Sitting of 2 February 1995

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for consideration read.
To be considered on Thursday 9 February.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 9 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY

    Government Expenditure
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the amount of identifiable Government expenditure per head for each of the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Identifiable Government expenditure per head in 1993–94 was £3,458 in England, £3,913 in Wales, £4,185 in Scotland and £4,781 in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Viggers: Although we English are happy, in present circumstances, to support the Scots—indeed, I even married one—does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the substantial subsidy for the Scots and others might be different if there were a tax-raising Parliament in Scotland? Does he agree that the Scots may face the double jeopardy of a Scottish tax from Edinburgh and reluctance from London to pay the present 20 per cent, subsidy to Scotland?
    Mr. Clarke: As my hon. Friend says, Scotland receives a considerable subsidy from England, but that is based on the Government's judgment of needs in the various countries, and we judge that to be the correct level of spending. My hon. Friend is certainly right that it is proposed that the Scots should have a Parliament with the ability to raise 3p in the £1 on income tax. Why one should be taxed more heavily for working in Scotland than for working in England, I am not sure; nor am I sure what advantage it would bring to the Scots. The English
    1200
    taxpayer might ask why, if the Scots have 3p in the £1 to spare, he should continue to shift so much money north of the border.
    Dr. Bray: Do those figures include mortgage interest relief, defence procurement expenditure, transport subsidies and similar matters that are directly budgeted for as Government expenditure?
    Mr. Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is identifiable Government expenditure, but the aspects of expenditure that he describes are all for the benefit of the United Kingdom. We are talking about identifiable Government expenditure on public services. The hon. Gentleman will have heard the warning from my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers): that there is a risk that the Scots will have an extra 3p increase on their income tax, which would have a very damaging effect on living standards for the average inhabitant of Scotland.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider updating the Welsh and Scottish budgets that were published in the early 1970s, which gave attributable revenue as well as expenditure in Scotland and Wales and which showed clearly, irrespective of any additional taxation that might be imposed by a Scottish or Welsh assembly, an adverse balance in expenditure?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall certainly consider the possibility of doing so. As my right hon. Friend says, there is an adverse balance. Scotland receives more by way of expenditure than it pays in taxation, but that is entirely right if a United Kingdom Government and a United Kingdom Parliament decide that it reflects the needs of the population in certain areas. I cannot understand why it is proposed by some that if one works in Scotland one should pay 3p in the £1 more in income tax than if one does the same job in England. I can only imagine that that is likely to be damaging to the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the Chancellor remind the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) that the big difference between 1971 and now is that we are members of the European Union and that there have been great changes? As someone who favours European integration, he will know that the small nations and regions of Europe that have developed in the past 20 years have been those such as Catalonia, which is now seen as one of the driving forces of changing performances in Europe. Why does he not recognise that the people of Wales and Scotland should be given the same opportunity for the same constitutional arrangements as every other small nation and region in Europe?
    Mr. Clarke: When I attend the Council of Ministers in Europe, I do not sit down with representatives of Catalonia, Galicia and so on, whose people have an identifiable local nationality but are represented by the Spanish Government. The four countries that comprise the United Kingdom have a more powerful voice in Europe because they are members of the United Kingdom. It would be a mistake for any part of the United Kingdom to start equating itself with Catalonia and thinking that we would be able to play the same part in European politics as we do at the moment—or as we could at the moment.
    Mr. Jenkin: Are not the major transfers between the different regions of the United Kingdom necessary to

    1201
    maintain the economic cohesion of the United Kingdom under the single currency of the United Kingdom, the pound sterling? Would not, equally, huge transfers be required to maintain a single currency across the European Union? Does not that vindicate the Government's scepticism about a single currency?
    Mr. Clarke: We opted to have a straightforward choice on a single currency, which we shall exercise if and when the proposal is put to us. Meanwhile, it makes obvious sense to take part in the preparations for economic and monetary union so that we can make a better informed choice when we have a sensible debate on it. It is not inextricably linked to political union. I recall that political union between Scotland and England occurred many years before monetary union. Rather than relating it to Scotland, we should consider the case for and against economic and monetary union on its merits.

    Home Owners (Benefit Entitlement)
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact that the restriction of benefit entitlement on home owners who become unemployed will have on the housing market.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir George Young): The growth of private insurance should reduce repossessions and improve the stability of home ownership. At present, two thirds of home owners would not qualify for help if they lost their jobs and many of the remaining third would be disqualified by receiving redundancy pay or an early retirement package. Our proposals aim to encourage home owners to insure against those risks.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister not realise that the folly of his Department in cutting support for home owners will lead to mortgage lenders seeking more repossessions and to more homeless people? Whatever happened to the Tory promise of creating a property-owning democracy?
    Sir George Young: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. As he knows, repossessions have already fallen by some 36 per cent, and we hope that that trend will continue. It makes sense to try to remove an obligation of about £1 billion on the social security budget and reposition it through the insurance market on those who benefit—home owners. That will lead to a more stable system, which will cover more people than the current system.
    Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that about 40 per cent, of borrowers take out insurance and that, traditionally, it was always accepted that any borrower should? Will he please encourage the other 60 per cent, of borrowers to do the same?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The 40 per cent, of new borrowers are paying not only for themselves, but, through the taxation system, for the other 60 per cent. It would be fairer if we moved from a taxpayers' subsidy to an insurance-based system.
    Ms Primarolo: Why should someone who loses their job face losing their home too because of the Government's planned changes to the benefits system? Will not the £18 million saved by the Government in the first year increase the mortgage payments of every new
    1202
    home owner by £20 per month? Since mortgages are already rising, why do not the Government withdraw that proposal and help home owners, not undermine them?
    Sir George Young: The figure of £20 per month, to which the hon. Lady referred, or the figure of £12 to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security referred in last week's debate, must be put in the context of a reduction of £140 per month in the cost of an average mortgage since 1990. Against that background, the figure mentioned is not a high imposition.
    Mr. David Martin: Does it not stick in my right hon. Friend's craw, as it does in mine, that Labour Members have been posing as the champions of home owners, when all their policies, in and out of government, have been not only discouraging but positively hostile to the interests of home owners?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If Labour Members felt so strongly about these measures, they would have given an obligation to repeal them, but of course they have not done so.

    Disabled People (Access)
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the introduction of tax relief to small businesses for the purposes of providing access for disabled people.
    Sir George Young: Capital expenditure incurred by businesses for providing access for disabled people may be eligible for tax relief under normal capital allowance rules. There are specific Government programmes to assist disabled people such as the access to work programme, which was introduced in June 1994. This provides a wide range of practical help to overcome barriers to employment faced by disabled people. For example, the programme can provide alterations to premises or a work environment and communicators for people who are deaf. By December 1994, more than 5,000 people had been assisted.
    Mr. Barnes: The Minister should realise that civil rights for disabled people are good for business: they increase sales and the tax take and they reduce the need for benefits. Therefore, can further measures be taken to encourage some entrepreneurial zip among small businesses so that more disabled people can be taken on by them?
    Sir George Young: The whole House has much sympathy with the objectives suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The Disability Discrimination Bill, which is now before the House, requires an employer to make a reasonable adjustment to the working conditions or premises where that could overcome a practical barrier to a disabled potential employee.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to achieve that entrepreneurial zip, capital will need to be expended? If the Government are going to say exactly how that capital should be spent, they should carefully consider tax benefits for those who are willing to spend it.
    Sir George Young: Depending on the nature of the expenditure, if it is revenue expenditure, it can all be set

    1203
    against tax. Depending on the nature of the capital expenditure, there may be allowances for that also. In addition, grants are available under the access to work scheme, through the disabled person, to pay for some of the adaptations.
    Ms Armstrong: Are not the tax issues with which the Minister is dealing currently dealt with by Inland Revenue tax inspectors? It is estimated that more than £2 billion of tax is not being collected, so how does the Minister justify sacking 6,000 tax inspectors? Would it not be better to have tax collectors collecting tax and not the dole?
    Sir George Young: No one is suggesting that 6,000 tax inspectors are going to be sacked. We have made it quite clear that we hope to achieve our proposed reductions without compulsory redundancies. In the past three years, the number of Inland Revenue staff has reduced by 10,000, with only 80 redundancies. That is the progress that we want to make.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the entrepreneurial zip would be taken out of small businesses if local councils were again given the right to charge the business rate, as proposed by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is quite right. The uniform business rate, set by Government with guarantees that it will not rise by more than the rate of inflation, is a real benefit to small businesses, particularly to those that were previously confronted with large rate increases by Labour-controlled local authorities.

    Living Standards
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on prospects for living standards in the coming year.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: One possible measure of living standards is real GDP per head. On that basis, my Budget forecast implied a rise of about 3 per cent, over the coming year.
    Mr. Heppell: If housing costs are taken into consideration, the real income of the poorest 10 per cent, of the population has fallen 17 per cent, since 1979, whereas the income of the richest 10 per cent, has increased by 62 per cent. What does the Chancellor propose to do about the growing gap between rich and poor, which is the largest gap since records began?
    Mr. Clarke: The figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted are the most misused figures in public debate. Close analysis of figures on the so-called lower 10 per cent, shows that they are not the poorest in society and that they include many people who declare no income but who are high spenders. The comparison that the hon. Gentleman makes is, with the greatest respect, practically valueless.
    Next year, as a result of strong and sustained growth and our powerful performance in export markets, we expect average personal disposable incomes per family to rise by about £5. Low-earning families will benefit in particular from what I announced on family credit, which is now being taken up. The welcome fall in unemployment, which is half a million below its peak already, will also benefit less well-off people. The figures
    1204
    quoted by the hon. Gentleman are misleading, and the present position is encouraging for people on all levels of income.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind the fact mat since 1979 living standards under this Conservative Government have risen right across the board, will my right hon. and learned Friend have talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on the possibility of itemising the compensation for VAT on fuel on the pension book, so that pensioners may fully understand the help that the Government have given?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is quite right. Living standards generally are almost half as high again as they were when the Government first came to power. His suggestion about itemising the compensation received inside the pension book is interesting and worth while, and my right hon. Friend may consider it.
    It is certain that the amounts added to the retirement pension, over and above the ordinary uprating, will more or less compensate the average pensioner for the extra VAT on fuel, which, at the rate at which we have left it, will now be paid only by those of working age who are not receiving means-tested benefits in full.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Does not today's interest rate rise represent a double blow to living standards, making an already insecure Britain even more insecure: first, because every time we expand—even out of recession—we cannot sustain that growth, reflecting the underlying economic weaknesses which the Chancellor refuses to address; and, secondly, because with the cost for a typical home owner rising by £800 this year—a 25 per cent, rise—millions of people will see a fall in their living standards? Are not the Government guilty of a betrayal of their promises to every home owner in Britain, just as they are guilty of a betrayal of their promises to every taxpayer in Britain?
    Mr. Clarke: Last year, we had 4 per cent, growth and the lowest inflation since the war, which had beneficial effects on the economy and greatly reduced unemployment by half a million. The key thing, delivery of which would be beyond the hon. Gentleman and his party, is to keep the recovery at a sustainable level, to keep inflation down and to keep our competitive position, which is enabling us to do so well in export markets. The hon. Gentleman shows that he has learnt nothing from the history of past Labour Governments, or indeed of any other Government. He would throw it all away, lose our present competitive position, take risks with inflation and put us back in difficulties again.

    Growth Prospects
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about future growth prospects for the United Kingdom economy.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I receive a large number of representations about prospects for the economy.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend welcome this week's survey by chambers of commerce throughout Europe, showing that Britain has the best job prospects of any country in Europe? Does not

    1205
    that prove the folly of the trade union-sponsored Opposition policies, which call for the implementation of the social charter in this country?
    Mr. Clarke: I wholly agree. Last year, we achieved a big fall in unemployment, and the labour force survey showed a big increase in the number of jobs—particularly, I am glad to say, in full-time jobs—in the British economy. We have a far better record than has been achieved anywhere else in the EU. One reason for that is the firm monetary policy and strong fiscal policy of the Government, and a second reason is that we do not put unnecessary burdens and costs such as the social chapter on to employment, and we have no intention of doing so. That would damage our job-creating record.
    Mr. Radice: Will the Chancellor tell the House why he has put up interest rates, as he has not said so?
    Mr. Clarke: To deliver my stated objective of sustained growth with low inflation. We still have a buoyant economy, and surveys show that price expectations are still there. There has been a big increase in commodity prices, and producer prices are rising a little. I judged it timely to make a further increase today to ensure that growth is sustained without the recurrence of inflation.
    I am not sure what the Labour party would do—it seems to say the same old stuff when it comments on the issue—but I strongly suspect that, at a crucial stage of the recovery, it would throw it all away by not taking the necessary steps to protect us against a recurrence of inflation.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: My right hon. and learned Friend probably knows that I have not been the greatest fan of Treasury forecasting, but will he comment on the forecasts of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who said in the debate on the autumn statement in 1992 that the balance of payments would worsen—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question that addresses ministerial responsibilities.
    Mr. Robinson: During consideration of my right hon. and learned Friend's ministerial responsibilities, will he examine the forecasting of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, who said in the 1992 autumn statement debate that the balance of payments would worsen and unemployment would rise and that the economy was generally on a downhill trend?
    Mr. Clarke: In carrying out my ministerial responsibilities it is important that I maintain a healthy scepticism for forecasts of all types. I readily acknowledge that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has a history of disastrous forecasts. I forecast that if he were in my position, he would have voted against all my tax increases and public spending controls, he would not have raised interest rates and this country would still be an industrial disaster. He still carps about the remarkable performance that we achieved in 1994 by ignoring his advice and forecasts.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Chancellor accept that raising interest rates every six weeks does not constitute an economic strategy? Does he further accept that Britain needs investment? In the light of last week's CBI survey
    1206
    showing that investment is at an all-time low, does he accept that interest rates are likely further to depress investment in the economy, which will undermine our growth prospects?
    Mr. Clarke: I realise that a Liberal Democrat Government would never put up interest rates, but would put them down every now and again. In the real world, however, investment depends on people's confidence that the Government will deliver sustained growth with low inflation. The fact that people are in no doubt about our determination to deliver low inflation will make them confident that they can get the return that they require on investment if they make it now.

    Home Ownership
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will identify those proposals in his latest unified budget which are intended specifically to promote home ownership.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): My right hon. and learned Friend's most recent Budget included measures to double grants to help council tenants buy homes and Housing Corporation programmes, worth £208 million, to extend home ownership.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response and I recognise the basic strength of our economy, but does he accept, however, that for many decades it has been Conservative party policy to encourage home ownership? Does he accept that recent Budgets have provided a disincentive to home ownership and that the housebuilding sector of our economy is critical to our economic success, as so many other sectors of manufacturing depend on it? Does he also accept—I say this with some regret—that the latest interest rate rise is thoroughly undesirable and will thoroughly depress the building sector?
    Mr. Nelson: Let me assure my hon. Friend that the Government remain firmly committed to home ownership, which, since we took office, has increased by 4.3 million to 15.6 million. On the interest rate increase, there can be no doubt that the health and prospects of the housing and construction markets rely on a period of sustained low inflationary growth. It is my right hon. and learned Friend's judgment that that is most likely to be achieved if we continue to bear down on inflation. We have no interest in setting interest rates higher than is necessary to achieve that objective.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is not one of the great problems with our economy the fact that so much future prosperity is based on property prices?
    Mr. Nelson: It is a wholly natural instinct and a desirable objective for many people to build up a financial interest in their home—to be reliant on that asset, to enjoy it and to be responsible for ownership. That is what this party has always supported when in government and we shall continue to do so. The changes introduced in successive Budgets, to mortgage interest relief or other areas, should not damage the long-term prospects for home ownership. The figures demonstrate that that has increased and the prospects for it being maintained lie in a gentle revival of that market, which today's action on interest rates should sustain rather than undermine.

    Bank Rates
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will next discuss with the Governor of the Bank of England the level of bank rates.
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors are taken into account when decisions are made regarding bank rate changes during his discussions with the Bank of England.
    Mr. Clarke: I held one of my regular meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss monetary developments this morning. The factors that I take into account in decisions on monetary policy are set out in the medium-term financial strategy, and the minutes of my monthly meetings are now published.
    Mrs. Winterton: In his discussions with the Governor of the Bank of England earlier today, did my right hon. and learned Friend say that moves towards a single currency in Europe are anathema, not least because of our bitter experience of the exchange rate mechanism, when bank rates were at an unsustainable and intolerably high level, afflicting both business and home owners alike?
    Mr. Clarke: I will not argue history with my hon. Friend, because inflation and interest rate increases began well before we joined the ERM. While we were in the ERM, we began the steady and sensible process of reducing both interest rates and inflation. I commend to my hon. Friend the speech by the Governor of the Bank of England recently on the subject of economic and monetary union. I have been urging for some time that we have a more sensible debate in this country on whether economic and monetary union might be of advantage to this country. I was delighted that the Governor of the Bank of England decided to participate in that debate. He was good enough to show me a copy of his speech before delivering it. It is excellent and I commend it to all those with a serious interest in the subject.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Chancellor realise that his cosy tête-a-têtes over the past five months with the Governor of the Bank of England have resulted in an increase of £45 a month in the average mortgage? How does he expect the ordinary wage earner—not Sir Iain Vallance or Cedric Brown but the people whom they employ—to pay the extra that he has imposed?
    Mr. Clarke: I am sometimes accused of having cosy tête-a-têtes with the Governor of the Bank of England and, at other times, unavailing struggles against him in our titanic clashes. [Interruption.] This country is simply not ready for open government. The minutes of the meetings that we publish show that we are both firmly agreed on delivering sustained growth with low inflation. As a leader in The Times recently acknowledged, by doing that last year we succeeded in producing the strongest economy in Europe and arguably the healthiest economy in the developed world.
    Mortgage costs are now far higher—lower— [Interruption.] Mortgage costs are far lower than they were in 1990 when they last reached their peak. If I took the advice of Opposition Members and lost control of inflation, mortgage costs would rise to great heights.
    1208
    When inflation and taxation are taken into account, the average person's living standards are expected to rise in 1995.
    Mr. Yeo: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ignore the mindless chants from Opposition Members, whose thinking on interest rates has not advanced from the point of saying that they should be 1 per cent, below whatever level they happen to be? Does he agree that it is in the long-term interest of all borrowers, both corporate and personal, that interest rates increase from time to time, as that helps to achieve the long-term inflation objectives that he has set out?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am afraid that he accurately describes the level of discussion with the Opposition that we usually have on interest rates. The key judgment that must be made is how to sustain this recovery. That involves taking the necessary decisions to ensure that inflation does not get back into the system. Small business men, house purchasers, and people in the real industrial economy, whose interests are at the forefront of my mind, would suffer most if I lost control of inflation at a time when our recovery is doing so well. This recovery will last. We shall not return to boom and bust, and that involves ignoring the flippant advice of the Labour and Liberal parties on how to set interest rates.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Would it be wise Government policy to continue increasing interest rates in advance of a general election?
    Mr. Clarke: I have already given one description of the usual political debate on interest rates. I have deliberately made monetary policy more transparent to try to stop interest rates being treated as such a knock-about political subject. People will stop regarding interest rates as a knock-about issue and allowing political considerations to intrude when they see us continuing to deliver the sort of growth rate, falling unemployment, new job creation, high standards of productivity and high export volumes that we have so far delivered. If we keep on delivering those to an election, the views of any of the Opposition parties on interest rates will be regarded as totally irrelevant.
    Mr. Elletson: What effect would there be on interest rates if we removed spending controls on local authorities and created a new tier of local bureaucracy with regional councils? Is that not another example of Labour policy that would cost billions of pounds and destroy jobs?
    Mr. Clarke: It certainly would. But as my hon. Friend acknowledged in passing, it is only one of many policies to come from the Labour party which would undermine our control of public spending and would lead either to increased taxation—as the Liberals claim—or to increased borrowing, which would have a destructive effect on monetary policy. It is the very combination of sensible control of public spending, tight fiscal policy and a sensible and consistent monetary policy that has created the financial conditions that currently make us one of the wealthiest economies in the industrial world.
    Mr. Darling: Can the Chancellor confirm that a typical householder will pay £800 a year more as a result of today's interest rate rises? Is not it true that, because of that, before too long, the Chancellor's political instincts will start to dominate consideration of changes in interest

    1209
    rates and override the advice from the Governor of the Bank of England in order to placate Conservative Back Benchers?
    Mr. Clarke: First, I do not believe that a half per cent. rise could produce an £800 a year difference, as the hon. Gentleman said. Secondly, as far as I am aware, no building society has announced that it is putting up its rates, although it might—I have no control over that. As I have already said, next year, taking account of inflation and taxation, the average family can expect an increase in its personal disposal income and average earnings should rise by about £5 a week. The overall living standards of this country are best protected by sensible economic policies. We can look forward to increasing prosperity and more secure employment for our people as long as we keep on the successful track that we mapped out last year.

    EC Convergence Criteria
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the United Kingdom economy meets the EC convergence criteria; and what is the corresponding position with the performance of other EC partners.
    The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): Ireland and Luxembourg are currently the only countries which are deemed to meet the convergence criteria.
    Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he accept that there may well be a moment when various national economies are roughly in balance, but that later, they might not be? Does my hon. Friend accept that if, in the meantime, a single currency had been imposed, business risk and differing conditions would merely have shifted to areas other than the exchange rate? What, then, are the Government's divergence criteria?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes the good point that the temporary convergence of the economies of Europe would not provide good conditions for a single currency because subsequent divergence of economic performances by the national economies of Europe would create intolerable strains within that single currency area. That is one of the reasons why the Government believe that the timetable for monetary union laid down in the Maastricht treaty is unrealistic. That is also why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister ensured that the protocol to the treaty requires a subsequent Act of Parliament and the consent of the House before the United Kingdom moves in that direction.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: In the light of the answer just given, and now that the Secretary of State for Employment speaks for the Government in Davos and elsewhere on such matters and the civil war in the Conservative party is so damaging to this country that the Chancellor chose to come to the Dispatch Box earlier and refer, not to the role that this country is playing in Europe, but to the role that this country "could" play in Europe— the Chancellor's word—have the Government ruled out the United Kingdom participating in economic and monetary union by the 1999 deadline in the Maastricht treaty—yes or no?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We play a full and constructive role in Europe, but that does not mean that
    1210
    we are required to sign up to a single currency now, as the Opposition parties would. We are quite content to leave that final decision to a future Parliament. I cannot help but observe that the Opposition parties which are most keen on a single currency are the most unlikely ever to deliver the economic criteria which would make that possible.

    Manufacturing Industry (Investment)
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss investment in manufacturing industry.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor regularly meets the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss the prospects for inflation and the current state of the economy, including developments in manufacturing investment.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Chief Secretary aware that business investment is forecast to grow by a staggering 11 per cent. this year? Is not that a complete vindication of the Government's economic policies? Is he further aware that throughout the past year the Labour party have consistently attacked the Government about the lack of investment in manufacturing industry? In light of those figures, should not the shadow Chancellor eat his words, admit that he was wrong and congratulate the Government?
    Mr. Aitken: I would certainly share my hon. Friend's relish in seeing the shadow Chancellor eat his words, but the meal would be so gargantuan that I do not think that it is a very likely outcome.
    My hon. Friend is correct to refer to the fact that the Confederation of British Industry has forecast that manufacturing investment will rise by ll¼ per cent in 1995. The manufacturing sector in this country is buoyant and in a strong competitive position. In the three months to November, output was up by 5 per cent., productivity was up by more than 6 per cent. and unit wage costs were down by more than 1 per cent. That is a record of success of which the Government and the country can be proud.
    Mr. Sheerman: If the manufacturing sector is to be truly successful in this country and win back home markets as opposed to export markets, is not it about time that the Chancellor and the Bank of England encouraged our financial institutions to think about long-term investment in British manufacturing capacity, rather than engaging in short-termism?
    Mr. Aitken: I am sorry that, judging from the tone of the hon. Gentleman's question, he does not acknowledge the tremendous success story of British manufacturing industry in export markets. It has been faring extraordinarily well. His charge of "short-termism" is unfair. Anyone who has ever run a business will know that at this point in the economic cycle it is normal for companies to restructure their balance sheets and build up their profits. Investment is expected to improve at the turn of the cycle, and that is why the CBI is forecasting an 11¼ per cent. increase in manufacturing investment.
    Mr. Forman: If British manufacturing industry is to retain its competitive edge in highly competitive world

    1211
    markets, does my right hon. Friend agree that investment in human capital is every bit as important as investment in plant and equipment? Are the figures for investment in human capital as encouraging as the figures that he has given already?
    Mr. Aitken: There is certainly continual investment in human capital in the form of the large training budgets allocated by the Government and private industry. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point that human capital is important. However, I also draw his attention to the fact that unemployment is now falling by a rate of 2,000 per day, which shows that human capital is being well deployed in the continuing success story of British industry.

    Endowment Mortgages
    Mr. Denham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take to regulate the market for endowment mortgages.
    Mr. Nelson: The sale of endowments is regulated under the Financial Services Act 1986. The new requirements for disclosure of charges and commission will help consumers decide whether endowment mortgages best suit their circumstances.
    Mr. Denham: Is not it a fact that four out of five homebuyers in the 1980s chose endowment mortgages because they were told that their investments would not only pay off their mortgages but give them a large lump-sum payment? Does not the decline in the market now mean that many of those bonuses will disappear, and in some cases the investment will not even pay off people's mortgage? Is not that another example of the failure of regulation under the 1986 Act to protect people and their investments?
    Mr. Nelson: No, it does not. Although it is true that far fewer people are entering into endowment mortgages than in the 1980s, they still remain an attractive and flexible means of mortgage repayment for many others. The Office of Fair Trading is currently examining repayment and endowment mortgages, and there has been significant tightening-up of the regulatory regime, to prevent mis-selling. Therein lies security for people for whom such mortgages are appropriate and who decide to enter into them.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that house purchase and the associated endowment mortgage are both long-term investments, and that many people who entered into such mortgages have lived to rejoice the day that they did, because they have achieved substantially better returns than inflation and other investment vehicles?
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is right. Endowment mortgages may continue to be the best means of repaying mortgage obligations for many people. It is true that the lapse rate of many such products has been high, particularly in early years. It is consummately to be hoped that the new commission disclosure regime and the greater protection that has been introduced will in future give greater reassurance and encouragement to prospective investors.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend accept mat the goal of a peaceful settlement in Ulster is worthy of the courage and patience that he has demonstrated? Will he continue to assure the people of the Province that any final decision will always rest with them?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that there is a communal will not to be distracted from the goal of a peaceful, permanent and agreed settlement in Northern Ireland. I am happy to repeat the assurance that I have given in the past—the outcome of the political talks, after the main constitutional parties have met and agreed the outcome, will be put to people in a referendum before further action is taken. It is they who will decide, and nothing will be imposed on them.
    Mr. Blair: On Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister has our full and continued support. On interest rates, however, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confirm as a matter of fact that after mortgage rises, the cutting of mortgage tax relief and the imposition of the new home insurance tax, the typical home owner will have been paying an extra £800 a year since last April.
    The Prime Minister: As to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's comments, I appreciate the support of the official Opposition and of other parties as far as Northern Ireland is concerned. It is a strength of the process that there is such widespread support for it.
    Of course, I appreciate the impact of interest rates on home owners, but what would be most damaging to home owners would be for inflation to take off in the way that it did on past occasions. Interest rates are there to ensure that we have a recovery that curbs inflation. The policies repeatedly advocated by the shadow Chancellor would lead to inflation taking off—and the worst losers from that would be home owners. As a result of our policy on home ownership, the cost of mortgages has fallen dramatically from the peak in interest rates. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that that is the case.
    Mr. Blair: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman does not deny the figures. What type of recovery peaks when for millions it has barely even begun? The right hon. Gentleman and his Ministers will scrabble around in vain for the feel-good factor when mortgages, taxes and industry's costs are up, and when people feel more insecure precisely because they know that they are worse off under the Tories.
    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that he has a cheek to deny history in the way in which he just did. The level of interest rates that we have reached today is the level that was the lowest achieved at any stage under the previous Labour

    1213
    Government in five years of Government. The average was far higher. They also had negative interest rates and were robbing savers of their savings by devaluing the currency. [Interruption.] It is because of that sort of irresponsibility that no one will ever again trust the Labour party to run the economy. It is determined to take the short-term option and to ignore the long-term interests.
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Couchman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 40 per cent, of American and Japanese investment in Europe that comes to the United Kingdom is essentially dependent on our membership of the European Union? Does he further agree that if we cease to be at the heart of Europe those investors will rethink their European operations locations?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. It depends on two points: both our membership of the European Union and the conditions of our membership of the European Union. Certainly, the fact that we are members has helped attract a great deal of investment into this country, but it would be lost if the conditions of our membership were to include the social chapter. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) does not agree, perhaps he could ask the chairman of Daimler-Benz. He had something to say about the social chapter. This is the right hon. Gentleman on the social chapter who thinks that it will cost jobs. He admitted it at one stage. Now he denies it.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister accept that, for as long as he puts the peace of Ireland first, he will command the overwhelming majority of the House and the country? Does he also agree that those who would put in jeopardy the peace of Ireland in order to pursue either narrow sectarian agendas or internal party power struggles, will meet the opposition of the House and earn the contempt of the country?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. There is nothing in the peace process that any party in this House need fear. There can be no slippery slope in any process that first requires the agreement of all the parties and then after the agreement of the parties has been obtained subsequently requires the agreement of the people of Northern Ireland themselves. I think that that is a categorical safeguard for all those who are concerned about the development of this process, and I hope that it will be accepted as such by people across ever strand of opinion in Northern Ireland. I hope that everyone will join actively in the search for a lasting settlement, a better future for the Province and a certainty that never again will we go back to the sort of atrocities and horrors that we have seen in Northern Ireland over much of the last quarter of a century.
    Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, on Britain's role in Europe, much of the debate currently in the media is simply sensationalist and trivial? Does he further accept that the time is right for
    1214
    the House to have a full debate on that particular topic, so that we can steer the country in the direction in which we believe?
    Mr. Blair: Which manifesto?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asks which manifesto we will debate. He might well ask whether we will debate the policy on Europe of the Opposition Front Bench or the policy of Labour Members of the European Parliament. He might ask whether we will debate his policy or that of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East; the policy of the Labour Front Bench or the policy of the Labour Benches below the Gangway. There certainly is ample scope for a debate on Europe, but I say to my hon. Friend that we would need several days to debate the varied policies of the Labour party.
    Mr. Tipping: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Tipping: Will the Prime Minister ask his colleagues at the Department of Health why they have not yet resolved the case of Mr. Tony Ruffell, the former chief executive of the Nottinghamshire family health service authority? Following more changes in the health service, Mr. Ruffell has been sitting at home on a salary of £66,000 since last September. Should not there be more focus on patient care and less on bureaucracy?
    The Prime Minister: Of course there should, and that is why we are repealing a whole tier of bureaucracy in the health service—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us—and why we oppose the devolution of so much health to unwanted regional authorities throughout the country which would add to bureaucracy. On the detailed point, of course I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to refer to the hon. Gentleman, but if he had really wanted an answer he would have contacted my right hon. Friend.
    Mrs. Gorman: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports in the newspapers that half the Treasury building is to be rented out to the private sector? Will he confirm, for a suspicious person such as me, that that has nothing to do with Mr. Santer's call for the abolition of our national currency?
    The Prime Minister: I can undoubtedly give my hon. Friend that assurance. On the substantive part of her question, I think that the action taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor sets an example across Whitehall and beyond.
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Chisholm: Given that Lord Wakeham privatised electricity and then moved to the board of Rothschild, which had carried through that privatisation, what will the Prime Minister be saying to him following today's news that Rothschild is to be the merchant banker for the sell-off of Railtrack? Will he be telling him to keep his

