Nurses

  530

  680

  590

  610

  Oxford

  Total HCHS and GMS

  17,530

  17,310

  16,900

  17,420

  HCHS Nurses and Midwives

  17,080

  16,820

  16,370

  16,850

  GMS Practice Nurses

  450

  490

  540

  580

  South Western

  Total HCHS and GMS

  28,030

  27,730

  26,920

  26,740

  HCHS Nurses and Midwives

  27,340

  27,030

  26,160

  26,000

  GMS Practice Nurses

  680

  710

  760

  740

  West Midlands

  Total HCHS and GMS

  42,830

  42,120

  42,230

  40,230

  HCHS Nurses and Midwives

  42,070

  41,300

  41,320

  39,210

  GMS Practice Nurses

  750

  830

  910

  1,020

  Mersey

  Total HCHS and GMS

  21,420

  20,450

  19,830

  18,560

  HCHS Nurses and Midwives

  21,090

  20,100

  19,390

  18,170

  GMS Practice Nurses

  330

  340

  440

  390

  North Western

  Total HCHS and GMS

  37,480

  37,120

  35,930

  34,480

  HCHS Nurses and Midwives

  36,990

  36,480

  35,290

  33,830

  GMS Practice Nurses

  490

  640

  640

  650

  SHAs and Others

  Total HCHS and GMS

  4,730

  7,400

  7,260

  6,840

  125

  Nursing and midwifery staff in the NHS by region as at 30 September 1990–1993 (including Project 2000 students in England totals and excluding agency)

  Whole-time Equivalents

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  HCHS Nurses and Midwives

  4,730

  7,400

  7,260

  6,840

  GMS Practice Nurses

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Source:

  HCHS Nursing and Midwifery—PD(STATS) B Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  GMS Practice Nurses—PD(STATS) C GMP Census.

  Project 2000 Students—English National Board for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Notes:

  1. The HCHS and GMS figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  2. The HCHS Nursing and midwifery figures include qualified, unqualified, traditional learners, others and bank staff. Agency nursing and midwifery are excluded.

  3. Practice nurses are employed by general practitioners not directly by the NHS.

  4. Project 2000 students have been included in the England totals. Project 2000 students are supernumerary to the workforce. They receive bursaries and are not employed by the NHS. Project 2000 students undertake 1,000 hours of rostered service as part of their course.

  5. The figures given for Project 2000 students are estimated numbers (not wtes) rounded to the nearest hundred and may include some part-time students.

  6. '—' denotes no staff.

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

  NHS Staff Suicides
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of suicides by(a) female NHS staff and (b) male NHS staff, in each professional group, in each year since 1990. [17708]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 5 April 1995]: Information is not available in the form requested.

DEFENCE

  Estimates
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to publish the 1995 "Statement on the Defence Estimates". [18907]

  Mr. Soames
  On current plans, the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" 1995 should be published on Wednesday 3 May. This would be followed by a press briefing and publication of a press notice. Copies will also be placed in the Library of the House.

  Land Sales
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 March,Official Report, column 257, if he will list the capital receipts for each of the last 10 years from the sale of land by his Department. [18906]

  Mr. Soames
  Capital receipts generated by the sale of my Department's land over the last ten financial years are as follows:

  1984–85: £27.7 million

  1985–86: £60.2 million

  126

  1986–87: £75.6 million

  1987–88: £77.8 million

  1988–89: £149.6 million

  1989–90: £74 million

  1990–91: £81.6 million

  1991–92: 102.2 million

  1992–93: £68 million

  1993–94: £70.7 million

  Final figures for 1994–95 are not yet available, but receipts are expected to be in the region of £65 million.

  Redundant Military Sites
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's involvement in environmental clean-up operations; how many operations are currently under way; and how much money is spent each year on such operations. [18846]

  Mr. Freeman
  Decontamination of MOD land is undertaken where there is a significant risk to health and safety or the environment, or where land is being sold. In the latter case, my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces set out the position in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 15 July 1994,Official Report, column 818. Information on the total number of remediation/decontamination programmes currently under way at individual MOD sites and their associated costs is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Details of sites in disposal with identified contamination problems are contained in the House of Commons Defence Committee's report on the defence estate, Vol. II, page 72, published on 15 December 1994.

  Green Policy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy concerning environmental matters; if he will specify what actions his Department are pursuing to safeguard the environment; how much money his Department spent in each of the last 10 years on environmental protection and maintenance; and if he will make a statement. [18844]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department's policy is to comply with the letter and spirit of UK environmental legislation and international conventions to which the UK is a signatory, and Crown or defence immunities are invoked only where necessary for national security. I set out current environmental action in my answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock),Official Report, column 1152, on 5 April 1995.

  Environmental protection measures are an integral part of many defence activities. As a consequence, the discrete costs involved cannot be separately identified. Details of my Department's policy and activities on environmental matters are readily available in the "Statement on Defence Estimates".

  Climatic Change Data
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department's policy to use RN submarines to collect climatic change data from beneath the Arctic ice cap costs each year. [18845]

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry of Defence does not specifically fund the collection of climatic change data
  127
  by Royal Navy submarines. As part of my Department's commitment to the environment, however, data obtained from Royal Navy submarine deployments to the Arctic have been made available to the Scott Polar Research Institute.

  Sport
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what priority is given to sport in the armed forces; and what resources are committed to its promotion. [17558]

  Mr. Soames
  All three services strongly encourage their personnel to participate in sport; it is widely recognised that sport encourages physical fitness and contributes to military effectiveness by developing personal qualities such as courage, resilience, stamina, co-ordination, and team spirit. Sport is also enjoyable and it therefore makes a significant contribution to morale and esprit de corps, and is an important retention and recruitment factor.

  Resources for sport within the armed forces derive from various sources, including both public and non-public funding, and assistance from some of the major sporting associations; it is not, therefore, possible to quantify the resources, in terms of funding or manpower, devoted to the promotion of sport within the service environment.

  Adventure Training
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what priority is given to adventure training in the armed forces; and what resources are committed to its promotion. [17559]

  Mr. Soames
  The armed forces have long recognised the great value of adventurous training as a medium for developing qualities such as fitness, self reliance, initiative and endurance. All the services are committed to adventurous training as an integral part of personal and unit training. This was recognised by the House of Commons Defence Committee report in October last year on military training, ninth report.

  Full details of the resources committed to adventurous training, much of which is conducted at unit level, could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, as quoted in the HCDC report cited £9.5 million was spent on operating costs for adventurous training centres in the financial year 1993–94, the last period for which this information is available, with 375 staff being employed on adventurous training at these centres.

  Ships
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated present value of HMS Kent, HMS Jupiter and HMS Hermione; and what amounts have been spent on(a) maintenance and (b) refits of each ship in the last 10 years. [18849]

  Mr. Soames
  While my Department is attempting to sell these vessels any estimate of their value remains commercially confidential. Approximate known costs of major maintenance and refits carried out over the last 10 years are set out. Details of routine and operational maintenance and the costs of refit and maintenance work carried out before the royal dockyards passed into commercial management in April 1987 are no longer available.
  128

  Vessel

  Major maintenance

  Refits

  HMS Kent

  £240,000

  None in the period

  HMS Jupiter

  £13,000,000

  £8,000,000

  HMS Hermione

  1£4,000,000

  £8,000,000

  Note:

  1 Excludes cost of a maintenance period undertaken in 1985 which is not available.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many public interest immunity certificates were signed by himself or Ministers in his Department between April 1992 and July 1994; and if he will state for each certificate the date it was signed and the Minister responsible. [19225]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 10 March 1994,Official Report, column 399, for the period April 1992 to July 1994.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many rules and regulations he repealed in the first three months of 1995; and how many new rules and regulations were introduced in that period by way of statutory instruments, motions or orders. [19375]

  Mr. Freeman
  The MOD is not a regulator of business and did not repeal or introduce any rules or regulations with a significant impact on business in the first three months of 1995.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requirements there are for officials in his Department to introduce a compliance cost assessment for all rules and regulations coming before him and his Ministers; and how many compliance cost assessments have been issued in his Department in the first three months of this year. [19343]

  Mr. Freeman
  The permanent secretary has personal responsibility for overseeing the preparation of compliance cost assessments. Officials are required to follow the Department of Trade and Industry's advice contained in its booklet "Checking the Cost to Business A Guide to Compliance Cost Assessment" published in 1992. On 30 March 1995, the MOD published draft proposals for new reserve forces legislation. The document explained the need for a compliance cost assessment, described the costs that will need to be estimated and invited employers willing to help with this work to come forward. No completed CCAs were issued by MOD in the first three months of 1995.

  Gifts
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 April,Official Report, column 970, on how many occasions since 1979 any Minister or relative of a Minister has accepted any financial gift, payment or commission associated with proposed or completed sales of arms to overseas Governments. [19476]

  Mr. Freeman
  I am not aware of any such financial gift, payment or commission contrary to the procedures set down for Ministers and their families.

  Western European Armaments Group
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect membership of the Western European Armaments Group will have on the costs of European procurement collaborations. [17541]

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: The title of the Western European Armaments Group was adopted following the transfer of the functions of the former Independent European Programme Group to the WEU in
  130
  December 1992. The group is the main forum for European co-operation in research, development and production of defence equipment and the United Kingdom has been a member since its establishment in 1976. The United Kingdom shares with other European nations constraints on our defence budget. We must constantly seek value for money in all aspects of our work and, in the area of equipment procurement, we have recognised for many years that co-operation with our European neighbours can be a most effective method by which we can achieve this aim.

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

Law Commission Reports: Implementation
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
For how long each Law Commission report with a draft Bill has awaited parliamentary consideration; and how they propose to implement necessary and urgent law reforms of a non-controversial nature.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the information requested by my noble friend is set out in Appendix 6 to the 29th annual report of the Law Commission. The recommendations in five Law Commission reports were implemented in the last Session of Parliament and it is anticipated that at least eight reports will be implemented this Session. The oldest report on which the Government have yet to announce their decision is that on Liability for Chancel Repairs, which raised a number of technical difficulties. The use of the Special Standing Committee procedure for non-contentious Bills, as recommended by the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, offers the prospect of implementation of Bills which otherwise might not find a place in the legislative timetable. It has already been used to good effect in relation to Bills implementing Law Commission reports.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that exceedingly encouraging reply, particularly with reference to the Jellicoe Committee on non-controversial Bills. Can my noble and learned friend confirm that between 1988 and 1993 only three Law Commission Bills reached the statute book; that in 1994 five reached the statute book, and that in 1994–95 it is expected that eight will reach the statute book? And will that gathering of momentum be continued in the future?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble friend says, momentum has gathered; and I am extremely glad that that is so. The principal reason for the gathering of that momentum is the new procedure suggested by the committee chaired by my noble friend. I hope that procedure will be appropriate for many of the Law Commission Bills. There may be some for which it is not appropriate.
My noble friend referred to "non-controversial" Bills. In this context one is really speaking of Bills that are non-controversial in a party political sense. There is normally a matter of controversy in most Law Commission Bills. The procedure suggested by my noble friend's committee proved admirable in helping
380
regarding the technical issues on which controversy arose. However, the House decided some questions of controversy in a way different from that which commended itself to the Law Commission originally.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I assure the House and the noble and learned gentleman on the Woolsack—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am not sure why I am being howled down.
Lord Peston: He is not a gentleman; he is a noble Lord.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is always a gentleman; he is also ennobled. When people howl at one they should make clear what they are howling about. In so far as I transgressed, I apologise. I was merely trying to suggest to the noble and learned Lord sitting on the Woolsack that we on these Benches regard the progress being made with Law Commission Bills as distinctly encouraging and heartening. We hope that it continues.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for both formulations after the intervention. I am particularly grateful to the Opposition Front Benches for the way in which they supported moves to have the Law Commission Bills of the kind I described taken through the new procedure. I am grateful to Members from all parts of the House who participated in the work. It is quite exacting in terms of time commitment, but I hope rewarding in terms of the satisfaction of seeing good legislation of this type reaching the statute book.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, are there not long-outstanding Law Commission Bills dealing with a married woman's rights in the matrimonial home and in its contents? They go far to rectify the extraordinary situation whereby a married woman who stands by her marriage is in a worse position in those respects than a married woman who divorces.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are recommendations from the Law Commission dealing with the property of spouses. I hope that in due course we shall be able to make progress with reforming the law in that regard. We have to consider a degree of priority in this matter. At the moment I am seeking to bring forward consideration of Law Commission proposals that deal with divorce.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the Government's success in bringing forward Law Commission Bills, especially the Bill implementing the report on domestic violence, has been very widely welcomed? Is he further aware that his praise for the Jellicoe procedure is shared by those who are sticklers for the Committee of the Whole House procedure in general? Is he willing to agree that where

381
there is such general agreement, the Private Peer's Bill may be a suitable means for taking some of these reports forward?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. The Jellicoe procedure was really intended for government Bills. So far it has been used only for government Bills. It may be that it would be suitable for Private Members' Bills also but hitherto I have not had to seek to promote any of these proposals by that route.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I acknowledge with appreciation the not inconsiderable progress which has been made in this matter since it was touched on in the report of the very select Select Committee of your Lordships' House. Perhaps I may ask my noble and gentlemanly friend on the Woolsack whether he is aware that there is now an agreed procedure whereby once a year the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place and the Law Commission meet to discuss and review progress in this area? Might it not be a good thing to establish similar machinery between the appropriate committee of your Lordships' House and the Law Commission with a view, in the words of the chairman of the Law Commission,
"to discussing possible ways in which the machinery might be fine-tuned to help move the backlog more quickly and to keep the momentum of these reforms going"?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place has a general responsibility for overseeing the work of the Lord Chancellor's Department. It is right that the Select Committee should have an opportunity of reviewing that aspect of our work. I pay tribute to the way in which the Select Committee's review of this work has helped it forward. So far as this House is concerned, I am anxious to do anything I can further to promote improvement in the methods of dealing with these matters. So far, speaking for myself, I have not identified any particular procedural reform which it would be desirable to implement. So I am content with the way matters have been handled so far. If a matter of procedure emerged, the committee on procedure of this House would be the appropriate channel in which to consider it further.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I wonder whether I can help the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He said that he was not aware of any procedural suggestion which might be made to facilitate the flow of these Bills through Parliament. Will he initiate discussions through the usual channels to see whether the Private Bill procedure might be adopted or adapted whereby a Bill of one Session could be carried over to the next so that there could be a greater spread throughout the Session of Law Commission Bills that are not party politically contentious?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for that suggestion. I am particularly anxious to get Bills through as quickly as possible. The opportunity for, as it were, continuing the Bill may not be entirely conducive to that aim. The pressure of the end of the
382
Session looming sometimes has beneficial effects in getting the Bill through. Therefore, while I am grateful for the suggestion, so far the need for that change has not been demonstrated in the work that we have been doing.

London Underground: Funding
2.47 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to London Underground's statement, in presenting their annual plan on 16th March, that passengers are likely to be faced with a "patch and mend" service unless there is additional funding over the next five years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Government's current funding plans for London Transport should allow London Underground to make significant progress towards improving the overall state of the network as well as maintaining or enhancing existing levels of service. London Transport's corporate plan for the next five years will be carefully considered as part of the process of determining future levels of government grant.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recall that for 1992–93 the Government committed themselves to core expenditure on the London Underground of around £600 million per annum but that in every year since then that has been progressively cut until the forecast for 1997–98 in the last financial statement is no more than £368 million? Will he accept that while London Underground, through good management, is self-financing itself to an increasing degree every year it is still about £100 million per annum short of what is required adequately to maintain and refurbish the system? In view of the fact that that could lead to serious inconvenience to the travelling public at a time when more and more people are using the Underground, will the Government think again?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in my original Answer I said that the Government believe that the existing level of funding was sufficient not only to allow London Underground to maintain its existing levels of service, but also to make inroads into the investment backlog. It is important to realise that spending on London Underground has been extremely high and that investment over the past three years has been at a higher level than at any time in the previous two decades.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the service provided by London Underground is very much appreciated by the Royal British Legion, particularly for those men and women—I hope that this is not a laughing matter among Conservatives—who were badly wounded in the last war, many of whom were crippled for life? They admire the London Underground service. If there are to be any radical changes, perhaps along the lines outlined by the noble

383
Lord, Lord Ezra, can consideration please be given to discussions with senior officers of the Royal British Legion?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely important point. We of course realise how much the service is valued by all those who visit London. There are no radical changes planned and the noble Lord's remarks, as ever, will be taken fully into consideration.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, can a special gram be given to London Underground to enable them to employ someone who knows how to make escalators work and to keep on working?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my understanding is that considerable sums are spent on keeping those escalators working.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that it is not only the travelling public who are suffering from these enormous delays, but that there is also planning blight? Routes have to be established otherwise vast numbers of people are unable to change their houses, by selling and moving, while this matter is under debate.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Question here essentially concerns the level of investment in London Underground services, which we have discussed. I said that we believe that funding is fully adequate for inroads to be made not only into the investment backlog but for existing services to be maintained. We shall take my noble friend's remarks about planning blight fully into consideration.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his somewhat complacent observations fail to lake into account the fact that a great deal of the investment has been introduced in order to meet the requirements of the Fennell Report into the King's Cross disaster and that, even so, the situation has fallen short of what the Government promised? How does the Minister square what he said with the warnings given by the Health and Safety Executive about speed restrictions due to maintenance work clearly affecting safety and also the mobility of the people of London?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we are in no way complacent about the London Underground service. Safety remains the highest priority and London Underground will not operate an unsafe service.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, how does the Minister equate what he said with the observations of the Health and Safety Executive, which has warned about speed restrictions because of maintenance work that is necessary due to inadequate investment?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, last year's settlement makes adequate provision for essential investment to ensure that safety is in no way jeopardised.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware of numerous reports about the risk of water getting into London Underground? In particular, has he looked recently at the westbound Metropolitan Line tunnel out
384
of Baker Street? My noble friend's Question relics on the statement which, perhaps optimistically, uses the words, "patch and mend." What do we do when the patch will not mend?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that the only answer is to replace. Our investment in London Underground has been, as I said, extremely substantial. When essential maintenance needs to be done then, of course, it must be done. It is not possible to cure decades of investment backlog overnight at the stroke of a pen. We are making substantial progress in curing that backlog. I believe that the service is improving.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, will the Minister accept that it is difficult to reconcile his view that spending on London Underground is now at an adequate level with the fact that most people travelling on London Underground regard the service as plain lousy? Is it not a fact that travellers on London Underground realise that there are daily delays caused by signal failure, train breakdown, points failure, escalators and lifts breaking down and that what was once the best Underground service in the world is now rapidly becoming one of the worst?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, of course I agree that there are infrastructure problems with the London Underground system. However, the level of investment which we have set for current and future years allows significant progress to be made. That must be the essential point.
Lord Rix: My Lords, is the Minister aware that 10 days ago London Underground, London Transport and MENCAP launched a video called "Use of the Tube for people with learning disabilities" which we hope is going to be of great use? Can the Minister assure the House that the level of training for staff on London Underground to help people with disabilities is at a high level?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, training is of course extremely important. We welcome the noble Lord's description of his initiative with MENCAP and London Underground. It is extremely important that disabled people should be able to travel properly on the London Underground system.

Railway Investment
2.56 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What their response is to the report Investing in Britain's Railways, published on 22nd March; and whether they agree with the recommendation of that report that much greater investment in the railway system is required.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government welcome well-informed contributions to the debate on the role of Britain's railways. It is disappointing, however, that the report does not give credit to the

385
Government for the record levels of investment in recent years. Also, it does not acknowledge the significant investment which we expect to flow from the private finance initiative or the improvements to come from railway privatisation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has dealt with the report in a less than satisfactory way? Is he aware that one of the major criticisms of the report is the absence of a clear, long-term framework for the railways in the Government's planning? Does the Minister agree that that is in marked contrast to the situation among our friends and competitors in the Netherlands, France and Germany where investment is substantially proportionately in excess of everything the Government claim to have done in this country?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, when the noble Lord reads my original Answer I believe he will see that I did not, as he may have suggested, rubbish the report. It is a well informed document. It takes for granted, however, the source of the funding and it does not take into consideration the levels of investment which will flow from privatisation. The Government Firmly believe that the privatisation initiative will bring substantial extra resources into the railways and enable the system to develop.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is highly desirable that investment should continue in the Highland railways in Scotland and that there should be no further reduction in the facilities there in view of their importance to the tourist trade?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that investment is an essential commodity throughout the railways.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the long drawn out nature of the privatisation process, as planned by the Government, could have a harmful and delaying effect on the rate of investment which would otherwise have occurred?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we firmly believe that the goal of attaining privatisation, the new initiatives which will be introduced, the extra finance and the management techniques which will be brought forward will result in a significantly better railway. That goal is well worth any possible problems which may arise along the way such as the noble Lord suggests. We believe that the privatisation initiative will be a tremendous success for the railways.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that all his aspirations about privatisation are likely to come to as much grief as the Government's promises about taxation at the last election? Is he further aware that the privatisation proposal has failed to focus attention on the real requirements of the railways, which are much greater investment and prioritising those requirements as against investment on roads? Does the Minister agree that one of the difficulties about the private finance initiative is that the Government are
386
asking the private funding sector to assume a great deal of risk without providing proper underpinning? That is why I believe the initiative will come to grief.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that the simple answer is no. I do not agree with the noble Lord in his assessment of the private finance initiative. We believe that it has considerable potential for bringing new money into the railways and hence benefits for the travelling public.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister follow his answer about his great belief in privatisation by telling us why no company will be given a chance to make Motorail and the night sleeper service to Fort William work?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is not the case. As the noble Lord well knows, the fact that a service may not be included in the passenger service requirement does not in any way mean that the successful franchisee will not be able to run that service if he so chooses.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that it is still the Government's policy to increase the taxation of road vehicles above the retail prices index in order to contribute towards a reduction in CO2 levels and a reduction in the risk of global warming? If that is so, will the noble Viscount and the Government consider hypothecating such additional revenues so that they can be invested in the railways and other forms of public transport?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made commitments on the taxation of fuel for road vehicles. I do not believe that it is the Government's policy to hypothecate funds in the manner the noble Lord suggests. However, I am sure that when the Official Report is read, the noble Lord's comments will be considered carefully.

Nuclear Weapons: Parliamentary Questions
3.1 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will discontinue the practice of answering any Question on nuclear weapons by saying that the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons make a continuing contribution to maintaining stability in Europe when that question has not been raised.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, we will continue to give Answers which are appropriate to the Questions we are asked.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I wish that I could ask the noble Lord to keep more closely in future

387
to the promise that he has just made to me than has been the case in the past. I have asked him two Questions about Trident, to which he replied:
"Our … forces make a continuing contribution to maintaining stability in Europe".
I also asked a separate Question about the development of Trident, to which he replied that our weapons,
"make a continuing contribution to maintaining stability in Europe".—[Official Report, 15/3/95; col. WA 48.]
That may be a matter of opinion, but in neither case is it an Answer to the Question that was asked.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that those are very good Answers to the Questions put by the noble Lord. We all know that the noble Lord does not believe in our nuclear deterrent and we all know that the noble Lord wishes to discredit our nuclear deterrent. I happen to disagree with the noble Lord—and to disagree with him pretty fundamentally. If he wishes to discredit our nuclear deterrent by asking Questions phrased in a certain way, which I believe that he wishes to do, I seek to reserve my right—and it is my right—to answer them as is appropriate to ensure that Her Majesty's Government's position is correctly stated and made absolutely clear.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Answer to which the noble Lord objects is, in fact, the answer to his Question? May I express the hope that my noble friend will go on repeating it until eventually, we hope, the noble Lord begins to understand it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. I was hoping that I would not have to repeat the Answer that long because I was hoping that the noble Lord would stop asking his Question.
Lord Judd: My Lords, whatever may be the stereotype form of Answers to Questions in this House, have the Government yet had time to consider the call made by the Secretary General this weekend for the only sane objective of total global nuclear disarmament and for an immediate halt to production and testing? How does the Government's policy of doubling the number of warheads on Trident as compared with Polaris begin to meet that objective? Are the Government now ready lo include Trident in any future five-power arms control negotiations?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord knows full well that we are fully committed to securing an unconditional and indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty, which started yesterday. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be speaking in New York this afternoon on that very subject. Perhaps I can put the noble Lord right on one small matter. The noble Lord talked about increasing our nuclear arsenal; I can assure him that when Trident takes over the sub-strategic role and when the WE177 bomb is withdrawn, the United Kingdom will have 21
388
per cent, fewer nuclear warheads than in the 1970s and the total explosive power of those warheads will be some 59 per cent, lower than the 1970s figure.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister clarify one point? Is it not the case that when Trident is in place there will be double the number of warheads available in Trident as compared with those available in Polaris?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are maintaining a minimum deterrent. What I have made clear is that, overall, the number of our nuclear warheads will be some 21 per cent, fewer and the total explosive power of those warheads will be some 59 per cent, lower than in the 1970s.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in the current discussions in New York on the extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, what is the Government's position with regard to a comprehensive nuclear test ban, which many non-nuclear powers regard as an important indication on the part of the nuclear powers that they are serious about nuclear disarmament?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we shall continue to play a constructive and positive part in the negotiations for the comprehensive test ban treaty. We have dropped our requirement for exceptional safety tests, but we shall not sacrifice a good treaty for a quick one. I do not believe that there is any necessary linkage between the comprehensive test ban treaty and the extension of the non-proliferation treaty.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the Answer given by my noble friend is factually right and represents the attitude of government, what conceivable objection is there to the form of that Answer?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have to say to my noble friend that I do not know what the answer is, but I tend to agree with everything that my noble friend said.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord introduce novelty into the proceedings? We all know his opinions on these matters and I have no doubt that he speaks for the Government in this respect, but would it not be a good idea—just try it out once or twice—to answer the Question on the Order Paper?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do answer the Question and give the views of Her Majesty's Government, just as the noble Lord gives what I imagine are his own views.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, has not the fact that we have enjoyed peace for the past 50 years itself allowed the noble Lord to put his Question?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. I fear to think what might have happened if we had pursued some of the policies suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he may have set an undesirable precedent in his original Answer to my noble friend, which would indicate to the House that where the Government do not like the Question or the philosophy of the questioner, they reserve the right to avoid

389
answering specific questions? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that when it comes to matters affecting the EC, he will not follow a similar tactic?
Lord Henley: My Lords, dare I say it, nonsense. As I said in my original Answer, we will give Answers which are appropriate to the Questions that are asked.