    1215
    seat warm for the Secretary of State for Transport as a pay-off for this disastrous and deeply unpopular privatisation?
    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that, over time, it will be as effective and popular a privatisation as those that we have had in the past. I know that the hon. Gentleman would still prefer to be subsidising the old industries by £50 million a week rather than taking in £50 million a week to the Exchequer for the good use of the public at large. That undoubtedly is what would have happened had we not privatised those industries in the past. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it does not merit a reply.
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Garnier: Will my right hon. Friend confirm his Government's commitment to preserving the front-line strength of our armed forces, and will he contrast that with the Opposition's only defence policy, which is to cut, cut and cut again?
    The Prime Minister: We are committed to stability for the armed forces. I promised that at Camberley recently and I made it clear that the big upheavals in the armed forces are over. The level of front-line manpower has been set and we do not intend to reduce it. My hon. Friend can be reassured of that. Nor do we intend to adopt Labour's policy of scrapping nuclear defence, or a fresh defence review bringing uncertainty to each and every area of the defence services.
    Mr. Home Robertson: What is the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), who has said that the Prime Minister's Northern Ireland initiative is dead and buried? Would it not be an
    1216
    affront to all the soldiers and civilians who have been killed and buried during the past 25 years if that initiative were to be jeopardised as a result of a malicious partial leak of a draft document? Is the Prime Minister aware that all our constitutents are becoming weary of the ancient refrain of "Ulster says no", which is still being parroted by some Unionist members, but, thankfully, only some Unionist members.
    The Prime Minister: I believe that there is a wish right across the House—including among hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland—to find a satisfactory way forward. I have not a shred of doubt about that. We have all watched with dismay the activities of the past 25 years; hon. Members who represent Ulster have lived through that in a way in which the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and I have not.
    I have no doubt, from my contact with hon. Members from Northern Ireland—in regard to points on which we agree, and points on which we do not agree—about their sincerity in seeking to bring to a conclusion the miseries of the past 25 years. What I would ask of all hon. Members is that they wait for the framework document; that they study that document in its entirety; that they examine what it will mean; that they recognise that it is there for consultation; that they then consult on it with other constitutional parties; and that if they agree, they then agree—as I do—to abide by the will of the majority of people in a referendum.
    Mr. Skinner: To what end?
    The Prime Minister: The end—the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) keeps shouting about it, as he did yesterday—is a very straightforward and simple one. It is to end the horrors of the past 25 years, and to ensure that never again are people killed month after month after month after month as they have been in the past 25 years. I would have hoped that even the hon. Member for Bolsover would support that enterprise.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us next week's business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Agricultural Tenancies Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day (4th allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "The threat to schools from the 1995/96 financial settlement" followed by a debate on passenger services under rail privatisation on Opposition motions.
WEDNESDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Until 7 o'clock, motions on the Welsh revenue support grant reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Followed by motions on the Children (Northern Ireland) and the Children (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Orders.
THURSDAY 9 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on the White Paper on the future of the BBC on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day (5th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
I am not yet able to give even a provisional indication of business on Tuesday and Wednesday of that week, but it may help the House to know I expect the annual debate on the Royal Navy to take place on Thursday 16 February on a motion for the Adjournment.
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. He will recall that last week I asked for a debate on the civil service, not least because of the Government's failure to make a statement in the House on their response to the White Paper on the code of conduct. In view of the evidence presented to Lord Nolan's committee this week about the rights and obligations of civil servants, is not the need for a debate on the code of conduct in particular now becoming more urgent? Can the Leader of the House give any further information on his plans?
In view of today's announcement of 600 job losses in the Inland Revenue, and the consequent revenue-raising implications of the loss of an estimated £1.5 billion to £2 billion that will be written off in uncollected tax, when will the House have a chance to debate the full implications of both developments?
One of the issues still to be determined following the change of Budget date and the Jopling report is the timing of full-scale economic debates. I am aware that the Procedure Committee is still considering the issue, but today interest rates have been raised for the third time in six months. That increase will leave mortgage payers reeling. What plans can the Leader of the House announce to ensure that we have a full-scale economic debate in Government time as soon as possible?
Finally, we shall shortly have the Second Reading of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East
1218
(Mr. Barnes). Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the Government will not try to block that Bill on Second Reading?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady's first two questions are linked—her further request for a debate on the civil service and her comments on the information about the Inland Revenue. While I would not for a moment accept the inferences that she drew from the latter, I acknowledge the continued pressure for a debate on civil service matters. I shall continue to bear that in mind, even though I am not in a position to say anything more definite today.
Similarly, I cannot give an immediate undertaking about a particular date or plan for a large-scale economic debate. However, I am aware that there has been a great deal of talk about that ever since the unified Budget was introduced. I shall, as always, look constructively at the matters that the hon. Lady has raised.
On the hon. Lady's point about the private Member's disability Bill, my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will make the Government's position clear during the Second Reading debate. Of course, on Second Reading of the Government's Disability (Discrimination) Bill he made it clear that, for a number of reasons, he would be asking the House to support the Government's Bill, not that of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).
Sir Terence Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the legal opinion produced by Compassion in World Farming, which refutes the view expressed by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that it would be illegal for Britain to impose a ban on the export of live animals for slaughter?
As this is clearly an important issue and as it would be a shame if we could not debate the merits because the Department was hiding behind a legal smokescreen, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate, with Law Officers present, so that we can clarify the legal position?
Mr. Newton: I am, of course, aware of the opinion to which my right hon. Friend referred, but he will be aware that in a substantial statement yesterday announcing action on a number of fronts to achieve our aim—to end the production of veal from calves in veal crates not in this country, where it has already been ended, but elsewhere—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food clearly set out the careful and thorough legal advice that he has received. I note the request from my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), but I cannot give the immediate undertaking that he seeks.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House take note of early-day motion 527, which has now been amended and is endorsed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, which welcomes BRAKE, the campaign for safer lorries?
[That this House, noting the terrifying cases of death and injury caused by defective heavy goods vehicles, welcomes the campaign BRAKES; and demands that the Secretary of State for Transport takes urgent action to protect the general public by extending the powers of traffic commissioners to allow the impounding of defective vehicles, by increasing the fines for companies running defective vehicles and by increasing the frequency and effectiveness of enforcement of the road traffic regulations.]

1219
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the senior traffic commissioner has already warned that if the 20 to 25 per cent. cut in the inspectorate goes ahead, the result will be appalling—not only because of the damage caused to property by heavy lorries, but because of the large number of people who are killed or seriously injured? Does he accept that there is all-party concern on this matter and that it deserves an early debate?
Mr. Newton: While I cannot immediately accede to the hon. Gentleman's request, I certainly acknowledge that anything connected with the safety of heavy vehicles and the possible consequences if they are defective is of concern to all hon. Members and to the public. My right hon. and hon. Friends will carefully consider any recommendations put forward by BRAKE.
Sir Norman Fowler: May we have a debate on the leak of information about the talks on Northern Ireland? Does my right hon. Friend agree that although it is certainly the role of newspapers to expose the truth, it is a matter of public concern that The Times may have allowed itself to be used for propaganda purposes in an attempt to wreck the talks that have been taking place?
Mr. Newton: The implicit comments in my right hon. Friend's remarks are perhaps all the more telling in that he is a former employee of The Times newspaper, going back far enough, and therefore I give great weight to his remarks. Beyond that, I can tell the House that the Cabinet Secretary is making inquiries into where the leak may have come from. Obviously, I do not want to comment further this afternoon.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to make a statement in the House on the consequences of implementing the 64 recommendations of Sir John Woodcock in relation to the Whitemoor prison escape? As those will cost £150 million, will the Home Secretary tell us whether cuts will fall on other sections of the Prison Service, on the victims of violent crime, or on Streetwatch?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that, just as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is considering carefully the recommendations of that report, and will consider carefully anything that emerges from the other reports that have been set in hand, he will bear in mind the balance of cost and advantage, and take account of the sort of points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Mr. Peter Viggers: If no time is available for a general economic debate next week, may we have a debate on the much narrower subject of the explosion of house and mortgage prices among socialist house owners because, on the basis of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition alleging that £800 had been added to the average house owner's costs this year, he and his friends have mortgages of £160,000? That must be a considerable problem and burden to them.
Mr. Newton: My safest course is to hope that the Opposition Front Bench team will take note of my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Derek Enright: The Leader of the House will be aware that Bromley council has forbidden the parishioners of St. Edmund's church, Beckenham to park their cars outside the church after 9.30 on a
1220
Sunday, because they interfere with the trolleys that are going into Sainsbury's next door. As that is not in the spirit of Sunday trading as enunciated by the Home Secretary, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary urgently to come along next week and assure us that churches will not be closed so that shops may stay open?
Mr. Newton: I have to admit that I was not aware of Bromley borough council's decision. I shall certainly bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who I am sure would not wish churches to be impeded in any way because of proper Sunday trading.
Mr. Richard Tracey: May I support the call of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) for a debate on leaking and on all matters that appertain to it? Surely all hon. Members believe that leaking information on critical and confidential discussions in Government or local government is counter-productive to the operation of government. The House should debate this as a matter of seriousness and of urgency.
Mr. Newton: Personally I share my hon. Friend's view about the difficulties caused by leaks, of whatever kind. I am not sure that his view would be universally shared by all Opposition Members, but the extent to which it is shared in relation to the leak that has caused the difficulties in the past 48 hours has been clear and heartening.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House ensure that another statement is made next week on Northern Ireland and on the framework document, so that we may ascertain precisely the Tory Government's end game in relation to resolving the problem of Northern Ireland and to ensuring lasting peace? We are all in favour of that. What we are concerned about is that, when the talks began, a united Ireland was neither ruled in nor ruled out. It seems that, as a result of the statement yesterday, a united Ireland has been ruled out, so it is important that we know exactly what the Government plan is. Where is it leading to? Surely we should now be told exactly what are the proposals of the Government to achieve that lasting peace.
Mr. Newton: I do not for a moment accept the way in which the hon. Gentleman asks that question. He was apparently attempting to put a similar question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister towards the end of the exchanges a few minutes ago. I thought that my right hon. Friend had made the position absolutely clear—the overwhelming majority of hon. Members thought so—and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not seek to cause any further difficulty in this matter.
Sir Patrick Cormack: May I return to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)? Does the Leader of the House agree that a free, responsible press is absolutely essential to the functioning of a democracy but that an irresponsible press can undermine democracy? May we have a debate on the general issue of the freedom and ethics of the press?
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N.

1221
Fowler) and another colleague, but I shall bear my hon. Friend's request in mind. I think, and hope, that the points, which have now been made by three colleagues, will be firmly registered by those responsible for printing the story in question.
Mr. Stephen Timms: Is the Leader of the House aware of a recent report published by the Single Homelessness in London organisation which revealed that there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of places for homeless people in direct access hostels in the capital and that there is growing pressure on the dwindling number of places that are available? Will he arrange for an early debate on the problems facing homeless people in London?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise an early debate, but I can point out that my right hon. and hon. Friends have in recent years devoted a great deal of effort, with considerable success, to reducing the problem of homelessness in London. I shall, of course, draw the hon. Gentleman's point to their attention.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Tory Benches would like an early debate on the constitutional and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom? As Unionists, we want to make it quite clear that we support the Union and apologise to no one for that.
Mr. Newton: I see no need for my hon. Friend to apologise for that. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear during the previous election campaign the importance that he attaches to the matter.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have a debate on parliamentary procedure and, in particular, ministerial replies to parliamentary questions? May I have an assurance that by the time that I give evidence to the Nolan committee next Thursday all the questions that I have tabled in recent weeks in relation to lobbying, especially those tabled to the Department of Trade, will have been answered in full?
Mr. Newton: Without knowing the detail of the very large number of questions that I know the hon. Gentleman has tabled and the difficulties involved in answering them I cannot give him such an undertaking off the cuff. I know from the effort that I have put into answering the questions that he has put to me that every effort is being made to answer them and I am sure that every effort will continue to be made.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent early debate on the implications for jobs and taxation levels of the reimposition of trade union control and the policy of public ownership which will exist in the Labour party despite the rewriting, recasting or scrapping of clause IV?
Mr. Skinner: If only it were true.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman's comment on my hon. Friend's important point was filled with nostalgia. I cannot promise an early debate, but it would certainly be an interesting issue to discuss.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: May we have a debate on junior doctors' hours? Does the Leader of the House
1222
agree that, in view of the fact that the wife of British Telecom boss Iain Vallance earns £19,000 a year for two days a week as chair of St. George's Healthcare Trust, while junior doctors work up to 100 hours a week and earn £12,000, her husband's recent remarks showed gross ignorance and crass insensitivity?
Mr. Newton: I could see considerable merit in a debate on junior doctors' hours, which would enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to set out strikingly the progress that the Government have made in reducing those hours.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on the welcome news that the provision of travel passes for London's pensioners and disabled people has been confirmed for the forthcoming year to cover bus, tube and rail travel for the first time? That debate would inform people in London and around the country that their passes are safe once more and will not be undermined by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats?
Mr. Newton: That was another very good point from my hon. Friend. I draw his attention to the fact that the Department of Transport is answering questions on Monday during which he may usefully find a way in which to underline that point.
Ms Glenda Jackson: As the Minister responsible for transport and road safety today announced a further swingeing cut of 20 per cent, in vehicle inspectorate staffing, and as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) pointed out that BRAKE, the national campaign for safer lorries, was launched today, may we have a debate next week on the number of deaths on our roads due to ill-maintained lorries, including the 40,000 lorries estimated to travel on our roads without licences, which clearly concerns people more than the Government's dangerous rush to deregulation?
Mr. Newton: I have already made a couple of points relevant to the hon. Lady's question. First, the Department of Transport will answer questions on Monday and, secondly, returning to a point made by one of her hon. Friends earlier, of course the Government are ready to consider any recommendations made by BRAKE.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Has my right hon. Friend seen the text of recent speech by the Governor of the Bank of England on the economic impracticalities of a single currency? Is it not therefore important to have a debate on the single subject of the single currency, not least because I am aware that, while the Leader of the Opposition constantly dreams about a single currency, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the foreign affairs spokesman, talks about it being a nightmare? In that spirit, may we have a debate and a free vote?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will have heard the responses of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a similar request in Prime Minister's Question Time, in which my right hon. Friend drew attention to the myriad of views among Labour Members on those matters. I shall not seek to add to that.
Mrs. Llin Golding: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on children's rights in Britain? He must be concerned, as we all are, by last week's report of the United Nations committee—

1223
[Laughter.]—that Britain was continually violating the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. I am sure that he considers it serious, even if his hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) does not.
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise an early debate, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will be aware that, given the extensive improvements in the rights of children through the Children Act 1989, the suggestion that the Government are in any way neglectful of the rights and interests of children would, indeed, be far-fetched.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 527.
[That this House, noting the terrifying cases of death and injury caused by defective heavy goods vehicles, welcomes the campaign BRAKES; and demands that the Secretary of State for Transport takes urgent action to protect the general public by extending the powers of traffic commissioners to allow the impounding of defective vehicles, by increasing the fines for companies running defective vehicles and by increasing the frequency and effectiveness of enforcement of the road traffic regulations.]
I urge my right hon. Friend to find time for a debate on that important subject so that Transport Ministers may inform us of the efficiency that they expect of the Vehicle Inspectorate executive agency, and point out that the Government would find any cut in inspections totally inappropriate, as it is essential that they are continued? There is a difference between wanting an organisation to be more efficient and wanting it to cut services.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes an important point which I hope will be registered on the Opposition Benches. On the main issue that he raised, I cannot add to what I have now said twice: of course the Government would look very carefully at any recommendations in that area which seemed relevant and necessary.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Is the Leader of the House aware that, since the last general election, Scottish Members have been denied an opportunity to question the Minister with responsibility for health in Scotland because he is not a Member of this House? Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Minister to make a statement next week to the Scottish Grand Committee so that he can explain, for example, why Forth Valley health board continues obstinately to refuse my reasonable request to hold at least one public consultative meeting so that the public can voice their objections to the proposed closure of Lochgreen hospital?
Mr. Newton: If I may take the primary thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question as being a representation about a particular hospital matter in Scotland, I will of course draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister in another place.
On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I will bring his request in relation to the Scottish Grand Committee to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, I must point out that nothing has changed—the same applied before the general election—in respect of the inability of this House to
1224
question Members of another place and the inability of Members in the other place to question Ministers in this House.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I remind my right hon. Friend that European Standing Committee B debated the data protection directive some weeks ago. Is he aware that, despite being condemned by both sides of the Committee as being ludicrously bureaucratic and over-regulatory, that directive is likely to be approved by the Council of Ministers, partly because the Foreign Office simply has not given the directive the priority that it deserves on the United Kingdom Government's negotiating list? Is it not time that we did something about the way in which we scrutinise European legislation so that it is more accountable to the House and time that we brought the legislative system in the European Community more under control?
Mr. Newton: I have to say to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour that I do not accept his comments about the position of the Foreign Office. Beyond that, I would certainly wish to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends who will be concerned with proceedings in the Council of Ministers.
Mr. Max Madden: On the issue of building confidence in the Irish peace process, will the Leader of the House answer a question of which I gave his office prior notice today? Do the Government intend to renew the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the orders linked to it?
Mr. Newton: Yes. The Act is due for renewal by 22 March and I expect to bring forward the necessary motion in due course.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate on regional government during the course of which we could express the resentment of the people of Kent in respect of the proposal that they would have to pay increased taxation to sustain a vast and interfering bureaucracy at Reading, which is the Labour party's proposal?
Mr. Newton: Once again, I find myself increasingly tempted by the requests for such a debate because the whole country, not simply the House, would like to hear from Opposition Front-Bench Members how they would justify the extra bureaucracy and the associated additional costs of some of the proposals that they appear to have in mind. However, the first thing to do would be to clarify just what it is that they have in mind.
Mr. Eric Clarke: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement and have a debate on the future of the Forth rail bridge? I have tried on numerous occasions to ask the Secretary of State—whom I gave notice that I was raising this matter today—to answer questions about the inquiry. I have visited it with my hon. Friends the Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The Forth rail bridge is the property of the people of Scotland and they are worried about its maintenance,

1225
safety and future. The matter should come before the House for discussion and I hope that the Leader of the House will give it the priority that it deserves.
Mr. Newton: I begin by reminding the hon. Gentleman of what I said either last week or the week before. Responsibility for the Forth rail bridge rests with Railtrack. However, as a result of representations made by hon. Members, my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for education and housing in Scotland has made inquiries with Railtrack about the maintenance of the bridge. My hon. Friend is here this afternoon to hear further representations, and I am grateful to him for that. He tells me that he will write to the hon. Members concerned shortly.
Mr. Rupert Allason: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a written reply which I received from the Maritime Safety Agency on Monday, which disclosed that it was unable to declare precisely what proportion of the British fishing fleet is in Spanish hands. The industry believes that up to 30 per cent. of the British fishing fleet is Spanish owned, but now—under European regulations—the Maritime Safety Agency is unable to supply that information. Does my right hon. Friend think that mat would be a suitable topic to raise during the debate on the Royal Navy, given the responsibility that the Royal Navy will have in protecting the British fisheries fleet? Should there be a separate debate on the issue, or should the matter be raised during the debate on the Navy on Thursday week?
Mr. Newton: I see you, Madam Speaker, looking as puzzled as I am regarding the latter question, which is of course a question for you and not me, I am glad to say. No doubt you will offer what advice you can about what will be in order during the debate on the Royal Navy.
The right thing for me to do is to say to my hon. Friend that I will bring his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who I am sure would wish to communicate with him about it.
Mrs. Helen Liddell: In view of the pleas made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and the statements made last week by the Secretary of State for Social Security that Ministers do not earn enough, could time be made for a debate on this matter, particularly as the Secretary of State for Social Security suggested that Back Benchers' salaries should be reduced to enable them to take jobs elsewhere? Does not that create an interesting constitutional matter in relation to the role and responsibilities of those of us who are honoured to be elected to serve in the House and to represent the rights of our constituents?
Mr. Newton: In recent times, the House has had a number of opportunities to debate the pay of hon. Members and Ministers, and I have no immediate expectation of providing a further opportunity.
Sir Michael Marshall: My right hon. Friend will have heard the exchanges earlier with the Prime Minister in respect of the debate on Europe. Does he recognise that there is a specific question on the timing of when the House can express a view, given that the ministerial summit was proposed to take place originally
1226
at the end of January? Will he ensure that the House is given a full opportunity to express its views in proper time before that summit is confirmed?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will have heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reply to him during questions. He will no doubt be aware of some comments which I made on the subject either last week or the week before. The working group which is working preparatorily to any summit of the kind that my hon. Friend has in mind will be carrying forward its work later this year. However, I will bear in mind the request for a debate, although I am not sure whether this is the appropriate time.
Ms Judith Church: Further to the important questions asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell), will the Leader of the House make time for a debate next week on executive pay and pay relativity, in view of comments of the chairman of British Telecom, Sir Iain Vallance, to the Select Committee earlier this week that he would find the work of a junior hospital doctor more relaxing? That matter is raised in early-day motion 531.
[That this House notes with disdain Sir Iain Vallance's comments to the Employment Committee on 31st January suggesting that a National Health Service junior doctor's job might be more relaxing than his current position as Chairman of BT; notes particularly the results of a recent survey which showed over 50 per cent. of junior doctors worked beyond the recommended 72 hours on pay as low as £12,500 a year; believes this compares dismally with Sir Iain's current £663,000 BT salary including a bonus of £185,000 and other benefits of £13,000; further notes that Sir Iain's non-executive directorship on the board of the Royal Bank of Scotland brings in a further £50,000 for one-and-a-half days a month, a weekly rate of £1,371; considers this vastly over inflated salary is neither fair or just reward but a breeding ground for resentment— particularly within his own company—especially if one compares the weekly pay of various grades in BT, notably a domestic cleaner on £162.99, an operator on £193.48, and a clerical assistant on £190.91; and reminds him that it is thanks to the efforts of the workforce, especially CWU members, that last year he pocketed a performance bonus of £185,000, an increase of 105 per cent., whilst the workforce settled for 2.9 per cent. and that since privatisation in 1984 CWU members wages have risen by 80 per cent. whilst his have rocketed by 687 per cent.]
Mr. Newton: It appears that there is some kind of effort by Opposition Members to continue to raise this matter. I understand that and I do not complain about it, but having now commented on it twice, I will not try to have a third shot.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Would not it be futile to follow the right hon. Gentleman's advice on asking questions next week about reducing lorry dangers, as the Government have already told me that they have no intention of beefing up the MOT certificate procedure, which was the cause of the lorry problem in Sowerby Bridge where a tragedy occurred? The lorry involved had a forged certificate. Is not it true that the MOT certificate system is corrupt? A debate is essential so that we can expose the fact that the Department of Transport indirectly employs the lorries used in building the second Severn crossing and, of the 190 lorries involved, one third

1227
were found to be unlicensed and illegal. We need nothing short of a debate to expose the cowboys who are killing 700 people every year.
Mr. Newton: I have already drawn attention to the attendance here next Monday of the Transport Secretary and his Ministers and have given two or three assurances that the Government will consider any recommendations made by BRAKE. I do not think that I can add to that answer now.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), will more serious aspects of the Forth railway bridge be taken into account, so that we can have a full debate? My hon. Friend and I visited the bridge, walked across it and took a boat in between the structures and it is clearly in a desperate state. It requires immediate attention and it requires more than my hon. Friend was offered in the reply. Will the right hon. Gentleman insist that the Scottish Office takes seriously the concerns that we are expressing about the structure? Given its importance—I understand that it is the eighth wonder of the world—perhaps he will treat the matter seriously and arrange time for a debate on the bridge.
Mr. Newton: I resist the suggestion that I have shown any sign of not taking the matter seriously. It is fair comment that the very fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)—the Minister to whom I referred— has taken the trouble to be here, expecting that those matters would be raised, demonstrates the seriousness with which he takes the matter. He will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said and I am sure that he will consider it carefully.
Mr. Tony Banks: I hope, Madam Speaker, that you noticed how dangerous it is up here, sitting between two beefy Scotsmen with flailing arms. May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 430?
[That this House notes that the annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals which give details of the number of animal tests carried out in 1993 has still to be published; calls on the Home Office to take action to speed up the process of publishing annual statistics showing the number of animals used in scientific procedures; and demands that the statistics for 1993 are published immediately.]
Will he join me in sending the condolences of the House to the family of Jill Phipps, the young woman who was tragically killed outside Coventry airport, protesting about the export of veal calves. The right hon. Gentleman obviously understands the intense revulsion for that export trade throughout the country. Notwithstanding statements by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, may we have a debate so that the temperature and feelings of the House can be heard, not only in Government, but in Brussels?
Mr. Newton: The first thing that I want to say, which I am sure that the House would want, is that we all share the hon. Gentleman's desire to send sympathy to the family of the woman killed at Coventry airport. On the rest of his question, the West Midlands police force is investigating the matter, under the supervision of the
1228
Police Complaints Authority, and it is right, certainly for me from the Front Bench, to await the outcome of that process.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: Earlier this month, the Secretary of State for the Environment launched a policy document, "Air Quality—Meeting the Challenge", which proposed a number of policies, including those designed to increase the use of public transport and reduce car usage. Is the Leader of the House aware that, on Monday, British Rail commuters face fare increases that are massively in excess of inflation? Londoners, who pay the highest commuter fares in western Europe, are especially hard hit. Will he find time next week for both Secretaries of State to come to the House to explain the apparent conflict in Government policy?
Mr. Newton: I have adverted several times to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be here to answer questions on Monday. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to put that question to him then. However, it has been made clear by both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the aim of the Government's policy for the railways is to make them more attractive for people to use and, therefore, help stem the relentless decline in the use of the railways which has been taking place for more than a generation.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Leader of the House has undoubtedly seen early-day motion 466 in support of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
[That this House notes that the second reading of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill on Friday 10th February 1995 is an historic opportunity to introduce full citizenship rights for the United Kingdom's 6.5 million people with disabilities; further notes that the Bill has the sponsorship of Right honourable and honourable Members from nine political groups in the House; recognises the support the Bill also has from the Rights Now Consortium, the TUC and many other groups and individuals; welcomes the Bill's inclusion of a Disability Rights Commission so that comprehensive antidiscrimination provisions can be activated and advanced on the same basis as those designed to tackle discrimination on the grounds of gender and race; and further welcomes the Bill's measures aimed at increasing accessibility to voting and to polling stations as the vote is the fundamental building block for the operation of democracy and civil rights.]
That Bill is now supported by hon. Members from all 10 political groups in the House, including from the two Conservative parties. Will the Minister clarify the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), in which he said that the Government would support its own Bill, the Disability (Discrimination) Bill? Does that mean that they will oppose the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill on 10 February?
Mr. Newton: I thought that I had made the position clear by referring to what my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People said on Second Reading of the Government's Disability (Discrimination) Bill on 24

1229
January. I may not have made it clear that I was quoting his words from column 153 of Hansard, to which I refer the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on the shocking revelations made on Scottish Television yesterday evening that thousands of British families who were formerly living in Northern Ireland have been driven into exile by kangaroo courts of paramilitary organisations during the period of the troubles? Why have none of the organisations, such as Families Against Intimidation and Terror, a non-sectarian group representing those who have been oppressed, been asked to be involved in discussions on the future of Northern Ireland? They must be involved if the real people of Northern Ireland, not the paramilitaries, are to decide how that structure will come about and people can return from exile to their homes.
Mr. Newton: I did not see the interview to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I make the obvious point that avoiding such a position is among the objectives of the Government's efforts to ensure future peace in Northern Ireland. I imagine—obviously, I cannot know—that many of those involved in the organisations to which he refers are, in some way, members of political parties in Northern Ireland, and they clearly have a part in the process.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: In the light of the prison fiascos at Whitemoor and Parkhurst, may we have an urgent ministerial statement on the report of Judge Tumim into the privatised prison at Blakenhurst, which showed inefficient management, insufficient and
1230
untrained staff, and lack of control of prisoners? Does he agree that privatised prisons are not only an expensive folly but a dangerous folly?
Mr. Newton: I shall simply say that the difficulties experienced at Blakenhurst are of the kind often experienced when a completely new prison is opened, whatever the arrangements under which it is opened. I understand that those difficulties have now been resolved. The hon. Gentleman did not refer, as I would, to the fact that the chief inspector praised the quality, high motivation and enthusiasm of the Blakenhurst staff.
Mr. George Foulkes: I thank you, Madam Speaker, for leaving me until last.
Madam Speaker: Of course, I recognise that, but Front-Benchers are always left until the last, in my mind.
Mr. Foulkes: But the exercise is particularly welcome as well.
On a more serious matter, may I assure the Leader of the House that Scottish Members of the United Kingdom Parliament would welcome more time to debate issues concerning London, particularly Westminster city council. May we have a debate to discuss not only the gerrymandering but the recent revelation, surprisingly— or perhaps not so surprisingly—in the Daily Telegraph, that £30 million was wasted on housing repairs? That brings disgrace not just to Westminster, but, as Parliament is situated within that London borough, to the whole country. Should not we be given time to debate that matter fully and have an explanation from Ministers?
Mr. Newton: After that, I do not think that I can say that I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for calling the hon. Gentleman. However, I shall bring his representations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Points of Order
Sir Terence Higgins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I had evidently misunderstood the reply of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to my request for a debate. We should have an opportunity in the House of debating the issue of whether there was a legal impediment on banning the export of live animals for slaughter. My right hon. Friend referred to a statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday. I searched in vain in Hansard, looking through written answers and everything else, but could find no trace of a statement. I understand that the statement was made outside the House. May I ask you, Madam Speaker, to confirm that a statement outside the House is no substitute for a debate within it?
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. I often, from this very Chair, say that any statements that are made should first be made in the House and to hon. Members. I am glad to have the support of the right hon. Gentleman in that. I see that the Leader of the House wants to make a further point and, although I will not allow a debate on the subject, I think it only right to allow the Leader of the House to answer.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) knows that I would always want to consider carefully such a point when it is made by him. If I misled him in any way—and certainly if I implied that there had been a statement in the House—I give him an unqualified apology. I think that it is well known that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday set out fairly fully the legal advice that he had received. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing would want to acknowledge that.
Madam Speaker: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will table a parliamentary question, so that we may all know the legal advice that has been received.
Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I share the concern about statements made outside, rather than inside, the House— we have suffered from that for years.
I seek some guidance. I understood that it was the tradition in the House that, if an issue affecting a region was raised, a representative of that region would be called. I had Question 10 on today's Order Paper and began to rise in my place when Northern Ireland was mentioned in the first question. I was not called although four other right hon. and hon. Members were called and were able to speak about Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) even mentioned my colleague, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross)—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was advised in advance about the reference. Significantly, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East also failed to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, on Tuesday last. My I have some guidance on the matter?
Madam Speaker: Yes, of course. It is almost impossible for the Chair to call an hon. Member simply because his or her region, town or constituency has been mentioned in Question Time. Of course, during a debate,
1232
I would hope that hon. Members would give way and allow an intervention. But if the occupant of the Chair were always to allow such an intervention during Question Time, I am afraid that we would seldom malice any progress through the Order Paper. Hon. Members can see the layout of today's Prime Minister's Questions on the Order Paper. I saw the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) stand up, but he had tabled question 10 on the Order Paper and I could not call him in advance of that question.
As for matters yesterday, if the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard he will see that, not only were a good cross-section of English, Scottish and Welsh Members called, but all the Northern Ireland parties were called to question the Secretary of State. I kept the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box for almost an hour to ensure that a cross-section of the House questioned him properly.
Mr. Rupert Allason: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance about the conduct of Business Questions. Is it not correct that some time ago you ruled that there should be no duplication of questions during Business Questions? This afternoon there were four questions on precisely the same subject—lorry safety and the BRAKE campaign. There were three orchestrated questions relating to Iain Vallance and two questions relating to the Forth bridge.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to the attention of the House. We do not want repetition because it means that Business Questions go on for much longer than necessary. At the same time, if there are two or three questions on the same subject it indicates to the Leader of the House and to the Government the strong feeling that there is in the House about a certain matter.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. During Prime Minister's Question Time misinformation was given to the House about the appointment of Rothschilds by the Department of Transport. In fact, Rothschilds have been and remain advisers to Railtrack, and no new appointment has been made. What remedy is available to hon. Members to set the record straight about that matter?
Madam Speaker: I think that hon. Members might pay particular attention to the Order Paper and put down either an early-day motion or a parliamentary question to the appropriate Department so that the matter may be corrected, if indeed it needs correcting.

BILLS PRESENTED
  CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  Rev. Ian Paisley, supported by Rev. William McCrea and Mr. Peter Robinson, presented a Bill to prohibit, in Northern Ireland, discrimination against disabled people on the ground of their disability; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 17 March 1995, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]
Orders of the Day

  Social Security
  4.20 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): I beg to move,
  That the draft Social Security (Incapacity Benefit) (Transitional) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.
  I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss motion No. 2:
  That the draft Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.
  The regulations provide for the introduction of the new incapacity benefit, which will replace sickness benefit and invalidity benefit from 13 April 1995. The Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations describe the own occupation test and the new all work test of incapacity and how they will be applied. The transitional regulations describe the arrangements for preventing cash losses when current invalidity benefit and sickness benefit recipients transfer to incapacity benefit.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in his speech; he is very patient. Is he aware that no fewer than 160,000 people in Wales are dependent on invalidity benefit, largely as a result of the old industrial structures and the industrial diseases that went with them? Will he give a categorical assurance that none of them will be out of pocket as a result of the changes? If he cannot do so, will he say what proportion of those 160,000 people will lose out?
  Mr. Hague: I can certainly give an undertaking that there will be no cash losses at the point of change; the Government have explained that on many occasions and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with our undertaking.
  People may be tested subsequently under the all work test—although about half the current recipients will be exempt from the test—who will not receive incapacity benefit in future because they are found to be capable of work, just as people are discovered to be no longer eligible for invalidity benefit after a certain period. They will be entitled to receive other benefits, and I shall describe some of the arrangements that will be made. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no cash losers at the point of change.
  The hon. Gentleman asked how many existing recipients may not receive incapacity benefit in future because of the operation of the new test. I have published a figure of 220,000 for the whole country for the first two years of operation. I am not sure whether figures are available specifically for Wales, but if they are I will give them before the end of the debate.
  It is important to remind the House of the background to the changes. Invalidity benefit is the fastest growing contributory benefit. The number of people in receipt of it has doubled in the past decade from 740,000 in 1983 to 1.6 million in 1993, and expenditure has more than doubled in real terms in the past 10 years from £3.1 billion to £7 billion in 1993-94. That dramatic growth has occurred at a time when the nation as a whole is becoming healthier. There is widespread concern that invalidity
  1234
  benefit now goes to people for whom it was never intended originally. No responsible Government could allow that growth to continue unattended. If we did so, spending could increase to up to £10 billion by the end of the century. That is why the provision of invalidity benefit was the first area that we examined in our long-term review of the social security system.
  The Social Security (Incapacity For Work) Act 1994 introduced the Government's reforms to incapacity benefit provision. It provides the structure and powers for creating a more coherent, affordable and sustainable system of incapacity provision, with better targeting of benefits on those who are genuinely incapable of work because of their medical condition.
  The tests of incapacity for work set out in the draft Incapacity For Work (General) Regulations 1995 will be used to determine entitlement to incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance and the disability premium in the income-related benefits, where paid on the grounds of incapacity.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: As the transition, the new test and the 32-page application form for new claimants will require considerable staff training and patient explanations to applicants, will the Minister give a categorical assurance that there will be no repeat of the shambles that accompanied the introduction of the disability living allowance?
  Mr. Hague: The Department recognises the great difficulties that accompanied the introduction of DLA, from which a good many lessons were learnt. Much of the expertise gained in resolving those difficulties is being put to use in preparing for incapacity benefit. Much time and effort is being devoted to the matter, and the hon. Gentleman will find that the administrative and other procedures will work efficiently and properly, as the House intended. I will spend a good deal of my time ensuring that they do.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: I understand that 140,000 appeals are expected in the next few months. Will the same speed and efficiency that the Minister claims for adjudication and testing apply to the appeals procedure?
  Mr. Hague: Appeals will be largely in the hands of the independent tribunal service. It is well aware that there is likely to be a considerable increase in appeals and is preparing for that eventuality. I hope and intend that appeals will be considered expeditiously.
  In most cases, for the first 28 weeks of sickness a person's capacity will be judged, as now, against their ability to do their own job. After 28 weeks, the new all work test will apply. Consideration of all work is not new. In the current system, after a reasonable period, capacity is assessed against a wider range of work. The new all work test is the key to our reforms. Our main objectives are to focus provision on those who are genuinely unfit for work, to provide a simpler, fairer and more objective assessment of incapacity and to meet the expressed concerns about the current role of general practitioners as gatekeepers to the new benefit.
  The all work test is the culmination of an extensive programme of development work undertaken over nearly two years. After initial in-house studies using nearly 1,000 case studies and open consultation with a wide range of

  1235
  interested parties, a panel of 80 experts was convened to assist the development work. The group consisted of experts in fields relevant to incapacity for work— practitioners from various disciplines in medicine and occupational health, academics specialising in disability issues and members of disability organisations. The panel took part in a series of exercises to help establish an accurate means of measuring functional impairment and gauging its effect on capacity for work.
  The data that emerged from the panel's work were used to devise a method of assessment that was tested in two evaluation exercises involving nearly 900 existing invalidity benefit claimants. The sample of volunteer claimants used was broadly representative of the normal flow of cases called for medical examinations. The Government are most grateful to the members of the expert panel for their help in designing the detail of the all work test. All the data that they produced were taken into account in the final proposals.
  In developing the mental health assessment in the new all work test, we were advised by and have carefully taken into account the views of representatives of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. We are grateful for that help and intend to keep in touch with the Royal College of Psychiatrists about the new test when it is implemented.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am interested to hear that the Government set up a panel of experts to look at changing the system of benefits, and that they are investigating people who, it was suggested, were not sick. Is the Minister aware that there are two different classes in our society? Some people have to work for a living and do not get paid if they do not attend. Many of them finish up on invalidity benefit when they are sick. Can the Minister tell me how many of the experts who sat on that panel ascertaining whether a working man or woman was fit or unfit for work were those who had to work for a living, and whom do not get paid if they do not attend? If a Member of Parliament does not come to work, he or she still gets paid. If a miner does not go, he does not get paid. I find it more than odd. It is hypocritical that the Government chose that group of people, as probably none of them has experienced the problem of having to work hard, suffer losses and claim invalidity benefit. Yet they are the very people who decide what kind of benefits are given to those wealth creators. How many?
  Mr. Hague: Let me clarify something about the panel. The purpose of the panel was not to decide who was sick or incapable of work but to help in drawing up a test that would be fair and objective and to take into account the expertise of people on that panel. Many members of the panel would resent the suggestion that they have never had to work hard—
  Mr. Skinner: I did not say that.
  Mr. Hague: At one point I think that the hon. Gentleman said that.
  The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about the way in which members of the panel were paid for their regular employment. I am not familiar with the way in which each member was paid, but if information is available on that I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman have it. I am sure that he will be extremely interested in it.
  1236
  I am trying to show that the development of the new test has been an open process. We have consulted widely. We have involved outside experts—
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hague: I shall give way once more, but then I must make some progress with my speech.
  Dr. Bray: The consultation and treatment of the mentally ill has been continuing, as the Minister says, and I hope that it will continue. Is he satisfied that the manuscript addition of a mental illness in regulation 10 is the only amendment required to cover the ground that he has been discussing with the Royal College of Psychiatry, or are there other amendments on, for example, the disqualification for misconduct and so on, which seem to overlap with other legislation on the treatment of the mentally ill?
  Mr. Hague: I believe that the insertion of severe mental illness in that regulation is the only change necessary, but no doubt if the hon. Gentleman manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may have other changes to advocate, and I will listen carefully to what he has to say.
  The all work test will assess the effect of a person's medical condition on his or her ability to carry out work-related functions. It will focus on medical factors alone—the only relevant consideration of medical incapacity for work. Non-medical activities, such as education, skills and experience, may affect the ability to get a job, but they are not a cause of medical incapacity. It is the medical condition that distinguishes the long-term sick from the unemployed. To include non-medical factors in the assessment would reintroduce the problems of the current system. It would mean that incapacity benefit would be paid to people because they are unemployed rather than incapable of work. We have protected the position of the most seriously ill and disabled by making them exempt from the test. We have consulted leading disability organisations on the list of exemptions. Again, I am most grateful for the help that we have received.
  We have recognised the particular problems caused by mental illness by designing special procedures for claimants with a mental health problem. Those with a severe diagnosis will be exempt. Those with a mild to moderate problem will be interviewed by a Benefits Agency medical services doctor who will have received special training in this area. There are arrangements to ensure that the claimant's own doctors will be able to give full relevant information on each case, including, if relevant, the possible effects of being found fit for work. We have also made provision for the small number of conditions where incapacity cannot be measured functionally. The arrangement here will cover such things as people awaiting major surgery or who could be suffering from a previously undiagnosed condition or who have an uncontrolled or uncontrollable condition.
  In most cases, claimants will be able to give their own assessment of the effects of their medical condition in a questionnaire. Their doctors will be asked to provide a statement of diagnosis and of the principal disabling effects of the condition. If necessary, we will ask doctors to provide further information. I want to make it quite clear that any information given by claimants' own

  1237
  doctors will be taken fully into account in the assessment, but we will no longer ask the GP for an opinion on capacity for all work. That change meets the concerns that GPs and others have expressed about their current gatekeeper role.
  The majority of claimants will be asked to attend an examination by a Benefits Agency medical services doctor, who will have been fully trained for his crucial role in the assessment. An independent adjudication officer will weigh all the evidence—from the claimant, his doctor and the Benefits Agency doctor—and will apply the all work test to find out if the claimant is capable of work.
  We will ensure that there are effective sanctions for those customers who do not comply with the requirement to return the questionnaire for the all work test or to attend a medical examination, if this is necessary. If they fail without good cause to do either, they will be treated as capable of work. There will be six weeks to return the questionnaire and at least seven days' notice of an examination unless they agree to a shorter period of notice. However, we will ensure also that no one will be disallowed where good cause exists.
  We recognise that sick and disabled people may have difficulty in complying because of their condition. Good cause is not defined in legislation, but existing case law explains that consideration should include any facts that probably would have caused a reasonable person to act as the claimant did—for example, the claimant's knowledge of the social security system and information that the claimant has received or could have obtained.
  In addition, regulation 9 of the general regulations introduces a requirement, when considering good cause, to include whether the person was outside Great Britain at the relevant time, the person's state of health and the nature of their disability.
  Mr. Frank Field: The Minister explained that many of our unemployed constituents have managed to get themselves on to this benefit. Many of us know that before the 1987 election there was an enormous drive in employment offices to get people off unemployment benefit and on to this benefit so that the electorate could see falling unemployment rolls before they went to the polls. The advantage of our constituents drawing this benefit is that not only is it slightly higher than they would otherwise get, but it allows their wives to work and therefore to raise family income.
  The Minister has told us of the savings that he expects to make, largely as a result of kicking unemployed people off this benefit roll. Did he ask his Department to undertake a similar calculation of what would be the fall in the number of beneficiaries if the Government managed to reduce unemployment to its level in 1979 when they took office?
  Mr. Hague: As we have seen during recent months, the Government are making huge progress in reducing unemployment. In the past year, an additional 220,000 people have taken up full-time work. Employment in almost all or all regions is substantially improving.
  That does not get us away from the fact that invalidity benefit and incapacity benefit, as it is to be from April, is intended for people who are medically incapable of work.
  1238
  The reforms are designed to reassert that and to assure that for the future. The Government believe that that is what we have to do if the budget for incapacity benefit is not to run out of control and if taxpayers are to be assured that the money is being properly used.
  Mr. Frank Field: The Minister has not answered my question. We accept the line that he is putting to us, but might he not achieve his objective of a fall in the number of claimants if unemployment fell substantially—back to the level of 1979, when the Tories took office?
  Mr. Hague: If we agree, as I think we do, that some people are now receiving invalidity benefit because they are unemployed rather than because they are medically incapable of work, an improvement in employment— particularly one on the scale of the current improvement—would have an impact on the number of recipients of invalidity benefit as it is currently designed. We are discussing a long-term reform of the system, however, and we cannot anticipate every future movement in the economic cycle. We may be entering a period of much better prospects in the employment market, which will help the overall budget, but we cannot be sure that economic developments occurring several years later would not produce the contrary effect. We cannot base the future of the benefit on the calculations that the hon. Gentleman encourages me to make.
  The detail of the test is laid out in part III of the general regulations, and was also set out in a report entitled "The Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit", which we published in September. I do not propose to dwell on the detail of all the provisions in the regulations, which are explained in the guide "Notes on Regulations". The regulations describe the circumstances in which the two tests will apply, the information and evidence required in connection with the test and the structure and scoring system. There are, however, a number of provisions that I wish to cover in some detail.
  Part II of the regulations introduces the exemptions from the test for claimants who are terminally ill or suffering from one of a specified list of serious conditions. The exemptions ensure that the most severely disabled— in whose cases incapacity for work can never be in doubt—will not be subject to the test. I make it clear that the exemptions cover people suffering from severe mental illness. It was always our intention to exempt them, but because of the varying nature of some of the conditions we originally intended to achieve that procedurally. We have now decided to put the matter beyond doubt, and to include severe mental illness in the list of exemptions. That is why we withdrew the original draft of the regulations and submitted new ones early this week.
  Mr. Miller: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hague: I have already given way generously, and many hon. Members wish to speak. I may give way before the end of my speech, but I must make some progress; otherwise I shall take up a lot of time. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is anxious to speak.
  Part II also makes provision for claimants to retain incapacity benefit while doing a limited amount of therapeutic work on doctor's advice, doing voluntary work or serving as a member of a disability appeal tribunal or the Disability Allowance Advisory Board. We have made arrangements to ensure that the hours limit

  1239
  does not apply to certain people undertaking therapeutic work, and that when the limit does apply it can be averaged over a number of weeks. I know that those arrangements have been welcomed by hon. Members and by many people outside the House who have worked actively for the introduction of such provisions. With the associated improvements in disability working allowance, they demonstrate our desire to provide help for those who want to try to return to work.
  Much concern has been expressed, in the House and elsewhere, about the potential for a "black hole" or "twilight zone", as some have called it, between incapacity benefits and benefits for the unemployed. I wish to reassure the House on that. The threshold for benefit in the new all work test is not the point at which a person can do no work at all; it is the point at which a person should not be expected to work. We all know of people who are blind or use a wheelchair, but who are perfectly capable of, and do, full-time work. We do not think that those people should be required to register for work if they need to claim social security benefits. We think it important, however, that disabled people should have a choice: there will be special arrangements to ensure that people who are judged incapable of work by the test, but who choose to register as unemployed, can be deemed capable.
  Let me reassure the House that a decision on capacity will apply across the social security system. If a person is judged capable by the new test and then chooses to register as unemployed, the adjudication officer in the Employment Service cannot then decide that that person is not capable of work. A claimant must, of course, be available for and actively seeking work to qualify for unemployment benefits. That does not mean that claimants must be able to do every possible type of job; minor impairments that restrict ability will be recognised within the system and accepted by the adjudication officer. Everyone looking for work will be offered an initial in-depth interview with an Employment Service client adviser. A person who had some difficulty walking, for example, would not be expected to take a job as a postman.
  Mr. Miller: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hague: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman once more.
  Mr. Miller: I am grateful to the Minister. Before he leaves the subject of this complicated series of procedures, may I take him back to the question of definitions? What is the definition of severe mental illness? Would, for example, a schizophrenic who could not get a job because employers—regrettably—treat such people as unemployable be considered to have passed the test? How are such people expected to find their way through the reams of regulations that the Minister has described?
  Mr. Hague: The severity of such conditions can differ greatly from case to case, but those concerned must be diagnosed as suffering from a severe mental illness. I do not think that we shall encounter any difficulties, because those people will be exempted from many of the arrangements; and procedures have been carefully set out for people who suffer from mental illnesses but do not fall into that category, so that they are properly and sympathetically assessed.
  1240
  Our overriding aim is to ensure that no one on sickness or invalidity benefit will experience a reduction in benefit at the point of change. When incapacity benefit is introduced on 13 April, existing sickness and invalidity benefit claimants will be transferred to short-term and long-term incapacity benefit respectively. Claimants will retain entitlements to allowances paid under the sickness benefit and invalidity benefit schemes. For those who were in receipt of invalidity benefit, the benefit will continue to be upgraded annually, with the exception of the earnings-related additional pension, which will be frozen. In addition, the incapacity benefit paid to those who were in receipt of invalidity benefit will not be subject to income tax.
  The regulations provide for the entitlements of nearly 2 million people. They are necessarily very technical and complex, to ensure that there are no cash losers when incapacity benefit is introduced. Part VI of the regulations contains provisions for the new all work test of incapacity for work to be applied to existing cases.
  The process will take place over a ? period of two to three years. It would not be right to exempt all existing cases from the test when there is widespread concern that some people are capable of work and should not be receiving invalidity benefit. Those people are in the minority, and the new test will identify such cases fairly.
  The new arrangements may create anxiety among people currently on invalidity benefit who are genuinely unable to work because of their medical condition. Some have been on the benefit for many years. Let me reassure them. Regulation 31 introduces an exemption from the test for existing claimants continuously in receipt of invalidity benefit since 1 December 1993—the date on which the changes were announced—and aged 58 or over on the day on which the new benefit comes into force. That is in addition to the exemptions from the test that are set out in the general regulations, to which I have already referred.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hague: I will give way for the last time.
  Mr. Duncan: Does not the introduction of the all work test allow my hon. Friend to give some reassurance to general practitioners who, in the past, were the unfortunate judges of whether their patients should be eligible for benefit? The all work test is a great improvement on the previous system.
  Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The current test has placed GPs in an invidious position on many occasions; under the new system, their views and information will still be taken very much into account, but they will no longer be in that difficult position.
  I was referring to the exemptions from the test set out in the regulations. The exemption in regulation 31 of the transitional regulations reflects our recognition that loss of benefit would inevitably cause greater difficulties for people who are near to pension age. In choosing the age of 58, however, we also had to take account of the growth in the number of people aged over 50 who were receiving invalidity benefit, and the evidence that the benefit was being paid to some who were not medically incapable of work.

  1241
  Nearly 50 per cent, of existing claimants will not be subject to the new test. Of those who do take it, we believe that the majority will satisfy it. We shall ensure that no one will be found capable of work by the new test without first having had, or been offered, a medical examination by a Benefits Agency medical services doctor. There will be, of course, a right of appeal against any decision to disallow benefit after the application of the new test. In any appeal where the all work test is in question, the social security appeal tribunal will be assisted by an independent medical assessor. Those facts should help to reassure people who are currently on invalidity benefit and who are genuinely incapable of work.
  The reforms that we have introduced represent a major change to the way in which we make provision for people who are incapable of work. Implementing such a change is a major undertaking involving complex computer programmes, thousands of civil servants and hundreds of departmental doctors. However, it also involves about 2 million of our fellow citizens.
  I wish to emphasise the Government's continuing commitment to a contributory, income-replacement benefit, paid to those who are unable to work because of sickness or disability. It is only by focusing resources on those people who need them most that we can provide an affordable system that will be sustainable into the next century. The regulations before us today would ensure that that aim and commitment can be met and I commend them to the House.
  4.51 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: The Opposition social security ranks often labour apparently in vain. Therefore, I shall allow myself a small indulgence and congratulate my hon. Friends who serve on the Committee considering the Jobseekers Bill who today achieved a concession from the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) moved an amendment to ensure that carers in receipt of invalid care allowance will get credits so that when they cease caring they will almost certainly be entitled to the—admittedly rather reduced—jobseeker's allowance. Carer groups have been pressing for that concession for a long time, so I congratulate my colleagues on the Committee on their success.
  The regulations deal with an area of real difficulty. I am not one of those who would pretend that it is a simple matter to strike the right balance. It is clear that a great deal of thought has gone into the matter, not just in the Department—although it has reached some mistaken conclusions—but among the many groups of people who have been involved in the consultations and debates.
  I hope that the Minister will not make the mistake of assuming that because people of genuine expertise and good will have had the staying power to remain in the panel system that reviews these matters—despite the fact that they might have fundamental disagreements with it— in the hope that they might at least wring some improvements out of the process, that in some way means that they endorse the principle of what we are discussing. I hope that the Minister understands and accepts that point.
  1242
  One of the problems with regulations is that they come on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. All that we can do tonight is to state our concerns during the debate and underline the strength of them in the Lobbies. In doing so, we are reflecting a good deal of unhappiness and the wide sweep of informed opinion.
  The simple starting point—I speak only for myself—is the belief that the change has been designed purely to exclude from benefit people who have previously enjoyed entitlement to it. In some cases, there will be victims who should not be victims. The casualty list will be lengthy and the wrong people will be on it. If we look objectively, there can be no argument about that.
  The Minister and I are at one on some of the figures; it is always satisfying to be able to quote his figures for the scale of the problem. Over the next two years some 220,000 people currently receiving invalidity benefit will lose entitlement because they do not measure up to the new incapacity test. Some 55,000 new claimants over the same period will fail the test, although they probably would have been entitled to invalidity .benefit under the present regulations.
  I say genuinely to the Minister that I am not trying to raise unnecessary fears, but there is no doubt that there is a great deal of anxiety about this matter. Although I get many letters to which I think I can honestly respond that I believe it unlikely that the right to benefit is threatened, there are many cases where I cannot do that. I know from personal experience that the issue is causing a great deal of worry and anxiety.
  I recognise that the exemptions are important. The last figure I was given for that was 850,000.1 accept that that represents a substantial and important group of people. A large number of people aged over 58 in receipt of invalidity benefit on 1 December 1993—on an almost continuous, if not continuous, basis—will be relieved of a great deal of worry. There are other specialist groups and I welcome their inclusion, but the figures that I have just quoted will not entirely relieve public anxiety and concern.
  Mr. Rowlands: If some of the guesstimates are right, the problems could be much larger than we already fear. One local assessment is that only about one third of those currently in receipt of invalidity benefit are aged 58 and over. I find difficulty in reconciling that figure with the claim that about half the recipients of invalidity benefit will be excluded from the process.
  Mr. Dewar: There is a great deal of room for debate, discussion and local variation in the process. We will not know all the results until the system shakes down and we can call on what I fear will be bitter experience. My hon. Friend represents a south Wales constituency and I suspect that there are very specific problems in that area. One hon. Member earlier quoted the figure of 160,000 people on invalidity benefit; figures I have been given suggest the number to be nearer 175,000. Whichever figure is right, it is well above what we would usually expect on a population-per capita basis. We are all aware of the problems of the mining industry, which is a particular characteristic of people on invalidity benefit in my hon. Friend's area.
  The test is meant to be a narrow gate. It is easy to mock it and its descriptors; it is easy to make fun of the new numerical totting up system. I do not want to do that, but there are problems. For example, I find it rather quaint

  1243
  that we are told that if someone cannot raise one arm above his head to reach for something, he is entitled to no points on the scoring system. If someone has no problem with reaching, not surprisingly he is entitled to no points on the scoring system. That appears to be redundant information and there are other similar examples.
  However, rather than making fun I believe it to be more important to examine the general principle. We are concerned that there is a confusion between capacity for work and a loss of facility. Of course, medical condition is an important component, but the Government admit that other matters are also important—for example, age. Research produced by the Department suggests that once someone has passed 50, the aging process becomes a conditioning and important practical factor. I would be prepared to give personal evidence about that, as, no doubt, would some of my contemporaries.
  The selection of the age of 58 is arbitrary. It was plucked out the air for no obvious reason. Nevertheless, age is a factor. Also, if there is no work that a person can reasonably be expected to do, in the real and practical world that factor cannot be entirely ignored.
  There is still great concern about whether the test will be sufficiently sensitive and flexible to take account of diseases where remission is a problem or where pain is a presenting problem. There are the problems of describing severe as distinct from other forms of mental disability.
  There are hon. Members in the Chamber who took part effectively in the Second Reading debate. I remember being annoyed when the Secretary of State—who is something of a stranger to our debates these days—said:
  "Our new test has already been welcomed."—[Official Report, 24 January 1994; Vol.236, c. 38.]
  He managed to give the impression that if people were not exactly burning bonfires outside the offices of Disability Alliance, the Disablement Income Group and other such organisations, they were near to that. It was not a fair impression.
  The Secretary of State prayed in aid one witness, the National Back Pain Association. It had happened to write to him and he had interpreted its views as being very much in favour of tests. As the association was the one example that the Secretary of State gave, I took the trouble to contact it a couple of days ago. It could hardly be described as a hostile witness, given that it was the only friend that could be produced in court on the original occasion. It may interest the Minister to know—it is not the most stringent of criticisms, but it is interesting given the source—that the association
  "is concerned as to how the assessors will measure pain as a functional limiter. We feel that many chronic back pain sufferers will have difficulty in sustaining the level of activity necessary to return to work—pain is invisible and not always observable. A back pain sufferer could perform the test satisfactorily but at what cost and is it sustainable?"
  I make that point because it is typical of many of the points that have been made by organisations with experience in the matter. I was glad, therefore, to return to them for further thoughts. I remind the Minister that, despite the nice ruled lines and dried ink, and the dotting of the i's and crossing of the t's in the Department, genuine concern still exists outside in the real world.
  One should not argue these matters in terms of hard cases. I became a little irritated—I am sure that some hon. Members here will remember it—with the level of some
  1244
  of the debate on Second Reading of the Jobseekers Bill. The Secretary of State told us about the case of someone on invalidity benefit being caught cleaning the windows of the Benefits Agency office from which he received his benefit. We were told about javelin contest winners who were on invalidity benefit. The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) conclusively established the Government's case with the rather curious fact that the man who waved the flag at the Grand National was on invalidity benefit. I do not think that any of that does any service to these difficult issues.
  No doubt exists that one of the reasons why we are in this position is that the Government believe that the health of the nation is improving and that, therefore, we should be able to do without many of the people on invalidity benefit. The famous phrase from the Prime Minister was that the figures "beggar" belief. Complicated attempts were made to suggest that, because the number of peptic ulcers in society had halved, a similar reduction should be seen in invalidity benefit. I remember having exchanges with the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) about the Policy Studies Institute report.
  To remind the House, it is interesting that the institute's analysis was that about 29 per cent. of the increase in the number of people on invalidity benefit arose because pensioners were staying on invalidity benefit after retirement age to enjoy the fact that it was tax free; if they took the same money under pension eligibility, it would be taxed. Most hon. Members with the persistence to stay for the debate will know that that choice has been removed in the legislation, and that many pensioners will have increased tax bills as a result. No doubt the Government will say that they have reduced invalidity benefit figures substantially because those people will have lost that right. Another 16 per cent, of the increase was due to the increase in the number of women in the labour market. Those factors have nothing to do with fraud or abuse. I hope that the Government accept that.
  One of my worries relates to the problem of the black hole or twilight zone, as I think the Minister called it. Inevitably, a large number of people will be displaced. They will become dependants in their own homes. They will live on savings, if they have any. If they do not, they will be thrown on to non-contributory jobseeker's allowance, or, before that comes into being, on to income support. The Government's current estimates are that in 1995–96, 95,000 people will be displaced from invalidity benefit by the changes. In 1996–97, the figure will be 190,000 in 1996–97. Those people will have to sign on. Almost inevitably, they will end up on means-tested benefits because they are unlikely to have a contributions record that will allow them, even for the six months, to claim what is left of jobseeker's allowance.
  The Government have been critical of the growth in means-tested benefits and of the damage and dangers of those benefits. I find it a strange inconsistency that so much of what they are introducing in terms of incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance will significantly force up the number of people on means-tested benefits. More important, it will create in many communities a bitterness, a feeling of failure and a hopelessness, which will not be good for morale, and which will lead to many personal problems.
  I think too of single men who may be especially vulnerable—or single women; but let us take single men for the example. If they are on their own, they may have

  1245
  to fall back on basic income support. They will be in a position that is an odd reversal of the normal career because they will be on basic income support for 10 or perhaps 12 years and their income will improve only when they retire, because at least they will then have the pensioner's premium. For that long period, we are creating a substantial social problem and making no attempts to deal or to wrestle with it.
  May I turn briefly, as I recognise that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak, to the interesting and important point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). Administration has been the bugbear of much of the change in the social security sector. I am concerned about some of the figures that are already beginning to emerge because of the changes made in the administration of incapacity benefit. To illustrate that theme, I want to use the example of growth in appeals.
  To take one criteria, let us consider what has happened since 1993. The House will remember that, in that year, the Government announced that there would be improvements—an interesting term—in medical control arrangements and that they hoped to save £240 million over a two-year period. In 1991, 4,852 appeals were decided and the number rose in 1992 to 53,088. In 1993, when the new regime was introduced, the number jumped to 9,422. The latest figures show that, in the first quarter of 1994, the number continued to grow, with 4,005 appeals decided. I know that this matter is open to argument about interpretation, but the success rate of appellants has increased from 49.6 per cent, at the beginning of the period to which I referred, to 58 per cent. It is worth remembering that, back in 1979, it was 21 per cent. There is a tale there and some deductions can be drawn from it.
  It is not just the past trend that is worrying; the continuation and perhaps dramatic acceleration of that trend also worries many of my colleagues. Just before I came into the Chamber, I obtained a briefing note from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. It said that its offices in many parts of the country were being inundated with people who were worried about their position vis a vis the changes that have not yet come into effect. A real danger exists of administrative chaos.
  In 1993—these are the most recent figures that I could find that have a statistical base—23,105 appeals on incapacity benefit were lodged. The Minister told me the other day that he was expecting 140,000 in 1995–96. That is a quantum leap. I know that he will say that the Government have put more money and resources into the medical advisory service; he will tell us that they are all geared up to deal with it. I hope that he does not think that I am a cynic, but if he is right in his expectations— on all experience, he is probably in the right ball park— the system will seize up under that strain and under the other administrative problems that are reflected in the expected dramatic jump from 23,000 to 140,000. That is a measure of the problems that we may face.
  1246
  My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) referred to the nightmare of the introduction of the disability living allowance. We must be concerned about what is happening.
  Mr. Miller: Did the Minister in the same conversation tell my hon. Friend the expected cost of the increased volume of appeals? I should imagine that it will be horrendous.
  Mr. Dewar: I cannot tell my hon. Friend. I should be able to give him some relevant information but I have forgotten it. I myself received an answer to the effect that the added expenditure on the Benefits Agency's medical service was, I think, £3 million or £4 million. The Minister may be able to help later. In any event, I hope that I have made the point fairly.
  When I was first involved in these debates—they seemed to have begun long ago—I referred to a "petty change" producing "minimum savings" for the Government. I was rapped over the knuckles by the Secretary of State on Second Reading of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994. He compared my approach to that of the late John Smith who had launched a fierce attack on the whole issue. As we now know, John Smith was right and the rap on my knuckles was well justified but no one who now considers the scale of the financial switch and the number of people who will be displaced could possibly argue that it is a petty change. It is a major change and one which I think will cause major problems for the Government.
  Let us consider the impact of the test alone, leaving aside the difference in benefit levels. The savings are expected to be £210 million in 1995–96, rising to £700 million in 1996–97 and to £1 billion in 1997–98. That is a great deal of money to take out of this particular budget.
  The test must be seen as part of a package. How will that package be perceived by the public? There are other adjustments involving many examples of how the rate of benefit will be lowered for those who are on the new incapacity benefit as against those who remain on invalidity benefit—the basic rate will be lower between 29 and 52 weeks, the age-related increases will no longer exist and the adult dependency increases will be lower in the middle period and, even when restored after 52 weeks, will be available only to those looking after children or who are over 60. The many changes will be noticed because people notice nothing more particularly than the shortage of the pennies that they want to count in their purse or pocket. My fear is that other people's fears are real and growing. One tries to reassure but it is often difficult.
  I happened to be in south Wales last night—as hon. Members can probably imagine, it was rather quiet. I attended a public meeting and was struck by the fact that, at the end, more people came to me to discuss their worries about incapacity benefit and the changes than asked questions about something which to an observer would have been the big issue of the meeting which, the Minister will not be surprised to know, was the Child Support Agency.
  I fear that there may be a parallel between the CSA and incapacity benefit. The trouble with the CSA is that it is perceived to be unfair and unjust. Despite all that the Minister has said, I believe that there is a real danger that the new incapacity benefit system will in the end be seen as unfair and unjust.