Business of the House: Arrangement of the Order Paper
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with to enable the Prayers standing in the name of the Lord Carter and the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Willoughby de Broke to be taken before the Home Energy Conservation Bill this day.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill
Read a third time.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hayhoe.)
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I believe that it is appropriate at the passage of this important Private Member's Bill, introduced in another place by Mr. French and managed so ably in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, to draw attention to the fact that the measure was originally introduced in a slightly different form by my noble friend Lord Dubs. Perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, and Mr. French on the passage of a small but useful Bill which will bring considerable benefits to a number of building society account holders. It is also appropriate at this time to thank the Minister for his positive and constructive approach to the passage of the Bill and to hope that he will emulate his current conduct when we discuss a further building societies Bill later today.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will have to wait until later. With the exception of his thanks to me, perhaps I may echo what he said and give in return my thanks to him for his constructive approach to the Bill and offer again my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Hayhoe and to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on getting the Bill through.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Russian Federation) Order 1995
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee],
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to take the draft order concerning the Russian Federation and bracket it with our debate on the Ukraine order which follows on the Order Paper.
The orders specify the partnership and co-operation agreements between the European Union on the one hand and the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the other as European treaties under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. They are mixed agreements; in other words, some of their provisions fall within Community competence and others fall within the competence of member states. They therefore require ratification by all EU member states and the assent of the European Parliament before they can enter into force. In the case of the United Kingdom, the draft orders need to be approved by both Houses so that we may ratify the agreements.
The break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991 presented the West with a unique challenge. Out of the debris left by the collapse of the monolithic Soviet system there emerged 15 sovereign independent states, each with its own needs and perspectives. The European Union needed to construct a new, individually tailored relationship with each one.
In the case of the Baltic states, as with the other countries of central Europe before them, we were able to correct the mistakes of history by welcoming those countries back into the European fold with the prospect of eventual membership of the EU. But for the remaining countries, for which EU membership is not on the agenda for the foreseeable future, a different but equally important framework was required—one which for Russia would reflect in particular her importance as a major world player on the borders of the European Union. We needed to develop a relationship based on partnership and practical co-operation to help these countries through the difficult process of establishing genuine political and economic reform.
The partnership and co-operation agreements, which are explicitly based on respect for democratic principles, provide for regular political contacts, increased trading opportunities and wide-ranging economic co-operation. The first such agreements were signed with Ukraine and Russia in June last year. Similar agreements have since been signed with Moldova, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. We expect to lay draft orders on those agreements later in the year. It remains the objective of the European Union to negotiate partnership and

391
co-operation agreements with the remaining countries of the former Soviet Union as soon as those countries are in a position to fulfil the political and economic obligations contained in such agreements.
It is likely to be some time before the partnership and co-operation agreements with Russia and Ukraine enter into force. To bridge that gap, the European Union has negotiated interim agreements with each country. Those agreements will bring into early effect the trade provisions of the wider-ranging PCAs. We hope to sign both interim agreements shortly. But before that is possible, we will first require certain reassurances from each country. In the case of Ukraine, there remains a question mark over its ability to enforce the shipping provisions of the agreements. We hope that that will soon be resolved. Meanwhile, in the case of Russia, the Foreign Affairs Council has decided to delay signature of the agreement until the Russian authorities have addressed our legitimate concerns over events in Chechnya. We hope that our concerns on Chechnya are resolved so that signature can take place. I am sure noble Lords will express great anxiety over that.
It is in everyone's interests that the process of reform in the former Soviet Union—and especially in Russia and Ukraine—should succeed. Of course the success of that process does not lie entirely in our hands. But I believe that the countries of the European Union can help that process along by providing substantial and practical support. These agreements provide a workable framework for that European Union support. I commend the orders to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 20th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the orders, but I raise immediately the issue of their appropriateness at this time. The Minister knows of the concern because I notified her of it.
The Minister referred to the word "partnership" in her observations. But partnership involves certain mutual obligations. I wonder whether at present Russia is performing her side of the deal. Part of the essence of the order in relation to Russia is that it should include not just the promotion of trade and investment but also support for democracy. All those important objectives have been imperilled by the disastrous Russian policies in Chechnya. I wonder whether it is wise for this House to give its imprimatur to the order at this stage, bearing in mind the fact that it will almost certainly be interpreted by the Russian Government in a way that may be different from the Minister's aspirations.
Over the next few weeks President Yeltsin will be holding top level talks with western leaders. I suspect that he will be trying to sweep the problems of Chechnya under the carpet, at least for those purposes. I do not believe that it is at all wise for us perhaps to be interpreted, even though it is not the Government's intention—I recognise that—by the Russian Government as colluding in their purpose. We cannot
392
pretend that the problems of Chechnya do not exist however much President Yeltsin may seek lo camouflage them. There have been appalling atrocities, the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, and all sorts of savagery, which are unacceptable.
The question before the House is whether it is in the interests of the United Kingdom and the European Union to raise these important issues demonstrably with President Yeltsin. In my view we should not have had the debate today. We should have considered deferring it until the discussions with President Yeltsin have taken place.
In this ignoble enterprise, President Yeltsin has been forced to look for support from the most dubious allies; Zhirinovsky's neo-fascists and the communists. Therefore, are our interests to be served by proceeding in the way that we have? How best can we sustain a responsive democracy in Russia? Is it by failing to ensure that the Russian Parliament and Government will understand in the most specific terms our deep anxieties about what is happening?
On the other hand, how do we target the political elite for condemnation without hitting the broad mass of the public, many of whose kith and kin have been committed to the terrible struggle and some of whom have perished? An appalling dilemma confronts the Government and I do not disguise that fact. However, I question their tactical approach to the issue.
The Russian Government appear to be untroubled about international reaction to what has happened. Indeed, they have appeared to be untroubled about what has happened in relation to their ignominious deal with Iran and about the breaking of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.
The partnership deal is not wholly accepted within the different institutions and by the different member states of the European Union or by other institutions in Europe. I understand that the Danish Government have indicated that they are not prepared to go down this road while the Chechnya situation persists. I wish to ask the Minister whether there are other dissenting voices among the member states of the European Union. What is her reaction to the Danish situation? Does it remain as stated a few weeks ago; that the Danish Government will not go down this road?
I believe that respect for democratic principles and human rights must constitute an essential element of the partnership agreement. Clearly, it is not being observed in that way by the Russians. Therefore, it is interesting to note that in the view of the European Parliament the partnership should not be proceeded with,
"until the military attack and gross violation of human rights against the people of Chechnya have come to an end and a serious start has been made to find a political solution to the conflict".
What is wrong with that observation?
On 2nd February the Council of Europe decided to suspend its consideration of Russian membership of the council. It did so because of the situation that has persisted in Chechnya. On 6th February, the IMF postponed talks because of fears that extra expenditure on Chechnya operations and the reconstruction that would be involved would make a significant difference

393
to Russia's plans for its 1995 budget and deficit. Those are serious matters and I hope that the Minister will respond to the specific anxieties relating to Russia.
I turn to the second order, which relates to the Ukraine. I was surprised and delighted that the Minister reflected on the issue of shipping. However, I wish to know why she did not refer to the controversy about the decommissioning of the Chernobyl plant. What element of co-operation or partnership is being reflected by the Ukrainian Government in that regard? Is there to be a firm timetable for the closure of that plant, which imperils us all? We know from the events that took place in Chernobyl some years ago that the nuclear cloud imperilled populations all over the European Community, as it was then called, and that elements of danger persist. Now we hear that the situation in relation lo Chernobyl has become depressingly worse. Does the Minister accept that position? Is it not totally unsatisfactory that, despite all that, the Chernobyl plant director should have warned that the nuclear plant would remain in operation until the end of its planned life if western countries failed to meet the cost? He went on to say:
"It is up to governments and countries which are worried about Chernobyl lo pay for its closure. Ukraine does not have a problem with Chernobyl. It is a worry for the West".
In my submission, that view is totally unacceptable.
However, one must balance those remarks with the considerable gains that have been recorded in the Ukraine in recent times. Mr. Kuchma has won over Ukraine's nationalists by his firm suppression of militant separatism in the Crimea and the region has retained a certain degree of autonomy, but that appears to have squared well with the ambitions of the Ukrainian Government.
I wish to be fair to the Government of the Ukraine. I have recorded only one gain, but there are many others and in many respects there has been bold leadership by the Ukrainian Government. However, their derisory attitude about legitimate concerns relating to Chernobyl gives rise to great anxiety not only in this country but throughout the European Union. I believe that those concerns should have been addressed more specifically by the Minister in her earlier observations rather than having been omitted completely.
We in this House do not have the opportunity to do more than register those anxieties and I hope that I have done so reasonably adequately.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, we share with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the anxieties about the behaviour of the Russians in Chechnya and the worries about the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the Ukraine, I believe that my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie will wish to comment on the latter point. There will be a further opportunity tonight to discuss in more detail the Russian behaviour in Chechnya. My noble friend Lord Avebury will speak on that matter and I do not wish to trespass too far on what he may wish to say. However, I repeat that we fully share the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
394
I do not go so far as the noble Lord in believing that expressing these serious anxieties about serious matters is a justification for delaying the House in dealing with these agreements on partnership and co-operation. They are long-term agreements and considerable potential—I put it no higher than that—exists for dealing with the problems which the noble Lord mentioned. I understood the Minister to say that there will be an interim stage in relation to the agreements and perhaps she will expand on that.
Before dealing with these serious issues in relation to the agreements, I wish to comment on their main thrust; that is, on the economic front. The conclusion of the agreements with the Russian Federation and the Ukraine, and of the later agreements with the independent states which the Minister mentioned, reflect a dramatic and historic change in the pattern of European trade since the dissolution of the Soviet empire. I can remember in my time at Brussels when the Soviet bloc simply refused to recognise even the existence of the European Community. Indeed, until 1989 the USSR traded mainly with its fellow COMECON countries. Only one-quarter of Soviet exports went to the OECD countries.
Today, the European Union is the largest trading partner of all former COMECON countries and half of all the exports of the new independent states of the former Soviet Union go to the European Union. Indeed, the Russian Federation accounts for over 80 per cent. of both exports and imports.
Therefore, the partnership and co-operation agreements are founded on that revolution in trading patterns. The agreements provide a framework which allows the economies to become gradually integrated into a wider European economic area. As I understand it, there will still be tariffs for the time being but there will be a general removal of quotas and quantitative restrictions. There will be new initiatives for direct investment from the member states of the European Union and an ability for companies to set up in the Russian Federation and the Ukraine.
Beyond that lies a free trade area and a good economic climate which will be important for the enlargement of the European Union and for good relations among the countries of eastern and central Europe when they face the possibility of membership of the Community and for good relations between Russia and the Ukraine.
Those are the long-term economic advantages which are inherent in the agreements, and they are important. But the agreements go further than trade and economic matters, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, underlined, and as was described by the noble Baroness in her opening remarks. The agreements offer a regular political dialogue among the new countries of the former Soviet Union and the European Union at ministerial level, at a regular parliamentary level and at a level of officials and civil servants. It is the potentiality of that dialogue which offers some modest cause for hope in facing the problems of the future.
As I understand it, the general principles of both the partnership and co-operation agreements lay down the importance of democratic values and respect for human

395
rights as well as the matters relating to the principles of (he market economy which I have mentioned. Therefore, in our view, the agreements offer the possibility—and I repeat, it is only the possibility—of exercising a constructive influence, which is so very badly needed for the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Relations between the Russian Federation and others of the new independent states are not easy, and, of course, relations within the Russian Federation are equally fraught. We recognise that from the horrible events taking place in Chechnya, as described in the press.
The European Union must seek to use both the interim stage and the final stage of the agreements to deal with the problems and to encourage co-operation among the new independent states of the former Soviet Union. I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that, as I understand it, the agreements contain an opt-out clause under the final provisions which allows appropriate measures to be taken by either party when it considers the other party to have failed to fulfil an obligation under the agreements. The Co-operation Council, which forms part of the agreements, must be informed. That clause protects the fundamental principles of the agreements relating to democratic reforms and respect for human rights. It is an opt-out clause and therefore provides the European Union with an important degree of leverage in dealing with the future relations between ourselves, the Russian Federation and the other new independent states. It is vitally important. In our view, the long-term significance of the agreements is that the European Union should use wisely and well the possibility for influence which lies within the terms of the agreement and that particular opt-out clause.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in the debate until I heard the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, when she mentioned that the order as it affects the Russian Federation would rectify the mistakes of history.
I wondered about that phrase. I wondered to which mistakes of history she could be referring. Was she referring to the four occasions during this century on which Russia has been under attack by external forces? In the First World War, Russia was attacked by the Germans. After the revolution, there were the wars of intervention by the western powers to which we were a party. In the 1940s, there was Operation Barbarossa and another attack on Russia by Germany. Moreover, for 40 years, virtually until 1989, Russia, the Soviet Union, had been subjected to a cold war and had been under attack again from the west, of which we were a part.
It is interesting to reflect that on two of those occasions we were effectively on the side of Russia and on two of them we were on the side of Russia's opponents. I wonder whether those are the mistakes of history to which the noble Baroness was referring.
Was she referring to the economic situation and the fact that since the end of the cold war we have seen the disintegration of the former Soviet Union? We have seen mass unemployment growing right across the former Soviet Union and also in the eastern European countries which came within the sphere of influence of
396
the Soviet Union. There is such devastating unemployment that many women have to sell themselves to eke out a living. That is a reflection of the mass unemployment that has beset the European Union over the past 15 years. Is that the mistake of history about which the noble Baroness spoke—that horrendous rise in unemployment as a result of economic policies adopted by the leaderships of the western world and inflicted on the former Soviet Union, causing such human devastation?
We must ask ourselves whether the partnership agreement goes any way towards rectifying the mistakes of history. I think not. I am willing to be persuaded, but I fear that the noble Baroness would have to talk for a very long time before she could even begin to persuade me that these agreements will rectify any of those mistakes of history. However, I shall be interested to hear what she has to say on that subject.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he has reflected on the number of countries that Russia and the Soviet Union has attacked in the 20th century.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to comment on the concerns voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and by my noble friend about Chernobyl and extend her reply to cover the question of nuclear weapons? Large numbers of nuclear weapons were stationed in the Ukraine under the control of the Soviet Union's central military authorities. Concern has been expressed for a long time about the competence to deal with those military weapons and, indeed, about any co-operation that there may have been with the central Russian authorities in the Soviet Union—the central staff—who control those weapons. There have been many stories about neglect and competence and, indeed, about the sale of nuclear material. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Ukrainian Government are doing all that they can about such a very dangerous situation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, today's short debate has produced many points of interest. Certainly, I would not have put forward the draft orders today had I not been convinced by the very arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, used; namely, that it is far better to have the contact and to work on such matters with the countries concerned. Therefore, I hope that I can set to rest some of the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, was absolutely right when he talked about these being long-term agreements with very considerable potential for convincing those in Russia and, indeed, in the Ukraine of the wise way of proceeding.
As we all well know, partnership and co-operation agreements can offer substantial encouragement to the process of reform in those countries. That is what I believe every Member of your Lordships' House would wish. However, I have to say that those reforms will be as much in the interests of our own member states of the European Union as they are in the interests of the Russians and the Ukrainians. In my opening remarks I

397
was careful to say that it would be some time before the partnership and co-operation agreements came into force. I spoke of the interim agreements which have been negotiated with each country to bridge the gap before the PCAs enter into force. Perhaps I may repeat what I said; namely, that the interim agreements will bring into early effect the trade provisions of the wider-ranging partnership and co-operation agreements. Therefore, we are starting with the trade elements which obviously assist us in influencing the countries concerned. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said, the very fact that we are working towards agreements which bring members of those countries together with members of the European Union in discussion on a regular basis is another channel for influence in addition to those we have already established.
I turn now to the misapprehension that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, appears to be under. When the noble Lord reads the record of my initial remarks, he will note that I said that in the case of the Baltic states, as with the other countries of central Europe before them, we were able to correct the mistakes of history by welcoming those countries back into the European fold with the prospect of eventual membership of the European Union. I went on to talk about the remaining countries—among which I list Russia and the Ukraine—and said,
"for which European Union membership is not on the agenda for the foreseeable future".
Therefore, I was not in fact referring to Russia. I was referring to the Baltic states and also the countries of central Europe.
In talking about the issues that are before the House today, I should give your Lordships some further information about the main features of the partnership and co-operation agreements. The aim is to intensify the political and economic links between the European Union and the two countries concerned. So there is regular political dialogue at all levels—not simply at head of state level—to effect, impress and, perhaps, change unwise thinking that may, as we know, still exist at some levels in Russia or in the Ukraine.
The second main feature is that of closer trading links, in particular through the abolition of quotas on most goods, by giving most-favoured-nation treatment on tariffs and by abolishing discriminatory internal taxes. The agreements allow for talks in 1998 about eventual free trade areas. The third aspect of the PCAs is that they make it easier to do business in each other's territory. In particular, they set out the terms on which companies can set up, provide a regulatory framework for investment, and aim to bring Russian and Ukrainian practice into line with that of the European Union in areas like competition or the protection of intellectual property.
The fifth main feature is the framework for continued economic co-operation under the TACIS programme— that is, the European Union programme of assistance to the former Soviet countries. Therefore, we have a regulatory framework; we have a framework of political dialogue at all levels; and we have a working
398
arrangement which will bring people closer together. Regular dialogue is a feature of the agreements to which the orders refer.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked a direct question about how one would sustain a responsive democracy in Russia. I believe that the answer must be the very sort of contact about which I have just been talking in outlining the partnership and co-operation agreements. The noble Lord asked several further questions about doubts among other European nations as regards ratification. Of course, the timing of ratification is, as ever, a matter for each member state. As the noble Lord well knows, ratification by 15 member states may take a very long time. At the end of the process, when all 15 member states have ratified, the Council will decide whether or not to allow the agreement to enter into force.
I made clear in my initial remarks that certain changes had to be undertaken by Russia and, indeed, by the Ukraine, before the agreement would enter into force. Moreover, the matters will also have to be debated by the European Parliament. I believe that we have many opportunities to ensure that the changes take place. That is exactly what we wish to do. I shall deal shortly with some of the opportunities that we have already been using to effect the changes that both the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth - and, indeed, all of us—wish to see. Certainly, the most effective time to apply the final pressure will be before the agreement enters into force. Most partners agree with that aim. Therefore, I cannot say whether Denmark will delay ratification. That is a matter for Denmark.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked about the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. Obviously, that is not covered by the orders in any way, but I can tell the noble Lord that while the Russians have argued for some time that the treaty (agreed originally between the Warsaw Pact and NATO) allows Russia insufficient armoured forces in its flank regions, especially along its troubled southern borders, Russia would be in breach of the treaty as of this November if it maintained forces beyond the limits allowed. We were discussing the problem with the Russians well before the Chechnya crisis erupted in December. We believe that the treaty contains sufficient flexibility to address the Russians' concerns. We have made clear to Russia that we will view very seriously any breach of its terms. But as I said, this issue does not affect the particular orders we are debating today.
Let me come to the main parts of our debate, particularly the questions of Chechnya and Chernobyl. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that obviously the Ukrainian accession to the non-proliferation treaty last December was a most welcome step. We were able to assist by signing a memorandum on security assurances and a statement on European security issues. We have committed ourselves to provide the Ukraine with practical help so that the implementation of the trilateral agreement on nuclear weapons takes place, as, clearly, the noble Lord wishes. We also have some other plans for training and retraining with the Ukrainians which fit in well with the

399
needs as we, and now the new Ukrainian Government, see them, for getting rid of the horror of the nuclear threat which certainly existed in the Ukraine but which President Kuchma seems determined to get to grips with, I am glad to say.
Having started on the Ukraine let me continue by answering the questions of the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Thomson of Monifieth. We are already working extremely closely with the Ukraine. We have good contacts and we are helping—as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—with nuclear safety as regards weapons and also Chernobyl. The PCA for the Ukraine provides for the implementation of separate agreements on nuclear safety. We have given assistance via the TACIS programme. About £215 million has been committed to nuclear safety across the former Soviet Union in the past three years. We and the European Union are also donors to the nuclear safety account administered by the EBRD which gives grant assistance for safety upgrades at the higher risk reactors. That goes to Chernobyl and to other reactors as well. We have made a bilateral contribution of over £13 million to that alone. The PCA also provides for specific co-operation to mitigate the effects of the Chernobyl accident which both the noble Lord and I well remember debating when he was a commissioner and I was the responsible Minister in the European Foreign Affairs Council.
Last July, at the G7 summit in Naples, we agreed an action plan to help the Ukrainians reform their energy sector, including the closure of Chernobyl. There are some 200 million dollars worth of grants from the G7 in support of that plan and there is a European Union offer of some 100 million ecu in technical assistance and 400 million ecu in loans. We are working out the exact ways in which this plan is to be activated with the Ukrainians. I am glad to be able to bring the noble Lord up to date and tell him that only last Thursday President Kuchma gave a commitment to the visiting mission of G7 and EU representatives that Chernobyl would be closed down by the year 2000. That is a welcome commitment and obviously overrides any comments that the plant director may have made in the past. That is now on the books and it will be done, It is a realistic timetable for the closure of Chernobyl whereas dates given before were not realistic. We hope therefore that by targeting our western support the Ukraine will not only stick to the timetable but will do the job thoroughly not just with Chernobyl but with the other nuclear reactors too. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and indeed for the response she has given although she and I disagree about the possibility of compartmentalising these various issues in relation to Russia and the Ukraine. However, I understand the way in which she has put these issues. When I said "compartmentalising" the Minister looked a little puzzled. I meant in terms of exercising pressure at the appropriate time, setting aside certain issues and hoping that one can deal with them separately from the rest. I am not at all sure that that is right, but be that as it may. Closing down Chernobyl by the year 2000 poses a problem over the next four and a half years. Can the
400
Minister give the House any indication as to how, during that interim period—I am sure most of us will be pleased to hear the news that the Minister has recounted to the House—these problems may be mitigated because the peril will remain over the course of the four and a half years?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I find the noble Lord's comment about compartmentalising rather strange. When I talk about appropriate times, I mean every single time that Ministers meet with Ukrainian Ministers. Whenever we have the opportunity, we have committed ourselves to assisting the Ukraine to improve its nuclear safety and therefore we will not lose an opportunity of taking up the issues. I spelt out rather carefully for the noble Lord what we are doing. That does not mean that we will be waiting for four years. What it does mean is that we are already engaged and that we are working on various programmes of training and assistance. We are keeping not just a watching brief; we are acting within the EU action plan I described, which is backed by the G7 leaders, to make sure that the Ukrainian energy sector is made as safe as possible, leading up to the closure of Chernobyl by the year 2000 but taking account of the needs of the other reactors in the meantime. I think the noble Lord is being a little parsimonious with his comment on the matter but I shall leave that because I am convinced that the G7/EU mission last week was a good step forward.
We know that there has been slow progress in some sectors but at least we now have the Ukrainians absolutely determined to get on with the job. When the European Union finance Ministers set conditions for the release of the balance of payments assistance recently, they included a requirement for progress on nuclear safety. That is why I am not in favour of any further delay either as regards these orders or indeed as regards giving support for economic reform because were we to do that we would certainly not advance the day that Chernobyl was closed; we would slow it down. Therefore there is every need to get on with this job of influencing, as we are seeking to do.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am sorry to cause the noble Baroness concern but I want to clarify something, I am persuaded by her argument that in relation to the Ukraine the pressure that has been brought to bear has been wholly helpful, but it was only today that I and the House were able to learn from the Minister the latest information, about which I am sure the House will rejoice.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those remarks. Perhaps now I should move on from the Ukraine, where progress is really being made, to Russia where I have even more sympathy for the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord than perhaps I could have on the question of the Ukraine. Obviously, we are not going to make progress with Russia unless we are closely involved with it in supporting the democracy which is growing in Russia. I think that the noble Lord could not be more wrong when he talks about President Yeltsin sweeping the major problem of Chechnya under the carpet. He has never been allowed to do so in any contacts with western

401
leaders; nor will he be. Chechnya is a major setback to progress in Russian-Western co-operation. We have made that clear in every single contact with the Russians, most recently when Prime Minister Chernomyrdin was here in March.
However, our response should be measured. Cutting off, or slowing down, support for Russia is likely to be counter-productive. It would damage the reform process on which a number of leading liberal Russians are making real advances. It is interesting that many of them say clearly that without our pressure they would not have achieved what they have.
The current situation in Chechnya is that the Russians have taken control of all the major towns. There is still some fighting but at a much lower level than before. We know that there are Chechen fighters in the mountains, and no one can rule out a prolonged guerrilla campaign. We know that there is a massive refugee problem, with possibly more than 40 per cent. of the population displaced from their homes. The British Government have acted to help the people who have been made homeless with a contribution of more than £2 million of emergency aid. Humanitarian organisations, with our help and help from the European Union, are finding it easier to operate throughout the region.
The Russian Government are continuing their dialogue with a range of local leaders and influential figures in an attempt to find a political solution. It is as a result of the encouragement from nations such as ours that the Russians are now making more progress than two months ago. We have told the Russians that there are three key priorities. Fighting should stop as soon as possible. Immediate humanitarian relief must be allowed through to all those in need. And a political agreement must be worked out which will allow the Chechen people to express their identity within the framework of the Russian Federation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, knows, we have fully supported the efforts of the OSCE to help find a solution. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Inglewood will comment on this matter in greater detail when he replies to the Unstarred Question on the Order Paper today.
I want to make one further point concerning reported flagrant violations of human rights said to have been committed in Samashki. We have received a number of such reports. The European Union has expressed its deep concern at the events in Samashki. We condemn the actions committed against civilians, which are in total violation of fundamental human rights. A statement was issued on Saturday, and we have made a solemn appeal to the Russian authorities for an end to violence against civilian populations.
That is why we feel very strongly about this issue and why I stated clearly in my opening remarks that Chechnya is one of the problems that has to be dealt with by the Russians before the PCAs come into being. There is more that can be said on the subject, but as we have a debate on the Order Paper today about Chechnya it is best left until then, and I return to the orders before us on partnership and co-operation agreements.
402
I assure your Lordships that we have no intention of going beyond the interim agreements until such time as the matters on which our debate has concentrated have been resolved. That is why, in the interests of influencing and reforming those countries, we believe that partnership and co-operation agreements should be progressed even if they will not be completed until we are fully satisfied. These long-term agreements have considerable potential for good because they aid dialogue and influence in the way I described earlier. I commend them to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, and Ukraine) Order 1995
4.4 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Chalker of Waltasey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Finance Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill; read a first time, and to be printed.

Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1995
4.5 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the first statutory instrument standing in my name on the Order Paper.
It may be convenient if I explain the purpose of the four legal aid regulations on the Order Paper. The Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1995 and the Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1995 provide for the uprating of the financial eligibility limits for civil legal aid and for advice and assistance. The Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1995 raise the lower disposable income limit for civil legal aid below which civil legal aid is available without a contribution by the assisted person from £2,382 to £2,425 per annum. The regulations also increase the upper limit above which civil legal aid is not available from £7,060 to £7,920 per annum.
The Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1995 provide for a similar uprating in relation to advice and assistance. In these advice and assistance cases the calculation is carried out on the basis of weekly income. The regulations raise the lower limit from £63 to £64 and the upper limit from £153 to £156. The regulations also revise the scale of contributions for applicants with disposable income between the upper and lower income limits for advice and assistance.
These proposed changes generally represent a 1.8 per cent. uprating on the 1994–95 levels. They therefore mutch increases in the level of income-related social security benefits. The new upper limit for civil legal aid will equate to the limit which currently applies to personal injury cases in England and Wales. This represents a significantly greater uprating than 1.8 per cent. The revised limit will remove the existing position whereby personal injury cases are relatively disadvantaged in Scotland as compared with England and Wales through having no separate and higher upper limit for these cases. It will also have the effect of bringing a small additional number of people within the scope of civil legal aid. All of these proposed changes are entirely straightforward and do not raise any new points of principle in this area of the legal aid system.
The Advice and Assistance (Assistance By Way Of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1995 and the Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Regulations 1995 provide for the extension of assistance by way of representation, which is a form of advice and assistance under the legal aid arrangements. They arise as a consequence of the provisions on raves in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That Act allows for proceedings for the return of equipment forfeited in certain circumstances. Assistance by way of representation is the most straightforward means to ensure that legal aid is available in relation to any such proceedings. Given that assistance by way of representation will be available in this respect, it is necessary to exclude such cases from eligibility for criminal legal aid. These are technical changes designed to streamline and improve the administration of the legal aid system.
We have also laid before the House a number of further regulations under the negative resolution procedure. These relate to the uprating of fees allowable to solicitors and counsel for civil legal aid work and the aggregation of resources of cohabitees in the calculation of disposable income and capital for the purposes of advice and assistance and civil legal aid. The regulations also contain further minor and technical amendments and improvements to the legal aid system in Scotland.
The regulations make provision for the uprating of eligibility limits and for other useful changes to the system of legal aid in Scotland. I commend this first instrument to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships' House will be grateful to the noble Earl
404
for introducing these four sets of regulations which fell on attentive and understanding ears. It is a highly technical area of the law. Perhaps in the light of the current climate I should declare a double interest. I am still a practising member of the Scottish Bar; and I have recently acquired a son-in-law who practises within the legal aid system in Scotland, in particular in the civil field.
It should be put on record at this stage, as I am sure the noble Earl knows, that there has been a considerable degree of frustration, and indeed resentment, in particular on the part of civil practitioners within the legal aid field, not only about the level of remuneration but about the time it takes for lawyers to receive payment for work which they have done and on which they have expended moneys. We hope that these regulations will at least alleviate some of the grievances.
It is important to note also from a public point of view that when people see the amounts expended on legal aid, they tend to think that all the money goes into the lawyers' pockets. But although I do not know the figures, the legal process is an industry on its own and perhaps one of the largest employers of clerical and administrative staff in the country. It would be nice if the public could be occasionally disabused of the idea that everything from legal aid goes directly into the lawyers' pockets.
The legal aid system is an important part of the fabric and structure of legal and social justice in Scotland, and indeed in England and Wales. Any improvement which helps to maintain that fabric and structure should be welcomed. This side of your Lordships' House recognises that there are fiscal restraints in extending legal aid payments. From the position I am standing in at present, I can give no guarantee that when the change of government comes in the not-too-distant future the situation will be any better in so far as concerns any implements. As has been said in another place, we shall have to have a look at the books first before anything can be done about that. However, we recognise—I believe that it was recognised at about this stage last year—and the Government recognise the importance of maintaining the solidity of the legal aid system. One of the alarming factors in Scotland, of which no doubt the noble Earl is aware, is that civil practitioners were opting out of the legal aid system because it was just not worth while practising in that field any more.
These orders will, I hope, to some extent encourage people who are thinking of opting out of the civil legal aid process to remain within the system and to provide a service to the Scottish community within the structure.
The noble Earl referred to England and Wales. On a purely personal basis, I have often wondered whether any comparative study has been done of the cost per head of legal aid in England and Wales as against Scotland. I do not know; I have not had time to see whether any such study exists. If the noble Earl knows of any such recent comparative study, I should be grateful if he would let me know, I do not ask that in a carping, critical way but as a request for information for myself and perhaps for others who are interested in the legal aid system throughout the United Kingdom.

405
Apart from that aspect, I welcome the orders which the noble Earl introduced.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Lord raised several points. I shall endeavour to reassure him on those questions for which he seeks answers.
He expressed concern over the level and speed with which legal aid payments are made to solicitors and counsel involved. In considering the correct level of fees for legally aided work the Government have to take into account both the general financial position, to which the noble Lord referred, and the supply of legally aided services. Expenditure on legal aid in Scotland has increased dramatically in recent years. From 1987–88 the figure stood at just £45 million, whereas the corresponding figure for 1995–96 is estimated to be £133 million. That is just a fraction short of a 300 per cent. increase in funds over just nine years. In this context, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland clearly had to consider carefully what can be afforded by way of fees for legally aided work before making any decision which would inevitably increase overall expenditure still further.
On the supply side, there is no evidence that members of the public are unable to find solicitors willing to undertake criminal legal aid work or advice and assistance. However, we have received representations from various bodies, including the legal profession, pointing to difficulties in connection with remuneration for civil legal aid work. The noble Lord pointed that out. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, knows that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has decided to increase the fees for civil work by an overall 3 per cent. I shall pass on the concerns of the noble Lord both to my right honourable friend and to my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie on that point.
The noble Lord was concerned, too, about the speed with which our remuneration was delivered. I can assure the noble Lord that the Scottish Legal Aid Board has greatly improved the time taken for payment of legal aid bills over the past three years. That point is being further considered by the policy and financial management review of the Scottish Legal Aid Board.
The last point that the noble Lord raised was on the differential in average cost per case between Scotland and England and Wales. No recent formal studies have been carried out between the two areas of jurisdiction. Expenditure is broadly comparable. If there are any minor differentials they must be considered against the background of the different circumstances which exist between the justice systems and the court systems in those two areas.
I reassure the House and the noble Lord that in dealing with the concerns that the noble Lord raised my right honourable friend must balance access by those in need with the prudent control of public expenditure; It is for that reason that my right honourable friend is especially anxious that the resources available must be directed as efficiently and effectively as possible towards those who are in the greatest need.
406
As I said, the regulations make provision for the uprating of eligibility limits and for other useful changes to the system of legal aid in Scotland. I hope that they find favour with noble Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1995
4.18 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1995
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Amendment Regulations 1995
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1995
4.19 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay rose to move, That the Scheme laid before the House on 28th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I present to the House this short uncontroversial instrument which will allow farmers and crofters in Scotland and Wales to obtain grants under the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme towards the costs of fencing work related to the "waterside habitats" option of the Scottish habitats scheme and the "water fringe" and "coastal belt" options in the Welsh habitats scheme.
This instrument places Scotland and Wales on the same footing as England. A similar instrument for England was approved by Parliament last year. Due to different timescales for the processing of Scottish and

407
Welsh habitats scheme legislation through the European Commission and Parliament, it was not possible to introduce a single instrument at that time covering England, Scotland and Wales. Clearly, the main habitats scheme legislation for each country had to be in place before amendments could be made to the FCGS legislation.
There are various differences between the Scottish and Welsh habitats schemes which reflect the different environmental and conservation priorities for each country. However, the fundamental objectives of the two schemes are the same: to encourage farmers and crofters to establish and manage specific habitats of conservation value. Farmers and crofters can receive area-based payments if they agree to take specified land out of agricultural production for a period of years or allow only limited and controlled grazing, depending on the habitat scheme option selected.
In Scotland, farmers have the option of taking land out of production for 20 years or restricting the use of land to limited grazing, managed in the interests of conservation, for a period of 10 years. In Wales, land can be taken out of production for 10 years, or grazed on a limited basis for the same period. Habitat options available range from watersides, coastal areas and broadleaved woodland through to damp lowland, grassland and marsh communities. Rates of area payments are based on the nature of the habitat option chosen by fanners or crofters. The Scottish Habitats Scheme came into operation in November 1994, and the Welsh scheme started in January 1995.
It was always our intention to make available some form of compensation to farmers who had entered the habitats schemes towards the costs of any necessary fencing of land within eligible waterside or coastal fringe sites. Clearly, there are considerable advantages in denying stock access to such areas in terms of protection of water purity, waterside vegetation and the creation of rich, natural habitats for wildlife. However, no satisfactory means of paying such compensation could be found, since the habitats schemes are based on area payments. We concluded, therefore, that the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme should form the vehicle for making compensatory payments to farmers who need to fence any land they have entered under the appropriate options in the Scottish and Welsh habitats schemes.
The instrument we are considering today will enable participants in the Scottish and Welsh habitats schemes to obtain grants at the rate of 40 per cent. for fencing works under the appropriate habitats options under both schemes. The rate of grant we are proposing, and which applies already in England, has been pitched deliberately at a high level on the basis that we wish to encourage farmers to participate fully in the habitats schemes. I am confident that the instrument we are discussing will help to achieve this important objective.
Finally, I can confirm that there are no public expenditure implications associated with this instrument. Resources to pay grants for fencing works related to the Scottish and Welsh habitats schemes exist already within the overall public expenditure provision for FCGS. No additional bids are therefore necessary, I commend this instrument to the House.
Moved, That the Scheme laid before the House on 28th March be approved. [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister has explained the regulations extremely clearly and we understand they are being laid because of the delay that he mentioned. We regard the proposals as entirely welcome and from this side of the House we support them.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, from the Scots point of view, we too support the payment of grants to assist in the improvement of the habitat. We would much rather have seen the Government restore the payments to hill farmers, which they cut and which were introduced some time ago, but obviously the measure is a sensible move.
I cannot agree that 40 per cent. is a generous subsidy for fencing. Normally one likes to pitch the grant at a rate which will pay for materials so that the remaining 50 per cent. will pay for the farmer's labour in putting up the fencing. However, it is better than nothing. The general level of the scheme is right and proper so we shall not contradict the Minister.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Mackie, for this important instrument. Behind the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, about the generosity or otherwise of the 40 per cent. grant, I sense that anything less than 100 per cent. would be seen by him as ungenerous. Nevertheless, I hope that the 40 per cent. grant will be quite significant for those who take up the offer. The instrument will allow the Scottish and Welsh agriculture departments to pay such grants under the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme for fencing of land to farmers who have entered into the appropriate habitats options in the Scottish and Welsh habitats schemes. I commend the instrument.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995
4.25 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to move, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations be annulled.
The noble Lord said; My Lords, in moving this Prayer I shall speak also to the second Motion in my name on the Order Paper which deals with the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations. I believe that the Motion on the same subject in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, will also be discussed, so that we shall have a single debate on all three Motions.
As we are dealing with regulations laid under the negative procedure I have put down the Prayers to annul the regulations in the usual way to ensure that we secure a debate on these important regulations. The two Motions in my name and that in the name of the noble

409
Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, approach the situation from a different angle, but they all illustrate the anxiety that now exists regarding the operation of the new Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) which came into being on 1st April.
This is the first chance the House has had for a proper debate on the regulations, although we touched on the subject in the debates on the deregulation Bill last autumn when I moved and withdrew certain amendments so that discussion could take place at that time. It would be helpful if, when he replies to the debate, the Minister could confirm that the situation is now, as was forecast in October last year, that three agencies will effectively be concerned with different aspects of meat hygiene and food safety: the State Veterinary Service, the new Meat Hygiene Service and, with their continuing responsibilities for food safety, the local authorities. So much for deregulation and reducing bureaucracy.
The major concern, now that the MHS has started to operate, concerns the level of its charges. The Government have had to acknowledge that concern by the temporary reductions in charges that have recently been announced, operating for the first year. I am sure that the Minister will reply concerning these charges at the end of the debate.
I have received briefing—as I am sure other noble Lords have—from the National Farmers' Union, the Poultry Meat Federation, the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers, the National Federation of Meat and Food Traders and the British Meat Manufacturers Association. To be fair, a number of them support the principle of the MHS, but all refer to their anxiety about the excessive charges being levied.
I have also heard from 10 abattoir owners, all comparatively small operators, who are extremely worried about the extra costs which they now face. They include an abattoir at Widnes which has increased costs of £25,000 a year; an abattoir in Anglesey where the overheads have been increased from 52p per tonne to £3.30 per tonne; a slaughterhouse in Wrexham, where the annual costs have increased from £22,745 to £54,600; and the Manchester wholesale meat and poultry market where there has been a 40 per cent. increase on an annual cost of £262,245. These are all small businesses which have spent large sums of money in recent years upgrading their premises to meet the requirements and standards of the European Commission. All now face what they regard as excessive increases in charges as a result of the introduction of the Meat Hygiene Service.
It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us how much of all that is due to directives from the European Commission and how much to the long-standing ambition of MAFF and the veterinary profession to get meat hygiene under centralised veterinary control. That is an ambition which, in the case of the veterinary profession, goes back over 70 years. I do not in the least disagree with the objectives, but it is important that in this debate we tease out how much of the new arrangement is due to the requirements from the
410
European Commission and how much to the long-standing ambition of MAFF to get meat hygiene under its centralised control.
The regulations were tabled on 9th March and they were extremely long and complicated regulations for a new organisation to start on 1st April. It did not give much time for discussion. At the time, the department's press release said that the new rules would implement the European Community directive on the welfare of animals during slaughter and killing, while at the same time maintaining the key welfare safeguards from our existing domestic legislation. It is important that we understand where responsibility lies, and perhaps we could be told how much is a direct result of directives from the European Commission and how much is due to the enthusiasm of the department.
There has been a substantial increase in the estimated running cost of the new organisation. On 9th March a press release from the department, when the regulations were laid, referred to a cost of £40.3 million, but a parliamentary reply on 14th March, only five days later, referred to a figure of £53.4 million for the first year of operation. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain the discrepancy between these two figures. As I understand it, the taxpayers' support is £15.4 million, plus the set-up costs of £5.2 million. That is a cost to the taxpayer in the order of £20 million, plus a start-up cost of £626,000 that was spent on the project team for setting up the new organisation.
I understand also that almost the first thing that the MHS did was to supply corporate ties to the 947 employees. Of course, we know that no self-respecting quango nowadays is complete without a corporate tie and a classy coat of arms. Considering all that has taken place, I wondered whether the College of Heralds would accept a coat of arms for the MHS consisting perhaps of a bureaucrat rampant over an abattoir owner couchant on a field stained red with taxpayers' and farmers' blood. I also wondered whether the corporate ties were in the same post as the 15 pairs of Wellingtons that were supplied to each meat inspector.
I understand that the Government are now recommending a maximum charge of £35 per hour for official veterinary surgeons engaged in MHS work. However, a survey by the British Veterinary Association in April 1993, which covered something like 400 official veterinary surgeons working in 600 slaughterhouses in 200 local authority areas, showed an average hourly rate of £25.70, so why the increase of nearly 50 per cent. in the past two years? I understand that a survey by the BVA taken in March 1995 confirms the considerable dissatisfaction that is felt over the handling of the transfer from the local authority system to the new arrangements.
It would be interesting to know how the competitive position of our farmers and our meat industry and the costs they will have to bear compare with the situation in other member states. For example, I understand that the veterinary charges in slaughterhouses in France and Southern Ireland are paid for out of government funds. Would it be possible for the Minister to tell the House how many European Union states have the equivalent

411
of a meat hygiene service, with all the costs falling on the farmer and the abattoir owner and during the setting-up period a proportion falling on the taxpayer?
I referred earlier to the understandable ambitions of the veterinary profession for something like 70 years to sec an increased role for the veterinary surgeon in meat hygiene. Unfortunately, The Veterinary Record of 4th March 1995 does not show much enthusiasm for what has happened in the run-up period of the new organisation. It says:
"Next month will see the start in Great Britain of the national Meat Hygiene Service. It would be good to be able to report that things have progressed well and that all is set fair for a smooth transfer of responsibility for administering meat hygiene from local authorities to the new meat hygiene agency. Sadly, that is not the case. Despite vigorous campaigning by the BVA, events over the past year tell a sorry tale of delays, poor communication and missed opportunities on the part of MAFF and the fledgling MHS. As a result, the aim of ensuring adequate veterinary supervision of meat hygiene—so central to the safe operation of meat plants and, indeed, the principle on which the service was based—might not be realised".
With a further reference to the bureaucracy which is now involved, there was a report in the Farmers Weekly on 7th April, only last week, referring to the last-minute avalanche of paperwork that had confirmed the worst fears of the slaughterhouse owners. I quote:
"Before we can begin work in the morning there must be a pre-operation inspection, and three forms to fill in, and a further 27 must be made during the day. Abattoirs are going to be forced to employ an extra person just to fill out the paperwork".
Also, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what is the position regarding the number of veterinary surgeons required in order that the MHS can operate properly. Estimates in 1992 suggested there should be some 300 vets, both full-time and part-time, to provide a proper service. I believe that the figure now is 167, but the costs have increased from £32 million when local authorities were providing a similar service to £54 million now. Surely the increase cannot all be accounted for by the corporate ties and Wellington boots. It certainly is not on veterinary surgeons. Perhaps the Minister could tell us how many vets will now be engaged in the MHS work.
One also wonders just how close this new MHS is to what actually happens in slaughterhouses. A letter from the MHS in Cardiff requires 14 days' written notice from the operator where there is a change in the plant requirements for inspection. During this 14 days, it is clear from the MHS—it is stated in terms—that the operator is liable for all MHS charges, even if the throughput has gone down. So a slaughterhouse owner who is tied to the market has to absorb the losses inherent in market fluctuations, but the MHS has carefully insulated itself from those pressures. The original publicity material at the time of the tendering process and during the setting-up period referred to flexibility to reduce or increase attendance to suit seasonal variations in plant operating time, but it seems that the flexibility has to be at 14 days' written notice.
Having criticised the way in which the MHS was set up and the way in which it appears to have started its operations, it is fair to ask whether there was an alternative. I think the alternative was set out extremely
412
well in a speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, at a seminar on meat hygiene organised by the Association of District Councils in October 1993. He said then:
"The Government has been listening to the criticisms which have been made both by local authorities and by the industry, of the prescriptive nature of the current controls. Where it is possible to make the regulations and guidance less prescriptive, and more based on an assessment of risk, we will do so".
The noble Earl then set out clearly the plans of the Government at that time so far as the local authorities were concerned. The plans would consist of in traducing a slaughterhouse performance monitoring system to focus advice and enforcement on real hygiene risks; publishing a leaflet for business on meat hygiene enforcement—government, local authority and industry rights and responsibilities; consulting on new guidance on veterinary supervision; publishing a MAFF strategy document for research on meat hygiene and inspection; and continuing to work in the EC for review of existing inspection requirements and for the modification of meat hygiene directives to target statutory requirements on key public health issues. All that was to do with the local authority responsibility, and then of course the Minister tagged on the establishment of a meat hygiene service.
The final quotation says it all:
"A major part of this work is the publication of our proposals for a system of assessing the performance of meat premises in relation to hygiene. We propose that this system should be used by MAFF, together with each local authority, to monitor performance and standards, and to identify for the operator where improvements are needed. We believe that this will make it much easier for MAFF as the licensing authority, and OVS and EHOs working for the local authority, to focus on the real hygiene problems which need to be addressed. I believe that it will also provide an effective framework for demonstrating that the goal of a 'single standard of safe, properly inspected meat is being achieved".
All that was to be done in the autumn of 1993 through the existing local authority systems. I am sure that it could have been done for a lot less than the £21 million that has been, or will be, spent on establishing the new system.
The Government's intentions were well meant. It has been a long-standing ambition inside the department and the veterinary profession to bring meat hygiene under centralised veterinary control. But we have had a sorry tale of well-meant intentions confused by bureaucratic muddle and the inbuilt tendency of new quangos to be unable to control their costs. This is a self-regulating agency not a quango; it is a SEFRA, a self-financing regulatory agency. I hope that when the Minister replies he is able to bring the House good news regarding the ability of the department to intervene to control the heavy costs being placed on slaughterhouse owners.
It was a US judge, Mr. Louis Brandeis, who got it about right in 1928, when he said:
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding".
I beg to move.
Moved, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations be annulled.— (Lord Carter.)
4.41 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, the Motion standing in my name asks the Government to look again at the meat hygiene regulations which have been introduced to translate EC directives into national law. The regulations require the creation of a new government agency—the Meat Hygiene Service—and involve large expenditure by slaughterhouse operators as well as a generous slug of taxpayers' money. Unfortunately, there has not yet been the opportunity to debate them either in this House or in another place.
Perhaps we should remind ourselves that the main reason for inspecting abattoirs in the first place is to protect the consumer. I believe that I shall be able to show that under the Meat Hygiene Service the consumer will have less rather than more protection. Secondly, any such service should be cost-effective. Again I will show that the MHS is more expensive than the service it replaces run by the local authorities and will be so expensive that it will quite needlessly drive out of business many medium and small operators.
Let me explain why the Meat Hygiene Service will be more expensive. The local authority meat inspection system was estimated to cost between £32 million and £45 million according to whose figures one believes and how those costs were allocated. The Government's figures for the Meat Hygiene Service, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out, show that it will cost £54 million in its first year of operation, of which the taxpayer will pick up no less than £20 million. That is a pretty generous slug of taxpayers' money. It means that £9 million is the minimum extra cost over and above the service which the Meat Hygiene Service will replace. That is just for starters. If the new agency is so cost effective, why does it need any subsidy at all? And what happens when the subsidy is removed? The costs will not come down. The extra costs will be passed on to the industry which will be faced with ever higher expenses in the years to come.
There are around 420 slaughterhouses and abattoirs in England of which slightly more than 200 are what may be called medium to small-sized businesses which provide an invaluable service to the consumer, the butcher and the producer. The producer is able to transport his stock over shorter distances for slaughter with reduced stress to the animals; the quality butcher can be sure that the carcasses he buys will be properly cooled and hung rather than quick-chilled; and the consumer benefits by having a wider choice of quality meat. I should add that all those businesses have a respectable number of customers, One owner to whom I spoke yesterday has 4,500 satisfied clients. So we are not talking about a backroom operation.
It is precisely the smaller and medium-sized slaughterhouses which will be the first victims of the increase in charges which the MHS will impose. If my noble friend the Minister wishes, I can provide him with numerous examples of operators who either have closed or are threatened by closure because of the cost of this superfluous layer of expensive bureaucracy. On average the charging system will increase their costs by around 40 per cent. The MHS will be setting the charges. It will effectively be judge, jury and executioner. A 40 per
414
cent. increase cannot be paid for out of operating profit and will needlessly put people out of business. I cannot believe that that is what the Government wish to do.
I must emphasise how strongly people feel about this matter. Perhaps I can illustrate the point by telling the House that nearly 200 slaughterhouse owners have pledged not to pay the MHS charges. That is how strongly they feel. They are businessmen who pay their taxes and their VAT and who are normally law-abiding subjects. They are significant employers in their regions. They have been pushed into deciding that enough is enough. Is it right that those people should be forced to make the choice between obeying the law or going bust? I do not believe it is.
I am aware that the larger slaughterhouses support the introduction of the Meat Hygiene Service. Why? Because it would suit them admirably to see their smaller rivals go out of business, giving them a larger share of the cake. That is no justification for the introduction of the Meat Hygiene Service. Equally, I am aware that both the NFU and the CLA have given heavily qualified approval so far to the introduction of the MHS. However, their continued support is dependent on its cost effectiveness. They are already concerned at the indication of the much higher costs I mentioned. My noble friend may wish to enlarge on that aspect.
I turn to the interests of the consumer and food safety. I query the assumption that the introduction of the MHS will mean greater protection. Who will the MHS be serving? Will it be the consumer or the meat industry? As the MHS will rely for its income solely on the meat industry, it is that industry which will be its customer, and it is he who pays the piper who calls the tune. The tune inevitably will be called by the major meat wholesalers. As smaller slaughterhouses are forced to close down, the Meat Hygiene Service costs will be spread ever more thinly, leading to higher fees and even more closures. The effect of fewer slaughterhouses will be greater throughput of animals in those slaughterhouses which remain in business. In turn, that will lead to greater cross-contamination, which is inevitable as a consequence of greater throughput. No matter how rigorous the inspection, more animals through an abattoir means more cross-infection; that is simple arithmetic.
Equally, it will be more difficult to trace diseased animals through individual slaughterhouses where the larger slaughterhouses are processing thousands of carcasses a week. Most disturbingly, new and lethal pathogens have been discovered. I refer in particular to a strain known as Definition Type 104C, which is increasing and becoming a serious health concern. That cannot be spotted in the abattoir in the carcass, no matter how many vets line up in attendance. It will have to be dealt with on the farm in the same way as TB and brucellosis were successfully controlled.
What does the MHS really bring? It does not bring lower costs, though that was part of its rationale; it does not bring standard charges because abattoirs will still be paying different rates, and it will not bring any increase in consumer protection. I ask the Government to take note of my concerns; to set the MHS and these

415
regulations on one side, and to bring back a scheme which will be more effective in terms of cost and in protecting the consumer.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, there is a great deal of anxiety in the meat trade about the Meat Hygiene Service. The majority of organisations in Britain are in favour of the scheme but they are concerned about the cost of administering it. From my understanding of the matter, the agency is not responsible for the licensing of slaughter premises. That duty was earlier transferred from the local authorities to government when the European Union veterinary inspectorate reported low standards of hygiene and structure of many British plants during the regular checks which are made within all member states.
Unfortunately for the meat trade, more than half our abattoirs have been closed in the past 12 years. In 1983 we had more than 1,000 abattoirs in Britain. Today, the number is down to just over 500. I wonder whether they have been closed compulsorily or whether many of the abattoir owners have thrown in the towel. When one compares the regulations in Britain with those in Italy, France and Germany, I wonder whether fair play is operating. I hope that the Minister will be able tell us what percentage of the abattoirs in those countries have been closed over the past 10 years.
The Meat and Livestock Commission has long supported the concept of a centralised meat inspection service and welcomes its launch. The commission states:
"The benefits to be gained from a national service are numerous: it is easier to ensure that consistent inspection standards are provided across all abattoirs, cutting plants and cold stores; a regular pattern of continuous professional training can be assured; career prospects for authorised meat inspectors can be improved; important additional benefits can be more readily achieved—for example, the feedback to farms of origin information on the state of health of stock revealed by post-mortem inspections; the scope for a streamlined, cost-effective inspection service is more readily achievable".
I accept the comments of the Meat and Livestock Commission because I honestly believe that it has given excellent service to the industry over the past few years.
According to a press release, the President of the Farmers' Union of Wales has made a last-gasp appeal to the Government to reconsider the establishment of the meat health service which he said would transfer control of meat inspection from local authorities to the new Meat Hygiene Service. The press release states:
"The new service would have a total budget of £53.4 million and employ a total of nearly a thousand, 872 meat inspectors and vets and 75 management and clerical staff. In a direct appeal to the government to think again, Mr. Parry has told Mr. Waldegrave that some abattoir operators in Wales anticipated an increase of up to 40 per cent. in operational costs and that the agency's budget was over £8 million more than the current service operated by local authorities".
I wonder whether those figures are correct. The press release continues:
Mr. Parry says that abattoirs were going out of business at a frightening' rate and that any increase in operational costs would increase the closure rate".
416
I shall say very little about Scotland because my noble friend Lord Mackie will say a few words on the Scottish aspects of the scheme. The Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers says:
"While continuing to express … total support for the aims of the new Agency providing a cost effective, fair, efficient, affordable, consistent and creditable service to all Meat Plants in Great Britain, there continues to be considerable unease and anger at the manner in which the service is being introduced".
My noble friend will take over from there when the time comes.
The Association of District Councils is not in favour of the change either. It states:
"The Association and its members have always expressed concern about the cost, accountability and role of the MHS. It believes that the service will be more expensive and less accountable than the one hitherto provided by local authorities. More importantly, however, it will be less flexible and less responsive to the needs of small and local businesses which have already experienced some difficulty in coming to terms with regulatory changes in the industry. The MHS will also fragment the existing local authority food hygiene and safety framework with consequences for consumers and business".
I have received a letter from Edward Hamer, one of the biggest wholesalers in Wales. At the moment he is the chairman of the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers (Wales). The company operates from Llanidloes, Powys. He is well known for the service he has given to the industry in Wales and for the number of lambs which he exports to Spain, Italy and other countries. He says:
"In principle we are in favour of the M.H.S. as we were promised a more economic service, a slim low cost structure that was able to service the needs of this industry for inspection and veterinary time far better than 300 local authorities. We were told that the MHS. would be low cost and flat structured. However, what we have seen evolve is a very large, top heavy, overstaffed, expensive organisation formed. Although it has been classed as an executive agency of MAFF, it would appear in all senses to be a quango, although obviously people who are involved are strongly denying this.
As far as the costs to industry are concerned, we are seeing colossal rises in cost per hour and manning levels. This being due to enormous amount of paperwork which has been created. We as an industry were promised full consultation before any of the nuts and bolts of this service were put together. However, there has been no consultation whatsoever. They can argue that there was an industry forum, which was held in York. However, the first many of us knew at the sharp end of the industry was the arrival of thousands of forms which have to be completed. In a plant such as the size of mine, to complete all these forms in the full and proper manner will take two extra personnel full time.
The Welsh Industry has had reasonable rates for authorised meat inspectors and official veterinary surgeons. These rises that we are seeing now are colossal on what many people have been paying. In fact that on an industry wide basis it is 40% more than we were paying in the last financial year".
In the view of the comments of the leaders of the industry in Wales, Scotland and England I believe that the Government should have another look at the scheme in its present form. I am sure that that is the wish of noble Lords on both sides of the House. We do not want to see an industry on which we are so dependent failing.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, it would appear that I may be the only Member of this House to speak in favour of the unified Meat Hygiene Service other than my noble friend the Minister. I speak