  1247
  The Minister will no doubt say that once the transitional arrangement has run its course and the reviews have all been carried out there will be no unfairness, but the answer that he will receive is that it is very little consolation to be told that the system is uniformly unfair, which I think is how people will regard it. In other respects, it will be seen as arbitrary as well as unfair. It will be easy to find two applicants in the same town who are comparable in terms of finance, family circumstances, physical disability and loss of faculties but who may receive different levels of benefit because of the date of their first application. Of course, they will also be subject to dramatically different tax treatment. That is not a happy prospect and I think that the Minister has greatly underestimated the problems and trouble that it will produce.
  When the system is fully operational, we shall be taking a total of £1.5 billion from the present budget. It cannot be a painless process because it is not simply a matter of administrative reform. Many people will be hit, and hit hard. It can only reinforce the Government's reputation, of which they should not be proud, for introducing change that is unrelated to the needs of the people whom the system is supposed to be helping.
  On Second Reading, the Secretary of State, who is not here today, said:
  "The Bill is not an attack on the sick and disabled; it is the very reverse. It is designed to protect their benefit against those who abuse it."—[Official Report, 24 January 1994; Vol.236, c.35.]
  I do not believe that abuse is the test, but, in any event, very few people will agree with the sentiment that the Act is a way to protect and help the sick and disabled. Once we have experienced the Act, no one will believe it. I predict that Ministers will have to rethink their position and I hope that they will be prepared do so before too much damage is done.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Alan Howarth: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) reminded us of the Second Reading debate on the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994 just over a year ago on 24 January 1994. Looking back at Hansard, I noted with some embarrassment that I had made an inordinately long speech, so I shall not today rehearse in detail all the reasons why I am unhappy about this measure and the regulations that flow from it, which we are now invited to approve.
  I make no complaint about—indeed, I applaud—the Government's determination to retrieve and bring back into balance our public finances. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on the progress that he has already made. What I cannot, however, approve is the fact that the cost of continuing this process should be borne by members of our society whom we must recognise as disadvantaged and in need of our help. Whatever the reasons may have been, it was certainly not the fault of the long-term sick and disabled that in the second half of the 1980s we allowed expenditure and inflation to take off; nor was it their fault that we then deflated the economy so severely and ran up the borrowing requirement.
  Under this legislation, it is people who should have a special claim on public support who are asked to make the biggest sacrifice relative to their means and opportunities. The device whereby people are to be
  1248
  selected to make this sacrifice—the so-called "all work test"—is a contrivance that I cannot believe satisfies the rigorous and fastidious intellects of my right hon. and hon. Friends. As I have argued before, the proposition that there can be an objective medical test of capacity for work—for all work—is fundamentally misconceived.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends know very well that an individual may be capable of some kinds of work and not others. They know that a person's capacity for work is a function not only of his state of health but of factors such as education, training, skills, experience and, of course, the jobs on offer and their accessibility. All those factors should be weighed together, as they have been since the Conservative Government introduced invalidity benefit in 1971.
  The notion of an all work test is a fig leaf for the Treasury's determination, regardless of near-term distress or long-term cost, to cut planned expenditure. I am not interested in—I am deeply opposed to—gaining tax cuts at the expense of the long-term sick and disabled. I suspect that many voters share my view.
  The long-term sick and disabled are not very good at organising protests and making their voices heard. The media gave no coverage at all to the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill when it was going through Parliament, yet the Act and the regulations are major legislation in terms of their fiscal and human implications. The Government expect to take £410 million from the social security budget in the forthcoming year and £1,720 million by 1997–98 by dint of, among other things, excluding from incapacity benefit 220,000 people who at present can claim invalidity benefit.
  Let us be clear about the fact that these people are disadvantaged. A few claimants may indeed be abusing the system, and I do not condone that. But the Department's own research reveals that by far the greater number are poor and—surely my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree—deserving.
  Under the medical test which we are asked to approve, one has to score 15 points to qualify for incapacity benefit. Someone who is partially sighted and cannot see well enough, even when wearing spectacles, to discern a friend on the other side of the room, scores 12. If she lives in a rural area without buses, she certainly could not drive to work. She would receive invalidity benefit now, but if she were under 58, she would not receive incapacity benefit under the new system.
  A person with myalgic encephalomyelitis—ME—who has problems with gross and fine motor control, cannot bend down and then straighten after picking something up, and cannot tie his shoelace scores only 13 and does not qualify. It used to be thought that polio and multiple sclerosis were hysterical conditions. Is that still the view of the Department and the Benefits Agency medical service on ME?
  What clarification has been given, to enable us to understand the implications of our vote this evening, as to the calibration under the test of cerebral palsy or multiple sclerosis? Which sufferers from those conditions will qualify for incapacity benefit and which will not? The: principle of objectivity presumably means having the facts on the table.

  1249
  I hope that the House will tolerate my once again quoting Dickens, because he would undoubtedly have had something to say about the all work test and the 80 experts whom my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned. The House will remember chapter two of "Hard Times":
  "Thomas Gradgrind ‖ A man of facts and calculations. A man who proceeds upon the principle that two and two are four, and nothing over, and who is not to be talked into allowing for anything over … With a rule and a pair of scales, and the multiplication table always in his pocket, Sir, ready to weigh and measure any parcel of human nature, and tell you exactly what it comes to. It is a mere question of figures, a case of simple arithmetic."
  There was also Mr. Gradgrind's utilitarian colleague:
  "A mighty man at cutting and drying, he was; a government officer."
  The Department of Social Security certainly produces facts. I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his willingness to publish research even when the findings do not validate his policy. Research report 20, a longitudinal study of new recipients of invalidity benefit by Bob Erens and Deborah Ghate, demonstrated that the great majority of new recipients of invalidity benefit were poor and earned in their last job, in 1991 or 1992, between £2 and £5 an hour. They were likely to have been manual workers. The most common causes of their invalidity were industrial diseases and other work-related factors. Only 17 per cent, of them had stayed in full-time education beyond the age of 16, and 48 per cent, had no educational qualifications at all. Once over 50 years old, their chances of returning to employment were very poor indeed.
  Those recipients of invalidity benefit are the victims not only of injury and ill health but of recession—all too often, people in poor health are the first to be made redundant—and economic change. Where are the jobs in today's economy for people in their 50s with little education, few skills and a poor health record? They have paid national insurance contributions to provide precisely for the contingency in which they find themselves. Indeed, my right hon. and hon. Friends and the House have recently increased the contributions of those people by 10 per cent; yet, by way of these regulations, we would lessen or even remove that benefit altogether. It is not a good thing to do.
  My hon. Friends are invited to believe that invalidity benefit has been a wholesale rip-off. It is pointed out, in the relentless repetition of propaganda—my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said it again this afternoon—that the cost of invalidity benefit has been soaring, even as the health of the nation has been improving; so, we are supposed to conclude, claimants have been swinging the lead.
  I am glad that, overall, the health of the nation has been improving, but averages are deceptive, as we might have been told in an interesting essay, had it not failed to appear in the new edition of Social Trends, and as we have just been told by the school of advanced urban studies in Bristol. The health of the nation is chequered geographically and correlates with the unevenness of socio-economic factors. Poorer people, particularly in the older, industrial areas, experience worse health.
  The growth in claims, as the hon. Member for Garscadden reminded us, has been analysed by the Policy Studies Institute. It found, as the hon. Gentleman said,
  1250
  that 29 per cent, came from claimants choosing invalidity benefit rather than the pension, as they were entitled to do; 16 per cent, from the increase in women in the labour market paying national insurance contributions; and 13 per cent, from the increase in disabled people in relevant age groups. Some 42 per cent, was due to the growth in the number of genuinely disabled people. The key to that is that they could not get off benefit because there were no jobs for people with their disabilities and skills, or lack of skills. There was no evidence to suggest that they did not want to be in work. Their benefits were a poor substitute for their earnings. The system has provided no feather bed for idleness. Four out of five claims questioned by officials of the Benefits Agency medical service were, indeed, made by people who were incapable of work.
  What will happen to the existing claimants of invalidity benefit? The most severely ill have rightly and properly been exempted from the test. My right hon. Friend is allowing recipients aged 58 and over to be passported through to incapacity benefit. However, he estimates that about 220,000 people will be found to be capable of work over the next two years.
  I welcome his assurances that there will be a right of appeal, that those who are found capable of work and decide to register as unemployed will have a full advisory interview and receive special guidance and help, and that additional places on programmes are being funded with extra resources given to the Employment Service and to the placing assessment and counselling service.
  To do all that is, of course, right, but I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will think carefully and sympathetically about the requirements under the rules of the job seeker's allowance for people suffering from long-term sickness and disability—conditions all too real, although not severe enough to score 15 points—and especially older people. I apprehend that only a fortunate few—very few—will get jobs. It may take them a long time.
  Only 41 per cent, of all men aged between 55 and 64 are in employment. The long-term sick and disabled will be competing with people in good health for jobs which, despite all the Government's good efforts to promote job creation, are far too scarce. Let us please refrain from imposing insensitive requirements on them, which will be hard for them to bear, through jobseekers' directions. Let us think very carefully about what requirements in terms of actively seeking work ought to be imposed on the long-term sick and disabled. Let us be as positive as we can, for example, in accommodating a commitment to voluntary work, which many people with a degree of disability will willingly and most valuably undertake on a part-time and flexible basis.
  What about the appreciable number of people who will not qualify for incapacity, but who, because of their disability, will not be able to satisfy the more rigorous qualifying conditions for the jobseeker's allowance? My hon. Friend the Minister sought to offer reassurance, but I remain fearful that some—too many—will disappear into the proverbial black hole which he mentioned. It would not be acceptable were that to happen.
  Those people are the victims of circumstances beyond their control. They have been unlucky in their health. They have been dispossessed of work opportunities by the colossal changes wrought by technology and globalisation, the restructuring of the British economy and

  1251
  the widening of inequalities in our society. But they are members of our society, fragmented though it is, and we cannot wash our hands of them. We should not for a moment wish to do so or consider doing so. It is fine for the Conservative party to encourage talent and success, but it can be no part of our ideology—I am sure that it is no part of my lion. Friend the Minister's ideology—to let the devil take the hindmost. We cannot neglect the responsibility articulated by the Tory party long ago to elevate the condition of the people—all the people. We must not abandon those who, under the present proposals, will lose entitlement to benefit.
  At a cost that we could well afford, we could passport through from invalidity benefit to incapacity benefit all existing claimants over the age of 50. In a parliamentary answer on Monday, my hon. Friend the Minister of State told me that it would cost an extra £45 million in 1995–96 if all claimants over 50 were exempted from the test on the same basis as claimants aged over 58. My right hon. Friends should soften their rigour to that extent. Our economy is quite strong enough to sustain that concession. If they are unwilling to do that, they can at least extend the exemption to people aged over 55—the people who we know have the poorest prospects of finding work—for a cost of only £15 million.
  The greater the insecurity of the world in which we live, the more we have a duty to offer care to the vulnerable. That should be a principle common to all parties in the House. As it is, the regulations express a policy which cold-shoulders the vulnerable and I cannot support them.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: It is a rare, if not unique, occasion for the Member of Parliament for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney to rise and say that he rather wished that he had made the speech that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) just made. It was a privilege to listen to the sensitivity combined with close reasoning that the hon. Gentleman brought to the debate.
  I do not want to engage in a general debate. I want to tell the Minister what I fear will happen in the communities that I represent as a result of the proposed changes. I seek a basic, simple and fundamental assurance from the Minister and I hope that he will be able to respond to my comments at the end of the debate.
  Irrespective of the national average figures, the Welsh figures, and particularly the figures for the communities that I represent, are of a different order from those that were presented to the House as the norm. According to written parliamentary answers, 10 per cent, of the male population of working age in Wales receives invalidity benefit. That is 2 per cent, higher than in any region in England.
  In addition, the 1991 census figures revealed a frightening, disturbing and continuing pattern of ill health in households in the valleys constituencies. Of the top 12 constituencies with the highest ratio of limiting long-term illness in households, 10 are south Wales constituencies. They have the highest ratios in the country. Poignantly, the constituency at the bottom of that league is Wokingham, the constituency of the Secretary of State for Wales.
  1252
  That gulf is a sad comment on us all. After 50 years of post-war effort, there is still an enormous gulf—which is partly historic and continuing—in respect of the social divisions reflected in the figures to which I referred and in the number of recipients of invalidity benefit.
  I am most concerned about the figures. I am worried that they are guesstimates. I do not know on what they are based. As I understand it, the Minister rested his case on the fact that half the existing recipients will be excluded from the process. One of the problems is that benefit districts in relation to invalidity benefit do not coincide with constituencies or local authority districts. However, I understand that in respect of the benefit district area that covers my constituency and beyond it— the Merthyr, Cynon and Rhymney district—24,000 people receive invalidity benefit. I am literate, I hope, but I am not very numerate. I am therefore worried about the figures and I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm them.
  If 24,000 people are in receipt of invalidity benefit in that benefit district, that represents a much higher percentage of the population of working age in receipt of that benefit than any of the averages about which we are talking. The Welsh average is between 7 and 10 per cent., but the percentage in that benefit district is infinitely higher. A much higher percentage of the people in the area that I represent receives invalidity benefit than the Welsh or English averages.
  As I understand it, only about 8,000 of those 24,000 people are aged 58 or over; that means that one third would be excluded from the total. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm my figures. In addition, we must consider those who would be excluded who would qualify under the exemptions; they would account for 16,000 of the 24,000. I have great difficulty in believing that an additional 4,000 fall into that category. That would mean that half the recipients in my area were exempt.
  I hope that I am wrong. I hope that the figures can be qualified, altered and changed in a way that allows me to go home and tell the communities which I represent that at least the Minister is arguing that half the existing invalidity beneficiaries in my areas would be excluded from the process. At the moment, on the guesstimates, I believe that rather fewer than half—and perhaps significantly fewer than half—would be excluded.
  I want now to consider the implications of a written answer that the Minister sent me about where the savings are to be made. In the reply, it was admitted that 41 per cent, of this year's savings, and 48 per cent, of next year's savings—we are talking about huge figures—are to come from disallowing existing recipients from the benefit. The savings will not be made as a result of new claimants or tax changes. In year two, 48 per cent, of the savings will result from withdrawing and refusing benefit in respect of those who are already receiving it. By any standards, that is a huge withdrawal of financial support from families and communities.
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon took us back to Dickens. I do not want to go back even to the 1930s. The qualitative difference between recession 1930s-style and recession 1980s-style in Merthyr Tydfil is that we still managed to spend in the 1980s. Consumption collapsed in the 1930s and that is what led to the absolute deprivation of the 1930s.

  1253
  The relative impact of the 1980s recession was cushioned in post-war Merthyr Tydfil, which had enjoyed a reasonable degree of permanent or full-time employment for the lifetime of one generation, and people had qualified for occupational pensions and for contributory benefits. When the redundancies occurred in the 1980s, with the double whammy of the collapse of manufacturing and mining, there was, fortunately, a cushion of occupational pension rights, redundancy rights, payments rights and contributory benefits rights for a generation of people who had been "shaken out" of the economy.
  In many respects, the figures conceal the true depth of economic inactivity. In my area, about 40 per cent, of men of working age are economically inactive. About 20 per cent, of them are registered as unemployed—depending on which bands we consider. If the 1991 census figures are to be believed, another 20 per cent, are economically inactive. Within that 20 per cent, are a very large number of people who receive invalidity benefit.
  We are not talking about taking £1 or £2 away from people; we are talking about taking £60, £70, £80, £90 or £120 from people, because the benefit is earnings related. It is related to one's contributions and to one's earnings. We are talking about taking between £60 and £120 a week from the family budget. Almost at a stroke, the decision of an adjudication officer will mean that those people will spend months trying to appeal against the loss of benefit.
  Let us take a conservative estimate, and say that perhaps 5,000 of the 24,000 people who are in receipt of invalidity benefit lose that benefit within the next two years as a result of the changes. If those people lose on average some £70 a week, we are talking about a loss in the purchasing power of the local economy of £15 million to £18 million a year. There will be serious consequential effects, not only to individual families but to the prosperity of the whole economy.
  The contributory benefits which came as a result of the reasonably permanent full employment which lasted from the late 1940s through into the 1970s saved local economies and communities of the kind and character I represented during the 1980s. Much of that money was immediately recycled back into the local economy.
  I can think of many families where the man or woman who is in receipt of invalidity benefit probably props up an unemployed son, daughter or married couple for insurance, clothing and a host of the other expenditures which occur in relatively close-knit communities of the kind I represent. Among those communities, invalidity benefit has played a very important social and economic part. Withdrawal of the benefit on the scale proposed worries me, as it could have a serious effect on not only individual families but the collective purchasing power of the community.
  I do not believe that Ministers have thought the measure through. They will say to me that people can apply for unemployment benefit, the new jobseeker's allowance or income support. I suspect that a large proportion of those who lose benefit will be people in their 50s who, because of redundancy, have left work. They will not have made the contributions necessary for them to be able to claim unemployment benefit, or the job seeker's allowance from next year. They may not be able to claim income support either, because they have modest
  1254
  lump sums left over from their redundancy money and a small occupational pension which takes them outside the limit. They will, therefore, not only lose the benefit but not qualify for any other benefit.
  Should those people bother to sign on for the jobseeker's allowance? They will have to do so to keep their credits for their pensions, and they will have to try to fill the hole left by the loss of benefit. As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said forcefully, they will have to compete for the same pathetic collection of jobs with younger adults and the long-term unemployed, of whom we have a rather large percentage. People in their mid-50s who have a disability of one kind or another and who will be shaken out by the new test will be competing for the pathetic, poorly paid jobs available at my local jobcentre. Let me tell the Minister what I am talking about. Someone brought to my attention a job as a security guard that was advertised as paying
  "£1.80 an hour—bring your own dog".
  We are talking about pathetic rates of pay, and I am not exaggerating.
  I do not understand where the national income averages come from, as I have searched in vain through the jobs advertised in the local newspapers for one salary which matches the average income. A considerable differential in earnings has been occurring during the past decade in communities such as mine.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security gave a most interesting and, I thought, sensitive lecture in Northern Ireland a few weeks ago, in which he drew attention to the social consequences of what he called the disparity of earnings. He was talking about the social consequences of that disparity, while at the same time introducing regulations which will drive thousands of people in their mid-50s into the labour market to compete with other adults and young unemployed people who have been waiting and hoping for a job.
  Mr. Duncan: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely, and I am perplexed. He seems to be in favour of keeping those people on benefit, rather than letting them compete in the labour market. Even if that is not his view—frankly, it seems that it is— he also seems to be at odds with the Disability Discrimination Bill, which wishes not to discriminate against such people in their search for a job.
  Mr. Rowlands: One consequence of the measure will be to drive people who had virtually accepted that they were in retirement—men and women of about 57—and who have been in receipt of invalidity benefit for two or three years back into the labour market. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made an effective intervention, when he described what happened during the 1980s. The Government understood and approved of invalidity benefit as being part and parcel of a whole process which allowed people almost to go into semi-retirement in their mid-50s, rather than scrambling for a job that they were not fit enough to do. The Government are now bringing in a new objective test with a huge retrospective character which will force people back into the labour market.
  I must tell the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) that a large number of people in their mid to late-50s have accepted that they are unable or likely to go back into employment. The loss of benefit will force

  1255
  them into the labour market. They will not feel deprived of their rights—that is the hon. Gentleman's argument— but they will most certainly feel deprived and angry as a result of the retrospective character of the test that is proposed in the regulations.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is making an excellent case against the measure. Does he accept that those people will also be angry when they find the levels of wages of the jobs for which they will be told to apply? Is he not making a strong case for a national minimum wage to end the obscenity of slave labour rates?
  Mr. Rowlands: I shall not be tempted by that topic, as you might stop me if I pursued the argument of a minimum wage, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We can have those arguments elsewhere on other occasions. I am simply trying to describe what I fear will be a consequence of the regulations, and the impact they will have on families and communities. I am also concerned about the impact which the measure will have on local purchasing power, which has sustained communities such as mine during two major recessions within a decade.
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon produced some fascinating figures. He said that, for merely £45 million, the Government could exclude everybody over the age of 50. That is an astonishing figure. It may turn out to be incorrect and, in communities such a mine, we may find that the regulations have a disproportionate effect. We have heard the assuring figures that more than half the people concerned will be exempt and that the majority of them will have their benefit maintained. That brings us down to about a quarter of existing claimants losing their benefit, as opposed to the rather more serious figures which we fear. If our more worrying and draconian view of the regulations turns out to be true, will the Minister review them?
  It was right and proper of my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden to speak about the experiences of the Child Support Agency and the disability living allowance. We have been through those administrative problems, although we accept that Governments occasionally cannot analyse in detail what the direct consequences of their actions or legislation will be. I fear that the number who will lose benefit will be larger than the Minister suggested. My mental arithmetic worked out that he implied that only about a quarter of those currently in receipt of invalidity benefit would lose it. I hope that, if those figures turn out to be inaccurate during the next one or two years, he will promise to undertake a fundamental and urgent review. I also hope that we do not end up with people suffering as a result of the Government's economic mismanagement, as we fear.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: I will not follow the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and his anecdotal evidence about the advertisement for a security guard which stated "Bring your own dog". It would be no good if it were my dog— his idea of intimidating an intruder is to lick him to death.
  I shall be brief as I certainly do not have the depth of knowledge of my namesake on the Opposition Benches. First, I must declare an interest, which is not in the Register of Members' Interests, as I am the president of the Isle of Wight branch of the Multiple Sclerosis Society.
  1256
  My concern is that, although the pain, stress, fatigue and variability of the condition will be taken into account, the questionnaire to be completed before examination by a Benefits Agency doctor does not appear to provide for describing the effects of a variable condition such as MS, or for the effects of fatigue after performing some function.
  Severe and progressive neurological diseases are exempt from all work tests. I want to know precisely how claimants who fall into exempt categories will be identified. As I am sure the Minister is aware, multiple sclerosis is a complex and unpredictable condition. It takes different forms, which include relapsing, remitting and chronic progression. Doctors are unable to provide a prognosis for the path that someone's MS will take, so how will agency staff determine whether a claimant's MS is severe or progressive enough to exempt them from the test? Will someone automatically fail if his or her MS is in remission at the time? Will the right of appeal be available for those who are not exempted, but who believe that they should be?
  I broadly support the Government's thrust to reform social security legislation and this is an important part of the reform. I simply remind the House that one of our former Members of Parliament, Mr. Rob Hayward, was an MS sufferer. Happily, I understand that the condition was dormant and he fought the by-election in Christchurch. I am sure that among the fraternity of Members of Parliament no one would suggest that fighting a by-election would make one unfit for work, yet those of us who know about multiple sclerosis and are aware of the ways in which the disease can progress, know that it can suddenly accelerate and make someone incapable of work. I see my hon. Friend the Minister nodding—in agreement, I hope.
  Fatigue is also associated with that horrible disease. Those of us involved in the Multiple Sclerosis Society hope that, before long, someone will not only discover the reasons for this terrible disease but a cure—the same is true of cancer. In the mean time, I hope that when I vote with the Government tonight I can do so knowing that the Minister will keep a careful eye on this matter. All our regulations and statutes—everything that the House does with the printed word—have to be in black and white, but I hope that the Minister will remember these few words of mine and will ensure that the regulations are implemented with a sensitive and human touch.
  5.53 pm
  Ms Liz Lynne: As other hon. Members have said, the medical test for incapacity benefit is crude and unfair. It is crude because it tests functional ability only and a task that is done once, not over and over again, which is what many people have to do when they are employed.
  As has been said, we need a proper definition of work—the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) mentioned that. I know that the other place tried to change the ruling. I want the legislation to include the definition of work used by the private insurance industry:
  "that to which someone is suited by education, training and experience."
  The Bill would benefit from the inclusion of that definition, but the Lords amendment was defeated by 124 votes to 107.

  1257
  The Bill is also unfair because people have been paying national insurance contributions. The benefit is based on one's national insurance contribution record, which is extremely important—as it is with the jobseeker's allowance. People are being asked to pay more national insurance, but services are being cut and they are receiving less in benefits.
  The Bill is also unfair because the Government are changing the rules and people will get less money than they do at present. It will be the same for the first 28 weeks—£43.45 a week—but, between 28 and 52 weeks, invalidity benefit is £57.60, whereas incapacity benefit will be £52.50. That is a saving of £5.10. The measure is a means to claw back tiny amounts to try to save the Treasury money, but when one adds it all together, it amounts to a considerable sum.
  The full rate will be payable after 52 weeks and the terminally ill will not be included, for which I am grateful. The Government are also clawing back money from age allowance and dependence allowance, and so it goes on. They are reducing the age bands from three to two and the full rate will be payable after 52 weeks and not 28. At present, the under-40s receive an extra £12.50, those between 40 and 49 an extra £7.60, and those between 50 and 60, an extra £3.60. With incapacity benefit and the change to two bands, the under-35s will receive £12.15 extra, and those between 35 and 45, an extra £6.10. There will be nothing extra for anyone older.
  As has been said, with incapacity benefit, the adult dependant will have to be over 60, or looking after children, whereas age is irrelevant with invalidity benefit. Claimants will also receive less money. One can claim invalidity benefit for five years after retirement, but that is not the case with incapacity benefit, which is available until retirement age only. Invalidity benefit is not taxable, whereas incapacity benefit is. The list goes on and on and the changes are totally unfair.
  If the Minister taxes incapacity benefit, will he introduce a proper benefit or allowance for those with special needs? The Disablement Income Group estimates that it will cost £87 a week for special needs and I hope that he will take that into consideration.
  The Minister estimated that 50 per cent, of claimants might have to be reassessed. The Government said that it was likely to be 85 per cent. He also said that it was thought that about 220,000 would be deemed fit for work after the tests, which I find extraordinary. The Department of Social Security has initiated some sort of test and says that one in four of those on invalidity benefit will be deemed fit for work.
  The new test will be the same as the current test for the first 28 weeks, whether it is for sickness benefit or new incapacity benefit. But after that, claimants must complete an unwieldy questionnaire of some 72 pages. They will need a considerable amount of help to fill it in and citizens advice bureaux are already receiving many inquiries about problems with it. Their case load will increase dramatically. Members of Parliament, too, will be inundated with people coming to see them about their problems, just as we did with disability benefit and child support. In six months or a year's time, the Minister will have to come back to the House to announce changes in the Act, just as happened with the Child Support Act
  1258
  1991. I hope that the problem does not go that far, but I fear that it will. Conservative Back Benchers will complain to the Minister, just as we are complaining now.
  The tests are also unfair. For example, a person who can carry a 5 lb bag of potatoes is awarded eight points; and a person who can turn on a tap with one hand is awarded 6 points. But many disabled people overestimate what they can do and do not want to admit that they cannot do certain tasks. So those filling in the questionnaire may say that they can do something whereas they cannot.
  I welcome the fact that the Minister said that people with severe mental illness will be excluded. But the section on "mental disabilities", as the Government call them, is still woefully inadequate.
  The section on the partially sighted is also woefully inadequate. Will the Minister reassure me—I know that he has had representations about this in addition to the incapacity benefit and medical test—that the wording of the test will be changed so that it says that partially sighted people should be able to read on a sustained basis, rather than just be able to read words? He may have reached some agreement on that, but will he say something about it when he sums up tonight? The medical test should also include the ability to scan and focus areas of text and the words
  "functionally useful field of vision".
  If claimants manage to fill in those forms, many of them will be seen by doctors from the Benefits Agency medical service, but those doctors will not know the patients. The Government may say that that is a good thing as it will ensure that the system it not open to abuse, but if doctors do not know the patients they will not know the patients' real history or the problems that they have experienced. Furthermore, will doctors who must review cases be trained in the relevant specialities, for instance, in mental health? Under the industrial injuries compensation review, many doctors are brought in from specialist fields. I know that that would be expensive and I doubt whether the Government will take the suggestion on board, but they should be aware of the various specialities. A doctor should not simply be asked to say whether someone with mental illness or a disability is unfit for work. They must have been trained in a particular speciality.
  Filling in the questionnaire will present great problems for the mentally ill, many of whom will not bother to fill it in and claim benefit. Some of them are unable to concentrate or have given up their jobs because of panic attacks. Imagine a mentally ill person presented with all those questions. They will make him or her panic even more.
  Some people will fall through the net between the incapacity and jobseekers benefits. In a written answer, the Minister of State, Department of Employment said that the problem will not have a great effect and will be taken into account under the new jobseeker's allowance in a similar way to unemployment benefit. But citizens advice bureaux already say that people are falling through the net as a result of the new medical test on invalidity benefit. They try to get unemployment benefit but end up getting no benefit whatever. I can imagine the arguments at the Benefits Agency about what should be excluded from the "area of work", because that point is being argued already. I hope that the Government will think again about the medical test. They seem to be simply clawing back money for the Treasury.

  1259
  Another key point is that many people will seek advice. If the Government think that people can rely on citizens advice bureaux, they must ensure that the CAB are given the funds and wherewithal to deal with all the cases that are brought to them, or the Government will have to provide an alternative.
  I wish that the Government had decided to simplify the invalidity benefit rather than complicate it and introduce a benefit that would advantage disabled people. The incapacity benefit simply penalises disabled people. Disabled people's organisations throughout the country and hon. Members on both sides of the House want the Minister, even at this late stage, to change his mind and review the medical test and, if possible, the incapacity benefit.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me once again. I have sat across the Floor from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in many social security debates and was, unusually, gearing up to pay him a compliment. I am sorry that he is no longer in his place to witness it. The manner in which he has approached this matter has been fair-minded. He is always a master of detail and I always learn something when he speaks. He makes broad and encouraging comments in addressing the overall problem of social security and an ever-rising budget. He said in 1992:
  "The Labour Party recognises the inadequacies of the present system … any government is entitled to review policy and spending patterns".
  So they are. He also said on the television series "On the Record":
  "I certainly don't take the view that the answer to the problems of the Social Security Department is just spending more money within the framework of the present system".
  Indeed, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for both those observations.
  Our problem, however, is in moving from those generalities to specifics and I regret that, even before we had a chance to study the details of the Bill, he dismissed it simply as a conspiracy to undermine the welfare state. It is not a conspiracy to do so. Rather, the reforms before us tonight, and the specific matters in the statutory instruments that we are debating, address and fit well within the context of the long-term problems of social security with which Governments must wrestle.
  On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
  "The Bill has three objectives: first, to ensure that the huge and rising sums devoted to sickness benefits are properly focused on those who are genuinely too unwell to work; secondly, to ensure that the cost is affordable; and thirdly, to provide a more rational structure of benefits."—[Official Report, 24 January 1994; Vol. 236, c. 35.]
  That is a good rule of thumb for almost any reform to the social security system and is in tune with the issues with which the Select Committee on Social Security has dealt.
  The current structure, which has been changed by the regulations, is inadequate. It is complicated and running out of control. There are currently two main benefits for people who are away from work for short periods because of sickness—statutory sick pay and sickness benefit.
  When we consider long-term incapacity we find that most people who have been entitled to either statutory sick pay or sickness benefit become entitled to the
  1260
  contributory invalidity benefit after 28 weeks of incapacity until they claim state retirement pension or are able to work again. They have to provide evidence of incapacity—normally to their own doctor. The invalidity benefit currently consists of an invalidity pension paid at the same rate as retirement pension, an invalidity allowance—an age-related addition that is paid to people qualifying for invalidity pension who become incapable of work more than five years before pensionable age— and an additional pension that is based on people's earnings between 1978–79 and 1990–91. The Government have already reformed the additional pension so that no further entitlement arises on earnings beyond April 1991. That measure was part of the package introduced from 1991 to improve the balance of incapacity benefits.
  The existing severe disablement allowance is non-contributory and goes to those people who are incapable of work for more than 28 weeks. But the flaws of the existing structure became completely overwhelming and there was increasing and widespread concern that benefits for those incapable of work have been going to people for whom they were never intended. There has been a rapid growth in invalidity benefit at a time when the nation's health has been recorded as improving. The number of people in receipt of invalidity benefit has almost trebled over the past 15 years—from 550,000 to about 1.8 million.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend alluded to what he described as increasing concern that invalidity benefit was going to people to whom it should not. What evidence has he of that concern? What evidence has he that the concern may be justified?
  Mr. Duncan: It is self-evident that, if the health of the nation is improving while, at the same time, the number of people deemed to be disabled and in receipt of benefit is increasing dramatically, there is something inconsistent in the way that disability benefit is delivered. I shall tell my hon. Friend the figures with which one has to wrestle.
  Expenditure on benefit has more than doubled over the past 10 years, even after allowing for inflation. It more than trebled in cash terms—from £1.6 billion in the financial year 1982–83 to £7 billion in 1993–94. If the system remained unreformed, the estimate is that spending could rise to £10 billion by the end of the century. It has become the largest contributory benefit after the state pension and one of the fastest-growing areas of expenditure in the system. I commend the Government for addressing the problems of a set of circumstances with which it is increasingly impossible to live.
  Those who are capable of work, but unemployed, should not be in receipt of incapacity benefit. Instead, they should receive benefits designed for those who are unemployed and, in particular, they should be designed to help such people back to work. Long-term dependence on incapacity benefit reduces motivation, causes skills to deteriorate and makes it harder for the recipient to take employment when work becomes available. It entrenches a distortion in the labour market which is severely detrimental to the long-term welfare and prosperity, not just of the country, but of the individuals involved.
  Another problem with the system was that general practitioners were experiencing severe difficulty fulfilling their role as the gatekeeper to invalidity benefit. The current system has placed them in an unfair position—a nasty and invidious position—in relation to their patients.

  1261
  It is almost impossible for a GP to maintain a cordial relationship with a patient for whom he has care and a duty of care when he is also asked to be the effective vetter of the patient's right to a state-provided benefit. It is as well that the GP's role has been significantly reduced to a more administrative one.
  The new system to be introduced in April amalgamates the myriad benefits into a single new benefit. It will be contributory and paid as of right, irrespective of means, to everyone who satisfies the necessary conditions. I think that the eligibility conditions have been fairly drawn. For the first 28 weeks of incapacity, people will be able to receive incapacity benefit if they are incapable of working in their own occupation. After 28 weeks, a new medical test of incapacity for all work will apply. It will apply in respect of both incapacity benefit and other benefits paid on the basis of long-term incapacity.
  There will be three rates of payment. The lowest will be payable for the first 28 weeks of sickness, when many people have occupational sick pay and other resources to call on, and will be paid at a rate equivalent to existing sickness benefit. After 28 weeks, an intermediate tier will be payable, set at the current higher rate of statutory sick pay. It will ensure that the benefit level is maintained for those who have been receiving statutory sick pay. The highest rate of incapacity benefit will be payable after 52 weeks of incapacity and will be set at the current basic rate of invalidity benefit.
  Existing claimants will continue to receive the rate of benefit in payment at the time of the change. In recognition of the overlap that now exists between state and private provision, the earnings-related additional pension on invalidity benefit will be abolished for new claimants and frozen for existing claimants. The Government have also undertaken to continue to uprate the remainder of the benefit. Many people undertake voluntary and therapeutic work, and certain changes contained in the measure will assist them. From April, all recipients of incapacity benefit will be able to undertake voluntary work for up to 16 hours a week while receiving benefit.
  Under the existing system, many factors are considered when taking decisions on incapacity. Such factors include age, skills, education, experience and something dubbed "other social factors". But the trouble is that the list precludes a tight definition of incapacity and makes it difficult to determine precisely whether someone is eligible to receive the benefit.
  The new system has considerable advantages and, under it, for the first 28 weeks of incapacity, people will be able to receive the lower rate of incapacity benefit if they are incapable of working in their own occupation. After 28 weeks, a new medical test of incapacity will apply. That medical test will involve the claimant, the claimant's GP and the departmental doctor. In an assessment of the claimant's ability to carry out a range of work-related activities, certain tests will apply. A significant advantage over the former system is that the GP will be involved only in a limited role and in supplying purely medical information.
  The regulations that we are considering are detailed and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) has quibbled with some of the tests included in the questionnaire—I can see why in many respects. The own occupation test
  1262
  and the all work test which are defined in the instruments have been researched extensively. In seeking to define them, the Government have received more than 350 responses since the publication of their consultation document on 1 December 1993. The Government have evaluated all the information and they have come up with detailed, clear and undeniably workable guidelines.
  The methods of dealing with those who suffer from mental health problems—with which the hon. Member for Rochdale is intensely concerned; indeed, she raised the matter during the proceedings of the Disability Discrimination Bill this morning—have been addressed and the provisions have been designed properly. I have read them in considerable detail and assessed how they will replace the existing system and I commend them to the House.
  6.20 pm
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is concerned, quite correctly, about avoiding the ghettoisation of the unemployed and the handicapped. He has advanced proposals in support of a scheme which at least makes a return to employment possible; that is a laudable objective. However, I wonder whether he is being entirely realistic.
  I shall deal first the plight of those who suffer from mental illness—in either severe or moderate forms— which is not exempt from the test. People generally refuse to acknowledge their illness and they take violent exception to the suggestion that they may, in any way, be mentally ill. Therefore, those who suffer mental illness often make a very traumatic entry into the health service. The argument about whether people are mildly or severely mentally ill is totally irrelevant.
  If such people lose their jobs and are then forced to deal with the most difficult aspects of social security provision, a temporary breakdown could easily become a permanent disability. When we identify the support mechanisms available to the mentally ill, it is obvious that the overwhelming burden of responsibility falls on community care and the health service. However, I do not think that the social security system can wash its hands entirely of its responsibilities.
  I welcome the exemption of the severely mentally ill from the work test, but the fact that the mildly mentally ill will be subject to the test poses all sorts of problems. Regulation 18(l)(b) states:
  "where a person x2026; fails without good cause to attend for or submit himself to medical or other treatment … he shall be disqualified from receiving benefit".
  That provision may overlap with the Government's proposals in the legislation dealing with the supervised discharge of the mentally ill and with community care arrangements. Have the Government thought about how regulation 18 will operate when community care arrangements vary hugely from one health authority to another and when the attitudes and the understanding of social security staff vary a great deal from one office to another? There is a standard system, but practical interpretation of it varies widely. I do not think that Motherwell is in the worst position in that regard, but I do not think that we fare particularly well either.

  1263
  In building up the community care provision, it is essential that the Departments of Employment, of Health and of Social Security work together very closely. The Department of Employment supports many admirable access-to-work schemes for the mentally ill which are run by people who have been mentally ill themselves. Mentally-ill people receive a sympathetic hearing from departmental staff and they are encouraged to take on more and more work. However, there is a danger that they will take on too much work, which may have disastrous consequences. It could prove beneficial to link the access-to-work schemes more closely with the health service—in terms both of national policy and of the local delivery of that policy.
  It is in the softer aspects of the organisation and provision of opportunities to return to work, rather than the hard, practical rules which are considered by the House, that the greatest progress will be made. Returning people to work successfully requires constructive and sensitive organisation and the regulations should be drafted in such a way as to achieve some flexibility. I do not think that that flexibility is achieved in the regulations as they stand at present and they overlap with legislation which is yet to come before the House. I trust that the Minister and his departmental colleagues will continue to give careful attention to those matters.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Keith Bradley: We have had a thoughtful debate, and I commend the effective contributions from both sides of the House, which will form a major part of the on-going debate on the regulations. They will continue to come before the House for a number of years and we shall be able to monitor their effects.
  However, I must immediately take issue with the contribution of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). He said it was self-evident that, because the health of the nation is improving, the number of people on invalidity benefit should be falling. If he looks carefully at the research undertaken by the Department of Social Security—
  Mr. Duncan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I did not say that. I said that if the health of the nation is improving, it is curious that the number of disabled people appears to be increasing as fast as it is.
  Mr. Bradley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's rewording of what I thought he said. Even so, I should be grateful if he would read the research from the Department of Social Security before making such assumptions. DSS statistics and independent research show clearly that the growth in the number of claims is more to do with people spending longer periods on benefit than with an increase in the number of people making claims.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) referred to research conducted by the Policy Studies Institute which shows that demographic trends account for much of that increase. The trends include: an increase in the number of women paying national insurance contributions; an increase in the number of people above pension age; and a gradual increase in the number of people with disabilities, with a significant rise over the period of the increase. In future,
  1264
  I hope that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton will look at the statistics more carefully before making rather broad-brush assumptions about why the number of claims for benefit has increased.
  The regulations give us the opportunity to debate for the first time the new test of incapacity for work and the transitional arrangements. They are crucially important for thousands of people who are disabled and chronically sick and for those who will be so affected after April this year. The provisions are wide-ranging as they apply not only to incapacity benefit, which replaces sickness benefit and invalidity benefit, but to the assessment of incapacity for severe disablement allowance, income support and credit only cases. They range further than merely the assessment for incapacity benefit.
  The reasoning behind the new test—to cut the increasing number of claims—has been perceived as a problem only in the case of invalidity benefit and not for the severe disablement allowance and for income support.
  This is the first and last time that the House will have the opportunity to debate the details of the new incapacity test before it is implemented. We complained during the passage of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994 that no definition of the medical test appeared in the Bill, so we could not debate it. Considerable concern was expressed in both Houses about the nature of the test. No details of the new definition were available because consultation and development were being undertaken simultaneously. We did not have the benefit of understanding that process while considering the Bill to implement the test.
  It eventually became clear that the test would deal only with functional ability and would not be more wide-ranging. A person's incapacity is reduced to a set of formulas that omits other factors relevant to incapacity, which are used in the formulas for invalidity benefit— age, education, work experience and skills.
  The October 1994 consultation document confirmed that the exclusion of relevant factors was a particular concern of many respondents to the February 1994 consultation. Even some members of the expert panel established to advise on development of the test expressed their concern. The test did not enjoy a consensus among all panel members but was the subject of considerable disagreement. That has not been properly explained in the House or elsewhere.
  Professors of rehabilitation, for example, were not asked to participate as members of the panel, but expressed their considerable concern about the development of the test. They wrote to The Times on 12 April 1994 to express their grave doubts about the way that the matter was handled.
  It is nothing short of cruel that people found to be capable of work on functional grounds should be expected to find employment when there is no work for them to do. Regulation 27 acknowledges exceptional circumstances in which someone could fail the functional test but nevertheless be deemed as incapable of work, and is to be welcomed. However, the October consultation document suggested that the provision was made because the evaluation studies revealed that, in some cases,
  "the functional assessment was not appropriate".
  If Benefits Agency medical service doctors found during clinical examination cases that could not be assessed on functional criteria alone, that must cast doubt

  1265
  on the validity of the test. Despite the BAMS reservations, the Government decided to go ahead with a clearly one-dimensional, functional test. One questions whether the principal rationale is to save money rather than to ensure accurate, proper and wide-ranging assessment of a person's incapacity.
  Part III of the regulations, and particularly regulation 24, defines the all-work test as meaning an individual's inability to score a set number of points in the scale of descriptors in the schedule. Unlike the provisions for early assessment of incapacity for a person's own occupation in chapter I, which is applicable for the first 28 weeks, or for exempt work under regulation 17, part III contains no definition of "work" for the all-work test. That reduces someone's capacity to undertake all work to a crude assessment based on the performance of such functions as picking up a 2.5 kg bag of potatoes.
  Incidentally, one change might be dubbed the metric meanness test. During consultation, the proposal to assess a person's ability to walk was based on yards, but that was changed to a metric measure, which will make it more difficult for the individual to score points.
  Except for the estimated 15 per cent, of claimants who will be treated as incapable of work under regulation 10, most claimants will have to score at least 15 points in a test of physical or mental functions, or at least 10 in a test of mental ability alone. Many organisations throughout the country have expressed great concern about the score targets. We pay tribute to organisations such as the Disability Alliance, the Disablement Income Group, the citizens advice bureaux, MIND, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the Child Poverty Action Group and many others, which provided a wealth of information that made our debates more effective. They clearly explained the problems that they envisage our constituents will present at our surgeries in future. We welcome the contributions of those organisations.
  The arbitrary nature of the 15-point cut-off, with no other factors to be taken into account, means that a score of 13 or 14, while confirming substantial disability, would disqualify a person from incapacity benefit. The closeness of reaching the threshold will not be taken into account. That means that anyone who cannot
  "stand for more than 30 minutes before needing to sit down"
  and merits a score of seven, and cannot
  "raise one arm to his head to put on a hat"
  and merits a score of six, and so achieves a total score of 13, will be two points short of being eligible for the benefit.
  Crucially, on the mental disability scale there could be people suffering from depression, anxiety or panic attacks who will also fail the test, but who would be unable to sustain the routine of work or travel to work. An individual with a mild or moderate mental health problem must score at least 10 points to qualify for benefit. Someone who frequently
  "feels scared or panicky for no obvious reason"
  and scores two, is
  "scared or anxious that work would bring back or worsen his illness"
  and
  "too frightened to go out alone"
  1266
  would score one point on each count, to achieve a total of only four, and not be entitled to incapacity benefit. I urge the Minister to reconsider wider matters.
  Mention was made of problems associated with the interface between incapacity benefit and the jobseeker's allowance. We will monitor that carefully when the Bill introducing that allowance is enacted and its implications are clearer. Members on both sides of the House urged the Minister to reconsider the age factor. The passporting of people aged over 58 in the transitional regulations is recognition that age has an impact on a person's ability to undertake work. Age banding or some other mechanism should be used, rather than an arbitrary cut-off age of 58.
  The regulations are before the House again because of the original failure to include severe mental illness. Can the Minister give an assurance that the amended regulations are not faulty? I shall give one example. I am sure that the Minister will be able to allay my fears, but on page 7 of the regulations, under the heading 'Treating as Capable, Disqualification" it sets out where a person should be treated in that respect as being
  "under regulations 10 to 15 or 26".
  That is someone who is treated as capable for work. However, section 27 deals with the person's capability for work. I just want to ensure that that is my misreading of the regulations rather than an error.
  I would like further assurance from the Minister that he will comply with the comments made by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), who said:
  "Regulations will, however, be made before the full commencement of the Act."—[Official Report, 21 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 148.]
  As the Minister has agreed that there will have to be amendments to the regulations, and that those amendments will have to be affirmative regulations, will he assure us that they will be brought before the House before the Act is implemented, because flowing on from that is the guidance that the Benefits Agency staff and many other advisers throughout the country will require to ensure that the regulations and the benefit are properly administered? We do not want a repeat of the chaos that ensued following the introduction of the Child Support Agency. I urge the Minister to look carefully at the regulations and the guidance to ensure that the training and all the possible eventualities following the introduction of the benefit are properly addressed before the Act is implemented.
  The points of concern over the regulations have already been identified. We are concerned that they contain a significant omission—that is, they do not take into account the effects of pain, stiffness, fatigue and the variability of functional limitations in fluctuating, relapsing or variable conditions. We heard examples of that from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I should like assurances that those factors will be properly considered by the Benefits Agency medical services when assessment is undertaken.
  We want further assurances about exactly who will be included in the exempt group under regulation 10. A number of chronic conditions listed are described as "severe", but what precisely is severe? For example, what is
  "a severe and progress neurological and muscle wasting disease"?

  1267
  At what point does a person's condition become severe? Will there be provision for people to move from not severe into the severe category? How will that be assessed? What certificates will be required to ensure that that transfer is included?
  We would like assurances on the interaction between exempt groups and functional scoring. The dividing line between the two could be quite crucial. If someone falls outside the exempt group, he or she will have to go through the functional scoring test—for example, people with learning disabilities falling outside the "severe" category. The mental disability scale is totally inappropriate, as it involves descriptors, which are compared with someone's mental state at the time when the claim was made, rather than as the condition developed. That does not address the needs of people with learning disabilities who have not acquired a mental health problem. There are other examples of where the change in the circumstances and the functional scoring at the point of the claim is inappropriate, because the condition could have been with that person since birth.
  It is important that all Conservative Members are quite clear about what they are voting on and of the effects that it may have on their constituents who eventually come to see them about the legislation. Let me give a concrete example of what effect the legislation will have in practice. It is of a person aged 55 and who been on invalidity benefit for five years. He has chronic emphysema and chronic bronchitis. He has worked as a miner for 30 years and has limited learning and writing skills. His children have grown up and left home, but he continues to live with his wife, who is not in work. Under invalidity benefit today, he would be entitled, with each of the elements, to £109.30 a week. After the uprating in April 1995—to be fair to the Minister—he will receive £111.45.
  Let us look at a neighbour who has been through the same experience at work and has had to leave work, perhaps with the same chronic ailments, but has not yet claimed, so will be a new recipient of incapacity benefit. In the first six months, he will receive £52.50 in statutory sick pay. At 28 weeks, if he falls within the exempt group, he will be treated as incapable of work and therefore be entitled to benefit, but at the 28-week stage, his benefit remains at £52.50. Only when he has been incapable of work for a year does his benefit go up, this time to £58.85. He receives no age allowance, as he has become incapable of work after the age of 45. While his neighbour will be getting £111.45, he will get £58.85—a difference of £52.60 per week. Because of the delay in receiving the full rate of benefit, there will be a further loss of £152.40 in the waiting time of 24 weeks.
  I want Conservative Members to be absolutely clear that tonight they are voting for a potential difference between the current invalidity benefit of £111.45 and the new rate. Someone who is in exactly the same position, has passed the medical test and so is a "genuine"—to use the term of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton— claimant and recipient of incapacity benefit will receive £52.60 less per week. Conservative Members should not say that we have not told them. We have told them at
  1268
  every stage of the Bill—on Second Reading, Committee, Third Reading, and now on the regulations. That is the sort of case that Conservative Members will see coming through the doors of their advice bureaux. They should not come back to the House and say that we did not tell them.
  6.47 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): We have had an interesting and varied debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked me to respond to a number of questions. I will attempt to do that in the time available.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) asked me specifically about amendments to the regulations in future. Both he and I have had a number of discussions about that in recent times. I can tell him, as indeed he is already aware, that a number of amendments, which, I think, we would all want to make, have been identified since the regulations in their first draft were laid at the end of November. He is an extremely perceptive reader of the regulations in that he has spotted one of them—a 26 needs converting to a 27. There are others— very soon, he may be recruited as a civil servant to the Department of Social Security—such as the therapeutic earnings limit needing to be updated from £43 to £44, and so on. There are discussions with the Terrence Higgins Trust about the definition of immune deficiency. We want to ensure that we get these things right. Any such amendments will be laid in good time before the test comes into operation. They will be affirmative and none of them involves any policy change.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) gave a good summary of the case for reform of the current arrangements. He particularly referred to the position of GPs who, of course, for some time have been acting as policemen for the social security system. That can, as he said, undermine the doctor-patient relationship. The future restriction of GP involvement mainly to short-term claims will significantly reduce the burden upon them because they will need to complete many fewer statements of incapacity and the Department will be writing to them for further reports far less often.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) particularly asked whether the questionnaire seeks advice on variable conditions. It contains space for claimants to give information on all the effects of their condition, including pain, stress, fatigue and variability. There is a question in each functional area and at the end it asks claimants whether there is anything that they want to say about pain or stress.
  When the Benefits Agency medical services doctor assesses someone for the all-work test, he will take full account of the history and evolution of the medical condition, the effect that it has on daily life and normal tasks over a period of time and the limitations that are imposed by it. The doctor must also justify his choice of descriptors in terms of any variability or fluctuation of those effects and also the effects of pain and fatigue. I can assure my hon. Friend that that point is being emphasised

  1269
  in the training given to doctors. The test will not be a snapshot at a point in time but an assessment of variable conditions over a period.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hague: I shall give way once, but I have many questions to answer, including some from my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: Reverting to the role of general practitioners, will my hon. Friend confirm that it is unacceptable to the Government that GPs should charge claimants fees for their part in the process, that that really is outrageous where it occurs and that the Government regard it as completely inconsistent with the principles of the NHS?
  Mr. Hague: General practitioners have to provide such a report free of charge and they have to respond to inquiries from the Department. If additional information is required, it is up to general practitioners whether they wish to impose a charge, but many would not wish to do so. They have to provide the basic information to their patients and to the Department free of charge.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight was particularly concerned about multiple sclerosis. The Benefits Agency medical services doctor will advise adjudication officers on the basis of the report from the patient's doctor. The severity of symptoms and the care and treatment requirements of the person will all be carefully considered by a fully trained doctor who will be considering all the factors that I have described.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) asked about the medical conditions that will confer entitlement. The new all-work test assesses the limiting effect of medical conditions. It does not depend on diagnosis. Some conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, are so severe that it is likely that a sufferer would be exempt from the test.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed to research about the reasons for the growth in the invalidity budget and it was accepted that those reasons are complex. They must concede that, even in the PSI documents quoted, nearly half of the growth could not be accounted for by demographic factors, even taking a loose definition of demographic. Research in the Department and independent research shows that GPs are issuing medical certificates to people who are not sick, or who are at least not too sick to work. It is important that we deal with that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon asked about the savings and referred to a written parliamentary answer that I gave him a few days ago about the change in expenditure that would result from extending the exemption from the test to existing claimants aged 55 and over or aged 50 and over. He quoted my reply accurately when he said that the amount involved would be £15 million if people aged 55 and over were exempted and £45 million in the coming year if people aged 50 and over were exempted. However, as I pointed out at the end of that written answer, the figure would be much higher for subsequent years. By the third year, the figures involved would be £105 million if all those aged 55 and over were exempted, or £210 million if all those aged 50 or over were exempted.
  1270
  Those are huge sums of money, besides which it would scarcely be fair to new claimants of the benefit to exempt existing claimants on that scale, given the research that I have just quoted that seems to suggest that there are people receiving invalidity benefit who are capable of work.
  I ask my hon. Friend to think about the pressures that are imposed on the rest of the social security budget if those sums of money are spent without confidence that they are focused on the people for whom they are intended. I ask him to think about where else we could make reductions of the scale that we are talking about here and that he advocated spending.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) asked about the percentage of existing claimants exempt from the test. He referred a number of times to a figure of one quarter. The figure that I have given of 220,000 people among existing claimants being found incapable of work is nearer to one eighth of the total number who are currently receiving the benefit. About one half are exempt from the new medical test because of the combination, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, of those who are 58 and over and those who fit the other criteria set out in the regulations. It is not possible to come up with local figures from the national figures, but I have published the national figures in the past and can do so again. However, I do not have figures for the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
  The hon. Members for Garscadden and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney expressed concern about people being worried and citizens advice bureaux being inundated with inquiries. We have developed a strategy for advising existing claimants, advisers and the medical profession about the changes. Leaflets have been published and order books include relevant messages. Further steps will also be taken.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) made an important point about the ability for sustained reading. When a Benefits Agency doctor considers vision, he will also take into account the ability to read text on a sustained basis, rather than the ability to read individual letters or words; the ability to scan and focus on areas of text quickly and reliably. I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady.
  The hon. Lady also asked about the questionnaire, which I think she said would run into 72 pages. That might scare people, but it is actually 20 pages long. It is clear and easy to complete. It has been put through market research with existing claimants and their comments particularly stress that it was easy to complete. The comments were most positive. Help will be available from specially trained staff for those who need assistance with the questionnaire.
  One of the most frightening things about all our debates on these matters is that the Opposition, fully aware that an unreformed invalidity benefit budget would head to about £10,000 million by the end of the century, and knowing that the benefit is not as focused as it should be, still have no alternative policy for dealing with the problem. The House and the nation are left not knowing how the Labour party would respond to that after all the debates that there have been in Committee and on the Floor of the House. After tonight's debate we are none the wiser. The Opposition know the pressure on other social

  1271
  security programmes if we do not focus on those who need these benefits most. They know the difficulties created for other sectors of Government spending.
  In the past few weeks, the Opposition have come to the House several times to vote against raising revenue; last night they came to the House to vote in a way that implied the spending of a great deal more money. They are going to do that again tonight. They oppose what we are suggesting—sensible and timely reforms—without having an alternative to put in the place of those reforms. We would receive more positive proposals, and more of an impression of awareness of the need to act, from the average ostrich than we receive from Opposition Front Benchers. Few things could better illustrate the Labour party's fiscal irresponsibility.
  This is a necessary and timely reform. It focuses on the people who need benefit most—
  It being Seven o 'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [27 January]
  The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 232.