417
as someone who has had in his career several years' experience of food hygiene meat inspection in Scotland, where it was a first rate local authority service. Therefore, I am speaking against the prayer to annul the regulations pertaining to the central Meat Hygiene Service.
During the debate on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill in October 1994 I spoke of the importance of the need for a unified meat hygiene service under veterinary direction. I am still very strongly of that opinion. It has been long recognised that the welfare of animals awaiting slaughter and at slaughter, and the wholesomeness and soundness of meat and meat products in the food chain, is best achieved by a single seamless system which is represented by the unified meat inspection service that is in force. I say en passant that this seamless single service is much more liable to avoid the food hygiene problems of infection such as those which have been referred to by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke.
It is also recognised that while the meat inspection and hygiene services under some local authorities are beyond reproach, particularly in Scotland, nevertheless there were many others where that was not the case. It has been long recognised that England and Wales in particular have lagged behind other countries of the world in meat hygiene. That has meant that until 1993 we have had two hygiene standards; one for export purposes meeting international standards including those of the European Union, and one for home consumption. Surely it is an anomalous situation that our own citizens should tolerate a perceived or otherwise lower standard of meat hygiene than that of our customers overseas.
I am informed that prior to 1993 there were only 78 meat hygiene plants that were licensed for export. That meant there were about 400 or more licensed for domestic consumption only. Surely that is not an agreeable situation. At present there are about 515 licensed abattoirs, 104 of which meet European standards which undertake 67 per cent. of the slaughtering in this country. But there are about 400 plants still not meeting those standards. They are under temporary derogation to allow upgrading to meet the needs of international standards by 1995. I am informed by the Meat and Livestock Commission that it estimates that half of these have no intention whatever of upgrading their premises to a level which must be consistent with good hygiene and good health for our nation.
The regulations pertaining to animal welfare and slaughter and the inspection of slaughtered animals are well known and are codified in the present regulations which are available. It is also well known that these were under the direction of about 300 local authorities looking after about 500 slaughterhouses. That meant enforcement of the rules in these slaughterhouses and licensed meat plants suffered from a lack of consistency and uniformity. These regulations varied enormously. Further, this inconsistency and uneven standards were criticised by bodies which have been mentioned such as the British Meat Manufacturers Association, the
418
Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers, the International Meat Trade Association Inc., the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers, the British Poultry Meat Federation, the NFU, the British Veterinary Association, the Meat and Livestock Commission, and others. All urge the Government to set up a single enforcement body.
I quite accept that there have been teething troubles with the introduction of the new Meat Hygiene Service. Some of these have been detailed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and other noble Lords. I suspect that there will be more teething problems to come. There are certainly some local authorities and slaughterhouse owners, meat inspectors and veterinary surgeons, who feel aggrieved at how some of these regulations have been put in place. As might be expected, with an industry which slaughters and inspects about 27 million cattle, pigs and sheep and 580 million poultry per year, it would be unrealistic to expect everything to go so smoothly when we are moving to a new system. Nevertheless, it is my understanding that the majority of those concerned with slaughtering meat hygiene across the spectrum welcome the new Meat Hygiene Service. It is my firm belief that this is the most logical way forward to ensure consistency. for a sound and wholesome product in the abattoirs and cutting plants which will eventually end up in the households of the people of this country.
In addition, but also ancillary to the main point, I believe that it will improve the career prospects of those in the field of meat hygiene. It will allow for consistency of training across the country and provide a valuable surveillance system for livestock health in Great Britain. I believe that all of those are important ancillary issues ensuing from a sound and wholesome meat hygiene service.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, has just made a very serious allegation. He said that our meat inspection service has been lagging behind other countries in meat hygiene. What does that mean? Does it mean that the people of this country, over a period of 70 years, have been more prone to food poisoning than people of other countries? The Minister should give the House an answer to that. I hope that he will also be able to assure us that the number of food poisoning cases, as a result of this particular piece of legislation, will reduce. I hope that he will be able to give some figures to support the arguments that this service should be taken away from the local authorities and given to a centralised authority. It is also a condemnation of the local authorities who have administered this service over the past 70 years to say that we have been lagging behind other countries in the meat hygiene service that is given to consumers.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Carter on putting down his prayer and also the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, in tabling his amendment. Those two matters enable us to have a reasonable and good debate today and that is precisely what we are having. As my noble friend Lord Carter said, when this legislation goes through today—indeed, it is already in operation—the Government and certain sections of the meat trade will

419
have attained their objective of destroying the local authority meat inspection service, which I believe has successfully protected the consumer for over 70 years. They will replace it with a secretive, centralised bureaucracy which will be not only more expensive, as we have heard, and destructive of small slaughterhouses, but it will also he dangerous for the consumers in that it will he more liable to corruption and may lead to the development of a cosy relationship between the big boys in the meat industry and the new nationalised Meat Hygiene Service. I say "nationalised" because that is precisely what this transfer of power means. I understood that the Conservative Party did not believe in nationalisation, but that is precisely what is happening here. The local authority meat inspection service is being nationalised and, I believe, for no good reason.
This is yet another centralising act of a Government who pay lip service to local democracy, but by their actions do everything to destroy it—little wonder that there are few Conservatives active at local level. A misnamed "conservative" Government have taken away the opportunities hitherto enjoyed by decent local Conservatives to serve the community in which they live. This is just another example of the centralising Stalinist tendency of this Government.
The Association of District Councils, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president, has pointed out that the consultants appointed in 1991 to assist MAFF in its review of options for improving the meat hygiene enforcement system in the light of single market requirements found no conclusive evidence to change the UK's meat inspection system. That confirmed what the Government's Preston Review concluded in 1985— that meat inspection should continue to be provided by local authorities. Indeed, the Preston Committee rejected the case for a centralised meat inspection agency on the grounds of the costs of the central bureaucracy. How right it was—£5.2 million will be allocated in each of the financial years 1994–95 and 1996–97 in addition to the £600,000 that has been spent by MAFF on the project team to oversee the establishment of the MHS.
Furthermore, I understand—we have heard about this today —that the Meat Hygiene Service will cost public funds some £15.4 million, which is additional to the moneys which will be recovered in fees and charges. The recent answer by Mrs. Angela Browning, the Parliamentary Secretary at MAFF, shows that the estimated cost of the MHS in its first year of operation will he £53.4 million as compared with £45 million for the local authority meat inspection service. That additional cost of nearly £9 million a year will mean that, on average, each slaughterhouse will pay £20,000 per annum more for meat inspection, while some will have to pay £80,000 more than they paid to the local authorities.
The Government claim that because the Meat Hygiene Service can operate across local authority boundaries, it can use manpower more effectively. That claim can hardly stand up to examination. In the first place, local authorities can, if necessary, employ agency staff who can also operate across local authority boundaries. Secondly, local authorities can redeploy meat inspectors to other duties when not needed for
420
meat inspection. The Meat Hygiene Service will not be able to do that. Thirdly, for unplanned staff absences and surges in workload, local authorities can call on 6,000 environmental health officers, all of whom are qualified meat inspectors. That is not available to the MHS. Furthermore, the suggestion that the Meat Hygiene Service will unite enforcement functions is, to say the least, misleading.
I refer now to a most interesting brief that has been given to me by the Association of District Councils. It states:
"The Government took a decision, without consultation, to use its powers to issue slaughterhouse licences. It did so without revoking the responsibility of local authorities to issue the same licences, thus creating an unnecessary, burdensome and confusing licensing regime. The State Veterinary Service (SVS) will continue to issue slaughterhouse licences despite the creation of the MHS.
It is difficult to see how enforcement is united when the SVS issues a licence, the MHS is responsible for day to day hygiene and meat inspection and local authorities are responsible for all remaining food hygiene controls in the remainder of the meat sector.
In essence, therefore, one enforcement agency has been replaced by three. In so doing, the MHS has fragmented the existing food safety framework, created confusion and inconsistency and given industry yet another enforcement agency with which to deal.
When the MHS's operation is considered in detail, the arrangement makes even less sense. The MHS will have no remit in premises other than licensed slaughterhouses. In respect of illegal slaughter, animal welfare issues and the licensing of slaughtermen, the local authority will have to continue to act as watch-dog. In some premises, the division between the responsibilities of the MHS, the SVS and local authorities will be so blurred that each will have a role in respect of different aspects of meat hygiene enforcement.
It has even been suggested recently that, when the MHS is called upon to seize unfit meal, it may have to rely on assistance from the local authority due to various legal technicalities which prevent it from taking such action itself'.
So much for the new service which will co-ordinate everything and be so much better for everyone.
I repeat that we see the formation of a centralised, unaccountable, bureaucratic agency which has been set up to replace a democratic service of proved effectiveness. Let us not forget that the local authorities have been carrying out such work for 70 years, without any complaint or legislation except perhaps some government interference over charges. The system has worked effectively and efficiently. Do the Government never learn? Have they already forgotten the lessons of the Child Support Agency, which replaced the courts and which has now collapsed in ignominy and chaos from its original form?
As we have heard, some slaughterhouses are already threatening to withhold the extra payments that will he demanded. What are the Government going to do if they do that? Will they close them down? Will they send the owners to gaol? What will they do? I sincerely hope that the House will pass at least one of the Motions which are now before us so that the Government are in no doubt about the anger that is felt in many parts of the trade, in local authorities and, I hope, also in your Lordships' House.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I declare an interest in this debate. As my noble friend Lord

421
Willoughby de Broke and other noble Lords have so clearly explained, the Meat Hygiene Service will impose increased costs on the production of meat. I am both a grower and consumer of meat. As a grower, I sec the potential to close slaughterhouses as a direct blow against those who have heeded the Government's advice to go into direct marketing in order to increase their margins. I also see it strengthening the hand of the supermarkets as monopoly suppliers.
As a consumer, I am a supporter of the smaller suppliers who, often in conjunction with the ability to slaughter in-house, can offer something better than can be bought from a supermarket. Those are the people who will find the increased cost of the new arrangements hardest to bear. I have no doubt that many noble Lords who are particular about the meat they eat will regret their demise as much as I do.
It always seems to fall to those who have the reputation of being sceptical about the European ideal to raise these issues for your Lordships to consider, when they should be the concern of everyone. I was told at the time of the Maastricht debate that I was wrong to oppose the treaty and that the right way to go about things was to raise troublesome issues when they occurred; matters could then be sorted out by debate in your Lordships' House; and representations made to Brussels.
Your Lordships may recollect that 18 months ago I prayed against arrangements for sheep and cattle quotas. Your Lordships agreed that they were unfair to owners of land and agreed to a Motion which asked the Government to do something about them. The House is still awaiting the judgment of the European Court of Justice to find out whether anything can be done to honour its opinion.
That experience has confirmed my view that we have handed over to Brussels more power than is prudent. How are we supposed to carry out our role when the tradition of the House is to accept statutory instruments by which regulations are imposed upon us without opposition? I find myself also in the rather embarrassing position of agreeing with the lecture we had on Tory principles from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I sit on this side of the House not entirely by custom but by conviction.
I believe in free enterprise and small business, to which over-regulation is anathema. Do we not claim to be the party of deregulation? We see an ever-increasing flow of regulations not just in agriculture and its associated industries, which is now so regulated that it is almost a nationalised industry, but in many other aspects of our lives not germane to the debate. That leads to the closing of businesses and the loss of jobs. I dread to think what that is doing to the party in the country. It is a great disappointment to me that I have to criticise my party for betraying the tenets of its own philosophy.
5.24 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I have given notice to my noble friend that I would speak in this debate. I
422
hope that someone will divide the House on the issue, but I believe that my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke has been—I am not sure that the word "conned" is right—persuaded by the Chief Whip to say that he would not.
These regulations are a disgrace. I do not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and compare my right honourable friend the First Lord of the Treasury to a failed Georgian priest novitiate in the form of Mr. Stalin. I find the idea of him sitting in a monastery outside Tiflis learning about the dual nature of Christ as something slightly odd. But, he that as it may, I come to the debate because it is the sort of thing in which no one is really interested.
I was talking to the chief executive of our local borough council, who by most people's yardstick is regarded as an extremely good chief executive. I believe that Guildford Borough Council is held out as an extremely good local authority, whichever political party is in charge of it. He said, "Yes, of course we have been running our slaughterhouse very well. We do not want it taken away because we think we are doing very well for the public. But it is not something I shall go to the barricades over. The Government will do something more stupid later about which we shall have to get even more cross". Rules about slaughterhouses are not something about which people, except those directly involved, will become very cross.
Again, I spoke to the head of the borough council's meat hygiene service today. As a direct result of the new regulation, the inspection bill for the Guildford slaughterhouse, which is owned by the local authority and let out to a private company, goes from £50,000 to £75,000 a year, without the prospect of one fewer tummy bug. How can my noble friends on the Front Bench produce regulations which are as stupid as this? It is outrageous. I have already had reason to write to my noble friend about some of the civil servants in his office who I believe have been misinforming him about the rules and regulations. He knows about that. I shall not go into further detail. I shall merely hope and listen with bated breath for a reply to the letter which I wrote to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, talked about the variation in the quality of slaughterhouses. There is a book which lays down regulations as to how the inspection is to be carried out. Am I supposed to believe that the regulations have been disobeyed by some local authorities and obeyed by others? If that is the case, the Government have been deeply lacking, as has the state veterinary authority, in ensuring that the regulations are properly carried out. I should like to know whether that is true.
I should like also to know whether the inconsistency of which the Government complain was caused because they insisted on an hourly rate per inspection rather than a headage rate. Under the old headage system, no one complained of inconsistency.
We now have a new agency set up. Mr. Johnston-McNeil will be paid £78,000 a year to run it, which is not a great deal less than the Prime Minister receives. His head of operation, who, it was said, would be paid £50,000 a year, was forced to resign after

423
expenses irregularities concerned with his employment with the Australian Government. It has already been established that it will cost a great deal more. Will there be one fewer case of salmonella, one fewer tummy hug or one animal suffering less as a result of this regulation? If the answer to all of those questions—as I suspect it is—is no, what on earth is the point of increasing the bill for meat hygiene inspections by 50 per cent.? That is government gone mad. I hope someone will call for a Division. I shall vote against the Government with relish.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, this has been a remarkable debate. I begin by apologising to the Minister for not having my name down to speak. It was due entirely to my incompetence, something which he will understand because he has had much to do with incompetence by his department. The strictures the Minister has heard during the debate must have shaken him to the core. I feel rather sorry for him.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Oh!
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, indeed. The Minister is defending a situation caused by incompetence and a lack of appreciation of the real situation.
I was delighted by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. He put forward a massive case for the local authorities. He also showed a degree of self-restraint which is unusual in him. I did not hear him once mention the European Union, which shows the depth of his feeling for the case he put forward. I was pleased when the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, the only real expert on veterinary affairs we have in the House, said that local authority procedure and practice in Scotland was most satisfactory. We have found it to be so. The Government should have looked, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, at the simple matter of standardising local authority procedures and ensuring that they were carried out. That would have been very much simpler than setting up the new MHS. I am not sure what MHS stands for but we all know that it is a centralised body which is approved of in principle by a large number of people. However, that approval is heavily qualified by the practice once they find it being put into operation.
The Minister must listen to the detailed allegations made by my noble friend and others about the enormous increase in costs to many bodies throughout the country. The local authorities have a vested interest in ensuring that employment continues in their areas. There are far too few useful slaughterhouses and as regards many in Scotland the travelling distance is expensive and is bad for sick animals which must be slaughtered. The Minister must listen to all that has been said and try to do something about the matter. I suppose that it is too late to stop the process but the Minister could do a great deal to cut the bureaucratic costs.
It is difficult to say anything new in the debate because almost everything has been said. The administrator, whose references were found to be all at
424
sea and so forth, has now resigned. That is a measure of the incompetence shown in setting up the body. The fact is that again the Government have made a complete mess. We can advise only that they listen to what has been said and instead of producing the standard brief and reply stating that all is well, that the body is approved and that this is only a small teething problem, they admit that that is not so and that the concept has been wrongly applied.
I do not wish to sit down without saying something nice about the regulations. I ploughed through the 50 pages of each regulation. There are marvellous descriptions of the evisceration of rabbits and so forth but there are some good points which arc the exemptions. The exemption relating to premises where fresh meat is cut up, stored or rewrapped for sale from those premises to the final consumer is a piece of common sense which I am glad to see.
There are in my area a number of people who raise turkeys and sell them directly to their customers at Christmas time. Their premises are inspected by some sensible vets and health inspectors. One such person visited a couple I know who raise many turkeys. He looked round the premises and tut-tutted. He was most polite about the matter but said that he did not think a great deal of the process and the premises. However, when he left he ordered a Christmas turkey for himself and his brother-in-law. That is an attitude of which the Government would do well to take note in dealing with local authorities and sensible people in Scotland.
The other good point about the regulations is that the Minister accepts responsibility. Therefore, we cannot ask him questions and be told, as I have been told so often, that the noble Lord should write to the body concerned because it has nothing to do with the Minister. The Minister has accepted responsibility for the quango and the great deal of trouble that will cause him.
5.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging and at times somewhat impassioned discussion. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for giving us the opportunity to discuss these regulations and the new Meat Hygiene Service. Your Lordships considered the MHS on 13th October last year, again on the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. On that occasion, my noble friend Lord Ferrers outlined the Government's intention that the MHS would operate to strict standards and would be a better use of resources than the previous local authority system of enforcement. I am glad to be able to update your Lordships on the progress which has been made since last October and I hope to set the record straight on some of the misleading claims and allegations which have been made about the MHS, some of which have been repeated today.
First, perhaps I may say a little about the two regulations which are the subject of the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Apart from the transfer of responsibility from local authorities to the MHS, both regulations are very similar to their predecessors. The

425
fresh meat regulations do, however, make some changes designed to reduce the burden on industry. These changes result from a review carried out in accordance with the deregulation initiative. I know that the House will welcome action aimed at the removal of unnecessary burdens.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting my noble friend. How can he possibly say that increasing the charge from £50,000 per year to £75,000 per year is reducing a burden on industry? If that is a reduction in the burden, I am in the Majlis in Tehran.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend has already had the opportunity of speaking in the gap. I am sure that he will appreciate that the rules of the House are such that his time for speaking has passed. I shall address his anxieties in the remarks that follow. I have barely begun my speech and I am sure that my noble friend will allow me to continue as I have a great deal to say.
There are those who argue that controls over fresh meat are over-prescriptive and unduly onerous compared to other sectors of the food industry. That premise underlies the position adopted by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke. The Government fully recognise that there is a need to review the inspection arrangements to ensure that they are correctly focused on present-day problems. We have commissioned research work in this area and are working closely with our European partners, the European Commission and other interested third countries. But we are not prepared—even if it were legally possible, which it is not—to sweep away the long-standing internationally accepted inspection requirements until the necessary groundwork has been done to replace them with alternative systems which provide equivalent protection for the consumer.
A number of organisms—such as E cob 0157:H7, some salmonella serotypes and listeria monocytogenes—have been implicated in food poisoning incidents associated with the consumption of meat and meat products. Some commentators argue that meat is a low-risk product because it is normally cooked before consumption and that therefore there is no need to be concerned about contamination with organisms of this kind. The Government do not accept this argument for one second. While it is true that thorough cooking will destroy most, if not all, pathogenic micro-organisms, the hazards associated with cross-contamination in the distribution chain or in the kitchen remain a matter of concern. While no one expects an abattoir to resemble an operating theatre, sensible steps must be taken at all stages of production to limit the risk of contamination. The most appropriate point to address the problem of contamination with pathogenic organisms is the slaughterhall. That is what these regulations are designed to do.
Many abattoirs in this country are well managed and produce meat which is of a good hygienic standard. Unfortunately, and I will not go into detail, this is not true of all of them. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart,
426
praised the role of local authorities. The variability of the standards applied by the 300 or so local authorities previously responsible for this work has led to inconsistencies which the MHS will he required to sort out so that consumers of British meat in this country and in our growing export markets can he fully confident about their purchases. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Soulsby for the remarks which he made in that connection.
The export market is important. Our meat exports last year were worth almost £1 billion and that has a very real impact on our livestock farmers. Internationally, trading countries rely on national authorities in the exporting country to provide assurances about the health status of their production. It is no exaggeration to say that we in the UK would not accept imports of meat from a country whose enforcement arrangements do not provide proper accountability from the enforcement officer in the plant to the national veterinary authorities. In order to provide that level of accountability while enforcement remained with local authorities, we had to make special arrangements which were cumbersome and expensive. Those arrangements will no longer he necessary with the MHS.
The MHS will build on the work done by MAFF's State Veterinary Service over the past year or two to develop a risk-based approach to enforcement, focusing on the real hygiene risks. We have introduced, in consultation with the industry, a hygiene assessment system which is used to monitor standards of operation and to identify, in discussion with the operator, the areas where improvements are needed. Last month we published the first results from this system in red meat slaughterhouses. One of the MHS's key performance targets for 1995–96 relates to achieving improvements in premises where that system has identified shortcomings, and we will expect the MHS to increase its enforcement effort at plants which score poorly. Conversely, of course, where plants are managed to a high standard, the MHS should be able to reduce its input. This flexible, risk-based approach should enable the MHS, working in partnership with the industry, to bring about a real improvement where that is needed, and to minimise the burden of enforcement in plants where the management maintains high standards.
There are a good many misconceptions about the MHS. We have heard some of them repeated this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, called it a secretive bureaucracy. He is totally wrong. Perhaps I may begin by explaining how the MHS will operate. It will be answerable to agriculture Ministers who will be advised by an ownership board which will include independent members, one of whom is Mr. John Barratt. Mr. Barratt has wide experience of the meat industry and I am sure he will be able to provide a useful view on the management and operation of the MHS. The chief executive will consult closely with all sectors of the meat industry through the Industry Forum, which includes all the representative organisations including the NFU, the FUW and the QMLA. The MHS is sending all premises operators a customer service statement, together with a document which explains its appeals and

427
complaints procedures. I believe that those procedures are valuable. But Ministers will be keeping a close eye on this aspect of its operation.
The MHS plant staff will he operating in accordance with its operations manual, which will be available to plant operators. That is not a document which the MHS has drafted. The agriculture departments, as custodians of the legislation and the policy in relation to the work which the MHS carries out, will remain responsible for its contents. MAFF has undertaken to review the manual in consultation with the industry and professional organisations in the autumn to ensure that it fulfils its objective of achieving high and uniform standards of enforcement, without imposing unnecessary burdens.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I have listened very carefully to what he said. But will he tell me what will happen if Members of this House or another place wish to raise questions about the new agency? Will Ministers reply directly to Oral and Written Questions, or shall we be fobbed off by a reply from the chief executive of the service?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the annual report of the MHS will be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament. That will enable a full debate to take place in either House as necessary.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, what about Questions? Will Ministers answer them or shall we be referred to the chief executive of the MHS?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the head of the executive agency would normally answer parliamentary Questions on day-to-day operational matters. Ministers will deal with matters of policy, as is reflected in current procedures.
The MHS has only 29 people at headquarters to manage an organisation of around 1,000 people. I believe the House will recognise that this can hardly be described as excessive or, indeed, a bureaucracy. Nevertheless, the management structure will be kept under close review. The MHS will be working to strict financial and performance targets aimed at producing efficiencies not only in its first year of operation but on an ongoing basis. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food published the targets for 1995–96 last month. Parliament and the industry will be able to monitor how the MHS performs against those targets.
Against that background, it is extremely difficult to understand the allegations which have been made about lack of accountability. The MHS's arrangements will be much more transparent and accountable than was possible previously. Parliament, consumers and the meat industry will be much better able to scrutinise how the meat inspection function is being performed.
There is, naturally and rightly, great interest in and concern about the cost of the MHS. Perhaps I may put straight one fundamental point. The amount which the MHS expects to recover from the meat industry in 1995–96 is around £40 million—not £54 million as some
428
noble Lords have indicated. That represents a saving of around 10 per cent. of the estimated total cost of the local authority system. That is a significant saving.
We have heard a good deal about abattoirs which expect to be charged more by the MHS than by their local authority. I can assure your Lordships that there are also abattoirs which will he charged less hut, not surprisingly, they are not lobbying their MPs or their trade organisations about that. I shall have more to say about that in a few moments.
The MHS is still in the process of consulting plant operators about its proposed charges. Therefore, I cannot provide definitive information today on the number of winners and losers. However, I assure your Lordships that the Government are listening very closely to the anxieties of the industry. My right honourable friend the Minister announced on 29th March that he was minded to make some transitional assistance available in the first year while the MHS achieves the efficiency savings which arc possible now that enforcement is organised on a national basis. We are still consulting the industry as to exactly how that assistance should be payable; but I can confirm that it will be of real help to smaller slaughterhouses in particular. I hope that that will be of some comfort to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, who raised anxieties in relation to that. The National Farmers Union described my right honourable friend's decision as,
"A very welcome response to our concerns".
I turn specifically to the anxieties raised by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke. I am sure that the House will sympathise with my noble friend's objective to minimise the costs of the MHS to the meat industry and to public funds. However, I remind your Lordships that both the meat inspection procedures themselves and the arrangements for charging for them are laid down in very detailed European legislation. It is not possible for us unilaterally to amend the meat inspection arrangements, although we are working with our European partners in the Scientific Veterinary Committee to update them. I assure the House that, as part of the EC review, we shall look to keep to the minimum the costs needed to provide proper protection of public health.
However, I must express some small surprise at my noble friend's view that it would be possible to contain the total cost of the regulations at £25 million per year. The cost of the current local authority arrangements is estimated at £45 million as against the MHS estimated operational cost of around £40 million. In 1992, before the EC rules were extended to domestic abattoirs, meat inspection was estimated to cost the industry just under £32 million.
It is simply not realistic to seek cost reductions of the order suggested by my noble friend. The MHS, in its first year, is already projecting savings, as I said, of about 10 per cent. of the total cost to industry and the public purse. That is a good start. My right honourable friends and I will be looking to see further savings as the MHS takes full advantage of operating on a national basis. The efficiency targets published last month are challenging and will require the MHS to squeeze costs down as far as possible. However, I am sure that the