  Division No. 62]

  [7.00 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Colvin, Michael

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Congdon, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Conway, Derek

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Amess, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Ancram, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Couchman, James

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grove)

  Cran, James

  Ashby, David

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

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Day, Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Delvin, Tim

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dicks, Terry

  Bates, Michael

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Batiste, Spencer

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dover, Den

  Bendall, Vivian

  Duncan, Alan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Booth, Hartley

  Dunn, Bob

  Boswell, Tim

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Elletson, Harold

  Bowis, John

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bright Sir Graham

  Evennett, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Faber, David

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Browing, Mrs. Angela

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Fishbum, Dudley

  Bums, Simon

  Forman, Nigel

  Butcher, John

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Butler, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Butterfill, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Carrington, Matthew

  French, Douglas

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Cash, William

  Gallie, Phil

  Churchill, Mr

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Clappison, James

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Gamier, Edward

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Gill, Christopher

  Coe, Sebastian

  Gillan, Cheryl

  1272

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mates, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Grant, Sir A(SW Cambs)

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mills, Iain

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hague, William

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hangreaves, Andrew

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Norris, Steve

  Hawksley, Warren

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hayes, Jerry

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heald, Oliver

  Page, Richard

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Paice, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hendry, Charles

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Pawsey, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Horam, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jack, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Key, Robert

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

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

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Knox, Sir David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shersby, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sims, Roger

  Legg, Barry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Leigh, Edward

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lightbown, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spring, Richard

  Lord, Michael

  Sproat, lain

  Luff, Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Steen, Anthony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stephen, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stem, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Stewart, Allan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Marland, Paul

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  1273

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Thurnham, Peter

  Watts, John

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Wells, Bowen

  Tracey, Richard

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Tredinnick, David

  Whitney, Ray

  Trend, Michael

  Whittingdale,John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wilkinson, John

  Willetts, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfeld)

  Walden, George

  Wood, Timothy

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Waller, Gary

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ward, John

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dewar, Donald

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dixon, Don

  Allen, Graham

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dowd, Jim

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Austin-Walker, John

  Eastham, Ken

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Enright, Derek

  Barnes, Harry

  Etherington, Bill

  Barron, Kevin

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Battle, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bayley, Hugh

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bell, Stuart

  Fisher, Mark

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Flynn, Paul

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Berry, Roger

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Betts, Clive

  Foulkes, George

  Boateng, Paul

  Fraser, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bradley, Keith

  Galloway, George

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gapes, Mike

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  George, Bruce

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

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Burden, Richard

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Byers, Stephen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caborn, Richard

  Golding,MrsLlin

  Callaghan, Jim

  Gordon, Mildred

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Graham, Thomas

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cann, Jamie

  Gunnell, John

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hall, Mike

  Chidgey, David

  Hanson, David

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Church, Judith

  Harvey, Nick

  Clapham, Michael

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clarke, Tom (Monldands W)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clelland, David

  Hoey, Kate

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Coffey, Ann

  Home Robertson, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Hood, Jimmy

  Connarty, Michael

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

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoyle, Doug

  Corston, Jean

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hutton, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Ingram, Adam

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Denham, John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  1274

  Jamieson, David

  Pike, Peter L

  Janner, Greville

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jowell, Tessa

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Alan

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Randall, Stuart

  Khabra, Piara S

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rendel, David

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Lewis, Terry

  Rogers, Allan

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rooker.Jeff

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAllion, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCartney, Ian

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Macdonald, Calum

  Simpson, Alan

  McFall, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKelvey, William

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & amp;F'sbury)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Snape, Peter

  MacShane, Denis

  Spearing, Nigel

  Madden, Max

  Speller, John

  Mahon, Alice

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Marek, Dr John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Straw, Jack

  Martlew, Eric

  Suteliffe, Gerry

  Maxton, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Meacher, Michael

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Meale, Alan

  Timms, Stephen

  Michael, Alun

  Tipping, Paddy

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Turner, Dennis

  Milburn, Alan

  Tyler, Paul

  Miller, Andrew

  Vaz, Keith

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morley, Elliot

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Watson, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mudie, George

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wise, Audrey

  O'Hara, Edward

  Worthington, Tony

  Olner, Bill

  Wright, Dr Tony

  O'Neill, Martin

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Patchett, Terry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pearson, Ian

  Mr. Joe Benton and

  Pickthall, Colin

  Mrs. Barbara Roche.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Social Security (Incapacity Benefit)(Transitional) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.—[Mr. Wells.]

Science Budget
[Relevant documents: The Second Report of Session 1993-94 from the Science and Technology Committee on the Forward Look of Government-Funded Science, Engineering and Technology 1994 (HC 422), the First Report of Session 1994-95 on the Efficiency Unit Scrutiny of Public Sector Research Establishments (HC 19) and European Community Document No. 10564/94, relating to co-ordination of research and development]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
7.12 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. David Hunt): The date 2 February is fast becoming an important day in the science calendar. On this day last year, we debated the orders creating the new research councils. This year, again, we have a welcome opportunity to focus on the Government's science policy. Today we announce a science budget that is a blueprint for the future—£1.3 billion, which will keep Britain in the premier league for research and ensure that British scientists and engineers remain some of the best in the world.
Today also gives me the chance to pay tribute to the work of the Science and Technology Select Committee, under the admirable chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw). The Committee has made a prominent contribution to debate on science policy, not least through its report on "First Forward Look", to which the Government responded earlier this week.
Last November, the Government demonstrated yet again that science and engineering were among our highest priorities when we were able to maintain the science budget at its current record level, despite the pressures on public spending. In allocating that budget now, I plan to build on the principles of the 1993 White Paper "Realising our Potential".
When I became Cabinet Minister with responsibility for science, I said that I wanted to build on the work of my predecessor, who performed such an outstanding job in putting science and engineering at the top of the United Kingdom political agenda. In doing that, we must ensure that we sustain the excellence of our science base, that our intellectual resources are harnessed to improving the country's economic performance and quality of life and that we promote partnership between the science base, industry and Government.
We must also retain our strong commitment to curiosity-driven research. We do not want university departments to become short-term problem-solvers for industry. The science base must concentrate on its proper role, which is the training of highly skilled men and women and research at the frontiers of knowledge, but those frontiers are expanding and we cannot possibly cover everything. We need to focus our efforts on the areas that we judge most likely to bear fruit. That is what the UK's first technology foresight programme is all about. It has provided a unique opportunity for Government, industry and the science base to pool their best people and to ensure that we pull together. Overall, some 10,000 people have had the opportunity to take part.
1276
The outcomes of the programme will be published this spring. I believe that they will set a challenging agenda for the future.
We also need to work across national boundaries. We cannot maintain high standards by working in isolation. We are committed to effective international co-operation in appropriate areas. That is why we have worked so hard to ensure that the individual programme lines within the fourth European framework programme reflect British priorities. That is why we worked so hard in negotiations on the large hadron collider at CERN to secure British involvement in the world's leading particle physics experiment and a budgetary framework that reflects our commitment to efficiency and value for money.
Sir Giles Shaw: On the point about funding for the LHC, has any progress has been made on shared funding between other European states to enable that project to proceed correctly?
Mr. Hunt: Thanks to the tremendous efforts of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, we were—at last—able to reach a satisfactory conclusion to the negotiations with an effective stand for a much more cost-effective regime, which will save considerable sums of money for the United Kingdom over the next 15 years. It will also mean that there is much more effective participation in an exciting programme that is affordable and can give good value for money.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has saved a considerable amount of money. Is that a saving to the Government or will it be redistributed within the science budget?
Mr. Hunt: It is a saving to the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. Our subscription to CERN is paid through that research council, as is our subscription to the science programme of the European Space Agency. I cannot predict what will happen in future public expenditure rounds, but it is a substantive saving of £5 million a year for 15 years. That will very much strengthen our ability to focus on the right priorities. I cannot predict what the exact global figure will be, but some guideline figures were announced last November. The project will release additional funds in the PPARC budget.
Sir Gerard Vaughan: Will my right hon. Friend expand a little more on what he means by effective participation in the European science scene?
Mr. Hunt: Probably the most effective result of the negotiations is that we know that the project will be completed and will happen. I was delighted with the agreement that was reached. As a result, the UK and other member states will benefit from an overall reduction of some 1 billion Swiss francs in the cost of the project over its lifetime from 1998 to 2008. That is worth some £70 million to UK science.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Has not the considerable delay in reaching agreement on the funding of the CERN project possibly damaged the prospect of involvement from other international concerns in Japan and the United States of America?
Mr. Hunt: I do not think so, although I understand why the hon. Lady puts that point. We have now achieved

1277
a much stronger project. It was essential to establish a realistic, fair and sustainable financial and planning framework for the project. Let us not forget that we are talking about a total cost of £1.5 billion. With costs at that level, it would have been irresponsible of the Government to give approval to the LHC without that necessary framework. CERN, like all other institutions that are competing for the limited resources that are available to science, must demonstrate that it is providing the best value for money. To be assured that the LHC would be completed within the resources that are likely to be available, tight cost control was essential.
I expect that the anticipated additional contributions from non-member states will enable the LHC project to be accelerated. The current timetable, however, would still enable world-leading science to be carried out from the year 2004. In many ways, we now have a much stronger project as a result of all that has happened. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology led a trade delegation to CERN and a great deal of progress has been made, especially for British interests, now that the budget has been agreed.
Mr. John Denham: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the issue of international collaboration, does he agree that the position does not seem quite as rosy for working scientists? I refer, for example, to the integral project led by the astronomy department at Southampton university. Over three or four years of close technical assessment, that project has been developed in collaboration with other countries, and the European Space Agency has agreed that it is a priority project; yet PPARC has been unable to guarantee the funds to enable that international collaboration to continue. Despite the Minister's words, from the working scientists' point of view, it seems that a major opportunity for Britain to contribute to an important international science project may be lost. I fear that the problem faces scientists working in other sectors as well.
Mr. Hunt: We have moved from CERN to the ESA, but we are dealing with subscriptions and with the ability to fund those subscriptions. I shall make an announcement in a moment on making that possible. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I know that he is in correspondence with my parliamentary secretary about it. The Government have found the resources to fund a real terms increase in science spending in this financial year, and to maintain it in the next, but budgetary constraints require difficult decisions to be taken all the time on funding priorities.
We already devote considerable resources to astronomy. The astronomy community has no less duty to demonstrate that it is securing best value for money than any other community. Real opportunities exist to make the necessary savings in the ESA, which would improve the balance between domestic and subscription spend. There is every encouragement to ensure that we achieve the best value for money in all these programmes.
Mr. Denham: Is the Minister saying that, if savings in ESA subscriptions can be achieved, money would be recycled back into the programme to enable projects such as the integral project in Southampton to continue?
Mr. Hunt: It is for PPARC to decide how best to deploy the resources available to it. If it decides not to fund UK participation in such an integral project, it will be because it believes that other research opportunities offer better scientific value for money.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department will continue its strongest support for the space agency, which is such an important ingredient in ensuring that British space policy is focused, and that a proper balance exists between science and other commercial programmes that are run in the space community?
Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, whose responsibility this is, has heard what my hon. Friend said. I am sure that the agency will work with all the others involved to ensure that we maintain a viable programme. I expect PPARC, in association with the British National Space Centre, to make strenuous efforts to obtain the best possible efficiency savings from the ESA's science budget.
We have demonstrated already that PPARC has benefited to a substantial degree from the excellent deal struck with CERN on the LHC, which will result in those financial savings. It is possible, therefore, to reduce mandatory subscriptions to the ESA by as much as £10 million a year. That gives opportunities to achieve spend at the right level. We must achieve the right balance between the domestic and the subscription spend.
Mr. John Battle: So that I am absolutely clear on this issue, will the right hon. Gentleman explain whether the Government will top slice international subscriptions from PPARC's budget so that the whole cost does not fall on PPARC, half of whose budget has been taken up with paying those subscriptions? If that happens, will any benefits gained be distributed across the whole sector or will they go back to PPARC?
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important new point. As I have already explained, our subscription to CERN is paid through PPARC. Taken together with our subscription to the science programme of the European Space Agency, those subscriptions cost some £100 million a year, but they are determined in foreign currency. Modest changes in exchange rates and in the relative economic performance of organisations' member states can have a significant effect on the sterling cost. Of course, the Government's tremendous success in putting Britain on top of the premier league for growth in Europe also has an impact. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to demonstrate one of the consequences of the Government's successful economic policy, but difficulties exist for PPARC.
I am pleased to be able to inform the House that, in announcing the allocation of the science budgets, we have agreed with the chief executives of all the research councils that, where such fluctuations occur, the cost will be taken as a first charge on the scientific budget. In 1995, the cost is estimated at around £8 million, but that will

1279
not fall solely on PPARC. Because of the agreement reached right across research councils, it is taken as a first charge on the science budget.
Mr. Battle: Is the Minister saying that any surplus created as a result of fluctuation is the cost that will be shared but not the initial subscription, which will still be borne by PPARC? Is that correct?
Mr. Hunt: Yes, it is. To make it quite clear, we are talking about the fluctuations which presented such a problem for the research councils, but I hope that we have now dealt adequately with that matter. I congratulate Sir John Cadogan and all those responsible in all the research councils on having reached an agreement that removes the difficulties caused by the fluctuations.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: If costs escalate during the construction phase of the LHC and it is found to be 20 per cent, or 50 per cent, more expensive than currently estimated, what guarantees are there in the agreement that it will not be an extra cost to be taken out of the research councils' budget?
Mr. Hunt: There are some very tight guarantees within the very satisfactory agreement. I have all the details here but, rather than taking up further time, I am happy to supply them to the hon. Gentleman later.
Let me put it around the other way. There are prospects for other countries to contribute to the LHC project. I look forward to key non-member states, especially the United States, Japan and Canada, participating scientifically and financially in the LHC project because I feel that they have much to offer. The agreement reached provides the best possible incentives to those nations to join the LHC project. CERN member states have made a clear commitment to build the LHC and any non-member states' contributions will be used to accelerate and enhance the project. I understand that CERN management has already initiated discussions with potential partners, and the United Kingdom remains ready and willing to offer every possible assistance. I understand that the prospects are encouraging, and I greatly welcome that.
I have today provided a written statement on the overall allocation of the science budget for 1995–96.
Dr. Michael Clark: While my right hon. Friend is talking about particle physics, may I remind him that molecular chemistry is also very important? The Royal Society of Chemistry is concerned that, as large sums of money are spent on expensive physics experiments, some of the more basic needs of chemistry departments in universities are ignored. Will he assure the House and the Royal Society of Chemistry that he has taken note of those needs?
Mr. Hunt: I have had a fascinating time visiting key chemistry departments across the country. I visited a number of those operating at the leading edge of chemistry and I hope that they will take from today's announcement a clear message that we are committed to maintaining our leading edge in chemistry.
In the past week, I managed to visit Imperial college and—I have to think carefully about where I was every day of the week—on Monday I was in Sheffield. Last week I was in Warwick, and I have also been to Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Loughborough and Durham. I have found it fascinating that the original divide between
1280
chemistry, physics and biology is fast becoming flexible. We have to capture the imagination of the moment when looking ahead, and to some extent the old disciplines are becoming increasingly out of date. Although they are important in certain material respects, we have to raise our sights, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr Clark) said, to highlight the important of key areas. I hope that when my hon. Friend has a chance to read the booklet that deals with the science budget, a copy of which I have placed in the Library and which is also available on Internet through the CCTA Government information service, he will appreciate the priority that we attach to science.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: My right hon. Friend mentioned the CCTA, which has just established its new headquarters in my constituency. While he is touring the country, will he visit CCTA in Norwich before too long, and the university of East Anglia, which is doing excellent science research?
Mr. Hunt: I shall be in Norwich next Friday on my tour of the United Kingdom. I am primarily going to look at the work of the John Innes centre which is doing pioneering work. I must talk to my hon. Friend about visiting CCTA, which was opened by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and about seeing the interesting work being done by the university of East Anglia.
Mr. Tony Banks: I have also been able to make a visit, but to somewhere even more exotic than Norwich. I visited the Faraday base in the Antarctic last week. The base is due to close in 1995-96. What guarantee can the Chancellor give that the very valuable research into the ozone layer will not be lost when it closes? When was the decision taken to hand over the Faraday base to the Ukraine?
Mr. Hunt: I hope that when the hon. Gentleman was on the Faraday base, he was able to talk to the British Antarctic Survey, because it decided to close the base. He can obtain all the information that he needs from the BAS.
Mr. Banks: Indeed, but I was talking to the scientists based there. I think that there might be a divergence of opinion between the BAS in Cambridge and the scientists on the Faraday base. I understand that the Chancellor is not able to answer my question now, but will he perhaps consider it and let me have a response so that I can pass on the information?
Mr. Hunt: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to come to the House in the course of his world tour. If he has a little more time, I would be happy to see him and hear his report from the front line.
Let me recap. We have now made available £1,281.675 million for distribution. That very high figure demonstrates the priority that the Government attach to science, but that priority can never be taken for granted. There are always other deserving calls on public expenditure, so we have to use whatever funding we have to the best possible effect.
I am delighted to have Sir John Cadogan, the first Director General of the Research Councils, to advise me. He has carried out a detailed review of research council activities. He of course wanted to hear a wide range of opinion, to hear the voice of scientists at the bench and the voice of the user community, so he visited a total of

1281
76 scientific groups in receipt of research council funding. Users' views were explored in a series of informal discussions, and Sir John has also had meetings with the chief executives of the research councils, who are themselves highly eminent scientists. In total, he listened personally to the views of around 300 people, as well as being a member of the foresight steering group.
The White Paper anticipated that the director general would be aided by a small advisory group, a sort of inner circle. I believe that my predecessor, now the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, shared the view that that was perhaps not the best way forward. Sir John has demonstrated that we can improve on my right hon. Friend's prediction. He has created not an inner circle but an open circle, into which people from right across industry and the science base have been able to feed their views. Sir John has also worked with the chief executives to establish a set of high-priority initiatives, for which I am pleased to announce that we have been able to make available £67 million from the science budget. Those programmes will be targeted on three main areas.
Sir Gerard Vaughan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he has effectively answered the recent criticism in the New Scientist about the openness of the consultation and what Sir John has been doing?
Mr. Hunt: Indeed, there has been some misunderstanding. I did my best to clear it up when I was giving evidence in another place. My effective answer is, as my hon. Friend says, the immense amount of work that Sir John has done in consulting such a wide group of people.
The three main areas—
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hunt: I shall first tell the House that the three main areas identified as targets for the programmes are support for interaction with industry, the maintenance of top-class people, and strategic and underpinning science. I shall go through each in turn, but first I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Dr. Bray: The document outlining the allocation of the science budget is similar to what has appeared in previous years, but any account of the process is missing. The right hon. Gentleman has just outlined what Sir John has being doing and I am sure that it has been very thorough, but there is no public record of it. In particular, there is no advice from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. Would it not make much more sense if we had a public record of that consultative process? For example, do the priority initiatives, which were allocated some 5 per cent, of the science budget—not a large percentage— represent initiatives that the research councils would not have taken, but were, in some way, imposed by the right hon. Gentleman on the advice of Sir John, or do they represent shifts from some consensus process? Research councils are bodies with their own royal charters, they have a statutory basis and they are bound to report. What is their advice and what is the advice of the advisers to the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Hunt: I was not in post when the decision to abolish the ABRC was taken, although I strongly
1282
supported it. As I understood, it was supported by the former Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), who said that the Labour party happily acknowledged that the ABRC needed to be abolished. Having made that decision, the White Paper then trailed the notion that there should be an inner circle.
Dr. Bray rose—
Mr. Hunt: I would answer the hon. Gentleman's point if he could contain himself. We moved on to the process which I have outlined. The public record of that will be found in the work of the research councils. They have discussed with Sir John the way in which they saw their priorities. Of course, it will also be revealed in the work of the technology foresight panels. I make it clear that I intend to publish the reports of the 15 panels, which contain work on identifying key priority areas. That has been a tremendous exercise in consultation and I undertake that those reports will be published. They will give hon. Members the opportunity to see processes through which we have been able to identify priorities.
We fed the emerging conclusions from the technology foresight panels into the consideration, too. The private discussions between Sir John Cadogan and the scientists in the laboratory are not a matter of public record. However, in a debate of this nature, I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to ask questions and we will do our best to answer them. The great strength in the science, engineering and technology base lies in consensus and extensive consultation; we just need to build on that.
Dr. Bray: There may be greater agreement, but there cannot be consensus unless the views of other people are clearly stated. Although I do not know the precise source of the Opposition statement to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, it was nevertheless the Government who combined the roles of the two advisory bodies in a single council. The right hon. Gentleman has not dispensed with the advisory council altogether. What is that council's role in the allocation?
Mr. Hunt: The Director General of Research Councils advises me on overall priorities for the best application of the science budget. In reaching his conclusions, he does many things. Perhaps the most important work that he does is to consult with the research councils. He has been conducting a review of research council activity, and his report of the review will be included in the forward look document, which we shall publish in May. His report will then be available for debate and discussion.
The priority initiatives, I am advised, are, in the main, those of the individual research councils. I understand that, last year, the 5 per cent, figure, to which I referred, was 1 per cent., so there has been a substantial increase. That means, as the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) said, that 95 per cent, of the budget is still very much linked to the research councils decision-making process. The initiatives have been allocated money, but the decisions on who won support on which projects were supported were still a matter for the research councils.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Would not it have been much more useful to hon. Members if the research councils' advice to Sir John Cadogan, on which today's decisions

1283
are based, had been published before the debate, instead of our having to wait until May when the decisions will have been enacted?
Mr. Hunt: I do not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman. I was talking about the Director General of Research Councils' review of research council activity, on which he will report later this year. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the internal advice that I receive as Cabinet Minister responsible for science, to which I pay attention and which, of course, has never been published. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I am explaining, as best I can, the detailed process behind Sir John giving me his advice.
Mr. Alan W. Williams rose—
Mr. Hunt: I am talking about the internal advice, which has never been published. The internal advice comes to the chief scientific adviser, Sir William Stewart, and me. We deliberate on it and reach our decisions. Our decision is based on conclusions from several sources, including those from the technology foresight panels and their final report will be published. Consultations are conducted in the research councils, in which Sir John is of course involved. The way in which research councils view their priorities will be published in their reports, and there is a range of considerations in the Director General's review of research councils. He will make his report available to me and I shall publish it in the "Forward Look" document.
There are a number of different aspects to consider. I think that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) was referring to the internal advice, which, of course, as Ministers know, is not published.
Dr. Bray: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hunt: I should like to make a little progress, or Madam Deputy Speaker will disapprove of the length of my speech.
The first of the three themes to which I have referred, interaction with industry, means not getting the science base to do industry's work for it but working to ensure that the science base and industry have a better idea of each other's strengths and needs and determine where co-operation may be to their mutual advantage.
My top priority is to build on our tremendous response to the scheme initiated by my predecessor known as the ROPAs—the "Realising our Potential" awards. Under that scheme, 239 projects have been funded by three research councils. I am pleased to announce that the ROPA scheme will be extended to cover all the research councils. I have decided to allocate additional funding of almost £15 million in the next financial year, implying a full-year spend of £35 million.
Let me remind hon. Members briefly of how the scheme works. Our premise is that industry has already identified many good researchers in the science base and is funding them to carry out basic or strategic research. Researchers in receipt of appropriate funding from industry can apply, for a ROPA if they would like to pursue original research completely of their own choosing—true curiosity-driven research.
1284
"Realising our Potential" awards are not subject to conventional peer review, but proposals must be practical and original. Such awards will not replace the traditional grant award, but should serve to refresh the parts the peer review system sometimes fails to reach.
The LINK scheme is altogether different. It provides an excellent framework for jointly funded research between the public and private sectors. To date, more than 550 projects worth nearly £300 million have been supported, many of which have led to new products being marketed by United Kingdom companies.
The LINK scheme will be an important vehicle for implementing the foresight outcomes and I am therefore setting aside £3 million to stimulate new programmes in priority areas. Contributions from LINK partners should result overall in an additional £12 million being spent on new programmes in 1995–96.
The second theme is support of top-class people, which is another clear priority. We announced an expansion last year of the Royal Society's prestigious university research fellowship scheme from 200 to 240 places, and we shall expand that scheme still further to 255 appointments.
The Royal Society also plans to launch a pilot fellowship scheme for top-class younger scientists who are trying to get on to the research career ladder. I am delighted to announce additional Government support for those fellowships, which will be known as the Dorothy Hodgkin fellowships. They will be targeted at scientists who have just completed their PhDs.
Dr. Lynne Jones: I am sure that those schemes are very laudable and I am pleased that the Government recognise the importance of encouraging top-class scientists and attracting more good people into science, but is not the Chancellor concerned about the general poor career prospects for Government scientists and, in particular, the large increase in the number of workers on short-term contracts and the low salaries of Government-funded scientists?
The Chancellor recently took credit for several people returning from abroad to work in this country, but they have done so largely as a result of work by charities such as the Wellcome Trust, which have identified the problem and have attempted to provide better career structures for research scientists? Should not the Chancellor be considering the matter to discover whether such schemes could be introduced into the generality of Government-funded science in this country?
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Lady is right. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I visited the Wellcome Foundation, we met several scientists who had been attracted back—in a brain-gain dimension—to the United Kingdom to work here as a result of a combination of factors. We discussed those factors with the scientists.
The factors included issues such as a free enterprise society, a society that takes scientists seriously and a society in which scientists can work among the best in the world. I vividly recall a series of reasons. Quite often, scientists had taken a drop in earnings to work among the best in the world. They explained that money was not a consideration because they were forgoing money. They could perhaps earn more money elsewhere, but they wanted to work beside the best in the world. That carries with it an obligation on all of us who are involved with

1285
the science base to ensure that there is adequate remuneration for the people involved in leading-edge research.
I have been considering ways in which we can improve the situation and I will refer to them in a moment. However, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) should be aware that remuneration and contracts are matters for the research councils, which take the decisions that they believe result in the best targeting of resources.
When I visited the laboratories, I found that there was much concern about the £400 grant for laboratory equipment. I am therefore pleased to announce that I shall increase that by 50 per cent, so that £600 will be available. I will consider how I can help to get money through to the laboratories and to the people who need the money to purchase equipment.
Remuneration is a matter for the research councils. Of course we give guidance, but ultimately remuneration is a matter for the research councils.
I hope that the Dorothy Hodgkin fellowships will assist scientists who have just completed their PhDs. I recall that "The Rising Tide" report showed that that was a point at which women tended to drop out of science. By targeting the fellowships, I hope that we can find ways of enabling women to continue in science so that they have real equality of opportunity with men in the science world. The hon. Member for Selly Oak may be aware that I have asked Lynda Sharp to head a special unit in the Office of Science and Technology to ensure that we have a broad cross-section of women and men giving their talents to science.
Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Chancellor give way?
Mr. Hunt: I would like to make a little more progress. I have been speaking for nearly 45 minutes and I have a few more points to cover.
I am pleased to announce funding to enable the Royal Academy of Engineering to introduce a programme of secondments to industry for academic engineers. Greater interaction between our universities and industry is just as important for engineers as it is for pure scientists. I look forward to real benefits deriving from that programme.
The third theme is basic and strategic science. Last year, we announced additional support for chemistry. I am now extending support to mainstream physics, mathematics and medicine. I will be launching a pilot programme to provide, through three of the research councils, additional funding to universities for equipment to match funding from industrial partners. As I have already said, I intend to increase the research training support grant from £400 to £600 a year for 11,000 students. That includes the increase in grant from £75 to £125 for social science and economics students.
We have identified several areas where additional support for first-class strategic science should make us better placed to respond to new opportunities. Details of that are set out in the allocations booklet. However, I would like to give the House a flavour of some of the work that we are supporting because I believe that it is work that will make a real contribution to wealth creation and the quality of life and a real difference to our lives and to the lives of our children.
1286
I am allocating additional funding to the Medical and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Councils for the genome initiative. They are doing ground-breaking work, which will result in a comprehensive understanding of our genetic make-up, which in turn will provide the platform for a step-change in the quality of diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease as we move into the 21st century. The gene responsible for cystic fibrosis has already been identified, and new treatments are being pursued in Edinburgh and at the Royal Brompton hospital.
The Medical Research Council has developed an effective partnership with the Wellcome Trust. Individually, these organisations have a very strong track record, but together they make an even bigger impact. I was delighted to hear a few moments ago that, following my announcement earlier today, the Wellcome Trust is planning to increase its own commitment to genome research.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I recently visited the Wellcome Trust to meet a number of the top medical scientists who have been attracted to work in this country by our outstanding reputation for medical research. We have also visited the Institute of Psychiatry, which is attached to the Maudsley hospital in south London and which was voted by its peers in a survey last year to be the best of its kind in the world.
My right hon. Friend and I are absolutely committed to maintaining the highest possible standards in medical research, and to ensuring that the results feed effectively into day-to-day practice in the national health service.
The NHS R and D strategy is the first of its kind in the world. The Cochrane Centre, which performs systematic reviews of health research, was highly praised this week in the report by the Health Select Committee. My right hon. Friend has announced that she will implement the key recommendations of the Culyer report, which will place the funding of medical research in this country on a secure and stable footing for the future.
Medicine is advancing at lightning speed. It is vital that the NHS keeps up with the pace and that the treatment it provides is as effective as possible, based on the most up-to-date knowledge. Our policies are working successfully towards that objective as well as boosting the UK's deserved international reputation in this field.
I intend to provide additional funds for the Natural Environment Research Council's work in environmental diagnostics. This will enable the council to carry out further comprehensive environmental audits, and help to develop sustainable business strategies for waste management in manufacturing industry in close co-operation with users and the regulators. That will bring benefits for business and local people.
We are putting additional money into the work of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council on producing industrial materials from plants. That will meet with approval from my hon. Friends.
I have, of course, been necessarily selective. Indeed, there was much more that I wanted to say, but I wanted to follow the practice of giving way to interventions. [HON. MEMBERS: "GO on."] I am being tempted to continue, but I will not. I want to hear what other hon. Members have to say.

1287
We are supporting tremendous leading-edge developments, with huge potential benefits for all of us. I want that to be more widely understood. We must encourage appreciation of the contribution of science and engineering to our economic and social well-being.
I am therefore very pleased to be able to announce an increase in the central public understanding of the science budget. Thanks in large part to the work of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, the first national science week last spring was a huge success, and I intend to make it an annual event. This year's science week will run from 17 to 26 March. I remind hon. Members that they have until only next Monday to suggest experiments, for which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has volunteered to be a human guinea-pig. May I express the hope that all hon. Members will make a particular effort to support events taking place in their constituencies?
The Government are willing to devote substantial funds in support of our excellent scientists and engineers. We are determined to do so in ways deliberately designed to bring good returns to the economy and people of the United Kingdom. That is the philosophy underlying the allocation of the science budget, which I commend to the House.
8.4 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am pleased to be able to take part in this short debate and I shall try to keep my remarks brief, as I know that a number of hon. Members want to contribute.
Many people who work in technology, science and engineering will be pleased that this debate is taking place at all. We can discuss the science budget which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has announced, but also the direction which policy in this area should be taking.
The debate is important because science is not always at the centre of our political debates. It is an issue which tends to intimidate people and put them off. It can sometimes get pushed to the sidelines, because many of us do not have the scientific grounding that might be necessary to participate in such a debate. I absolve all my hon. Friends who are in the Chamber this evening from that charge, but some of us who are lay persons may feel that, on occasion, jargon can dominate these debates.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Will the hon. Lady confirm that science has not always been at the centre of debates within the Labour party? Did not the Labour party propose at the last general election that the science Minister should be demoted from Cabinet rank?
Mrs. Taylor: I am sorry that the hon. Lady has chosen to intervene right at the beginning of my speech on such a note. I must perhaps give my age away by saying that I first became interested in politics at school in the early 1960s when, with a general election pending, Harold Wilson excited many people with talk of the "white heat" of the technological revolution.
Mr. Nick Hawkins rose—
Mrs. Taylor: I do not want to labour this point, as I want to be brief. All of us have the responsibility for generating not only interest in science, but some hope for
1288
the future. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) has chosen to try to make this a partisan issue, as that was not the spirit in which the Minister spoke.
Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Taylor: I will, but then I must move on.
Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Lady may be interested to know that I, too, recall the days of the 1960s, when both my parents were research scientists. Many of those scientists of the 1960s and 1970s remember the extent to which the promises of the white heat of the technological revolution were so badly betrayed by every Labour Government.
Mrs. Taylor: I shall give the hon. Gentleman an example later which will show that many opportunities which were taken up under previous Labour Governments have been missed recently. Government assistance to industry was very productive under Labour Governments, and that is something of which we can be proud. As someone who has spent many years studying or teaching economic history, I have no doubt of the importance to our future of investment in science, technology and engineering.
The Chancellor of the Duchy mentioned economic development and medical research, and he also referred to the vital area—which I think still does not get sufficient attention—of environmental protection, which does affect the quality of life for us all. We all have the responsibility to make sure that decisions in this area are made on a long-term basis, so that we get the full benefit of all the decisions that we are talking about this evening.
We must emphasise the need to get away from the short-termism that has dogged so much of British politics, and the British economy, in recent years. While there was much in what the Chancellor said with which I agreed and welcomed, there is something of that short-termism that is endemic to the Government's attitude to science. The right hon. Gentleman, who wants to look ahead, must be wary of that.
The Chancellor gave us some details—great detail in some areas—about the proposals for the science budget that he announced today. There may be other questions, such as whether the factor for inflation is as high as it should be, but I welcome some of the questions that he mentioned.
For example, the Chancellor referred to the improvement in spending on environmental diagnostics, which I very much welcome. It is important, however, that research in that area should not merely focus on waste management, but on a range of environmental protection issues that will be important as a way of improving the quality of our environment and will have important economic benefits. The amount of environmental regulation will intensify, at a European and an international level, and the countries that get ahead with monitoring equipment and technological development in that field will have significant markets on which to draw, and there could be some important economic benefits. I welcome some aspects of the Minister's proposals.
The hon. Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) and some of my hon. Friends mentioned the report in today's issue of the New Scientist headed, "Former science adviser slams secret carve-up". In his answer, the

1289
Minister did not take the charges as seriously as he should. They were the comments of someone who served as the chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils for 11 years, who was close to decision making and who knew the pressures on Ministers and what had been promised, for example, in the 1993 White Paper.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is responsible for science policy and for open government. He has a responsibility to consult and I agree with what he said about consulting a wider circle than the inner circle, but he has to be seen to be making his decisions as openly as possible. I trust that, when he has been in the job longer and is not bound by decisions made some time ago, his responsibilities as a science Minister will not conflict with his responsibilities as the Minister for open government. It is important that we establish the principle that there should be as much openness as possible.
On the specifics of the science budget, the Minister outlined the ways in which the departmental budget has been increased this year. He should not adopt such a blinkered attitude, or regard the science budget as simply the budget that goes through his Department. I understand that he cannot say so publicly this evening, but I hope that he shares my concern about the fact that, while his departmental science budget has increased, albeit temporarily, the total of the science budgets in all Government Departments has decreased, which is causing much concern.
I could go into detail and give the figures for the Department of Trade and Industry, or state what has happened to the research and development budget in defence—the fact that no one is taking up the opportunities that exist for defence diversification. Before the Minister boasts too much about his departmental successes, he should consider what has happened to science budgets overall.
I do not want to spend the whole evening bandying about figures that relate to the Chancellor's announcement. I hope that he will acknowledge what his Cabinet Office press release said at the end of November. It made it clear that the science budget for 1994–95 has increased by 1.9 per cent., but that it will be frozen in cash terms next year and that, between 1994–95 and 1997–98, his departmental science budget will decrease by 1.1 per cent. I am sure that the Minister will understand that any welcome with which we greet the fact that his departmental budget has increased this year must be muted because we know what is in the pipeline.
I hope that the Minister will share my concern about the figures published by the Royal Society of Chemistry. As has been said, it produced an effective briefing for the debate. Its figures show that research and development expenditure in the United Kingdom has declined in the past five years and that Government spending on research and development has declined as a proportion of all that spending. The figures in "The Forward Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology 1994" look show that the Government provided £5 billion out of £11 billion spent on research and development in 1985–86, but the figure was down to £4.3 billion out of £12.2 billion in 199293. I do not for one moment say that all research –and development should be Government-funded, but that is a worrying trend and one that the Minister glossed over.
1290
Although we welcome aspects of the Minister's statement, such as the fact that his departmental budget has improved this year, it is not good enough to look at one narrow departmental budget alone. We must consider the Government's attitude across all Departments. Ministers and Departments are clearly pulling in different directions. Also, the chopping and changing is worrying to all people involved in scientific research and development. The fact that the Minister's budget is increasing this year, but will be frozen next and then reduced is sending the wrong signals to those involved in scientific investigation.
An obsession with market forces or market-based research should not blinker the Government, when it comes to investing in this country's future. The Minister mentioned his discussions with scientists—as he toured research laboratories—about the free enterprise society. Many other countries regard themselves as free-enterprise models, but they do not ignore or marginalise the critical importance of Government investment. They regard Government spending in that field not simply as expenditure, but as investment in the future. That thinking is essential as part of the longer-term perspective. Even the Minister's figures in the forward look prove the need to think in that way.
I mentioned short-termism, which is a major problem that should concern all of us. Short-term funding, whether by Government, industry or in universities, can threaten and lead to the break-up of research teams. We have witnessed much uncertainty, and university programmes have been cut. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) mentioned one important problem at university level—the rapid and incredible growth in the number of short-term contracts, which should worry hon. Members on both sides of the House. That feature is very worrying. Ten years ago, 11,000 people were on short-term contracts, recently the figure was 22,000 and it is growing all the time. Clearly, that is no good for the staff concerned. It worries them greatly. Nor can it be good if research projects and those working on them are under a cloud as regards future funding. The Minister could have dealt with those difficulties in his speech this evening.
Short termism has jeopardised the benefit to the British economy of British inventions. We could all give long lists of items, such as liquid crystal displays, developed in Britain but manufactured abroad so that the benefits have gone to other countries. Another item that was mentioned is transputers. The advanced microprocessor chip, which was developed by a British company, INMOS, is a good example of co-operation between Government and industry. Some of us remember that INMOS was supported by the last Labour Government through the National Enterprise Board. The Conservative Government sold INMOS to Thorn EMI, which quickly sold it on to a French-Italian group. That was clearly a missed chance for Britain and it did us a great deal of harm.
However, that is in the past. The serious point is that this country is still missing opportunities for the future, particularly in terms of potential for developing information super highways. Those present enormous opportunities for Britain in terms of potential for educational programmes, which would give our children access to information and new experiences in education that were never dreamed of in our youth. The

1291
development of information super-highways would also bring enormous economic development and benefits, were Britain to get ahead.
Britain possesses some fantastic advantages. We have some of the world's leading talents in television and film production, and outstanding talents in educational publishing and writing, animation and computer games programming. Wonderful opportunities exist, not least because 80 per cent, of electronic information stored in the world is in English. We have hardware and software industries; we are a small island that could easily be cabled; and our private sector is eager to invest. So what is holding us back?
The report of the all-party Department of Trade and Industry Select Committee said:
"There is concern that government policies could be hindering or not sufficiently encouraging the development of the most advanced infrastructure and services, and that this could result in the UK falling behind other countries, with damaging consequences."
The danger is that, instead of grasping the opportunity to become the world's leader with all the consequential economic and educational benefits, unless the Government change their policy, Britain will fall further behind. The Minister has shown that he takes those matters seriously. I hope that he will lobby and talk to his right hon. Friends to get a change of direction in some crucial areas.
We also need a change of direction on post-16 qualifications in education. The number of young people taking science A-levels has decreased, yet more people than ever are taking and succeeding at GCSE. We must reform A-levels and have a broader educational base post-16, as other countries do. If we moved in that direction, it would strengthen our educational base and scientific awareness. In the long term, that would benefit everyone.
I should have liked to raise many more points. I hope that the Chancellor accepts that the temporary increase in his science budget, welcome though it is, should not allow him to become complacent. He still has much work to do, especially to counter the problems in so many areas and other Departments. I hope that he will take on board in particular the points that I have made about information super-highways and the need for change in education.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, may I point out that there is a great deal of interest in this short debate. I therefore make a plea for short speeches.
8.26 pm
Sir Giles Shaw: In that case, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall get rid of my first page for a start.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, not only on how he handled the introduction to the debate, giving way with such generosity that little time is available for the rest of us, but on the fact that he has achieved, in an extremely difficult year, an increase—albeit modest—in the science budget.
We must restrain ourselves from believing that we are discussing the tenth year of a long-term plan for science and development. Sadly, that is not the case. We are in the early stages of a significant shift in how we organise, handle, fund and distribute a new sense of direction for science and investment. We are all committed to the
1292
general objective of raising our total investment in science and technology to ensure our competitive place in the world. The Select Committee and the House agree that the long-term future for UK pic depends on that, so anything that my right hon. Friend can do to increase the commitment, even if his Department has been unable to break free from the problems of public expenditure restraints, should be welcomed. What we are and must remain concerned about is the long-term directions which the Government have planned through the active work in my right hon. Friend's Department.
On the specific proposals, I shall leave on one side the flak which Lord Phillips raised on the consultative process. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr Bray) is heavily engaged in that matter.
On distribution, I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has secured an increase of £14.95 million for the competitive scheme under the ROPA initiative. That is particularly welcome because, as my right hon. Friend said, it helps to improve interaction with industry, which must be right. The shorter time span between scientific research and innovative technology in any of the industrial sectors contacted must be welcomed. I trust that that increase means that many more researchers will qualify to be funded for strategic research in industry, which will help to alleviate some of the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor).
I am particularly glad to note that, in the section entitled
"Enhancement and Underpinning of Strategic Science",
the Medical Research Council is to be awarded an additional £4 million for research into the genome project. The Select Committee is currently engaged in that issue, and this is a suitable time for my right hon. Friend to decide that that vital international research should have a boost in funding.
I welcome, too, the additional funding for the bio-processing industries, which, as far as I can understand them—it is a complicated industrial activity— are at the leading edge of international competitiveness. They have been Cinderellas in their part of the industry. I am glad to see that that has been acknowledged and that they, too, are receiving a further increase.
It is clear that the increased amount available from a lower-than-forecast inflation factor have, by and large, benefited all the research councils in some way. Equally, I am absolutely clear that although research councils' chief executives have had the good grace to welcome the modest addition, the total expenditure must be of concern to the House.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury mentioned science spending by other Departments. The core role of the Office of Science and Technology is to re-organise the mission, composition and chairmanship of the research councils. In the barely 12 months in which that has been done, it has achieved a major breakthrough in the structural organisation of science. "Realising our Potential", the White Paper on which all those initiatives are based, made it clear that science funding should be largely directed to projects that
"improve our national competitiveness and the quality of life."
That means science funding throughout and beyond Government into industry and the world at large. I am anxious that the direction of OST policy in helping that

1293
enormous objective to go forward must include more influence on departmental budgets and how they enter the Government's priority.
I suspect that we shall battle it out when we come to the first technology recommendations that my right hon. Friend said would be introduced in due course from the 15 panels. If the four sites initiative means anything, it must mean that there should emerge from the assessment an agreed national series of objectives that should lead to the prioritising of scientific endeavour and, thus, scientific expenditure. I hope that my right hon. Friend will have that firmly in his eye. When we discuss total scientific objectives, we must mean a complete science base— Government, all Departments, industry, the Confederation of British Industry and other organisations. The engineers are always active in such matters and I am sure that Sir William Barlow will be glad to hear of the small amounts that my right hon. Friend has been able to offer today. That is where the crunch will come.
I hope that later in the year we shall have more time than is available now. As I recall, the Select Committee's report, "The Forward Look of Government-Funded Science, Engineering and Technology 1994" recommended that we should have an annual debate. I am happy to say that my right hon. Friend has now responded to the report and it looks as though he is prepared to use what he encouragingly describes as his best endeavours. I wish to see my right hon. Friend's best endeavours deliver a full debate on science when the "Forward Look" report is published in May.
I welcome the initiatives taking place in the research councils to ensure that industry's views are represented on the councils, which must be helpful. That is one reason why we are keen to know how the priorities in the council budgets were chosen. We must also encourage the initiative manufacturing programme which was launched in July 1944 and the ROPAs—"Realising our Potential" awards—to which my right hon. Friend referred.
I shall skip much of the next two pages of my speech and mention one or two other aspects of general science. One of the problems touched on in the exchange of questions on the LHC was the issue of attribution and European Union funding. Although the exercise conducted on the LHC was to discover how to recover our money from fluctuation, the Select Committees of both Houses have criticised the practice of attribution of European Union receipts to domestic budgets.
The Parliamentary Secretary may not be able to comment on that subject today, but it is worth further examination by the OST. The Department appears to show that receipts from the EU are, in some cases, attributed to the science budget, which is consequently adjusted so that overall spending remains as planned. We cannot welcome that as an old Chinese custom continuing when talking about the new priorities that we attach to science. I think that in the current year, £12.5 million of such provision comes from the EU, although the future year's figure is slightly lower. If .he has the time, the Parliamentary Secretary might say how much EU money is generally additional to the science budget. In its first report the Select Committee commented on that.
The efficiency unit scrutiny has also exercised the Select Committee recently. The Government have set in place measures to encourage the science base in the
1294
desired direction, while leaving research councils the autonomy to determine how to spend the funds allocated to them. That is welcome, but the inclusion of research council institutes in the recent efficiency scrutiny of public sector research establishments was regrettable. Such institutes are funded by research councils because they perceive a need for them—it is not for the Government to try and second-guess those directly involved. There has been some duplication and it is no doubt wise to try to restrict it. But if there is a desire to avoid duplication at all costs, research councils should have their entrepreneurial instincts restrained rather than encouraged.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has agreed to respond to many of the recommendations in the Select Committee's report. I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel that it is consistent with our view that there should be a comprehensive statement of all the scientific investments being made and all the scientific endeavours to match the investment. We require plenty of information. We look forward to the time when the Office of Science and Technology fulfils the Select Committee's long-term objective to become the Government Department for all science, however funded.
I am glad that the Government will keep under consideration the extent to which additional information on university research should also be included in the "Forward Look". In the section on my right hon. Friend's response, dealing with the reduction in Government spending on civil research and development, the Department states that the fall of expenditure on civil research and development is largely due to the fast breeder research being wound down. I am not certain that that equates entirely with the position of the advanced technology programme in the Department of Trade and Industry. I suspect that changes in that are not adequately matched by the receipts from the DTI's launch aid initiative. I should be grateful to receive any information on that.
I note that the Government agree with the Select Committee's view on the development of output measures, the effectiveness of research and development and the co-ordinating role of the OST as the effective guardian of the Government's science policy. We anticipate seeing that role positively developing in the "Forward Look" report due out in May. I believe that the Select Committee will welcome a wide range of agreement with the recommendations in our report.
The main theme, which no debate on science and technology can avoid, is that it is essential that we lift the total national investment in the nation's science base and the nation's competitive technology. The OST is to be congratulated on the efforts that it has made in a relatively short time to start gathering in all the structural information necessary to lay the foundations for future development. The Department is becoming, not only an important custodian, but a generator of our science expenditure and the way in which it should be spent— although I accept that that is primarily related to Government expenditure. Ways must be found to broaden the initiative and I welcome anything that the Department can do to stimulate, if not to be responsible for, new scientific endeavour on a larger scale.
The new-look research councils are flourishing. They are now able to make recommendations to the OST. Sir John has done admirable work in trying to co-ordinate

1295
that policy in a way that leads to effective leadership. The "Forward Look" and technology foresight will develop in the future.
The Department has to take the lead in the promotion of science and technology to the public. Clearly, the Department for Education has now accepted that science has a significant role to play in the curriculum, which is beginning to make its mark in our schools. But universities, industry and industrial associations should recognise that they must play their part in lifting the national level of knowledge so that, in time, we may reap the reward of improved technology and improved competitiveness in all the markets of the world.
8.38 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am grateful for the chance to make a few remarks on today's debate on science. While preparing for the debate I read the briefing from the Royal Society of Chemistry—I was at one time a chemist. It gave a sobering account of the feeling in chemistry laboratories in our universities and institutes of higher education, particularly among the staff. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) earlier mentioned the number of short-term contracts. The lecturers at higher education institutes on short-term contracts have doubled in number in the past 10 years—from 11,500 to 21,500.
The briefing also mentioned the structure of buildings. Many chemistry laboratories were built in the 1960s, when universities were expanding and new universities were being built. The fabric of many of those buildings is in disrepair and needs refurbishment. The numbers in higher education have expanded enormously in the past 10 years, for which I pay tribute to the Government. But, unfortunately, the staff and equipment have not increased pro rata. The figures given show that the spending on equipment per academic has fallen from £1,850 in 1987–88 to £1,193 per academic in 1992–93. Equipment has been cut by one third per staff member despite the fact that there are more students.
Any briefing on science research contains figures on the country's expenditure on research and development and it shows how we lag behind our industrial competitors. The most recent figures that I have are for 1992 when 2.12 per cent, of our gross domestic product was spent on research and development compared with Japan at 2.8 per cent., the United States at 2.68 per cent., Germany at 2.53 per cent, and France at 2.36 per cent. When we discount the part of the budget which goes on defence, we are lagging 1 per cent behind Germany and Japan in our expenditure on civil research and development. All the members of the Science and Technology Committee know, as do all scientists and engineers this country, that we should devote substantially more resources to research and development.
I think that my colleagues are being a little generous in congratulating the Minister on an increase in the science budget. My understanding of his letter of 29 November is that in this financial year the budget is £1,217 million at 1993 prices, in the coming financial year it will be £1,217 million, and it will drop to £1,205 million and £1,204 million in subsequent years. Over a three-year period, the Department's budget at 1993 prices will fall by 1 per cent.
Added to that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) pointed out, are the cuts in research in the Department of Defence, the Department of
1296
Trade and Industry, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and so on. Across the board it is a picture of continual belt-tightening and of a very difficult time for research scientists.
In the interests of allowing other hon. Members to participate in the debate, I will skip a few pages of my speech, as the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) did earlier.
I turn now to a matter that is outside the science budget. I know that the Glaxo-Wellcome bid is strictly a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry, but I think that it is of interest to the Office of Science and Technology. I invite the Minister to give us his Department's view on the takeover when he replies to the debate. Perhaps it does not have a view on the matter.
In a takeover bid worth £8.9 billion, the world's second largest pharmaceutical company is seeking to take over the world's 20th largest company. It would form not only the largest company in Britain, but the largest pharmaceutical company in the world, with a turnover of £28 billion. Britain has an excellent record in the pharmaceutical industry; it is the one industry sector where Britain is a world leader. We invest heavily in research and development and the industry's primary customer is the national health service, which provides a very large home market.
Glaxo and Wellcome invest about 15 per cent, of their yearly sales in research and development. In commenting on the takeover, a newspaper article has said that there certainly will be job cuts in research and development if the bid goes through. I know that the Wellcome Trust supports the takeover as it could mean an increase in research. Combining the two companies would mean a rationalisation of facilities and production and a rationalisation of large areas of research.
In the New Scientist of 26 January, Sir Richard Sykes, the chief executive of Glaxo and its former research director, admits:
"the planned 'rationalization' and streamlining of the research teams of the two companies, one of the main factors being used to generate support for the take-over among shareholders, will inevitably lead to job losses among researchers."
If that is true, we will lose PhDs and post-doctorate research workers from our industry to the United States. More importantly, it will have an adverse effect on the morale of scientists working in that sector, in higher education and throughout the scientific community. Any job losses in production and research which result from the takeover will hit morale hard in our leading industry sector.
I ask the Office of Science and Technology to look at the takeover bid very carefully. Is it in the interests of British science and our pharmaceutical industry for the bid go ahead? I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on that in his reply. It is not good enough for the Government to sit back and say, "No, this is a free market and that is the way it operates; it is not for us to comment or have a view about it", when research and the morale of many of our best people may be affected by the takeover.
8.45 pm
Sir Gerard Vaughan: Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am mindful of the time and your call for short speeches, I will make only a comment or two. I will

1297
also refrain from reminding my right hon. Friend that he is welcome to visit Reading university in my constituency whenever he wishes.
Mr. David Hunt: I arranged today to visit Reading university. I shall suggest a number of dates to my hon. Friend so that I can ensure that the visit takes place at his convenience as well as mine.
Sir Gerard Vaughan: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should explain that I did not raise that point by prior arrangement with my right hon. Friend. I could easily make a whole speech congratulating him not only on his success in raising extra money for the science budget, but on the enthusiasm and clarity with which he presented the situation tonight.
I was glad that he referred to the "Realising our Potential" awards scheme and the excellent work performed by the Royal Academy of Engineering. I also pay tribute to the work that has been done by the Office of Science and Technology. I believe that the briefing notes which it has produced for hon. Members have resulted in a greater understanding of the subject.
I shall pick up on two points which are not meant to be viewed as criticism. First, I agree entirely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones): it is a very serious situation. I think that part of the problem is our culture in this country which makes it difficult for us to appreciate the feeling of those in the science field. We have to raise the general image and standard of science and engineering throughout the whole community. It begins in our schools where I am afraid that the standard of science teaching and interest remains deplorable in many cases. It is an urgent situation with which we must deal immediately.
I am very pleased that extra money is to be allocated to the LINK programme. However, I ask my right hon. Friend to look seriously at some of the LINK programmes. While the concept of the programmes is welcomed by all, some of them appear to be over-bureaucratic and they are not producing effective results—in fact, I think that some of them are a total waste of money. That does not mean that the concept is at fault; it is a very good idea.
I realise that there are difficulties, but I ask my right hon. Friend to examine ways in which long-term development facilities could be made available for research and development in this country. Other countries, such as Japan and Germany, have achieved it very successfully and I think that we should re-examine the issue.
8.49 pm
Mr. Nigel Jones: I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy for the way in which he presented the report and for his announcements. He clearly acknowledges that investment in the science base is money well spent—there is no difference between any of us in that respect. We may differ on the scale of investment required if British people are to enjoy a decent standard of living now and in the next century.
Britain is good at invention. On a visit to the science museum last year its director, Sir Neil Cussons, told me that more than half the exhibits and papers it
1298
contains are associated with the inventions of British scientists. Dr. Richard Roberts, one of two Nobel prizewinners in 1993, described Britain as an
"unbelievably fertile ground for ideas."
Given the flooding in some parts of the country, that may be due to our weather—it keeps us indoors many months of the year.
Sadly, Dr. Roberts left Britain with a PhD in his twenties, for North America. He commented at that time that in Britain
"funding for research is really quite appalling and scientists are undervalued."
Those are strong words from a Nobel prizewinner.
An article in The Independent on 8 November 1994 stated:
"Britain's best chance of again winning Nobel prizes in science would be for the Germans and Japanese to take over some of our high-tech industries."
That is a radical proposal, and not one that we should adopt.
There have been two Nobel prizes for British-based research in the past 10 years, compared with 11 the preceding decade. Over the years, Britain has suffered from the brain drain. Andy Coghlan of New Scientist pointed out that
"many of those who leave are high fliers, and their departure is depriving Britain of its top talent."
Typically, overseas researchers tend to enter Britain on short-term contracts, while British emigrants leave this country for ever. I welcome the allocation report's section on enhancement of people-related programmes, and the recognition—I nearly intervened on the Chancellor on this point, but he made it eventually— that more women must be encouraged to enter science, and to remain after completing their PhDs. As members of this House, we ought to know that women have just as much to offer as men. As a nation, we must make use of all our talent, and women are a vital part of our future.
When the Prime Minister visited Japan in 1993, he said:
"We have undervalued science and the application of science in the United Kingdom over the past 20 or 30 years."
He was right. Since 1981, Government spending on research and development has fallen by one third and is now a lower proportion of gross domestic product in the UK than in the competitor countries of France, Germany, Japan and the United States. Departmental spending has fallen and is expected to continue doing so.
Figures released by the Department of Trade and Industry last December and published in the Financial Times show that its research and development expenditure will fall to £245 million in the present financial year, from £310 in 1993–94 and £500 million a year in the late 1980s.
Britain cannot compete with the low-wage economies of the Pacific rim, but it can through technology. That was recognised as early as the 1930s. A year ago, the eminent journalist Will Hutton wrote:
"It is common knowledge that the British economy has been in relative decline for more than a century, but what is less remarked upon is that had Britain stayed wedded to its textile, coal and heavy engineering economy of the 1920s, the decline would have been even more marked. Yet from the early 1930s

1299
to the early 1950s, there was a transformation in the country's economic base. This was led by technology and, in particular, by state support of science.
Since then, we have seen the squandering of this inheritance through the insistence that a free financial system and reduction of state support will be enough to drive innovation."
I hope that that is changing, and I know from the comments by Conservative Members that they want change as much as I do. The best way to secure Britain's survival as a modern, industrialised nation whose people enjoy a high standard of living is to invest in the future.
I congratulate the Minister on listening positively to the wishes of the science community. I welcome the allocation paper's reference also to public understanding of science. It is no use pretending that we are not technical. This week, I attended an interesting meeting of the all—party group on cable and satellite, of which the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) is chairman. As I left, I heard one hon. Member—who I am glad is not present—say to his researcher, "You put that on the computer, because I'm not very technical." We must change that attitude. British people are good at invention and technical innovation; we should be proud of that and shout it from the rooftops.
Last year's science week was worth while, and I am pleased that it is to become an annual event. I remember being at the science museum at the crack of dawn with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), to give a live interview on BBC breakfast television. A 1920s steamship engine was working behind us. It is fitting that that hon. Gentleman went on to become shadow Secretary of State for Transport.
One cannot overemphasise the importance to the nation of placing science policy high on the Government's agenda. Without properly funded research, there will be more debates of the sort that we heard yesterday, concerning further cutbacks in the country's social, education, health and police services.
Can the Minister say the extent to which research grant applications will be tied to the rigid goals of wealth creation? Is not it the nature of pure research that it must often be undertaken without achieving a specified profit? Sometimes there is no product—or if there is, that is serendipity and long into the future. How will the Government ensure that total research is maintained when departmental budgets rise and fall? It seems likely that money spent on military research will further decrease.
Baroness Thatcher once said:
"Transistors were not discovered by the entertainment industry seeking new ways of marketing pop music, but rather by people working on wave mechanics and solid—state physics."
That shows the value of the basic research that was done in inventing transistors in those days. The reality of the problem—I think all hon. Members know this— is that funding could be limitless. I am sure that, between them, research councils could dream up projects worthy of investment that would far outstrip the budget of any party in the House but I believe that there is a shortfall now that is damaging Britain's future.
The importance, of encouraging industry to invest cannot be over—emphasised. I am pleased to see the description of the multiplier idea in the paper released
1300
today. It is important that the Government, research councils and industry work together, provide the funds, to work on specific projects of interest to all of them.
A second problem was identified in the Select Committee's report last year, and it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). The problem is also exposed in Will Hutton's new book entitled, "The State We're In"—short—termism. Giles Coren's article in The Times this week tells the story of the British inventor and designer, James Dyson. Mr. Dyson is the man who invented the ballbarrow. I do not know whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have one of these at home, but it is a wheelbarrow based on a ball, which never gets stuck in the mud and does not make marks on the lawn. He also invented the dual cyclone vacuum cleaner. His inventions have achieved worldwide sales of more than £1 billion. But despite the success of his inventions, Mr. Dyson could find no one at home to back his efforts with cash, which is a perennial problem for British inventors. The article says:
"Instead he sold licences to America and Japan".
James Dyson says:
"British industry's attitude to development and designers is blighted by short-termism … You have to show a quick turn—around and immediate profit. Engineering is not about that—it's a long—term way of regenerating a company,"—
and a country.
"If the City—boys and the banks… demand an instant return we just sell our products better, we don't improve them. Advertising is the British answer to everything. But that is the way to a fast buck, not real money."
Mr. Dyson went on to point out that
"The best…. business is one where you can sell a product at a high price with a large margin… and make an enormous amount of money,"—
Here's to that.
"For that you have to develop a product that works better and looks better than existing ones. That kind of investment is long—term, high-risk and not very British."
A third problem is that of the gap between the skills that we have and the skills that we need. Cuts in education, about which we talked yesterday, are the greatest betrayal of our young people. Throughout the country, school budgets are being cut.
We have talked about a proper career structure for scientists. I fear that the Government will put shor-term political considerations before the long-term goal of providing for Britain an adequate research base to keep our brightest brains in Britain and to maintain and improve our quality of life. The Government's strategy seems to be to cut back on investment in key services now to create enough elbow room for a cut in income tax before the next election. That is not only shor-termism but cynical shor-termism, because one person's tax cut in 1996 could result in that same person's job loss in 1998–99.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will be able to provide some answers to the questions raised in the debate. I wish him and the Chancellor well in the task of persuading his colleagues of the importance of research in this country. If they can persuade the Government to invest more in the future, they will receive enthusiastic support from me and from my right hon. and hon. Friends.
9.2 pm
Mr. Simon Coombs: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones), who, like

1301
me, is a supporter of Swindon town football club, but I do not agree with his latter remarks. I believe that the Government's proposals this year, following, as they do, the White Paper on science and technology, show that the Government are indeed looking to a long-term future for science, and are approaching the need to avoid short-termism in a positive way.
I welcome what I hope is now an annual debate. It has been held on 2 February 1994 and on 2 February 1995.I put it to my right hon. Friend that if the next debate occurs on 2 February 1996—a Friday—we could have a five—hour instead of a two and three quarter hour debate on science.
I welcome the opportunity to say something about science, particularly the science research councils—five of the six of which are located in my constituency. They have been through a substantial sea change over the past 12 months as a result of what I believe were right decisions taken on the reorganisation of some of them. I pay tribute to the efforts made by the management and staff of the research councils in bringing those changes to fruition, working them out and making them effective, I am pleased to tell the House that, in general, things have settled down well and the research councils are now getting on with the job of administrating British science.
At the time of the White Paper's publication in 1993, and again in the debate a year ago, I asked for assurances from my right hon. Friend's predecessor as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the position of staff of the research councils. Those assurances—that the changes would not lead to significant alterations in staff—were given to me and they have been kept.
However, since that time, a decision has been made to undertake a review of staffing levels in the research councils and that has led to some concern among my constituents who work at the research councils. Once again, reassurance has been offered by Sir John Cadogan in a letter to staff representatives and it would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply to the debate, would reiterate the reassurance that what is looked for is improvements in efficiency but not the drastic reductions in staff number that were suggested by union representatives in Swindon at the end of last year. Staff in the research councils have a strong commitment and they deserve our support. I trust that my hon. Friend will feel the same and be able to give further assurances to my constituents tonight.
I want to make brief reference to one or two of the issues that were raised at the beginning of the debate in exchanges between my right hon. Friend and several hon. Members. The reference to the international subscriptions which fall within the remit of PPARC strikes a strong chord with me. I have raised the matter on many occasions in the past in the House. I look forward to the announcement of the mechanism—in section 6 of the White Paper—to be established to protect PPARC's budget, now a little under £200 million, but more than half of it devoted to the two subscriptions to CERN and ESA.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said tonight that the fluctuations in those two subscriptions will be a first charge upon the totality of the science budget and that is obviously good news. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary could tell me,
1302
either at the end of the debate or, because I appreciate that he will have many things to do at that stage, perhaps later in a written reply, whether there will be a pro rata allocation of the £8 million between all the research councils budgets on the basis of their share of the total expenditure on science. That would mean that PPARC would still have to find about £1.5 million in addition as part of its contribution to the fluctuations element.
We welcome the improvement that has been made possible in the overall cost to Britain of the LHC at CERN. I have a figure of about £70 million over 10 or 12 years, which is a substantial sum. That money should be fed back directly into domestic programmes, which support the international projects. Again at some stage, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say that he agrees with that.
Furthermore, savings are now being talked about on the administration costs of ESA. It would be helpful to know whether the intention is to recycle those to UK science in general terms or specifically to PPARC projects, so that they may be the direct beneficiaries, bearing in mind that over the years first CERN and now PPARC have had to bear the total cost of the subscriptions, which have been a large drain on their respective budgets.
The two subscriptions buy only the scientific infrastructure in those overseas locations. The real value of our membership of CERN and ESA comes from the domestic research that we then undertake and that has to be separately funded. It is not clear to me at this stage whether the allocations announced by my right hon. Friend today will provide adequate funding for the domestic science base to enable Britain to obtain full value from continuing membership of those two European projects. Again, it would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary could clarify that point.
It was brought to my attention that ESA is concerned about the integral astronomy mission. It was made clear by my right hon. Friend that that was a matter for PPARC, but I hope that he will continue to support the belief that the UK is strong in the subject of astronomy. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) made that point in an intervention. We must stress how good we are at astronomy, and the fact that we lead Europe in that subject. It is vital for PPARC to finance the mission; failure to participate would deal a serious blow to those abroad.
I welcome the general increase in funds for this year, which is above the inflation rate. It recognises the desire of hon. Members on both sides of the House for more to be spent on science. I particularly welcome two projects. The first is cognitive engineering: an additional £1.2 million is to go to the Economic and Social Research Council. Interaction between humans and computers strikes me as one of the most crucial areas of advance for the country: I would hazard a guess that it will provide Nobel prizes here in years to come. Major breakthroughs may not be far away, and I am very pleased that support for cognitive engineering is continuing and increasing.
I also welcome the additional allocation of £2 million to the Natural Environment Research Council for environmental diagnostics, on which a number of hon. Members have commented. It is all very well for the Government to hit industry with the principle that the polluter pays, but it is equally right for us to give what help we can to industry to enable it to deal with such pollution problems as waste management.