429
House would not expect the Government to put the objective of cutting costs above the objective of protecting the consumer or of complying with our legal obligations. I see that my noble friend wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am much obliged. My noble friend the Minister mentioned the figure of £40 million as the total cost of the MHS. However, can my noble friend say whether that is net of the subsidy, which we have been informed will cost about £50 million over the first year, together with start up costs, or whether that is a gross figure?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I was about to deal with the whole question of costs, where I believe there has been a degree of confusion in today's debate. I shall attempt to elucidate the details as far as I can.
My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke indicated that, to his knowledge, some slaughterhouses have closed because of the implementation of EC rules. That is not, on the whole, the case. Such recent closures as there have been reflect the trend for rationalisation which has existed within the British slaughtering industry for over 20 years as a result of over capacity. MLC figures indicate that the number of slaughterhouses was reduced from 1,231 in 1980 to 647 in 1992. That shows that the bulk of closures occurred before the implementation of the directive.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, cited some instances of probable increases in charges to plants. It is clear that some plants will benefit considerably from the establishment of a national meat inspection service. Others will see some increase because of the significant differences in current local authority charges. It is also clear that some local authorities have been subsidising, either directly or indirectly, the plants in their areas. During the first six months of its operations the MHS will be targeting in particular those plants where there is the greatest concern about manning levels. We and the MHS are committed to finding the right levels within the overall constraints of the legislative requirements. I have many examples of prospective overall savings on veterinary and meat inspector costs at red meat slaughter houses. I should be glad to supply those to the noble Lord if he so wishes.
It is not possible at this stage to be definitive about how many plants would benefit from the transitional rebate that I mentioned. Much depends on the through-put of the plants. But, based on a sample analysis of over 50 plants and their estimated through-put, we believe that 75 per cent. of that sample is likely to benefit. As I said, it should be particularly helpful to small or more remote premises.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned a particular plant in Manchester which might be subject to an increased charge. I am not sure exactly which abattoir the noble Lord has in mind, but I am aware of an abattoir in the area which will be making substantial savings with the MHS compared with the local authority system.
430
My noble friend Lord Onslow asked why charging was not based on a headage rate. The idea was discussed, but it was found not to be acceptable to the industry. The charging policy of the MHS has been thoroughly discussed in the Industry Forum.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that the average increase to slaughterhouses would be in the region of £20,000. That is simply not the case. The noble Lord has no basis for making that remark. However, if indeed he has, I shall be glad to know about it. The noble Lord also said that some slaughterhouses were having to pay £80,000 more than they paid local authorities. Again, I do not believe that the noble Lord has any basis for saying that; indeed, the MHS is still consulting about its proposed charges. We would want the chief executive to look very closely at any plant facing an increase of as much as £80,000. As I said, some plants will pay substantially less.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also said that the MHS staffing arrangements were less flexible than those in local authorities. In practice, most local authorities did not co-operate in using staff across local authority boundaries. However, there is no reason why the MHS should not seek assistance from local authorities as well as agencies to cover manpower gaps. There may be advantages to both parties in so doing.
The noble Lord also said that local authorities can call upon environmental health officers to cover gaps in service and that the MHS could not do so. That is not strictly true. The MHS can employ veterinary surgeons under contract, who are required to provide cover for sickness. In addition, the MHS has available to it a number of casual meat inspectors to cover for holidays, sick leave and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to an extra cost of £9 million when compared with the cost under the local authority system. That is a fallacy. The MHS will be cheaper than local authorities. In the financial year 1995–96, there will be one-off, non-recurring costs. But many of those costs will help the industry; for example, by identifying overmanning, removing inconsistencies and buying out the terms and conditions inherited from local authorities.
The MHS is trying to work with plant operators to give them the best value within existing constraints. However, that cannot be only one-way traffic. Plant operators must look critically at their methods of operation and business to see whether they can make changes which would enable the MHS to provide a more cost-effective service. For example, some operators have already changed their working patterns of their own volition, which then enables the MHS to make the best use of its staffing resources in that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, expressed the view that the MHS is overstaffed. I do not believe that to be true. The MHS was set up as a very lean organisation. There are only 29 staff in the HQ at York and, at operational level, any overmanning will quickly be removed—for example, by visits from hygiene advice teams.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked how many OVSs would be operating in the service. My understanding is that there would be 168 full-time equivalents. The noble Lord also said that OVS costs were increasing by 50 per

431
cent. In fact, the ADC survey carried out in mid-1994 showed average costs of £35 an hour and that the most frequently used charge was in the range of £40 to £44.
There has been much confusion in the debate about costs generally. The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, quoted the figures of the Farmers' Union of Wales as regards the costs of the MHS. Those figures are not correct. Mr. Parry, its president, has confused the total cost of £54 million in the current year with the chargeable cost of £40 million. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that the MHS would represent a cost to the taxpayer of £20 million. As I said, the cost for 1995–96 will be around £15 million and the cost to the taxpayer after that time will be very much smaller.
My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke asked what would happen when the subsidy was removed. Ministers have made clear that the MHS will not be expected to increase its charges next year to compensate for the withdrawal of subsidy. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the setting up of the MHS. He wanted to know how much of the Government's thinking was due to EC pressure and how much to MAFF ambition. The 1991 review was carried out against a background of the new single market rules. The Government decided that a dedicated agency was the best way of complying with EC obligations. I have already referred to the very important trade considerations which underlie our thinking.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to the Preston Report of March 1985, which recommended that the meat inspection service should continue to be provided by local authorities. All I would say to him is that things have moved on in the past 10 years. The need for consistency of enforcement and charging is now more important. The industry has pressed for this. There is a single market within the Community and our third country trading partners need to be assured that the production of our meat is under proper and effective control.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is there any evidence that it is not at the moment?
Earl Howe: Yes, my Lords, there is. Under the local authority system, as I have already indicated, the standards of enforcement were extremely variable, to put it at its mildest.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the funding of meat inspection services in other member states. All member states are required to charge for meat inspection in accordance with Community rules. They are required to charge at least the minimum charge laid down in Directive 93/118 EEC. The directive also lays down a standard charge below which subsidisation is illegal. In negotiations on the directive in 1993, several member states—Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark—were anxious to have provision to recover full costs and the directive was amended to permit full recovery of administrative costs. Previously there was a flat rate administrative charge which did not necessarily reflect the full cost.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the question I asked was, who pays? I understand there are regulations on the
432
level of costs; but as I understand it, in France and Ireland for example, although these charges meet the standard, they are met by the taxpayer not by the farms or the abattoirs.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the trouble is that there is no single document which describes the arrangements in other member states. Of course we have clear ideas about the overall structures, if not always the day-to-day arrangements. Our perceptions are borne out to a large extent by two Meat and Livestock Commission reports last year. The directive firmly requires meat inspection to be under the control of veterinarians who may be assisted by what are deemed auxiliaries, or meat inspectors as we know them. All member states involve vets fully in the meat inspection process. The majority of them also use meat inspectors to a greater or less degree.
My noble friend Lord Willoughby suggested that greater through-put in slaughterhouses would mean greater contamination. I would say to him that greater through-put does not mean greater contamination. The whole point of veterinary inspection is to make sure that the animals are in a fit condition to be slaughtered and that there is proper control of hygiene and, indeed, welfare. It is the hygiene control which prevents faecal contamination of carcasses; that is to say, the spread of pathogens.
The noble Lord. Lord Geraint, was concerned about consultation with the industry about the operations manual. The MHS has undertaken to review the operations manual with the industry organisations in the autumn. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said that the Government should have looked at standardising local authority procedures. This was looked at as part of the 1992 review, which preceded the decision to set up the Meat Hygiene Service. But, as he will know, local authorities are autonomous. The Government cannot direct them to standardise procedures and experience shows that many local authorities have disregarded the SVS's advice in the past. When all is said and done, there is little that we in the Government can do about that short of setting up a system, as we have done.
It has been suggested that the Government's decision to set up the MHS was to satisfy the ambitions of a few self-seeking officials in the Ministry. I have had the privilege of being a Minister in MAFF for three years now and it is absolutely clear to me that that is not the case. There were a number of important reasons behind the decision, which I shall summarise. These were to meet the long-standing requests of a majority of representative organisations in the meat industry; to improve the service offered to consumers, retailers and the meat trade generally; to maximise efficiency and to minimise costs; to improve accountability to Parliament, to the public and to the industry which pays the charges; and to satisfy the requirements of our trading partners and safeguard our meat exports worth almost £1 billion in 1994. Those are ambitious objectives. It is not possible to judge the success of the MHS today when it has only been in operation for 18 days. However, I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that despite their concern about charges all but one of the industry's representative organisations continue to support the concept of a single national Meat Hygiene Service.

433
I urge your Lordships to take full account of the views of the industry as a whole, not just of the individuals who attracted the most publicity. I hope that in the light of the explanation I have given the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend will feel sufficiently reassured about the Meat Hygiene Service to withdraw their respective Motions. I, of course, stand ready to follow up with them and with other noble Lords any queries raised in this debate which remain unanswered.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. When I heard from all around the House the description of this costly, Stalinist, centralised, bureaucratic organisation, I began to think that perhaps I should have put down a litany instead of a Prayer. I remind the Minister that all the organisations he referred to were in principle—as I said in my opening remarks—in favour of the MHS. Every one of them, without exception, has referred to the argument about excessive costs.
I shall be extremely brief in winding up. I found the Minister's comments about costs rather airy-fairy as regards winners and losers. I remind him that it has never been statistically proved that the swings equal the roundabouts. We shall have to watch this matter carefully. Some of the cost increases to which I, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and others have referred have serious implications for small businesses. Virtually every speaker referred to the matter of costs. The noble Earl can be sure that we shall be giving this matter serious consideration as the organisation develops. As regards a seamless robe of efficiency, the fact is there are still three agencies involved: the State Veterinary Service, the Meat Hygiene Service and the local authorities. The upgrading of abattoirs is required by the European Union anyway. That has nothing to do with the MHS and the point is not relevant in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, referred to teething troubles. When one considers the 40 per cent. increase in costs that some slaughterhouses are having to bear, I would only say that we are talking about some quango and some teeth! Of course the large slaughterhouses support the measure because they can see the smaller ones going out of business. We also understand why the veterinary profession supports the idea.
I am aware of the conventions of the House as regards statutory instruments. I put down the Prayer to make sure that we had a good debate. I believe we have had a good debate. I believe the MHS and the government department have now been warned that we are giving this matter serious consideration to make sure that costs are controlled and that the extra layer of bureaucracy produces the reduction in food poisoning which I believe the noble Earl referred to as one of the targets. We shall be giving that matter close consideration. However, in line with the conventions of the House, it is with some reluctance that I withdraw the Motion. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Home Energy Conservation Bill
6.8 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As the Long Title states, the Bill is to provide for the drawing up of local energy conservation reports relating to residential accommodation. I am reminded of two short but significant facts. The first is that domestic energy use accounts for somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of the nation's CO2 emissions. The second is that in assessing whether a house is fit for human habitation as a basis for grants or for legal action, a number of criteria are considered, but those criteria do not include energy efficiency.
We know the sorry figures of the house condition surveys. Some 1.5 million dwellings are unfit and more than 13 per cent. of the housing stock in England is in need of urgent repair. But how many more may be inefficient in their use of energy? It is important, at many levels and for many people, to know this information. It is important if you have asthma or are affected by air pollution. The Government acknowledge that in the second year report, This Common Inheritance, which states:
"Using energy efficiently is the quickest and most cost-effective way of reducing CO2 emissions".
If you are one of the eight million "fuel poor" struggling to heat your home, it is important to have that information. If you see your heat literally disappearing not out of, but through, your windows and your walls and roof, it is important. Often it is those with the lowest means who have the most expensive forms of heating. It is important if your health is vulnerable. Suffering hypothermia in one's own home is a tragedy for the individual and a scandal for society. I join with those who say that the most important contributions to health are environmental factors.
It is not surprising that the Bill attracted such all-party support in another place and outside Parliament. More than 700 local authorities are known to have passed supportive resolutions. Voluntary organisations and interest groups ranging from Friends of the Earth to the Construction Industry Council, from Age Concern to the RSPB, and from MENCAP to the Trades Union Congress have also expressed support.
Your Lordships may have heard from the local authority associations. Local authorities will be at the heart of the application of the Bill. The associations of district councils, county councils and metropolitan authorities wholeheartedly support the principle of the Bill and believe that, as now drafted, it provides,
"a workable and practicable model".
They say:
"An understanding of need will drive future energy conservation policy and most effectively target those resources available for energy efficiency works. Support for the principle is apparent also from the majority of individual councils which uphold the principle of sustainability and moves to reduce global warming, emissions to atmosphere and fuel poverty. They believe also that they are best placed to collect this information and assist in its productive use".

435
Before turning to the detail of the Bill, I must pay tribute to the Members of all parties who supported the Bill in another place and to those Members who introduced predecessor Bills, including the honourable Members for Wyre and Dundee East, the honourable Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke North, and in particular my honourable friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed whose Energy Conservation Bill is a very close relation of this Bill. Finally, I should like to pay tribute to my honourable friend the Member for Christchurch who, when she came first in the ballot for Private Member's Bills in another place, received more letters from individuals in support of this issue than all others put together and who piloted the Bill through another place. I hope that I do both the Bill and my honourable friend justice.
I turn now to the detail of the Bill. It applies to England and Wales, to Scotland and to Northern Ireland where the Housing Executive will be the energy conservation authority. Each authority has a duty to prepare a report whose contents are listed in Clause 2 of the Bill. Clause 2(2) provides that the report is to set out energy conservation matters which the authority regards as practicable, cost effective and likely to result in significant improvement in the energy efficiency of the residential stock in its area. Energy conservation measures are defined widely to include advice and information as well as other matters.
Clause 2(3) sets out what the report must include, and Clause 2(4) sets out matters which may be included if the energy conservation authority considers that to be appropriate. Those matters may include assessment of the number of jobs which may result from the implementation of the measures. Many of your Lordships have argued that promoting better energy efficiency will result in the creation of jobs.
The Bill does not provide for an audit of individual buildings. Rather, it provides for a survey of types of housing. I was surprised to learn that there is a limited number of types of housing. Therefore, information about the materials used can readily be made available.
Nor does the Bill set out how the information should be obtained. Your Lordships may be aware that already a number of authorities use imaginative methods to assess energy efficiency in their areas. Those include thermal imaging by means of aerial photography. I suppose that that is the modern technical equivalent of observing snow on roofs. Authorities as far apart as Sutton, Belfast, Nottingham and Westminster—to cover both the geographical and political spectrum—have used that method. I understand that it has attracted a great deal of interest because individuals can look at the photographs and identify their own houses.
Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill set out the duties of the Secretary of State, including the guidance that he is to give. The guidance will deal with targets for savings. Those targets are not set out on the face of the Bill in order to allow for a degree of flexibility.
I believe that there was originally some anxiety that setting targets would be toughest on the authorities which had to date been most energetic and had achieved most in securing energy efficiency savings in their own areas. However, it was not those authorities which
436
protested. They understood how much more there was to do and that the work done to date was confined to their own stock and this Bill applies to all of the housing stock. Therefore, it is for the Secretary of State to give guidance as to what improvements may be regarded as "significant" rather than setting a numerical target. Having received the report from the energy conservation authority the Secretary of State shall, under Clause 3(2), give the authority a timetable for its work and may himself take steps to achieve certain measures.
To quote my honourable friend the Member for Christchurch, this is not a Bill which creates a "thermal thought police". Indeed, Clause 6 firmly limits the powers given to energy conservation authorities.
This is an apparently modest little Bill, but it is of enormous importance because of its place in setting an energy conservation strategy for the nation. It is a short Bill, but your Lordships will be aware that it is always much harder to be succinct than to go on at some length. I commend the Bill to the House for its brevity, but in particular for its quality. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Baroness Hamwee.)
6.18 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords—
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I gave notice that I should like to say a few words in the gap.
I must declare an interest as the immediate past president of the Combined Heat and Power Association.
I welcome the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I interject to reinforce what she said. Although this is a short Bill, it is very important. Energy conservation is the perfect answer to global warming. It is a much better answer than windmills, solar heating, wave power or a barrage across the Severn. The best way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is not to emit it. It is as simple as that. That is what we achieve when we conserve energy.
When I was president of the Combined Heat and Power Association I toured Scandinavia. I was encouraged by the extent of energy conservation there. For example, in Finland loft insulation, double glazing, triple glazing and quintuple glazing (which was the most I came across) reduced energy consumption to a high degree. So economic is heating in Finland that it costs the same to heat air up to room temperature there as it does in southern Italy. However, in this country it costs a lot more. In the United Kingdom we waste energy more than in any other west European country. Therefore any measure which achieves a saving is a measure of excellence. Quite simply, that is why I support the Bill.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I had not meant to pre-empt my noble friend by jumping into the gap in the list of speakers, which, in this instance, seems to come at a rather strange place with regard to the normal modus operandi of your Lordships' House when discussing matters on Second Reading.

437
First, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on picking up her honourable friend's Bill, which went through another place with some speed. There is no doubt that perhaps the major gap in energy conservation matters in this country is that no one has overseen it on a local scale. Over the years, under all governments, local authorities have sometimes done valuable work especially regarding council houses, and especially in the houses of those people on what is now called income support. Nonetheless, there has been no overall consideration on a local basis.
Two points occurred to me when considering the Bill. First, the provisions of the Bill will be a cost to local authorities. I hope that the Minister or the noble Baroness when she winds up will be able to say from where the funds to meet those costs to local authorities will come and whether that cost will be an amount to be included in the standard spending assessments of local authorities in the normal grant format.
Secondly, at the time that the gas and electricity industries were privatised, the Government set up the Energy Savings Trust. It was due to be funded out of some of the profits from the privatised energy utilities. In recent months—it is just over a year—I understand that somewhat of a blight has been put on the funding of that organisation, which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Moore, because the Director-General of Ofgas has been making somewhat deprecatory noises. Indeed, I understand that gas funding has not been going into the trust in the way anticipated. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say something about that when he responds to this very worthy Bill.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I have no hesitation in warmly supporting the Bill in this debate so ably introduced by my noble friend. As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, it was moved with speed by my honourable friend in another place.
It must be admitted that much has been done in recent years to stimulate energy efficiency. However, the Bill fills an important gap. It can be capable of bringing together many existing initiatives, introducing new initiatives and expanding and combining them in a way which could lead to better results.
The Bill applies only to domestic heating. However, that is an essential part of the total energy usage of the country. It represents the most diverse and complex area because of the multiplicity of domestic dwellings. As my noble friend pointed out, at least a quarter of CO2 emissions come from domestic dwellings. Half of final energy is used in buildings of various types in this country. The bulk of those are domestic dwellings. Therefore there is no doubt about the importance of the Bill.
I referred to the various initiatives which have already been taken. Perhaps I may mention in particular a body in which the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and I are much involved, Neighbourhood Energy Action. That organisation has existed for over 10 years. Its prime purpose is to insulate the homes of people on low
438
incomes, in particular the elderly. I am glad to say that well over a million homes have already been insulated in that way and the lifestyle of those people fundamentally altered for the better. Through the funding of the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES), the Government have much increased the available resources for this purpose. I understand that in 1995–96 the rate of improvement in insulation for homes in that category could rise to something like 600,000. As my noble friend pointed out, there are 8 million homes in this country which need such treatment, so there is a long way to go.
There are, of course, all the other homes whose owners could probably afford to introduce effective insulation and other energy efficiency measures but who may not have the incentive or the knowledge to do so. That is where the surveys can be particularly useful. Like my noble friend, I regret that no target is mentioned in the Bill. A target of a 30 per cent. improvement was originally included but after much debate in another place it was eliminated. I am a little surprised, because the Government have introduced targets for many purposes—CO2 reductions, energy efficiency savings in government buildings, recycling of domestic waste, reduction of road accidents and many others. People understand targets; they motivate and stimulate. I would have seen no harm in including a target.
My noble friend pointed out that those local authorities which mainly object to the use of targets are not those which have achieved most. If one talks about a target of 30 per cent., those which had gone some way to achieve it would be able to take that factor into account. However, as I understand it—no doubt the noble Viscount will confirm this—in the guidance which will be given to local authorities a target of that order will be mentioned. That is how I read the sense of the debates in another place.
I hope that the various reports will stimulate home energy rating. The rating of individual homes is what really counts. The Government have standardised the assessment procedure (SAP) for home energy ratings. There were two or three different systems; they are now standardised so that they can be more effectively applied. I am very pleased to learn that the Government intend to include an obligation in new building regulations that all new homes should include a standard energy rating. That will mean that those homes will be built to a much higher energy saving standard than previously.
For the SAP grades, 100 is the maximum. The figure of 70 would represent a very good achievement. I would expect new homes to be of the order of 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. From sample surveys taken in various parts of the country, the average efficiency in existing houses on the SAP basis may be between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. I have had experience of this type of assessment in my own home. I rather pride myself on my knowledge of energy efficiency. I had thought that I had done almost everything. However, as a result of the survey I found that I achieved a further 10 per cent. saving through relatively little expenditure.
While it is very satisfactory that the assessments will be included with regard to new building, new building represents only about 5 per cent. of the total amount of

439
buildings in this country. What is important is that the assessments should be extended to existing buildings. That can best be done as part of the mortgage lending process. Building societies have to make a survey of buildings before they advance a mortgage. I am glad that two building societies—the Nationwide and the Halifax—already include energy rating in their surveys. Since it can involve little extra expense, I hope that as many as possible of the other building societies and financial institutions which lend money for mortgage purposes will be persuaded to move in that direction. Perhaps the noble Viscount can indicate what the Government are doing to persuade them to move towards that.
The labelling of appliances which use energy in the home is important. More and more fridges, cooking and heating appliances and so on are being used. I am glad that the Government have already adopted EC regulations on the energy labelling of fridges and freezers. There is also the labelling of domestic boilers. The whole range of domestic appliances should be labelled. On the Government's own figures, the savings which could arise from that amount to something like 40 per cent. if the right appliances are chosen.
In my opinion, the Bill gives a further major boost to promoting energy efficiency in the home. For five reasons, it is vital that it should get through the House as quickly as it did in another place, if not even more quickly. First, it could help to save lives. My noble friend referred to the problem of fuel poverty. The fact is that in this country the difference in the mortality rate in summer and winter is larger than in any other Western European country. We have a difference in the mortality rate of the order of about 20 per cent., which represents 50,000 people. We are talking of many more people dying in winter than in summer. The average for the Continent is in single figures; in France, for example, it is 6 per cent. In some Scandinavian countries—notably Denmark, where traditionally people attach great importance to home insulation and improvements in heating—there is no difference between the death rate in summer and that in winter. Thus I have no hesitation in saying that the Bill will help to save lives.
Secondly, it will help to save money. Up to one-third of fuel bills could be cut by carrying out the surveys indicated in the Bill and applying the recommendations that the surveys will contain. Thirdly, it will increase comfort in the home. There is no doubt that much of the energy we use goes to waste through gaps in windows and doors, through badly insulated roof spaces and so on. Fourthly, it will reduce CO2 emissions. We have heard about the substantial amount of CO2 emitted from domestic dwellings. Finally, it will stimulate employment in the sector which provides insulation and other improvements in the home. For all those reasons, I hope that the Bill will achieve a speedy and unanimous passage through the House.
6.33 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, we too welcome this straightforward and sensible Bill. Other speakers have already mentioned the many advantages
440
of having a national strategy on energy saving. It would not only bring benefits through savings to individuals and the nation in terms of lower costs in fuel bills; it would also assist to reduce the problem of global warming. It would improve the health of old people and also of children. There is substantial evidence that, particularly in Scotland, allergic reactions to mould in houses cause bronchitis and colds which profoundly affect children in their ability to go to school and become educated and, therefore, ultimately to become useful working members of our society. The Bill also indirectly assists with employment in that one hopes that more houses will be insulated, which will provide jobs.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the Bill is widely supported by local authorities and all the other organisations which are worried about the right to warmth, the right to energy and the right to fuel. The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, mentioned Scandinavia which has a much better record than we do on this front. The extent to which their houses are double or triple glazed provides a shining example of what can be achieved on the energy saving front.
We regret that to some extent the Bill was watered down by a series of compromises elsewhere: "duties" became "powers", "shall" became "may". It was not felt possible to have a specific target, though obviously individual local authorities could set targets for themselves. We hope that guidance from the Minister will encourage local authorities to do so because that often encourages action; plans are much more effective if people set targets for themselves.
We believe that many local authorities are achieving good results on the energy conservation front and encouraging the insulation of homes. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, organisations like the Neighbourhood Energy Action group, with which we are both involved, have done a good deal to insulate homes in our country. Nevertheless, there is a patchiness about the provisions. The Bill should serve to provide a comprehensive national strategy, with much better co-ordination, and the opportunity for individual local authorities to learn best practice from each other. It will therefore help to drag those local authorities which lag behind up to the standards of the best local authorities. In that way, many more households will be able to conserve energy and afford adequate heat to keep themselves warm. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, fewer old people will die in our winters. We shall have a healthier, better warmed nation which contributes less to global warming and which conserves energy, therefore achieving savings in the budgets both of individuals and of the nation as a whole. We welcome the Bill.
6.36 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on introducing the Bill and on setting out its provisions so clearly. I welcome the opportunity the debate offers to restate the Government's commitment to energy efficiency and to outline the Government's views on the Bill, which I hope will have a smooth passage to the statute book.

441
The environmental importance of energy efficiency has been highlighted recently by the First Conference of Parties to the UN Climate Change Convention in Berlin. The Government are confident of meeting, and indeed exceeding, the UK's existing commitments up to the year 2000 under the convention. The UK Climate Change Programme was the first national programme to be submitted under the convention. The Berlin conference adopted a mandate for negotiation by 1997 of further commitments for the period beyond the year 2000 to combat the threat of global warming. The UK is calling for all developed countries to agree to aim to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions to a figure between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. below 1990 levels by the year 2010. Achieving reductions in total greenhouse gas emissions represents a challenge when set against projections of likely economic growth. However, the prompt and successful implementation of the UK's existing commitments and the continuing effects of measures already taken put the UK in a strong position to start to work towards achieving such an objective.
What I have said concurs with everything that noble Lords have already said, in that the UK is well placed and is seized of the effectiveness of energy efficiency. Talk of climate change may seem to be on a rather different level from the Bill before your Lordships, which is concerned with the energy efficiency of homes. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, advised the House, over 25 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions are attributable to energy used in the home. Therefore, it is a sector which cannot be ignored in considering the environmental impact of energy use. It is also one where the individual can make a direct contribution. Every one of your Lordships is in a position to influence the amount of energy used in his or her home, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, indicated in his speech. But of course the benefits of reduced consumption are not only environmental. It also brings about lower fuel bills or increased comfort levels, with fuel providing useful heat rather than being wasted because of inadequate insulation or draught-proofing.
The Bill's definition of energy efficiency measures is rightly a broad one, covering information, advice, education and promotion, as well as making grants and loans and carrying out works. In fact the main challenge in seeking to improve energy efficiency in the home is in changing behaviour and, where appropriate, purchasing habits. It is important to improve awareness among individual householders of how they can reduce their fuel bills and be more energy efficient.
There is a role for central government in increasing awareness of the opportunities for increasing energy efficiency in the home. The current Wasting Energy Costs the Earth initiative is part of that awareness programme. Some of your Lordships may have seen the television and press advertisements featuring a family of dinosaurs or the associated promotions of energy-saving materials in shops. The campaign is intended to educate householders about the link between cost-effective energy use and the threat of climate change. It is also intended to bring about changes in behaviour, drawing
442
attention to simple no-cost or low-cost measures such as draught-proofing, loft insulation, low-energy light bulbs and others. With such measures, an average household can save about £100 on fuel bills.
Of course there are some, particularly the elderly, who may need financial or practical help or both with energy efficiency measures. The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme provides grants for basic energy efficiency measures for householders over 60 and those receiving certain benefits. The HEES budget received a 45 per cent. increase, to more than £100 million, this financial year.
There are many other schemes and projects being run and managed by the Department of the Environment's Energy Efficiency Office designed to improve energy efficiency in homes. For example, it is working closely with mortgage lenders to encourage them to incorporate energy ratings into their survey reports and to offer green loans or other financial services to help home owners take measures to improve energy efficiency. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, indicated that from his knowledge the Nationwide and the Halifax building societies had already undertaken this. My honourable friend has had a meeting with mortgage lenders to pursue this very appropriate avenue of approach.
Progress is also being made with introducing energy labelling for domestic appliances so that consumers can make an informed choice between available models. Again that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I may tell the House that the first energy labelling directive came into force in the United Kingdom on the 1st January. This requires large energy information labels to be fixed to all domestic freezers and refrigerators displayed for sale. Directives covering similar labels for washing machines and tumble-dryers are to come into force in the United Kingdom by 1st March 1996. More products are to follow. The European Commission has recently proposed a directive on minimum energy efficiency levels for refrigerators and freezers with a view to removing the most inefficient products from the market. I believe that we are taking the right steps in the right direction.
The Bill, however, concentrates on the important role which local authorities can play in encouraging energy efficiency in homes. They are ideally placed to identify what needs to be done in their own communities and to know what local networks are available for getting messages and advice across to people. There will be scope for involving schools, businesses, libraries, local newspapers and no doubt many other organisations. Housing authorities are of course also directly responsible for their own housing stock, and the Government will continue to look specifically at energy efficiency measures in the context of housing investment programmes. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, called that a national strategy and I would not disagree with the words that she used.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has already said, the Bill will focus local authorities' attention on measures which would produce significant improvements in energy efficiency for housing in their areas and require them to draw up reports on those measures and send them to the Secretary of State. The

443
Government believe that this will lead to the production of cost-effective assessments of where energy may be being used inefficiently and help to bring about real savings and affordable warmth for all households. The Secretary of State will be able to provide appropriate guidance to local authorities and to set timetables for them to report on progress. He himself will also be required to report to Parliament on what local authorities have done and on certain steps he has taken.
There was considerable discussion in another place about whether the Bill should include specific targets for local authorities. Of course there is no point in a measure which will not achieve anything at the end of the day, and setting targets is an excellent way of concentrating effort: I would not for one moment dispute that. The Government are certainly anxious that local authorities' plans should, in the words of the Bill, identify measures which will lead to significant savings.
However, the Government's view, which was accepted in another place, was that it was best to leave specific targets to the guidance to be produced under Clause 4 of the Bill. I repeat to your Lordships, and specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, the assurance from the Government that was given in another place: we shall be looking for savings of the order of 30 per cent. overall, and the guidance will make this clear. A target on the face of the Bill would be inflexible and make no distinction between those authorities which have already taken an active approach to energy efficiency and those which have not. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, questioned that, but I believe that that is indeed one of the problems. The department will be talking to local authority associations and others about guidance over the coming weeks and months.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, talked about the energy rating of homes. As he indicated, the standard assessment procedure for the energy rating of homes is now a fairly scientific process which has been developed recently. This, as he indicated, can measure the energy efficiency of a dwelling on the scale of one to 100. The SAP, as it is called, has already been incorporated into the building regulations, as the noble Lord indicated, and from this summer all new dwellings will be required to have a SAP. The SAP also provides a ready-made method of measuring the improvement in the energy efficiency of dwellings and it is very likely that some of the targets we shall set local authorities under this Bill will be based on SAPs.
My noble friend Lord Mersey, agreeing with the Government on the requirement for energy efficiency and what could be done with combined heat and power, will understand that the Government fully recognise the energy efficiency and the environmental benefits of combined heat and power. I am sure that, as a past president of the Combined Heat and Power Association, he will understand that, through the Department of the Environment's Energy Efficiency Office, we shall continue to promote and encourage its use in all cost-effective areas. CHP has become an integral part of the department's strategy for the 1990s and beyond. As part of the Climate Change Programme, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the
444
Environment has set a CHP target of 5,000 megawatts installed capacity by the year 2000. I am glad to report that very good progress is being made on the take-up of CHP: over 1,100 megawatts of new capacity has been contracted for since electricity privatisation.
Your Lordships would not expect the Government to be indifferent to the financial and other burdens which the Bill may create for local authorities and, indeed, for the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as a local councillor, will no doubt have that particularly in mind. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale also indicated that it would not come without cost.
I am glad that consideration of the Bill in another place resulted in something which in the Government's view will be more workable and less bureaucratic than the version originally introduced. It complements and rests on authorities' existing powers. It is certainly not the intention that there should be intrusive and costly powers or duties requiring authorities to carry out extensive surveys or to force householders to carry out work. However, the Government have made clear that the new burdens procedure will apply and that there will be a suitable transfer of resources to local authorities.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale also asked about the progress of the Energy Saving Trust. Two recent developments have affected the trust. It has become clear that the steep increase in funds from the gas and electricity customers will not materialise. The Government have announced that they are confident in meeting their commitment under the climate change convention and that they now expect to exceed it. The trust is revising its plans in the light of those changes and attempting to develop its role as an effective catalyst for change. It intends to develop new and innovative ideas which will promote the efficient use of energy at a time of increasing competition in the gas and electricity industries. The Government have taken powers under the Environmental Protection Act which will enable them to contribute to the trust's running costs.
The Bill before us has widespread support, not only from noble Lords who have spoken today but also from individual householders throughout the country, energy efficiency organisations, pressure groups for the elderly and others for whom affordable warmth is of particular concern and, most importantly, the local authority associations and many individual authorities. The Government's approach in another place was widely acknowledged to be constructive, and that will remain the case as the Bill proceeds through your Lordships' House, against the background that any new duties placed on local authorities should be the minimum necessary to achieve the Bill's aims and ensure that it provides a tool to help central and local government in directing effort and resources where they are most effective. The Government welcome this Bill, and I wish it well.
6.52 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The congratulations offered are not due to me but to my honourable friend. I merely have the privilege and

445
indeed the pleasure of taking up the Bill on its passage through this House. I thank the Minister particularly because the fair wind offered by the Government is most important.
I shall not take up the time of the House in answering in detail the points made. I shall merely say that the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, in regard to the sharing of best practice is an important one. It is part of a continuing exercise. I welcome the Government's assurance in relation to the targets—or whatever term one uses—to be contained in the guidance. If one reads Clause 4 carefully, one sees that it is very much a code for there being targets, but there may he different targets rather than one unyielding target to be applied inflexibly across all authorities.
I was interested in the point made by my noble friend Lord Ezra regarding building society assessments. What is important is that the assessment of energy efficiency becomes a matter of routine and in that way efficiency savings will be made. The noble Viscount said that climate change may be an odd topic to refer to in this context. That is not at all the case. It is precisely the right topic and this Bill, above all, is a good example of thinking globally, acting locally and acting individually. I ask this House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Bill
6.55 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Bill of extreme importance that was taken through another place by Mr. David Jamieson, the honourable Member for Plymouth, Devonport. It is important because it refers to safety measures for the younger end of the spectrum, covering people up to age of 17. Moving the Second Reading in another place, Mr. Jamieson said,
"It is a rare honour that the House bestows on a Back-Bench Member to have the pleasure and privilege of introducing a Private Member's Bill. It offers me a special opportunity to present a Bill on behalf of my constituents, which is relevant to parents throughout the country".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/95; col. 590.]
Members who have stayed behind this evening and those who wish to take part in the debate will be aware of the appalling tragedy in the Lyme Bay area when four teenagers from the Southway School died on a canoeing exercise. Unfortunately, it was no accident. They died due to the criminal neglect of the people whom they and their parents thought were responsible for them; that is, the people who were running the St. Alban's activity centre.
The managing director of the centre is now serving three years for manslaughter. While one may say that it is a punishment which is well deserved, it gives no comfort or succour to the people who lost those children in such terrible circumstances. I am blessed with two grandsons who are now reaching the age when they are
446
beginning to feel their way in life and are eager to take part in those sorts of outdoor activities. I know what a blow it would be to me, to my wife and to the parents if something happened to them because somebody was not performing properly. The Bill is an attempt to plug the hole in that type of situation.
Parents, governors of schools, national and local education authorities, teachers' unions, organisations involved in running activity centres, townswomen's guilds and many others have called for action because the strongest instinct of any parent is to protect their child from danger. That is the history behind the Bill.
As it stands the Bill has the fullest support of the Government. I express my thanks and those of other people involved to the Government for the speed with which they have acted, allowing the Bill to make such rapid progress. They are to be commended for that. Those like myself and the mover of the Bill in another place are extremely grateful.
The Bill seeks to protect people under 18 years of age. After that time they are adults and can make their own judgments about what they do. The measure will bring into being specific regulations which will do away with self-regulation. The regulations will be made by Government Ministers. The Bill has cross-party support and is backed also by the Government, by educational organisations, by sports groups such as the Central Council for Physical Recreation, by local authorities—I received communications from some today—and by the ACC, the ADC and the AMA. They all want to see the Bill progress as quickly as possible. There is a need for urgency. I hope that your Lordships' House can proceed in a manner which will put the Bill on the statute book by the time we rise for the Summer Recess.
I express my appreciation to the Department for Education for a document it sent me explaining the Bill in detail. I shall not go through it this evening because it is rather long. But should any noble Lord wish to examine it in order to discuss it at a later stage I shall be happy to make it available.
The Bill contains four main elements. First, it sets up a licensing authority which will oversee the accreditation and licensing of activity centres. In particular, centres will have to agree to follow a code of safety practice which will include the suitability of equipment and the qualifications and experience of instructors. The code of practice currently being finalised by the Activity Centres Advisory Committee will, I am sure, form an excellent basis for that.
Secondly, the Bill establishes an inspectorate to ensure that centres abide by the code of practice. When the inspectorate encounters activities that are causing immediate danger to children it will have powers to stop that activity immediately. If it encounters sloppy or potentially hazardous activities and practice, it will be able to issue notices of improvement to give centres a period of time to improve standards. It is my hope that such powers, over time, would lift the standard of centres that were not operating to proper and desirable safety levels and bring about higher safety standards as quickly as possible.

447
The ultimate sanction on a recalcitrant centre that continued to ignore high standards of safety and put children at risk would be the removal of its licence after which it would be an offence for the centre to continue trading. If it did, the result could be a heavy fine or imprisonment.
Thirdly, the Bill sets up a complaints procedure for consumers or others who have reservations about the safety of activities at a particular centre. Such complaints could be quickly followed up by competent independent inspectors. If that procedure had been in place in 1992, Joy Cawthorne, the former instructor at the St. Alban's centre, who warned the managing director that unless his safety standards improved he would have to explain one day to parents why their child was not coming home, would have had somewhere to take her complaints.
Fourthly, following some government pump-priming funds, the scheme should be largely self-financing with centres paying for their accreditation. That is similar to car owners paying for their MOT certificates.
The Bill is enabling legislation which sets out the framework for safety in outdoor centres. If it becomes law, following a period of consultation with the industry and other legitimate interests, statutory instruments will have to be laid before the House for the detailed legislation. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that if the Bill becomes law he will act without delay to ensure that the secondary legislation is introduced. I hope that that can be completed quickly to allow the legislation to take effect early in 1996. I ask the Minister to make it plain —I think that he has already indicated it in conversations —that the Government will expedite the business as quickly as they can.
I do not want to say more. I think I have explained what the Bill is about. It is about ensuring as far as one possibly can that youngsters up to the age of 18 do not go on outward bound courses, whether at sea or on shore, where they are at risk because someone who is in charge of them is not qualified and cannot look after their interests to the maximum. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Dean of Beswick.)
7.3 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I shall not delay the House very long for the simple reason that there is not very much to say other than that this is a very good Bill. It is a pity that Parliament once again finds itself being reactive but I am afraid that that may be the nature of some of our jobs here. Unless we have a fault pointed out to us in the first place, we cannot correct it. As the noble Lord, Lord Dean, mentioned, one tragedy would almost certainly have been avoided if what is suggested in the Bill had been in force at the time.
It is odd that the Bill applies only to those who are under the age of 18, although those who are minors should undoubtedly be first to receive the protection of the law. It is to be hoped that older people in outdoor activity centres will receive some knock-on effects, for
448
one would have thought that someone who discovers rock climbing at the age of 40 would need just as much support from the law and from regulation as someone who is aged only 16. Indeed, knowing how reflexes slow down, one would have thought that they might need more. We desperately need such a Bill.
I shall draw my remarks to a close for the simple reason that my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie is an expert in this field and knows far more about the practicalities of this subject. In those circumstances, I shall sit down and allow him to enlighten the rest of us.
7.5 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Addington, I rise to support the Bill. I thank my noble friend for his extremely kind words and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, on introducing the Bill. It seeks to ensure that adequate minimum standards are maintained by the operators of activity centres when offering adventurous recreation and training to young people under the age of 18.
I should declare my interest. I am an active canoeist and hill walker. I hold qualifications as a joint services mountain expedition leader and as a British Canoeing Union instructor for the open canoe. I am a member of the Scottish Canoeists Association and have built 15 open canoes. I lead an outdoor group in Clackmannan and offer canoeing instruction on a voluntary basis. I am therefore very interested in the proposals in the Bill, as I am certain that all my fellow outdoor pursuits instructors will be thankful that they will be able to avoid being browbeaten by their managements into instructing in subjects that they know they do not have sufficient experience or qualifications to teach.
The national centres of excellence, such as Plas-y-Brenin and Glenmore Lodge, recruit only very experienced instructors with substantial formal qualifications, employing them as instructional officers grade one. These are people who can offer senior instructor qualifications in at least four disciplines. However, there is no requirement at present for the various organisations which offer outdoor activities to maintain this high standard, because, of course, they are required to run as businesses and to make decisions orientated towards the marketplace rather than towards excellence. I accept that that is probably a little unfair, as many outdoor organisations have the aim of introducing people to activities and getting them started rather than pursuing their activity to the utmost degree.
In the world of outdoor activity in general and canoe instruction in particular there are generally three types of organisation involved. First, there are activity holiday companies, which offer one-off introductory sessions—a different one each day. Secondly, there are education authority centres, which generally offer instruction within the context of a personal development course. Thirdly, there are the outdoor activity centres, which offer specific training in the techniques and philosophy of the chosen activity. Those centres have a skills-based approach.

449
The prospect of a requirement for more experienced and qualified instructors poses not too much threat to those already in the industry. For existing instructional staff, the prospect is that there will be a greater emphasis by managers on career development for their staff. There is no pool of higher qualified instructors currently unemployed waiting to move into jobs which are currently filled by less qualified staff.
I should like to raise one or two questions about the operation of the Bill as an Act. I hope that the Minister will be able to help me with them. First, will the Secretary of State be required to consult the governing bodies of each outdoor activity? Clause 3(3) seems to imply that he or she will, but Clause 3(4) implies that such advice may he overridden or dispensed with.
Secondly, can the Minister clarify exactly which Secretary of State we are talking about? For example, will it be the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Welsh Secretary of State or which one will it be? Thirdly, following along that vein, I wonder why this sensible legislation is seen as inappropriate for Northern Ireland, which is an area with exceptional opportunities for outdoor activities. Fourthly, like my noble friend, I ask whether there is any prospect of this legislation being extended to cover all activity centres. Why should slapdash management be allowed when only adults or those over 18 years of age are to attend? Might that not mean that companies may switch away from the under-I8 market, denying them the chance to adopt activities that may become a distinct part of their whole lifestyle?
I can see that adults should be better able to discern the inadequacies of the instructional arrangements they may find, but halfway up a rockface is hardly the place to discover that the instructor has little experience and is under-qualified. In any case, adult trainees are attending because they do not know and want to know more. Similarly, there may be adults attending who have been sent by a third party to attend as part of a wider programme.
I conclude by saying that these outdoor activities are safe and reasonable activities to be introduced to young people of all ages. There have been tragic but very rare incidents involving new entrants to outdoor activities; namely, the Cairngorm and Lyme Bay tragedies. Most fatalities in outdoor activities occur to experienced participants.
In any outdoor activity the management has to take into account the weather and to plan flexibly around it, sometimes disappointing trainees. For example, my solo canoe trip journey down the Beauly Firth last Thursday was wholly appropriate on Thursday, but it would have been ludicrous on Friday. Your Lordships might not have needed to hear me had I tried to undertake that journey on Friday. Anticipation of difficult weather conditions and the ability to understand the practical consequences of weather forecasts is vital. Programmes must be advertised as flexible and staff trained to offer many activities to meet that flexibility. The increased use of radios and portable telephones readily recommends itself. I hope that the regulations will make the provision of voice communication mandatory.
450
My final point is that I hope that an anomalous situation will not arise about the use of a centre's facilities by a top athlete who is aged under 18 years. Those with their own personal training programme often make use of the facilities of their local centre to undertake training far in advance of the centre's usual programme. I hope that there is no intention to prevent that from continuing. I commend the Bill to the House.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene very briefly from the Labour Front Bench, to congratulate my noble friend Lord Dean upon so comprehensively bringing to this House a Bill which was introduced in the other place by his parliamentary colleague, David Jamieson. Having read Hansard and having terrible memories of the events which caused this Bill, one can appreciate that there can be no one in either House who wishes to delay the passage of this Bill. I am certainly looking forward to hearing the Minister giving the assurances which my noble friend Lord Dean requested for the record.
The House is indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who, out of the blue as it were, turns out to be someone who is perhaps better informed than any of us on the nature of this Bill and the need for it. It is an interesting feature of this House that one never knows who will bring his or her experience to bear. Certainly, my noble friend Lord Dean has demonstrated the width and breadth of support for legislation of this kind.
When I knew that David Jamieson had had the good fortune to conceive and produce this Bill because of his association, my memories went back to Devon. It is more than 50 years ago that I came across a place called Slapton Sands. Royal Marine commandos were trained there during the war and I was one of them. Terrible tragedies occurred there. There was the incident of German E-boats turning up in the middle of the night and shooting down many brave American soldiers who were training. Those were virtually man-made tragedies, but this particular tragedy could and should have been avoided. This Bill is going to provide a mechanism whereby such tragedies should be avoided in future.
My memory also went back to a number of other things arising out of the pressure on teachers and the teaching profession, including governors and head teachers. There is a range of things which they now do which they never did before. My mind brings up the issue of mini-buses. Legislation is required as a result of the genuine desire of the teaching profession to be helpful to youngsters so that they can lead a better life and take part in wider activities. What we have is born out of tragedy, and perhaps we can do things better in future.
I also like to believe that what we are doing will bring a little solace to the parents of the youngsters who were the victims of this dereliction. Nothing can bring back their loved ones. But I believe that they will feel a little easier in their minds that something is being done. I refer not only to the parents and the friends of those who lost their lives, but also to the rising generation

451
and the teaching profession. We in Parliament, given the opportunity, must not hesitate to seize it. I very much hope that the Minister will say the right words.
I very much hope too that this Bill does not fall foul and become the victim of what I call "parliamentary skulduggery" in the other place. I do not believe that there will be any intention to sabotage the Bill, but there are Members of this House who are as experienced as I in the ways of the other place. Very often such matters may get into a queue. Because people have their own imperatives this legislation could fall victim to parliamentary skulduggery without the aims of the Bill being necessarily thwarted or upset. I greatly look forward to the Minister saying the kind words which should be helpful. In this House it is good to have an opportunity to say that here is a piece of legislation about which there is no animus, and to which all of us, including the Minister and the department, are willing to give a very fair wind. We on these Benches certainly wish the Bill well.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I too congratulate Mr. David Jamieson on bringing forward this Bill. Fortune, it seems, favours the persistent. It is a great tribute to Mr. Jamieson that we are here today to debate this important matter. Many in another place have made glowing reference to his sterling and unstinting efforts over the past two years to raise the profile of safety in outdoor centres. It is with the greatest pleasure that we add to these tributes. He has succeeded in persuading us all of the merits of the case for change. Party politics have been set to one side and that is as it should be where children's safety is concerned. We are delighted too to see the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, presenting this Bill. His wide knowledge of the subject is well known and he has given the House a clear understanding of the Bill and the intentions that underlie it.
Perhaps I may set things out as we on the Government Benches see them. This Bill seeks to provide for the regulation of centres and of the providers of facilities where those under the age of 18 engage in what the Bill describes as "adventure activities". Two years ago in Lyme Bay four youngsters—Claire Langley, Rachel Walker, Simon Dunne and Dean Sayer—needlessly lost their lives. I have found it as heart-rending to listen to noble Lords today as it was to read the press coverage after the accident and during the trial. We all mourn the loss of those young lives. Our hearts go out to their families, who have borne this loss with such impressive dignity.
The Bill envisages the Government bringing forward detailed provisions under regulations. We agree that that is the best approach. Much of the detail can be settled only after an extensive consultation. As part of that process, it is envisaged that the Health and Safety Commission will be conducting consultations of its own and will bring forward proposed health and safety regulations for the Secretary of State's consideration. It is important that the new arrangements fit properly with what already exists.
452
Perhaps I can give some comfort to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. We shall be consulting extremely widely should the Bill come into law. However, I cannot tell him at this stage which Secretary of State will be involved. That will depend very much on the nature of the consultation. As far as the Bill is concerned, the Secretary of State must remain anonymous.
Turning to Northern Ireland, the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which the Bill serves essentially to reproduce, does not apply to Northern Ireland. Technically, therefore, the Bill could not be applied there. The Northern Ireland Office is, however, looking carefully at the provisions of the Bill to decide how it might be emulated there—quite possibly through Orders in Council.
On the points about extending the Bill to all activity centres and to people over the age of 18, perhaps I may say that such activities are already within the scope of the health and safety legislation. We do not envisage using the Bill to extend that legislation, but perhaps the success of the measures introduced under the Bill might in the future lead to their emulation.
The Bill stipulates that there may be conditions in licences relating to inspections. We think that that, too, would be absolutely the right way of proceeding. A centre offering an activity covered by the regulations would not be able to operate without a licence, and one of the conditions of the licence would be that the centre would be subject to inspection.
Inspectors would need to look at a variety of things, but we believe that it is important that they adopt the lightest touch consistent with satisfying themselves as to the safe conduct of activities in the centre. Most importantly, inspectors would need to look at the competence of those with responsibility for young people, and at their training and qualifications. If the two leaders involved at Lyme Bay had been appropriately qualified those fateful events might not have happened—indeed, they probably would not have happened.
We also consider it important that inspectors should look at management issues. For instance, centres should have sensible safety policies and should conduct assessments of risk. But we would not intend that inspectors should interfere in matters that relate, for example, to comfort or welfare.
Should this Bill reach the statute book, the Government would wish to consider very carefully and precisely, and to consult fully on, which outdoor activities should be governed by the regulations. At this stage, it seems to us that there are certain activities which probably should fall within the scope of the statutory registration scheme. Mountaineering, canoeing, some small boat sailing, wind-surfing, mountain-biking, caving and rafting spring to mind. A case can no doubt be made for others.
It also seems to us that (subject to consultation) it would be appropriate to exclude from the regulations single sports private clubs offering facilities for their members, like football or rugby clubs and the local yacht club. We would not—I want to make this absolutely clear—be seeking to require licences for low-risk activities, or those which just take place from

453
time to time on a voluntary basis. Perhaps I should add in response to the last concern expressed by the noble Earl that his point about top athletes training at centres has been registered and will be taken into account in our deliberations.
I should also make clear how we see the respective roles of inspectors from the licensing authority, from the Health and Safety Executive, and from local authorities. We must be sure to avoid duplication of effort, but at the same time ensure that each is clear about their duties so that nothing slips through the net.
Health and Safety Executive and local authority inspectors will continue to have their powers of inspection under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act, and will still have the power to issue improvement and prohibition notices, and to take prosecutions wherever they consider this necessary in the interests of health and safety. They will also have powers to investigate accidents and incidents, and to follow up complaints. This Bill will enhance those provisions.
The new licensing authority inspectors would be inspecting adventure activity centres and providers solely in the context of duties specified in the Bill. If the licensing authority inspectors discovered dangerous practices they would have the power to place restrictions upon the provider's licence, or indeed to revoke the licence altogether. Should enforcement through the courts be necessary, the licensing authority would notify the Health and Safety Executive or the local authority immediately of the need for enforcement, and they would carry that forward.
We do not see any need for a vast bureaucracy resulting from this Bill. It is difficult to say in advance of consultation precisely what would be required. But we envisage an operation of no more than, say, a dozen to 20 full-time equivalent inspectors.
The Activity Centres Advisory Committee, in the work that it has done towards a voluntary scheme, has estimated that some modest pump-priming government money would be needed over the first two years or so. We agree that this is likely. It is intended that thereafter the scheme should become self-financing. Fees to providers should be modest and a sliding scale of fees could be introduced to lighten the burden on small-scale operators.
Safety cannot be guaranteed by statutes and regulations. Outdoor adventure is a most excellent experience, but it will always be a risky one. The risks are all the greater because young people are, by definition, inexperienced.
But it has struck me from today's debate that the very act of, and success in, coping with danger is likely to give children a higher regard for safety. For that reason, it is educationally desirable that tutors should set challenges which entail some uncertainty, But that must be within reason and within an environment that is controlled enough for potential disasters to be averted. That is what this Bill will help to do.
We are content with the Bill in principle; we are content with it in detail; and we wish it a swift and easy passage through this House.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I should like to express my appreciation to the Members of your Lordships' House who have participated in this debate, which has been extremely interesting. I do not have much to say in reply.
I should like to thank both speakers from the Liberal Benches for their contributions. I thank particularly the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for his detailed questioning. He is obviously pretty much an expert on this subject. I say "pretty much" because it is a question of how one evaluates things. However, I believe that when the Government consult people in an advisory capacity, it is people like the noble Earl who should be consulted and who should have some input. That would be of immense benefit to everybody.
I was glad that the Minister took the trouble to reply to the question about people over the age of 18. He said that their position was covered by other legislation. When one is dealing with an organised activity involving people both below and above the age of 18, legislative problems can arise. Nevertheless, I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister for his detailed answer to the points that have been raised.
I hope that the Bill will proceed as rapidly as possible. I know that that is the wish not only of the sponsors, but of the Government who want to look after the youngsters and to prevent a recurrence of the appalling tragedy that took place in Lyme Bay. The sooner that such events become history, the better for everybody. I hope that your Lordships' House will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Building Societies (Switched Accounts) Bill [H.L.]
7.29 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
At the outset perhaps I may declare an interest in that I have a small sum of money in one of the Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society accounts, although I am bound to say that, if the Bill goes through, at best it could not make any difference to my assets and at worst I might be worse off if the amount of money available for distribution has therefore to be spread more thinly. Although I appreciate my noble friends' laughter, they have not scored a hit.
Earlier today the House gave a Third Reading to the Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill. I greatly welcomed that decision. I had previously introduced a Bill which I withdrew in favour of the Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill. Both Bills sought to deal with the position of widows as second named joint account holders after the death of the first named joint account holder.

455
I am not an expert on building societies, although judging by some of the letters that I have received from all over the country, it seems that people expect us here to be experts. I am doing my best to respond to the many questions which have been put to me. Some of the letters I received at the time of the original Bill drew attention to many other problems. Had it been possible or advisable to amend the Bill to which the House gave a Third Reading earlier today, that might have been one approach. But it was neither possible nor advisable because, had we made that Bill more complicated, it might not have gone through the other House quickly, which is clearly everyone's hope, and it might not have been possible to amend the Bill because of its Long Title. So I now introduce a Bill which deals with one of the other problems which many people have raised and with which the earlier Bill, as I said, could not deal.
Perhaps I may first mention briefly a number of the other injustices which I feel remain. In dealing with the Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill, the Minister referred to some of the other injustices, as did my noble friend Lord Eatwell. It is difficult to reach the end of the line on this. Additional problems arise. The whole matter is complicated. They are worth mentioning because the Government have made a commitment to look again at the whole issue of building societies.
There are situations which were not mentioned when we debated building societies earlier. I shall give just three. One relates to where there was a joint account and where, for tax reasons, the name of one of the joint account holders was withdrawn. That left the second named joint account holder. What happened was that the building society closed the first account and opened a new one, and so, as I understand it, that person is now ineligible to benefit from the distribution of the bonus. That is unfortunate and tough.
There is another example where a wife has an account to which the husband later adds his name so that the account becomes a joint account. As a wife said in a letter to me, by convention building societies put the husband's name first. In such a situation there appears to be no entitlement to bonus.
The third example is of where an individual, wanting to set up a trust for his daughter, became a trustee and was accordingly made the first named of a joint account with his daughter. He then withdrew as a trustee, presumably because his daughter was no longer of an age when such a trust was necessary. That happened just before the qualifying period and so the entitlement was lost. I have given three examples, but I am sure that there are many others. They are signs of continuing unfairness from which people have suffered and which represent a real injustice.
The Bill is not concerned with such situations but I wanted to get them on the record so that we all know that there are many other difficulties which must be dealt with by the Government, as there is a limit to what Private Members' Bills can achieve.
The Bill deals with one specific and narrow situation. It is where an individual has switched from one type of account to another within the qualifying period. Typically in the case of the Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society, that happened where an individual had
456
a London share account and switched to a deposit account. That happened to a number of people, because the Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society advised people who had money in the London share account that they would be better off if they switched to a deposit account.
It is good that building societies give such advice, because there have been many complaints over the years that when interest rates are varied, people who had money in one type of account were not given that advice by building societies. It would take a suspicious mind to say that there was any relationship between that advice and the subsequent announcement of the takeover of the Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society by Lloyds Bank. It would take a suspicious mind, but the point has been put to me more than once. I do not wish to comment upon it.
The matter then went to the High Court. Perhaps I may summarise the decision, and not being a lawyer I hope that I have it right. The High Court decision was that, if someone within the qualifying two-year period had switched from one type of share account to another, that person's entitlement to a bonus was maintained. If during the two-year qualifying period someone had switched from one type of deposit account to another, that person was all right; but if within the qualifying period someone had switched from a share account to a deposit account, he was no longer entitled to a bonus.
I think that I understand the legal basis for that High Court decision, although at one level it does not seem logical. It is an extremely unfair decision because people did what they were advised to do and they are losing out for reasons which are totally obscure to all the people who have written to me and, I am sure, to many others. That point came up earlier, and perhaps I may quote what the Minister said on 15th March:
"I can tell both noble Lords that, as part of his wider review of the 1986 Act, my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Treasury has now proposed that in future all retail investors in building societies should be shareholding members. Legislation to bring this change about will be introduced as soon as an opportunity arises. Obviously, I can go no further than that. As regards other short Bills that may be introduced by noble Lords or Members of another place, I can say only that I am sure that my right honourable and honourable friends in Her Majesty's Treasury will give them the appropriate consideration.—[Official Report, 15/3/95; col. 920.]
It is that appropriate consideration which I hope has happened. I hope that the Government can give the Bill as much positive encouragement and help as they gave the earlier Bill. I am aware that the powers given to a building society to distribute bonuses under this Bill and the earlier Bill are permissive and not mandatory. I have no knowledge of whether the Cheltenham and Gloucester/Lloyds set-up would make such payments, which they would have the power to make were the Bill to go rapidly through both Houses. I hope that they will seriously consider responding to the legislation if it becomes law by 1st August.
By all accounts, the present position is illogical and unfair. It is bad for the reputation of building societies as a whole that that situation should pertain. It is of even greater importance that the rights of individuals should

457
not be prejudiced and that they should be given the bonuses to which, in justice and fairness, they are entitled. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—
(Lord Dubs.)
7.39 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubs for introducing his Private Member's Bill so clearly and pointing out yet another of the significant anomalies which are appearing in building societies' legislation and which were revealed in our discussions on the Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill which was passed earlier today to general approval.
The case which my noble friend has put forward is one which we discussed earlier today. It is an obvious case of an anomaly which will lead to inequities in the distribution of bonuses on the sale or merger of building societies. It is understandable that such anomalies are emerging; the existing legislation was not designed for the situation in which we find ourselves. Enormous changes are taking place in the building societies industry which are throwing up problems that would never have been expected when the original legislation was drafted. For that reason there is a need for fundamental review and we all await the Government's forthcoming review with interest.
In the meantime, I suggest that there is a degree of urgency in dealing with some of the inequities which are becoming evident. There is a degree of urgency, first, because we have a responsibility to minimise the inequities and obvious unfairnesses which were unwittingly contained in earlier legislation that was not designed for the current circumstances.
I suggest that there is a second reason for urgency and a reason why this anomaly, which is so clearly identified and dealt with, should not be left for the later review. It is that the Government have a degree of responsibility for the inequities because the changes in the building societies industry, which are revealing them, have been encouraged by the Government. The Government are in favour of the changes in the structure of the financial services industry, and, given that they are encouraging those changes, they are responsible for those inequities and unfairnesses. However, they are, of course, unwittingly responsible because when the legislation was drafted they could not have known that such problems would arise.
I therefore suggest that we have before us a short Bill which needs a little technical redrafting but which essentially achieves a limited goal and achieves it well. It is a Bill which deserves government support.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by declaring that I too have no personal interest to declare. However, I give that purely as a personal interest and cannot speak for my family.
458
I acknowledge the noble Lord's keen interest in the provisions of the Building Societies Act relating to conversions and takeovers. We were most grateful to the noble Lord for his support for the Bill that was introduced in another place by my honourable friend Douglas French to allow those inheriting joint accounts to benefit from a distribution provided that they have been shareholding members of the society for at least two years. That Bill has passed through all its stages in this House and was returned to another place only a few hours ago. I believe that all noble Lords present will wish it well.
Perhaps I may make one or two brief points about a number of other alleged injustices to which the noble Lord referred. As he admitted, many of them go way beyond the provisions of his Bill. He accepted that to some extent some of them were dealt with in the announcements by my honourable friends in the Treasury made late last summer and in February. I prefer to write to the noble Lord in greater detail but I believe that two of them were dealt with by the earlier Bill relating to joint account holders. I understand the point that the noble Lord made about splitting for tax purposes and the fact that the wife's open account should be dealt with by that Bill. However, I prefer to write to the noble Lord in greater detail on that point and it would be better if I did so.
We are less enthusiastic about the proposals which the noble Lord has introduced in relation to those who have switched money from share to deposit accounts. The measure, unlike the other Bill, will have no practical effect on either of the takeover or conversion proposals currently in the public domain. It might be worth commenting on the two particular takeovers. The members of the Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society have already voted to accept the offer from Lloyds Bank. Those who switched funds between share and deposit accounts during the qualifying period and were shareholding members at the time that the takeover was first announced are not eligible to receive the cash payment. I understand that funds have not been set aside to pay for those who have switched accounts, even if the law is so changed as the noble Lord suggested. However, £on has been set aside to make payments to widows provided that the Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill is enacted before 1st August, as we very much hope.
I turn to the proposal made by the Halifax and Leeds Permanent Building Societies to merge and convert into a bank. I believe that the societies intend that all those who were members at the time the deal was announced and remain members until conversion should benefit from a distribution of shares when the combined society turns into a bank. I very much doubt whether any shareholders at the time of the announcement will have since switched funds into a deposit account and so lost their membership rights.
The House will be aware that my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Treasury announced in February the outcome of the Government's review of the Building Societies Act. As well as giving societies enhanced powers, the Government intend to implement a 15 point accountability package which will improve

459
the awareness among members of their rights as shareholders in a mutual society and make it easier for those who want to become more actively involved in running their society. One of the measures announced by my honourable friend will remove the distinction between shareholders and retail depositors in a building society, replacing them with a single class of investing member.
It would be contrary to the greater emphasis that we are placing on the importance of membership to extend the benefits which may be enjoyed by those who have switched out of share accounts and so do not have a continuous record of membership of the society. However, as I said, the distinction between depositors and shareholders is to be abolished when the Government introduce new building society legislation.
I understand the noble Lord's desire to enable those who have switched from share to deposit accounts to benefit when their society converts or is taken over. However, the proposed amendment to the law would not appear to benefit depositors in either of the two mergers to which I have referred. As the Government are to address the distinction between shareholders and depositors at a suitable opportunity through new primary legislation, I do not believe that a piecemeal change of the kind proposed by the noble Lord is necessary. I therefore cannot offer Government support for the Bill and I ask the noble Lord to consider whether he believes that it is worth pursuing the Bill in this House.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the Minister has put me in some difficulty and I am thinking my way through it as rapidly as I can. I listened most carefully to everything that he said. The Government's main argument appears to be that the Bill, even if it became law by 1st August, would not influence the distribution of bonuses to people who switched from a share account to a deposit account in the case of the Cheltenham and Gloucester takeover nor in the case of the other takeover. However, provided that we give the building societies concerned the power to make such a distribution they would be able to do so, notwithstanding the fact that the vote on the approval has taken place. It may well be that the directors of the Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society and Lloyds Bank would not wish to make any further distribution, but if the Bill became law they would be able to do so.
Given that originally they had intended to do so and were prevented from doing so by a High Court decision, surely it is appropriate for Parliament to say, "Fine, we note the High Court decision. We believe that the decision was good in law under the existing legislation. We therefore propose to change the legislation in order that the situation becomes fair".
At no point did the noble Lord say that the way in which people who had switched accounts were being denied a bonus was not all right. After all, any individual who had a deposit account throughout the period would receive the benefit of a bonus. It is only the people who move from one type of account to another who do not receive the benefit of a bonus. By passing this Bill we will be putting a little pressure on
460
the respective building societies and the bank in order that they could reconsider whether they would not be better off and whether it would not be fairer if they made such a bonus distribution.
Notwithstanding the Government's reluctance or lack of enthusiasm, I am not persuaded that the argument stands up, unless the Minister is speaking with the full authority of the building societies concerned. I doubt whether the Government are speaking on their behalf. I sent my draft Bill to the chief executive of the Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society and I received no response from him. I did not ask for a comment but he did not suggest to me that the Bill is now too late or inappropriate. Therefore, I am rather surprised that the Minister makes that point.
Furthermore, if the Government intend to change the law relating to building societies and if the proposals of my Bill—although it may be that they are not in the form of wording which may appeal to the Government—give effect to that intention, then there can be no difficulty with allowing my Bill to proceed with Government help. That would make the subsequent legislation simpler because some of the provisions would have been dealt with. There is nothing wrong with piecemeal legislation if it does not detract from the logic of dealing with the situation which the passage of time has made inappropriate.
The Government's arguments are not persuasive. I believe that it is right to proceed with the Bill and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Chechnya
7.51 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton Lord Belhaven and Stenton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what representations they have made to the Russian Government to end their repression of Chechnya; and whether they will urge the Russian Government to respect the right of the Chechen people to self-determination.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank in advance those noble Lords who are to speak in this short debate as I shall not have an opportunity to do so later.
In speaking of Chechnya, we are indeed speaking of a far country of which, until recently, most of us knew very little. Therefore, if your Lordships will bear with me, I shall begin by giving a brief resume of the history of the country over the past 200 years.
The area of the country is about the size of Slovenia or about two-thirds the size of Wales. Its original inhabitants are not Russian or Slav. They speak a Caucasian language and they are Moslem by religion. They had little contact with Russia until they were threatened in the late 17th and early 18th century by the expansionist policies of Peter the Great.
The threat became real in 1818 when, under the Russian General Yermolov, Grozny was established as a fortified base and used for punitive expeditions against

461
Chechens and other Caucasian mountain people. Grozny is named after Ivan Grozny—Ivan the Terrible—and it is clear that that name was deliberately chosen.
One saying of General Yermolov has come down to us. He remarked that he would not rest while one Chechen was left alive. Thus was Chechnya taken into the Russian Empire, or the Russian Federation as it is today.
The history of the 100 years or so between the Russian occupation and the Russian revolution is an appalling story of bloodily suppressed uprisings which amply proves the point that at no time past or present did the Chechen people submit willingly to Russian rule. If that makes Chechnya an integral part of the Russian Federation, we should reclaim Southern Ireland immediately.
The coming of the Russian revolution gave the Chechens and their neighbours an opportunity to declare their independence, which they did. However, in 1922, after the Bolshevik victory in the civil war, they were tricked by Stalin, who was not yet in complete power but sent there to head a Soviet delegation, into agreeing to be part of the Soviet Union. They were given all kinds of guarantees in relation to religion and so on which pleased them greatly at the time, but the good times did not last for very long.
Time does not allow me to describe the unceasing atrocities, murders and uprisings in the Soviet period from 1922 to 1937. Again, all I will say is that after a very brief honeymoon at no time did the Chechens submit voluntarily to the Soviet system.
The climax came in 1937 when the NKVD—the forerunner of the KGB—carried out:
"The general operation for the removal of anti-Soviet elements".
Thousands were arrested and deported or shot, including the entire regional government. It never ceases to surprise me that in the West the Russians seem to be allowed to get away with such behaviour, whereas all the weight of international disapproval is brought against Germans, Turks, Serbs and others when they behave in a similar way.
During the Second World War the Chechens and their neighbours, the Ingush, were not allowed to enlist in the Red Army. The official reason was that they did not eat pork, which may or may not have been the real reason. However, they were allowed to form two divisions of what one might call auxiliaries which were ill-armed and which suffered heavy casualties at Stalingrad.
On 23rd February 1944, all Chechen males were invited to meetings at village Soviet buildings. When they were all gathered, a decree of the praesidium of the Supreme Soviet was read to them. They were then loaded into Studebaker trucks supplied by the US lend-lease programme. With their families and only 20 kilograms of baggage per family, they were deported to Kazakhstan in Central Asia. It is estimated that the entire Chechen and Ingush population of approximately 425,000 people were deported. I believe that that is about the size of the Catholic population of Ulster.
Your Lordships should note that the trucks in which they were transported were supplied by the United States. The object of supplying those trucks was to assist the Red Army to win the war against Germany and not for carrying out mass deportations. The Chechens were not the only people to be deported. There were the Crimean Tartars, the Volga Germans and many others. In that context, it is pertinent to ask how much of the recent financial aid by way of loans and handouts to Russia has gone to finance the military operation in Chechnya. Last Thursday, The Times estimated that a recent IMF loan was about enough to finance the Chechen operation.
One could ask also what the situation would have been had we deported the Ulster Catholics or the Welsh to, for example, Canada or Australia in 1944. That is not merely to the country next-door. Does anyone imagine that those people would thank us for that? On their return, could they be expected to nurse feelings of loyalty and affection for the British Crown? I put it to your Lordships that it is far more likely that they would wait with longing for the time to come when the United Kingdom collapsed and they could cut their ties with a state and nation which had treated them so atrociously.
In any event, that is more or less what did happen in Chechnya when the Soviet Union collapsed. They established the Chechen Republic, with its own flag, government and parliament, It is interesting to note that the fairly large Russian population of the area did not seriously oppose that. Relations between Russians and Chechens were quite good before the invasion, although it is true that many Russians left because they feared for the future, and not without reason.
The question arose as to whether the government in Moscow would accept the new state. We all know that it did not. Instead it insisted that Chechnya was an integral part of the Russian Federation. It all sounds quite sensible until one remembers the history of the region and, indeed, the history of the whole vast area of Europe and Asia which had fallen under Russian and then Soviet domination.
Time does not permit me to go into the complicated and frequently tortuous negotiations between the Russian Government and the Chechens, led by President Dudayev. It is true to say to their credit that many Russian politicians and much of the Russian media oppose the use of force. Perhaps I may quote Mr. Yeltsin's words in August 1994, less than a year ago. He said:
"An armed intervention in Chechnya is out of the question. We in Russia have uniquely succeeded in avoiding inter-ethnic conflicts because we refuse to use force. Should we violate this principle in Chechnya there will be a general uprising in the Caucasus. There will be so much chaos and bloodshed that no-one will forgive us".
That is a strange source for such a prophesy.
The tragedy is that what happened happened. The Russian Government, acting out of fear of the dissolution of the remains of its empire and for other reasons, ordered an invasion. The brutal results of that order will be familiar to your Lordships and were reported widely both on television and in the responsible newspapers. I have to say to your Lordships and to my noble friend the Minister that the repercussions of that

463
barbaric action by Russia have been to reactivate all the fears of Russia's neighbours and former client states. The Tsars and the Soviets may have departed but the Russian bear has not changed. That is the message that has gone out far and wide. I know that to be the case.
I do not believe that the efforts apparently being made by western governments—although my noble friend Lady Chalker denied this—to brush the affair under the carpet are very wise. From what I have seen, it seems quite possible that the Russian policy is now one of genocide. Successive Russian Governments, from General Yermolov in the early 19th century until Stalin, have seriously considered genocide as a way of solving the Chechen situation. It ought to surprise no one if the present regime—or what passes for a regime—has now decided finally to implement the policy. If there are no Chechens in Chechnya, there will ipso facto be no problem. The West can then be invited to do business as usual.
After all, they may say, why not? The West made a temporary fuss over Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Poland and goodness knows where else. It did not even bother to notice the Ukrainian famine of the 1930s or the deportations of the 1940s. Given a lot of vodka and a few twangs of the balalaika, the West will conveniently forget Chechnya and the show can go on. Large and expensive loans will shore up the military after its painful experience in suppressing a nation of 1 million people who no longer exist anyway. If we react in that way, we shall be doing a profound disservice to the future of all mankind, not just to the Chechens but to the Russians as well.
There are those in Russia—not presently in power—who implore us not conveniently to forget what has just happened and what is still happening. There is an evil genius in the Russian polity which is reasserting itself. It must not be encouraged. The idea that British and Russian troops should be employed side by side in peacekeeping anywhere in the world must, in the light of events that have just taken place, be considered to be obscene.
We have witnessed on our television screens and with our own eyes what the present leadership of the Russian Army considers to be peacekeeping. The bombardment of Grozny and the systematic destruction of towns and villages in Chechnya are supposed to be the restoration of law and order. The Chechen fighters are dismissed as bandits, as, incidentally, were the fighters in the Polish Home Army in the Warsaw uprising. I would say to your Lordships that bandits do not fight like that—day after day, street by street and village by village. Those who are defending their homeland do exactly that. What profit could a bandit possibly derive from such a resistance?
I do not ask Her Majesty's Government to send an army to help the Chechens, but I do ask them to uphold the true tradition of this country by making it plain beyond peradventure to the Russian authorities that the barbaric behaviour that they are indulging in is not acceptable. I would also urge Her Majesty's Government to consider very carefully their support for the integrity of the Russian Federation. I can see no
464
reason whatever to justify the forcible inclusion of a whole people in a state which is abhorrent to them and which they have consistently resisted for 200 years.
It has recently become fairly obvious that the Russian military is anxious to finish the Chechnya operation before the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of VE Day. Their method of doing that appears not to be to negotiate a permanent cease-fire but to burn and destroy and kill as much as possible. To some extent Her Majesty's Government hold in trust the conscience of the British nation. I believe that they should now consider very carefully what message they are sending to the peoples of Europe and to the peoples of the world by attending the celebrations in Moscow next month.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, very warmly on his able and persuasive account of Chechen history and of the developments since the declaration of independence by President Dudayev on 29th October 1991. At that time, the Russians, after making a half-hearted attempt to arrest the president, withdrew from the territory leaving their weapons and ammunition behind them. As the noble Lord described, for the next three years the Russians tried to bring Dudayev to heel by coercion. They imposed an economic blockade; they armed the opposition to Dudayev and sponsored the terrorism of those people, including attempts to assassinate Dudayev; and they conducted a vigorous campaign to label the Chechens as criminals.
What happened in the three years following the declaration of independence is seen rather differently by Mr. Douglas Hogg, who has said:
"Unlike other leaders of ethnic regions in Russia, including those with a muslim population such as Tartarstan, General Dudaev refused to negotiate on the status of the republic within the Federation. Under his rule, the economy was allowed to collapse, crime dramatically increased and democratic opposition was stifled. Over 100,000 people fled the republic".
That is the view of the Foreign Office. It is an analysis which is economical with the truth. Chechnya did not secede from Russia but from the Soviet Union, which allowed for secession in its constitution. It was neither a party to the original treaty which formed the Russian Federation at the end of March 1992, nor did it subsequently enter into treaty negotiations with the federation as Tartarstan did, probably against the wishes of the majority of its own inhabitants.
Dudayev tried to negotiate without preconditions, but the Russians demanded that Chechnya first accept that it was part of the Russian Federation. It is possible that a compromise could have been reached if the West had not acquiesced in treating the problem as purely an internal one for the Russians. If we had tried instead to promote talks under a neutral chairman, as we did with the discussions between Georgia and Abkhazia, the loss of 24,000 civilian lives and 2,000 Russian servicemen, the permanent disablement of thousands of men, women and children, the creation of over a quarter of a million

465
refugees, and the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars-worth of economic potential might have been avoided.
The economy collapsed because of the Russian blockade, the general decline which occurred all over the former Soviet Union after 1991 and—a smaller factor—the stoppage of pensions, which were not paid by the Russians to retirement and other pensioners in Chechnya. But, in 1994, there was some recovery in the Chechen economy, which the Foreign Office chooses to ignore.
Crime statistics are not available for Chechnya, but those who know both capitals say that Grozny is not nearly as dangerous as Moscow. According to Police General Vladimir Kelesnikov, contract killings in Moscow rose from 289 in 1993 to 562 last year. People forget that the Chechen mafia, as it is called, is largely Moscow based and that it supports the opposition, together with people like the defence minister of the puppet opposition, who became a millionaire out of bank frauds.
Dudayev did dissolve the Parliament in April 1993, but that was at least partly because the Russians had armed and supported the opposition who were then seen as quislings. With regard to the exodus from Chechnya, Russians also left the Baltic states and other former colonies of Moscow. So Mr. Hogg tells only a fraction of the story. He concludes that,
"the authorities in Moscow were reluctant to allow this situation to continue unchecked",
as if to say that the Russians had at least the semblance of an excuse for using military force.
Not only is the war in Chechnya continuing, as the noble Lord described, but new atrocities are being perpetrated almost daily. On 7th April, following a night of bombardment by artillery and warplanes, Russian troops, allegedly high on drink and drugs, moved in to massacre 300 people hiding in their cellars in the village of Samashki, using grenades and flamethrowers. That was followed by a massive artillery attack on the neighbouring village of Belmut last Sunday, 16th April. Women and children fleeing the bombardment of Samashki were arrested and sent to detention centres in North Ossertia and Russia, a new development, as up to now only men had been detained.
That follows the promulgation of a new law by President Yeltsin on 3rd April extending the power of the Federal Security Service into internal policing and giving it unspecified,
"broader rights and possibilities to carry out our duties".
So the KGB has been reactivated, with unlimited powers to operate against the citizens of the Russian Federation. Not only may Chechen civilians now be detained arbitrarily for indefinite periods, but critics of the operation like the human rights commissioner Sergei Kovalyev and former chairman of the Duma defence committee Yushenkov may be next on the list.
There can be no justification for the use of military force in Chechnya. Claims to self-determination must not be dealt with by the imposition of solutions at the point of a gun. Such disputes between peoples and states have to be solved within the framework of law. We
466
cannot play down the slaughter of tens of thousands of human beings by saying that it is within the internal competence of the state concerned. Still less can we subscribe to the appalling doctrine which was promulgated by President Shevardnadze in his recent address at Chatham House that,
"all prompt and necessary measures, heedless of the cost and criticism",
should be taken against what he described as the "epidemic of disintegration". He was the only head of state in the whole of the former Soviet Union to have supported Russian military action in Chechnya up to the hilt.
Throughout recorded history, borders have changed, states have come and gone, empires have risen and declined. The only new feature in the 20th century is that imperialism is universally condemned, but, while the empires of the western European states have been dismantled, the Russian empire has only been partially freed.
Within the Russian Federation, Tatarstan was blackmailed into signing a treaty with Russia in February 1994, Chechnya is being ground to pieces by the millstone of Russian military power, and the other republics of the north Caucasus have little choice but to submit for the time being. But in the long term, changes in the configuration of states and their boundaries will continue, and the question is whether this process is to be accompanied by armed violence or achieved through peaceful mechanisms, developed in the context of the United Nations.
In the meanwhile, as the noble Lord said, Russia must be called to account for violations of international agreements to which it is a party. General Pavel Grachev, the Defence Minister, has announced that Russia cannot honour the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, which limits the number of troops and tanks it can station in the Caucasus. Will the Minister say what action the Government are taking over this deliberate and brazen violation of the treaty?
The Budapest Declaration, agreed by the OSCE in December 1994, commits participating states to limit the use of armed force in internal security missions to a level,
"commensurate with the needs for enforcement".
If for three years there had been no need to use any armed force in Chechnya, what justification can there be for the blitzkrieg launched against Grozny in December, and now being extended to other towns and villages?
The Budapest Declaration provides that,
"the armed forces will take due care to avoid injury to civilians or their property".
The total destruction of Grozny, and the indiscriminate use of artillery, mortars and jet bombers against villages, is a deliberate violation of this provision, and of common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions, which applies to internal armed conflicts.
The capability of the OSCE to tackle human rights problems was significantly enhanced at Budapest, according to the Foreign Office Minister, David Davis MP. The Chairman in Office now has the right to put issues on the agenda of OSCE's Permanent Committee,

467
which can then make decisions on the monitoring of alleged violations, though it still has no power to impose material penalties on guilty states. The Minister observes that,
"the effectiveness of … the OSCE generally, will always be governed by the willingness or otherwise of the participating states to live up to their commitments".
No one could argue with that.
In the case of Chechnya, the OSCE sent a mission to the republic on 27th January and it made a flying visit to Grozny. Mr. Hogg said they met,
"representatives of General Dudaev's administration",
but the leader, Ambassador Istvan Gyarmati, told Russian news agencies that he intended to meet only the leaders of the Chechen opposition, but not the Dudayev side because,
"it was hard for technical reasons".
He said that,
"Dudaev cannot lay claim to the role of legitimate leader of the Chechen people, since no free elections have yet taken place in Chechnya".
Mr. Gyarmati said that, despite the shortness of the visit and the limited range of people he met, he had seen everything he wanted to see and had got a full picture of the situation. He did not mention that Sergei Kovalev, the Russian human rights commissioner, was prevented from accompanying the mission, or that he failed to visit Nazran to meet the Ingush President, Ruslan Aushev, who had offered to mediate, and, in a press conference in Moscow on 30th January, he claimed that foreign mercenaries were fighting on Dudayev's side—information he could only have got second hand. He described Russia's attitude as "very positive".
Not surprisingly after that, the OSCE Permanent Council, which of course includes Russia, passed a milk and water resolution at its meeting of 1st February. It expressed deep concern over the disproportionate use of force by the Russian armed forces but failed to demand that indiscriminate bombing and shelling cease immediately. It expressed concern over the atrocities committed by unspecified parties, but made no call for war crimes to be investigated, and those responsible brought to trial, as in Bosnia or Rwanda. If the criminals know they are not going to be tried, the offences are likely to be repeated.
The Permanent Council did call for an immediate cease-fire; for the ICRC, UNHCR and other humanitarian organisations to be given free access to all areas of Chechnya, and for the ICRC to be given access to detainees. None of these things happened. The ICRC was kept out of Samashki before, during and after the massacre of last week. In the second OSCE mission, from 22nd to 26th March, Gyarmati was more critical in Grozny, but reverted to appeasement in Moscow. There he welcomed the "constant improvement" in the dialogue with the Russian authorities, despite the fact that neither the mission itself, nor the European Parliament delegation, was allowed to visit the areas not under Russian control. He insisted that,
"the OSCE and Russia understand each other better and better".
468
These statements were made just after the Russian bombing of refugee camps in the south-east—an action denied by the Russians but which has been confirmed by Sebastian Smith of AFP, who counted 20 bomb craters in the camp of Elistanzhi alone.
The agreement to establish a permanent OSCE mission in Grozny, which was to have been signed on 6th April, has now been deferred. Sergei Stepashin, head of the Federal Security Service, the new KGB, said that,
"peace will be established before the end of April",
in the west of the republic. Perhaps they do not want observers to see that process. Only yesterday there were reports of a fresh assault, this time on the village of Damut, near Samashki. That shows the need for the OSCE mission to be on site now and to have access to all parts of the country.
The conflict in Chechnya now threatens to spread to Ingushetia, where there are at least 130,000 Chechen refugees added to the native population of 350,000 and the 45,000 people who are displaced from North Ossetia. Even worse consequences may follow the lack of any concrete measures to bring home to Moscow the unacceptability of its conduct in Chechnya. The noble Lord mentioned that the IMF has just agreed a massive 6.8 billion dollar loan. He quoted The Times as saying that that was about equal to the cost of the Chechen war so far. The Russians may well be encouraged to believe that any military adventures that they undertake will attract no more than a slap on the wrist. To counter this impression, and to avert a whole series of aggressions being added to those in Tajikistan and Afghanistan as well as in Chechnya itself, the question of Chechnya ought to be raised in the United Nations Security Council. I know that Ministers say that only resolutions which are certain to be passed are ever tabled, and in this case no doubt the Russian veto would be exercised. But does that mean that the United Nations is permanently emasculated and prevented from considering atrocities which are committed by one of the permanent members of the Security Council?
There is one other lever that we have, and the noble Lord referred to it. On 9th May the Prime Minister together with President Clinton and other leaders are due in Moscow for the fiftieth anniversary celebrations of the ending of World War II. Unless the Russians stop all offensive military action in Chechnya forthwith; unless they allow humanitarian agencies to operate throughout the republic and the ICRC to visit places of detention, including those outside Chechnya; and unless they permit the immediate deployment of the OSCE mission, democratic leaders ought not to be part of the Russian celebrations. If the Russians, having been asked very politely by the OSCE Permanent Council on 3rd February to accept their legal obligations, continue to ignore them, it would be wrong for us to join them at their party and pretend that nothing is wrong.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, for raising this Question tonight. It seems a serious omission that your Lordships' House has not since December debated this very unsatisfactory situation. It is sad that it has taken the

469
tragedy of Chechnya to remove many illusions. We can now see that in dealing with Russia we are dealing with a semi-barbarous state and a society that only knew a measure of democracy for a few years before the First World War. Russia has therefore had to start from scratch in trying to establish a new culture of democracy. It has been doing so under almost impossible conditions of economic change, accompanied by the break-up of an empire.
It is clear that in Chechnya there has been a totally disproportionate use of force. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, indicated, well over 24,000 Chechens have been killed and many wounded. I should not be surprised if many of those wounded had subsequently died. Grozny and other towns have been totally destroyed.
Given the history of wartime deportation of Chechens by Stalin, it was surely incumbent on Russia to proceed cautiously, perhaps by mediation, arbitration or third party conflict-resolution process. Instead, the unilateral declaration of independence had been largely ignored since 1991 until excessive force began to be used last December. It continues to this very moment. As I indicated, we are observing the operations of a barbarian state capable of massacring not only its Chechen citizens but also ethnic, native Russians.
What, therefore, should be the western response? I suggest that we should withdraw economic aid from Russia and grant no new loans. We should continue to block the admission of Russia to the Council of Europe. On the other hand, we should encourage to the maximum extent possible dialogue, cultural contacts, visits and exchanges. Normal trade and investment in Russia should continue. The provision by our Government and other governments of know-how and training is more delicate and questionable. I should like to see such offers of technical assistance being made subject to solid guarantees that democracy will be allowed to continue to develop within the Russian Federation.
What should we do with those resources that will be released by ceasing to aid and grant loans to Russia? I suggest that those could be very well employed within the Ukraine, for example, in the making safe of the nuclear power station at Chernobyl and any other dangerous installations. Massive investment is also required in the Ukraine to replace and bring up to date obsolete and military industries. There is considerable scope for agricultural development. If that is not enough we could also well have in mind both Georgia and Armenia where timely assistance is likely to lead to a greater measure of independence for those states.
The Question on the Order Paper raises the issue of self-determination in Chechnya. Your Lordships are no doubt by now familiar with the notion of Matrioshka nationalism: each doll has a smaller one inside it, as one discovers as one unpacks them.
I want to argue that self-determination does not necessarily mean independence or secession. That is well explained in an article by Professor Rosalyn Higgins, of London University, in the bulletin of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe,
470
volume 2, no. 3, of 1994, stating that self-determination is a right of peoples freely to determine their internal and external status in accordance with the United Nations covenants on civil and political rights of 1966 and the Helsinki Final Act. One can think of many such free choices that have already taken place; for example, in Newfoundland, Puerto Rico, Gibraltar, Cyprus, Namibia, the Czech and Slovak republics and, indeed, in Tartarstan. Such choices are often impossible under one party or military rule.
I agree with Professor Higgins that,
"no legal right of secession exists, where there is representative government".
She goes on to say:
"Minorities, as such, do not have the right to independence or secession".
I deduce from that that the Chechens, in common with the Trans-Dneistrians, the Abkhaz and, as has been mentioned, nationalists in Northern Ireland, do not have a right to secede provided that their social, economic, cultural and religious rights are protected and respected. That is a major proviso, and it is one that falls strictly in line with Article 27 of the 1966 convenants. If and when the Chechens achieve autonomy it will be incumbent on them to respect the human rights of the Russian and other minorities on their territory.
Autonomy has been negotiated in Tartarstan, an equally Moslem and equally strategic republic 600 miles to the east of Moscow. I ask Her Majesty's Government to press for a similar solution together with compensation to the Chechens for the wanton damage and destruction they have suffered.
8.25 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, has done this House a service. I have been moved this evening by the interventions of all noble Lords on what is a most distressing situation.
Russian affairs have come before this House recently. Concern was expressed at that time over her application to the Council of Europe. We are now faced with human rights violation in Chechnya of monumental proportions. It is a deplorable state of affairs. We must send a clear signal that a reaction of this nature is not the way civilised peoples of the world behave.
Chechens have paid a heavy price for Russia misunderstanding their commitment to independence. The question before us is clear: does the right of self-determination, to include independence, apply to the people of Chechnya?
Can we realistically encourage Her Majesty's Government to take a tough stance? I fear not. We in the United Kingdom recognise the right of self-determination. Our position on the Falkland Islands is evidence of that. Indeed, self-determination is a legal principle in international law, and discussions and decisions when the principle is in issue should not be impeded.
A UN resolution of 1976 upholds:
"the principle of self-determination of all peoples and nations".

471
but it was left deliberately ambiguous as certain colonial powers were against that ruling. That has meant that the principle of who constitutes a "people" has not yet been determined, or what constitutes the "self of self-determination and what self-determination amounts to: full independence; the freedom to operate politically and economically within the framework of a sovereign nation; or the right to secession. All those ambiguities apply to Chechnya.
It appears that Chechnya does not have international support for independence. The United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union have all declared the conflict to be an internal matter in which they cannot therefore intervene. Since nearly all conflicts engendered by calls for self-determination are internal, that would seem to indicate that the international community is unable to cope with tensions between governments and their peoples. It has been easy for the international community not to intervene. Russia has always maintained that it launched its assault in the name of territorial integrity. It is when a case such as Chechnya arises that a gap in international law, with all the shades of self-determination, is exposed. Clarification is urgently required.
The Chechens were also ill advised. Tartastan, which in 1991 was in exactly the same position as Chechnya, finalised an agreement with Russia giving it associate status with the Russian Federation. That permits them to sign trade agreements with other countries, hold elections and have their own flag and anthem. I am bound to say that a similar agreement could possibly have been negotiated giving the Chechens enough independence to be able to determine their political future but yet satisfying the Russians. Such an agreement might still be a possibility.
In conclusion, while not ruling out independence for Chechnya, given the instabilities within both governments, associate independence is, I believe, the most practical solution. I would urge Russia to address this situation with all haste.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, this has been an interesting short debate on an issue of the most profound importance not simply for Russia and Chechnya but for the international community. A telling indictment of what has occurred was made by the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, and by other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.
I cannot help feeling—I do not intend to repeat the earlier discussion—that it is a somewhat bitter irony that this massive indictment of actions wholly in breach of human rights should take place on the same day that the Government chose to put before the House a partnership deal with Russia. I drew attention to the inconsistency of that earlier. With great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, for whom the whole House has a high regard, I feel that many elements of that proposal are inconsistent with the situation which has arisen, and which will arise over the next few weeks, in connection with the meetings which are to take place between President Yeltsin and western leaders.
472
I do not depart for one moment from the charge that I made earlier. I believe that entirely the wrong signals will have been given to the Russian Government by the unnecessary step of pronouncing on the need for Britain to ratify the partnership agreement. There was no urgency. The Government themselves admit that it is impossible to go on to ratify formally so long as the Russian Government persist in their actions in Chechnya. Therefore, one has to wonder why the Government brought the matter forward today. They must have known that this debate was to take place. Perhaps they felt that if they were to withdraw, it would be seen as a sign of weakness on the part of the Government. With great respect, I believe that the contrary is the case. It would have been more telling if the Government had indicated that they were not prepared to go ahead with that business in the light of the debate that would occupy your Lordships' attention tonight.
I question some of the arguments raised earlier by the noble Baroness. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate will not take refuge in the argument that it has all been discussed before. We have not had an opportunity to digest what the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, said earlier. What she said was quite extraordinary. She said that to refuse to go ahead with the agreement would have been disproportionate having regard to Chechnya. Disproportionate, my Lords? What has been wholly disproportionate is the way in which Russia has reacted to the situation in Chechnya.
The noble Baroness went on to say that within hours, or perhaps a day or so, flagrant violations of human rights in Shali had been reported. That is disproportionate. Yet how can she complain about that and then in the same breath go ahead with the agreement upon which the Government have chosen to embark?
She stated that now is not the time to slow down our support for Russia; that it would be counter-productive. I understand the argument. Of course no one wants the ordinary people, the mass of Russian people, to suffer for one moment longer than they have already suffered and are suffering at present. But the fact is that the Government will not actually go ahead with the agreement with Russia at the present time. So why is there haste in the light of what has been said in your Lordships' House tonight?
Let me make this absolutely clear. I believe—I assume that most of your Lordships would believe—that in the long term a deal along the lines of that agreement has to be struck to ensure that Russia can go down the democratic route and to sustain those forces genuinely believing in the democratic process so that the many will benefit and not simply the few who currently exploit the chaos in Russia to their singular advantage. But it is a two-way partnership. If President Yeltsin subscribes to the doctrines of democracy and wishes to draw aside from the embraces of those neo-fascist forces which are yapping at his heels, then he has to give some further thought to what is happening. It is imperative that those who wish Russia well make clear that in practical, demonstrable terms Russia must understand that what is happening is unacceptable in a civilised community.

473
The breaches of human rights which have occurred were amply demonstrated by noble Lords who spoke so eloquently tonight. It does not help if I repeat those charges. Perhaps it should be said that the Chechens themselves cannot emerge from the situation totally with credit. There are reports of manifest breaches of human rights on their side too. It is a war situation; and war begets terrible excesses. It may well be, too, that the Russians have been drawn into the conflict for a variety of misguided reasons. Perhaps there has been collusion on the part of some in Moscow who do not intend well so far as concerns President Yeltsin and who have encouraged the demands mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, which he felt might have been handled somewhat better by the Government of Chechnya. However, that does not alter the fact that what has happened is a blight on humanity.
Not only do we have a situation where the population was decimated. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, put it, perhaps thousands more may have subsequently died. We do not know. There has also been vast destruction of property. Grozny has been virtually destroyed. All that will cost a great deal of money to restore—money which the Russians simply do not have.
There is a continuing problem because people are trying to survive in appalling circumstances. They are without running water, electricity and the proper means of sewage disposal which is likely to endanger life. We do not know the entire cost—whether 40,000, 60,000 or 100,000 civilians have been killed. Large numbers of young Russians have been sacrificed in the conflict.
Words of condemnation come readily to the lips of Ministers, but I believe that they are not enough. Ministers genuinely feel anxious about the situation, and of course they have great anxiety. They are not bad people. They would not wish the situation to persist. However, even though I do not go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I believe that more is required from the Government than words of condemnation. To withdraw economic aid from Russia is not likely to be the right course, for the reasons that I explained. However, blocking Russian membership of the Council of Europe at this stage is a desirable course which ought to be taken, It is right to continue normal trade, but it is not right to start fresh agreements. The Government have conceded the point, so why bother at this stage?
I turn to the situation of the Chechen Government. In these circumstances it is difficult to know who is speaking the truth and whether it is being uttered by anyone. Mr. Dudayev says that he wants a real cease-fire, with no preconditions, monitored by international observers. He wants the creation of safe havens in non-occupied territories where people can receive medical treatment and food directly from international humanitarian groups. Mr. Dudayev says that he wants direct negotiations at any mutually agreed level between the legitimately elected Chechen Government and representatives of Russia under the auspices of international mediators. He says that he wants parliamentary and presidential elections this year under international supervision. He ought to be put to the test. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, it is not enough simply to rely on arguments about the internal
474
affairs of a country disqualifying anyone else from some form of intervention. We do not argue for military intervention there but for some form of intervention along the lines I mentioned earlier and stated at least in part by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
If the situation is allowed to persist, the repercussions will be enormous for Russia itself. Day by day the probability of a classic guerrilla war emerges, continuing for a long time. There might be a declaration of a Moslem jihad. It is abundantly plain that extraordinary incompetence has been displayed by Moscow, coupled with the sheer brutality that has also emerged, perhaps because of that incompetence and because certain elements of the Russian army are outside the control of Yeltsin. Who knows?
I do not trust the words of President Yeltsin, as I would hope in such circumstances. He has promised over and over again that there should be a peaceful end to the conflict, Yet virtually within days the evidence has been forthcoming of exactly the opposite. There are certainly problems for President Yeltsin in the current domestic situation. He fears that he will not be re-elected. I fear that those doubts may be compounded by what is happening in this unfortunate and disastrous situation. It is an explosive mix. It has resonance with the situation which occurred in Afghanistan and which led to so much unhappiness, doubt and anxiety in Russia.
Dialogue is critical. Surely, we can do more than we have been doing to promote that dialogue. It must be genuine; it must not assume that the Chechen people can be likened to brigands and then expect progress to be made. Neither the Russians nor the Chechens are free of Mafia influence and those mafioso-like gangs which betray Russian society so manifestly today. Human rights campaigners in Russia like Sergei Kovalyev are astonished that the West has been relatively compliant with the Russians. Yet Russian extraction from the position is vital in her own interests. Russia will be humiliated in international circles if the brutality continues. It can do the Russian people no good. There is no future in enabling the neo-fascist potential dictators of Russia to be pacified. Their appetites are insatiable. The cost is likely to be unbearable. There must be an end to it and surely we can do more than we have been doing hitherto to try to gain that objective.
Finally, once again I thank the noble Lord who initiated the debate. It was worth having.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton for the opportunity to debate this topic and to all other noble Lords who have contributed. Chechnya is sadly back in the news again. The overall destruction may have been at a reduced level since the levelling of Grozny, but the military operation continues and with it the suffering inflicted on a civilian population who desperately want a return to peace and normality. Worryingly, there have been further recent reports of atrocities. It is casting a shadow over Russia's relations with the international community. For that to change, a solution has to be found, and found soon. The Russian Government must know that, but nevertheless

475
fighting and human rights violations continue. The international community stands ready to help resolve the conflict.
There are some positive signs. The Russian Government's recent decision to support the establishment of a permanent OSCE mission in Chechnya is an important step forward. It offers a real opportunity for progress which must be fully exploited, but there is still more to be done. Her Majesty's Government have consistently—
Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, can he say what happened about the postponement of the agreement to station the OSCE mission in Grozny? It was supposed to have been signed on 6th April but was postponed sine die. Can the Minister also say whether the OSCE mission will be permitted to leave Grozny to investigate what is happening in the villages?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my understanding is that there are certain administrative matters within the OSCE which need to be finally resolved before the mission can go to Chechnya. However, it would probably be helpful if I were to write to the noble Lord giving him the fullest details that I can.
Her Majesty's Government have consistently, both in public statements and in private meetings with Russian leaders, made known their concern about events in the region. Our message, as was explained earlier today by my noble friend Lady Chalker, remains clear. First, the fighting must end as quickly as possible. The Russian troops have taken control of most of the Chechen strongholds, but the air raids continue and the ground fighting still appears some way from being finished. We realise, however, that an end to the fighting does not lie solely in the gift of the Russians. The Chechen separatists have to share the responsibility for its prolongation.
Secondly, aid must be allowed through to those in need. The situation in this respect is now much improved. After constant lobbying, especially by the European Union, the Russian authorities are allowing the international agencies to carry out their work. Thirdly, any solution which is to last must provide an effective way of enabling the Chechen people to express their identity within the Russian Federation.
One of the most worrying aspects, which I have already mentioned, is the fact that there have been various reports of atrocities being committed by both sides, although not all those reports have been substantiated. We have made known our concern about human rights abuses. They must stop. The presence of a permanent OSCE mission will enable us more closely to monitor the situation. We are particularly concerned about the reports which were first raised in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, concerning the massacre of civilians in the village of Samashki just over a week ago. A number of sources have alleged that Russian forces were responsible, although the full facts remain unclear. What is clear though is that this is a further flagrant example of the violation of basic human rights which we have frequently condemned throughout this conflict.
476
On 15th April the European Union issued a statement condemning the continuing human rights violations in Chechnya, calling on the Russians to cease all acts of violence against the civilian population. We associate ourselves fully with that statement and further call on the Russian authorities to investigate rigorously the events in Samashki and to bring the perpetrators to justice.
The question of self-determination for the Chechens was raised both by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. In international law the right of self-determination is recognised and specifically in international covenants on civil and political rights and on economic, social and cultural rights, both of which the United Kingdom has ratified. However, the exercise of the right must also take into account questions such as what constitutes a separate people and respect for the principle and territorial integrity of the unitary state. In the case of Chechnya no country has recognised President Dudayev's unilateral declaration of independence, but we have repeatedly called on the Russians to work for a political solution which would allow the Chechen people to express their identity within the framework of the Russian Federation. It is worth remembering in this context that the Russian Federation comprises 89 separate units and that the relationship of their component parts with the centre varies from one unit to another; so there is an inherent flexibility in the constitution which ought to assist in this matter.
We believe, with the other member states of the European Union, that the role of the OSCE, which has been at the forefront of international efforts to reach a solution in Chechnya, is one that should be supported. It is the case that the involvement of the OSCE has been accepted by the Russians. On 11th April agreement was reached on the mandate for a permanent mission to be established in Chechnya. The mission's objective will be to contribute to efforts to secure a cease-fire and a political settlement. We want to see this operation up and running as soon as possible and we hope that it might be in place by the end of this month.
We support the process of political and economic reform in Russia and of dialogue with Russia on the basis of commonly respected principles and standards. These processes are represented by many of the Russians who have been most critical of the events in Chechnya. Both President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin have renewed their broad commitment to reform. We hope that this will be reflected in specific policies. We will continue to watch developments closely and to exchange views with our partners. To isolate Russia now as a result of the Chechen situation would damage the cause of reform and risk giving comfort to those extremist forces in Russia who wish to cut their country off from the West, many of whom are the most vocal advocates of repression in Chechnya.
All our European Union partners share the view that the fighting in Chechnya needs to be brought to an end and negotiations started on a political settlement. The European Union has given its full support to the OSCE's efforts to help find a lasting solution, and its position has been made clear in statements issued by the Foreign Affairs Council and through a number of démarches in Moscow.

477
Reference was made earlier in the debate, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to the interim European-Russia trade agreement, which incidentally does contain important provisions on respect for human rights. European Union Foreign Ministers have agreed that it would be inappropriate to sign this agreement until the Chechen situation improves. The Ministers have established four criteria against which we would judge whether to sign it. They are: a permanent OSCE presence; progress towards ending the fighting; discussions leading towards a political settlement; and access for humanitarian aid.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, why the haste? Why could not these matters have been delayed in order to see how the situation in Chechnya might have developed in view of the blandishments which have been offered by the Government? We are talking to the Russians and we are doing this, that and the other, seemingly with little effect.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the important point here is that the final decision on whether to proceed with the agreement itself, which is, after all, the nuts and bolts of what is under discussion, has not yet been taken. We are waiting to see what occurs. We have shown our position and our preparedness to go forward in appropriate circumstances.
Reference was made earlier in the debate by my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton and by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to the International Monetary Fund's support for Russia. It is true that on 11th April the IMF board agreed a stand-by arrangement worth 6.8 million US dollars. It is designed to help the Russian Government stabilise the economy. In turn, we believe that that will help to provide political stability, and that will be to the advantage of all the Russian people. It will be disbursed over several phases during the course of the year and the IMF will continue to monitor the economic situation closely to ensure that its conditions are met. We do not believe that economic anarchy will offer any help to those whose human rights are being abused.
Reference was also made by the noble Lords, Lord Hylton, and Lord Clinton-Davis, to the possible membership of Russia of the Council of Europe. Following a debate in February, at which a Russian delegation had the opportunity to state its case, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly decided to suspend consideration of Russia's application for membership. The Russians appear to have accepted this. We welcome the fact that dialogue between the Council of Europe and Russia is continuing and we hope that in due course Russia will be able to satisfy the Council of Europe that it meets the conditions for accession. Once that has been achieved, we then would look forward to welcoming Russia as a member.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made reference to the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, which was signed in 1990 by NATO and the then Warsaw Pact member states. It establishes numerical limits for different types of military equipment in different regions
478
of Europe to be achieved by November this year. The Russians have been arguing for some time that the limits originally agreed for her southern flank zone, now encompassing her troubled southern border area as well as Chechnya, are insufficient for her security needs. We and our allies have been discussing this problem since well before the Chechnya crisis erupted last December. We have argued that there is sufficient flexibility in the treaty to address Russia's security concerns and that we would be seriously concerned if Russia were to end up in breach of the treaty in November. We have also said that we are ready to look again at the matter when the treaty falls to be reviewed in 1996. NATO has also proposed that a working group be set up in Vienna to address a range of issues connected with the implementation of the treaty. We shall continue to press the Russians to agree pragmatic solutions which will avoid the risk of undermining or breaking the treaty's provisions.
The Russians fully supported the adoption of the OSCE code of conduct which sets out norms for proper conduct of military forces within a democratic society. We have urged them to act in accordance with the code, particularly Article 36, which links deployment of armed forces on internal security missions to constitutional procedures and asserts the minimum use of force. We and other members of the OSCE have urged the Russians to comply with their commitments. Obviously it is not possible for governments to pick and choose between them. Equally, the Vienna document of 1994 commits members of the OSCE to provide notification of movements of concentrations of military forces involving more than 9,000 troops. Russian deployments in Chechnya exceed those limits. We have reminded the Russians of their obligations and urged them to comply.
In concluding, I must again condemn unequivocally the killings and human rights abuses which continue to take place in Chechnya. But while the Chechnya conflict reveals how far Russia still has to go before it finally shakes off its past, it also shows just how far it has come. Many predicted an authoritarian clampdown in the wake of events in Chechnya. We have not seen that occur. Instead, there has been genuine critical and unfettered debate. The media, far from being muzzled, has been able to bring home in an unprecedented way the true horrors of what has been going on.
A further sign of the changes in Russia is the government's acceptance of an international monitoring mission's presence on their territory. That offers us a real chance of achieving our objectives of a peaceful and lasting settlement. We and the international community at large will put our full weight behind the OSCE mission, and we offer our gratitude to the Hungarians who hold the chairmanship of the OSCE. We must now ensure that the mission receives the support which will enable it to play a full part in helping to bring these tragic events to a conclusion and to re-establish peace, democracy and respect for human rights.
House adjourned at one minute past nine o'clock.

  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Negotiations
  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Negotiations
  Council of Europe and WEU: UK Delegation Activities
  Council of Europe and WEU: UK Delegation Activities
  European Court of Human Rights: Cases Pending
  European Court of Human Rights: Cases Pending
  European Court of Human Rights: Findings of Convention Breaches
  European Court of Human Rights: Findings of Convention Breaches
  Turkey: Anglo/German Consultation
  Turkey: Anglo/German Consultation
  Public Sector: Trades Union Status
  Public Sector: Trades Union Status
  Lloyd's: Solvency Assessment
  Lloyd's: Solvency Assessment
  Irish Box: Controlling Jurisdictions
  Irish Box: Controlling Jurisdictions
  Israel: Projected Naval Exercises
  Israel: Projected Naval Exercises
  US Sixth Fleet: Port Arrangements
  US Sixth Fleet: Port Arrangements
  Dead Bodies: Responsibility for Disposal
  Dead Bodies: Responsibility for Disposal
  Turkish Nationals: Asylum Applications
  Turkish Nationals: Asylum Applications
  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: Police Powers
  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: Police Powers