1303
I am pleased to learn that a new research council, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, is to be given generous funds for a number of new projects. The council will welcome those funds, and I look forward to visiting it before long to hear more about its plans.
Finally, I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has agreed to visit Swindon soon. That is an exercise organised by my hon. Friend and me— unlike the sub—plot of which we heard earlier, involving my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be very welcome in Swindon, and I hope that he will arrive there in the next couple of months to see for himself the excellent work being done in the research councils. That work is leading British science towards a future which I believe is very bright, as a result of the allocation and all that has gone before it.
9.12 pm
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I must declare an interest: I am a non-executive director of the Welding Institute, an independent research and technology organisation that will benefit from some of the new schemes announced by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
The Chancellor has made promising sounds about real increases in the science budgets, and if we did not know the whole picture it would look very rosy. I do not want to sound sour, but I feel that the true picture of science and technology spending should be shown. Between 1986 and 1992, spending by the Office of Public Service and Science increased by 21 per cent., but in the same period spending by the Higher Education Funding Council fell by 7 per cent.; civil Departments' spending fell by 29 per cent.; Ministry of Defence spending fell by 20 per cent.; and total Government science and technology spending fell by 13 per cent. Moreover, if we take into account projected spending to 1995–96, we find that total Government expenditure has fallen by 23 per cent. in real terms in the 10 years since 1985–86.
I accept that there is a real case for cutting MOD research expenditure, but why is the money not going into civil research? Instead, civil Departments' expenditure is being cut by an even greater amount than defence research spending.
I quote from a letter I have received from the head of a science department at Cambridge university. He said:
"In the USA there have been large cuts in the defence research budget but a substantial amount of these funds have been transferred to civil research, i.e. there has been a real peace dividend. In the UK there has been no peace dividend. You could ask why not. In aerospace, for example, I have been told by senior officials in the USA that not a dollar of the research budget has been lost: all the cuts in the defence aerospace budget have been transferred to the civil aerospace side. This is not a direct civil aerospace subsidy… but is a clearly constructed indirect subsidy via… joint university-industry aerospace projects, etc. In the UK, both the defence and the civil aerospace government R & D budget have been cut and hence British Aerospace, Rolls—Royce, etc., are really suffering (hence the recent Rolls-Royce redundancies in Scotland and there are more aerospace redundancies to come). The savings from defence research cuts should be transferred to the civil sector, and joint industry—university research, with the university side funded by EPSRC, would help to restore a level playing field and would help to save our aerospace industry."
1304
Unfortunately, many British companies follow the British Government on research and defence spending. The Central Statistical Office review of industrial research in 1992 shows that funding for civil research has reached an all—time high of £7.8 billion. That is good news, but it is still only just over 1.25 per cent. of gross domestic product. France's 1.4 per cent., Germany's 1.7 per cent., the USA's 1.8 per cent. and Japan's 2.1 per cent. make British business expenditure on research and development look pathetic.
Long-term industrial competitiveness depends on our ability to use our scientific inventiveness to make new and improved products. A lead from the Government is needed to convince our industrial companies that investment in research and development is important, not only for their own competitiveness but for the future prosperity of the country.
Another head of a science department at Cambridge university has expressed concern about the way in which the Government are providing funds for industrial research and development. He wrote:
"All of us here appreciate the over-riding importance of a healthy industrial base. Government needs to provide encouragement for industrial investment in research and for Universities to collaborate in the projects. So far however, most of the funds for this endeavour seem to have been produced from the Research Council budget and not from the DTI budget or the MOD budget."
It is true that the cuts in the DTI budget have meant cuts in the advanced technology programme to which the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) referred. That money has not been replaced.
It would be helpful for the independent research and technology organisations to know whether they will be able to apply for funds from the research councils. Perhaps the Minister could tell us, when he replies, whether that money will be available.
My constituents are concerned about a number of other points. I refer to the short-term goals, especially the short-termism within the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. That is a matter that comes up again and again in conversation with research scientists in my constituency.
Yet another head of a science department at Cambridge university wrote saying that he was worried about the short-term goals being pursued by the EPSRC
"in contravention of the Minister's own pronouncements and of frequent warning from the House of Lords Select Committee. This is particularly annoying, as many parts of the remit of EPSRC … are involved with fundamental science just as much as the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. Yet there is a repeated confirmation of the idea that EPSRC is concerned with wealth creation and the quality of life, and fundamental science of the blue sides kind must be pursued through PPARC."
He is asking the Minister to assure the country that vigorous support for high-quality fundamental science will continue to be provided, not just by the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, but by all research councils. He asks:
"can the Research Councils—all of..them—be again required by the Minister to take a long-term view of such things as the applicability of research?"
In the past two years, one of the changes in funding has hit Oxford university and Cambridge university, in particular, very badly. I refer to the dual support transfer system, which has been a uniform disaster for the major research universities. It was supposed to be an overall

1305
neutral operation, solely connected with research. How the best research universities could be so badly damaged must be questioned.
I have learnt that another department is in deficit to the tune of £500,000 this year because the funding in the transfer system has not been replaced in the way that it was supposed to have been. Oxford university has compiled a dossier on the ways in which the research councils have failed to do what was required of them, and have failed to apply the funds transferred to them from funding councils to the support of specific costs associated with research grants.
Research council panels have memberships from around the country. They naturally seek to make the money go as far as possible and they are inclined to say, in particular, that the major research universities are well enough resourced anyhow, and that this or that direct-cost request can be deleted in favour of giving another research grant somewhere else. Each of the major research universities has suffered a loss of several million pounds from that, and the country should be told that the shift of funding, allegedly to make the costs of support research more transparent, has been a disaster. I hope that the Minister will take that on board. I know that he recently announced a review of that system, but it is extremely important that those serious concerns are dealt with.
Difficulties are being experienced by some of the research institutes. A director of a research institute associated with crop research complains that he has already received
"two letters from BBSRC in the last few months… asking how we would deal with funding cuts because the Director General of Research Councils … wants the..money for a range of short-term funding schemes."
I know that additional funding of £15 million has been announced today. That is not new money. It is coming from the fundamental and basic infrastructure of some of our best research institutes. If that is allowed to continue, it will seriously damage the research institutes because they need leading scientists, not only to find short-term contract money on which they depend, but as a basic structure for them to continue. I hope that the Minister will take that into consideration.
9.22 pm
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I shall try to be as brief as possible so that it is possible for the FrontBench spokesmen to allow further speeches in the debate. This debate is of interest to all parties. I do not regard the support for science as a matter of political controversy. After all, it is well known that we need to support science as much as possible.
In a sense, therefore, I follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) in that she referred to what has turned out to be the theme of the debate—the new concept about which we have all obviously been reading in our briefs from various sources. That theme is short-termism, a phrase which has cropped up in speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have been fascinated by the number of times reference has been made to short-termism.
I have been most encouraged by the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I have also been encouraged by the fact that he
1306
will visit Norwich on 10 February, and I know that he will enjoy that visit very much. I was encouraged by his remarks when he dealt with the problem of short-termism. Although he may need a little more pressure from those of us who are keen on scientific research, I have a feeling that he is on the right track. I was certainly very encouraged by his opening speech.
At a recent meeting of the new Council for Science and Technology, the Prime Minister said that science was at the heart of government. Of course, it was the Prime Minister who provided us with the new Office of Science and Technology, so there is no doubt about the Government's commitment to science, which I support.
We could have a lengthy debate about figures and the sums of money provided for science. The trouble with such debates is that they depend on which figures are cited. I shall not enter into that argument, but it is at least of some encouragement to me as a physicist that the Royal Society of Chemistry has given some welcome to the Government's statement on science funding. It seems that the message is getting through that we need to continue to provide substantial sums for scientific research.
I am one of those who will always want more resources for such research, and that should not be a matter of controversy. However, the mechanisms applied to funding are often controversial. Members of the Opposition Front Bench will be disappointed to learn that I shall not go into more detail because that would take too much time, but, clearly, we want more resources and the Royal Society of Chemistry has been encouraged by the Government's announcement, which is good news.
There is a tradition of pure research in this country. I remember my time at the Cavendish laboratory in Cambridge when I was struggling to get a degree in physics. Of course, that was where Rutherford and other great scientists split the atom—to use very simple terminology—using basic equipment. They had no idea that it would lead directly to such things as nuclear power. This week, Lord Wakeham came to East Anglia to start up the new Sizewell B nuclear power station. That is an example of a direct application of pure research, although originally no one had any idea to what it might lead. I pay tribute to all those in Suffolk, Norfolk and elsewhere who were involved in the Sizewell B project. It is a great success and I hope that it will run successfully after its opening this week.
The Times wrote about "1,188 MW per day", but that is wrong—The Times gets a lot wrong. Any scientists here will know that "megawatts" is power, so one refers simply to "megawatts", not "megawatts per day". In any event, it is an enormous amount of power, which will probably be good for the environment given the carbon dioxide emissions that will be prevented.
Many hon. Members have spoken about short-termism in terms of not only finance but research. I do not have time to develop that theme, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will understand that I appreciate that an important debate is going on in the background.
I especially congratulate the Government on their support for initiatives to raise public interest in science— that is good news and has been welcomed by hon. Members of all parties—including the national week of science, engineering and technology. I was rather surprised that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has

1307
delegated the guinea pig idea to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, but perhaps I can find out more about it later.
Many organisations in East Anglia are involved in national science week. There are many projects in Cambridge, Suffolk and Essex, but I am disappointed to learn that there is only one project in Norfolk, unless I am out of date. I put it on record that that is not good enough and I shall be getting in touch with my constituents and others to see whether we can improve the situation. The engineering education scheme in Norwich is to be commended on its work, but I hope that we can do better in Norfolk by the time of the great event in March.
Once again, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Parliamentary Secretary and their colleagues on their clear commitment to science, although, like other hon. Members, I would push them a little further and a little faster.
9.29 pm
Mr. Andrew Miller: I thank right hon. and hon. Members for squeezing their speeches and enabling me to be the last Back Bencher to speak in this debate.
I praise the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, even though he may think that that is a little odd, coming from a constituency neighbour. I praise the Government's development of national science week—an excellent initiative which needs pushing harder. In our area—that represented by the right hon. Gentleman and by me—a number of exciting projects include one involving our respective borough councils of Ellesmere Port, Wirral and Chester and the Natural Environment Research Council. Many exciting projects at Ness gardens have received a staggering response and I hope that the Minister notes the commitment there.
My disappointment is aimed not at the Government but at the private sector. I am extremely disappointed at the lack of response by some of the major science players in the private sector in relation to the Cheshire and Wirral areas. If the Parliamentary Secretary wants something to do in the next few days to promote national science week, he should get hold of private sector research laboratories and science-based companies and ask them what they are doing. Nonetheless, the House ought to congratulate the British Association for the Advancement of Science on its work to ensure the success of national science week.
Several hon. Members have referred to short-termism and relative expenditure and to whether the budget has been increased. I bring to the attention of the House the document in the Vote Office under the signature of Karel van Miert, which I found extremely interesting, although I had too little time to read it. Pages 55 and 64 draw comparisons between expenditure on science research in the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany. The most staggering comparison is of the number of scientists and engineers engaged in research and development per thousand of the labour force. In the United Kingdom, it is 4.5, yet in Germany it is 6—an extraordinarily large gap. Some of the figures are extremely worrying.
The percentage of gross domestic expenditure spent on research and development financed by industry in the UK is 49.7 per cent., yet in Germany it is 59 per cent. The only area in which we seem to be ahead is in comparisons
1308
of military expenditure. I know that that creates all sorts of confusions in the figures, but the two countries are worth comparing. They illustrate the fact that, while the right hon. Gentleman, with his specific responsibilities for science and technology, is trying to do well with a limited budget, the overall commitment of the Government and the private sector is not as good as it is in Germany, one of our key comparators. That positive message should be sent from this debate.
The documents include an bemusing reference to subsidiarity which includes the sentence:
"Greater transparency in the research policies and activities of Member States would also enable individual States to develop their policies in the light of others' experience."
That is an interesting point.
Page 9 of Karel van Miert's document includes a sentence which reads:
"The Union must speak with a single voice on international bodies in order to participate in worldwide programmes."
If the Government are serious in that regard, they must get their act together in terms of the way in which they conduct themselves in European affairs and, in particular, the role of their own Back Benchers.
In responding to the comments of the Select Committee on Science and Technology with regard to "Forward Look", the Chancellor included a sentence that is perhaps in line with the definition of subsidiarity to which I have referred, and I welcome it. In his letter to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), the Chancellor stated:
"Finally, 'Realising our potential' intended that the Forward Look would open up for public scrutiny and debate the current plans and priorities for publicly-funded science, engineering and technology."
I hope that that is a conversion to the definition of subsidiarity as far as it applies to science. I hope that the Chancellor recognises that, in the spirit of this debate, which has been quite supportive of Britain's need to develop a proper science policy, there is still room for improvement in some areas.
With regard to comparisons with other European countries, one obviously comes very rapidly to the issue of short-termism. It is important to consider the figures and then stand back and say, "Well, it is not really solely the responsibility of the banks and the financial institutions. If the infrastructure of support for science and research and development from the Government is not there, is it reasonable for the banks and financial institutions to take more than a short-term view?" Such issues must be part of a jigsaw. All the parts must be brought together and we will then see the explosion that we would all welcome.
I will conclude my rapid run through what was going to be a lengthy speech by referring to defence expenditure. Clearly, some of the important areas of research conducted under the auspices of the Ministry of Defence will result in potential for activities in the civilian sector. We should encourage the whole principle of diversification.
I challenge the Chancellor to look very carefully at page 17 of the Select Committee's second report. He should consider the exchange between his predecessor and the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), who is not renowned for being a left winger on the Select Committee. The Chancellor will see from the language of

1309
that exchange that his predecessor was extremely muddled about the relationship between the Office of Science and Technology and the MOD.
There must be clarity because, without it, we will not have a structured transition from areas of research expertise in the MOD which could, in the post cold-war era, translate into civilian activities. That needs a carefully thought-out strategy, and I hope that, in the months and years to come, the Government—it will not be the present Government in the years to come—will engage in that debate seriously. That will give us the potential to release moneys to allow us to get on to the same league table as the Germans. Together with other constructive changes, that will create an initiative that will move the private sector and the financial institutions in parallel and help us to generate a science base in the interests of Great Britain plc in the longer term.
9.39 pm
Mr. John Battle: This brief, but important, debate has proved to be more of a Government statement on the allocation of funding for science than anything else. Science has suffered some neglect in the House since the Science and Technology Act 1965 aroused such great interest, and we all ought to welcome the fact that it is moving up the political agenda.
This is not the annual debate on science—we have that to come on "Forward Look"—but we do need an overall debate on the Government's budgets for research and development and future policy. Part of the frustration of hon. Members taking part in the debate this evening has been caused by the lack of time, and let us hope that more hon. Members join in when we have a full debate.
Although the emphasis of this debate has been on the science Budget, we must keep the debate in the context of the Government's overall spending, and I hope to refer to that during my brief remarks. A briefing based on "Forward Look" figures which I received from the Library on 1 December after the November Budget stated:
"The 1994–5 total Government spending on science and technology was planned to be £6,106.5 million… This was lower than the estimate for 1993–4 by some £160.3 million… As you suspected this planned reduction in last year's plans, last year, is greater in size than the increase in the science budget announced in the budget statement."
In other words, the science budget has effectively been undermined by other Departments' spending cuts. The Chancellor of the Duchy may claim to be holding his science budget, but it has been dramatically undermined by falls in departmental spending elsewhere. Departmental spending equals only 63 per cent. of the Government's total spending for science.
The Government's record is not good. Publicly funded research and development fell from 43 per cent. of the UK total in 1989 to 35 per cent. in 1992. In 1992, the UK spent 2.12 per cent. of GDP on research and development—lower than Japan, America, France and Germany. Hon. Members have referred to the dramatic reduction in civil expenditure, which is mostly attributable to the Department of Trade and Industry.
DTI expenditure, has fallen in real terms from £900 million in 1984–85 to £245 million in 1994–95, and it is planned to go down further to £237.5 million in 1996–97.
1310
The DTI has withdrawn its joint programmes with what was formerly the Science and Engineering Research Council. The Department ended the advance technology programmes in high temperature superconductivity research. DTI money was lost from the joint framework for information technology, and from the advanced manufacturing technology committee's research into advanced robotics and computer-aided engineering. Even the smaller scale computer-integrated manufacturing was chopped by the DTI.
I put it to the Chancellor that that cannot be helpful when he is trying to co-ordinate a Government-wide strategy. There is a distinct lack of enthusiasm from the President of the Board of Trade; indeed, on the very day in June 1993 when the Chancellor's predecessor was launching the White Paper on science, the President of the Board of Trade ended the DTI's collaborative research programmes, and effectively withdrew the joint funding programmes with what was then SERC. It was a loss of an estimated £40 million, which the Government withdrew from science support. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that in his reply, and tell us how much has been lost from research programmes that were jointly funded by the Department of Trade and Industry and the research councils. Is it not about £40 million, which would wipe out any claimed increase in the support for the science base?
Will the Office of Science and Technology, via the research councils, be the main source of all Government funding for the support of research in industry and elsewhere? Will the OST guarantee to replace what has been lost by reductions in other Departments?
As we all know, it is not merely a case of reductions in the Department of Trade and Industry. That same downward trend, although less marked, is evident in other Government Departments. They are all forecasting reductions in expenditure for 1996–97 of between 8 and 17 per cent., compared with 1992–93. The Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are forecasting reductions. The Department of Transport is forecasting a £2.5 million cut in expenditure on engineering policy by the end of this financial year, compared with 1992–93. That cannot contribute to an integrated, co-ordinated departmental policy.
We need a strategy of interdepartmental thinking and action from the Government—some transdepartmental action and co-ordination, so that there is a thrust for a science policy throughout all Government Departments.
We have heard international comparisons. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) asked whether the private sector would fill the gap. Paragraph 3.2 of "Forward Look" states:
"with private sector contributions growing commensurately."
That implies that if the Government withdrew support, it would be matched by the private sector, but that is not happening. In 1991, British companies funded only 69 per cent. of their research, which is a lower proportion than in any other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country, bar France. Research and development by British industry is a lower percentage of the gross domestic product than that of our competitors and we are losing ground. Employment in industrial research fell by 46,000 between 1986 and 1992.

1311
As Dr. John Mulvey said in a letter in Physics World in August 1994:
"Compared to Germany and Japan, where expenditure by industry per head of the labour force is at least twice the UK level, the gap has widened to nearly 1 per cent. of GDP or about £6 billion per year. It is indeed asking rather a lot of the science base to compensate for this enormous deficit by providing better value for money."
In September, the Prime Minister promised the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee:
"Despite the absolute necessity of restraining public expenditure we expect spending on the science base to rise in real terms next year and science will remain a high priority in future."
There seems to have been a decline in real terms even in this year's figure. It seems to be up £13.9 million, but with inflation at 2.4 per cent., it ought to have increased by £28.9 million. On page 2 of the Minister's press release, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council claims that the budget has increased by £4.5 million, but compared with last year's figures, it has been reduced by £10.2 million from £171.8 million. Perhaps the Minister can explain that. Obviously, tonight we are discussing not new money but the earmarking and sharing out of a fragment—5 per cent.—of the science budget.
It is good to see that the underpinning of strategic science is underlined in the report and we wholeheartedly welcome that. I was especially glad to see the reference to work on protein structure, which is to be supported. We all remember the observations of Sir John Kendrew, when he was speaking of his early work at Cambridge with Max Perutz, which led to the first identification of a protein structure. He said that they had achieved no results in more than 10 years of research and that experts claimed that they were doomed to fail. The message is clear to all of us: we should support the science base.
Let us not get the debate out of perspective. The Government have spent nearly a quarter of a million pounds simply on the citizens charter for British Rail. That sum is equivalent to what they spent this year on the public understanding of science. Is science a real priority when the Government spend £208 million simply to advertise the sale of British Rail? We are forced to ask whether the Government have put science, and spending on the science base, at the heart of their agenda. Savings could be made elsewhere and that money spent on the science base.
9.49 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service..and..Science..(Mr...Robert..G...Hughes): I enormously welcomed the eight Back-Bench contributions to the debate. I welcomed not necessarily their content but the fact that so many hon. Members wanted to take part in this important debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House may be disappointed to know that, although I have agreed to become a guinea pig in the Megalab 95 competition, I stipulated that testing should be non—destructive. I should add that it was not my idea but that of Roger Highfield, who did not ask me but just put my name in print. But I am happy to go along with it.
Many hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, concentrated on money. Although it is important to discuss every aspect of Government research and development programmes, hon. Members must be patient
1312
and wait for the publication of "Forward Look", in which the Government will detail where we are going, what we want to do, the sums that will be spent and the process by which we have reached those conclusions. "Forward Look" is the largest explanation that a British Government have ever given about what they seek to do, so it is yet another example of the open government policies for which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy is responsible.
Mr. Battle: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hughes: I shall give way just this once, in affection to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Battle: It might be in affection, but I should prefer a guarantee from the Minister that the Government will set aside time for a full day's debate on "Forward Look" in June or July.
Mr. Hughes: That is a matter for the Leader of the House, but my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), who represents the Patronage Secretary, will have heard the hon. Gentleman's request and will no doubt report it in the right places.
We have heard a few Jeremiahs in the debate. The speech by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) was somewhat lugubrious. I do not know what makes him happy, but today's science budget should have done so because it has been maintained at a record level. I remind hon. Members that, in real terms, it is 30 per cent. above its value in 1979–80 and that the revision of the GDP deflator—the accurate forecast of what the money is worth—has increased the value of this year's science budget by about 2 per cent. That is good news.
We can all bandy figures about. If one is in Opposition—I have served in opposition on councils— one tries to find the worst figures, while if one is in Government or in charge, one tries to find the best figures. Let us not forget that the UK is an average spender among G7 nations. Government funding for research and development in the UK is higher than in Japan, Italy and Canada and our spending on high-technology industries stands up well to international comparison. So we are doing well by international standards and this year's figure for the basic science budget, which is, after all, the subject of tonight's debate, stands up extremely well. The figure for total Government spending on research and development will be contained in "Forward Look".
At the beginning of her speech, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) spoke about environmental protection. I am glad that she did so because this is a tremendous opportunity. If we are to have high environmental standards, it is vital that they be science– based. A distinct fear came through from the research councils, scientists and industrialists that much of what they were being asked to do was not based firmly enough on good science. The money that we are making available will ensure that it is based on good science. That is good for all of us—it is good for the economy, the country, industrialists and the environment. If we are to lay down a strict regime, it is important that it should be the right regime and that we do not think, in a few years' time, that if only we had had better science, we could have done a better job. I look forward to the results.
Hon. Members suggested that there had been a secret carve-up. But the Director General of Research Councils has consulted widely. He has had extensive discussions

1313
with all the research council chief executives. He consulted more than 300 science practitioners before he reached the recommendations that he made to my right hon. Friend and me. Of course, my right hon. Friend listened carefully to what people said to him when he visited the universities.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hughes: If I give way to the hon. Lady I shall not even reach the points that she made in her speech. I normally give way when hon. Members ask me, but I think it will be more courteous to answer as many questions as I can.
Sir John Cadogan, the Director General of Research Councils, is a civil servant and it has not been the practice to publish the advice of civil servants to Ministers under any Government. We are at pains to say that plans will be published in the allocation booklet announcing the basis on which we arrived at the decisions that we took.
Several hon. Members spoke about short-term contracts for researchers. That is an important point and the research councils, with the OST, are developing a concordat on contract researchers. They will soon be discussing it with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, which represents the universities and the employers of contract staff. New initiatives have been introduced and the Royal Society has increased the number of long—term personal fellowships. Warwick university has introduced 50 six-year fellowships.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), the Chairman of the Select Committee, mentioned ROPA. I am glad that he did so as I think that ROPA answers the question raised by the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones)—on behalf of the Liberal party— and for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), on behalf of the Labour party, about blue skies research. I do not mind if the Labour party calls it red dawn research—we know what we mean. We mean research that has no direct industrial application at the time—not making widgets for industry and not necessarily knowing what one will get out of the research. That is precisely what the ROPA scheme does.
1314
We should remind ourselves of the success of ROPA. Some 239 awards worth £5 million have been made in the past year and the scheme has been viewed favourably. We had to find extra money in the existing year and, together with the figures announced by my right hon. Friend, the money will be spread across all the research councils.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey spoke of the European Community money and receipts. The science research councils received£12 million from the European Community in 1994–1995 and none of it is deducted from the science provision. I commend to the House a piece that appeared in the current edition of Director magazine. Michael Kenward, former editor of the New Scientist, said that £9.6 billion over the next four years would be spent on the fourth framework programme. He kindly says that, because of the negotiations that we carried out, the figure accurately reflects the United Kingdom's competence in a number of sectors. He says that it gives United Kingdom companies a distinct edge over their European competitors when meeting the European Union's needs. We received more than our just returns on the third framework, and I am confident that British industry and academics will take up the challenge and do at least as well this time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), who is the host Member of Parliament for most of the research councils—I look forward to visiting them with him—sought an assurance that we are looking for efficiency and not drastic cuts. I am happy to be able to give him that assurance. We are not pursuing job cuts for their own sake and we are committed to ensuring that as much of the science budget as possible goes into science. I think that the whole House will welcome that.
We do not want money to go to administration; we want it to go to the sharp end for good scientific research. It is the Government's duty to ensure that the research councils remain fit to fulfil their future purpose and we remain committed to that duty. The hon. Member for Cambridge asked whether independent research organisations can apply for grants. I will get back to the hon. Lady on that point—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Patricia Anne Hall
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
10 pm
Sir Giles Shaw: It is with considerable regret that I bring this particularly tragic case to the Floor of the House. I am most grateful that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is in his place to respond to it.
Mrs. Patricia Hall lived with her husband, Keith, at 11 Moorland drive in Pudsey and was thus a constituent of mine. She has not been seen by anyone since Sunday 27 January 1992. The inquiry into her disappearance was led by Superintendents Stainthorpe and Hudson of the West Yorkshire police, who were stationed at Pudsey, and the evidence uncovered led to Mrs. Hall's husband, Keith, being arrested, charged and tried for the murder of his wife.
His trial lasted nine days and he was acquitted by a majority verdict of 10 to two almost one year ago. This is not the place to go into the detail of the trial; suffice to say that the main prosecution evidence rested upon a tape-recorded confession obtained by an undercover WPC, which was subsequently ruled inadmissible and unreliable by the trial judge.
However, in response to an application by Gilbert Gray QC, the judge allowed the transcript of the tape recording to be published. The case of Patricia Anne Hall and the surprising conclusion of the trial has become very much a matter of public concern and interest, both locally and nationally. With the acquittal of the accused, the incidents which gave rise to the alleged death of Mrs. Patricia Hall have not been proven to a point where her death might be formally recognised and so registered.
On the other hand, although the taped evidence was declared inadmissible as the basis for prosecution at a murder trial, it is possible that incidental information contained in the transcript which was published may provide circumstantial evidence to a coroner.
It is against that background that both the west Yorkshire coroner in post at that time and his successor, Mr. David Hinchliffe, the current coroner, considered that an application to the Home Office for an inquest to be held under section 15 of the Coroners Act 1988 should be made. As I understand it, section 15 of the 1988 Act permits the Home Secretary to direct an inquest to be opened to permit registration of death to take place under certain specific circumstances. It states:
"Where a coroner has reason to believe—

(a) that a death has occurred in or near his district in such circumstances that an inquest ought to be held; and

(b) that owing to the destruction of the body by fire or otherwise, or to the fact that the body is lying in a place from which it cannot be recovered, an inquest cannot be held except in pursuance of this section … he may report the facts to the Secretary of State".

This application was made by the west Yorkshire coroner on 7 April last year. The reply from the Home Office dated 22 July stated that the Home Secretary had decided not to direct an inquest under section 15 of the Act. The main reason was that any finding as to the cause of death, which section 16 requires, could not be inconsistent with the outcome of the criminal proceedings. He stated that it would be intolerable if any finding of an inquest should
1316
state that Mrs. Hall was "murdered by her husband" when he had been acquitted of that charge in criminal proceedings. Moreover, the Home Secretary did not think that there was a public interest matter at stake here.
On 31 August, the coroner wrote to the Home Secretary again enclosing a further copy of the transcript and renewing his request for direction under section 15. In October, the Home Office asked the coroner for further information to show that he had reason to believe that a death had occurred. A mere disappearance of a person would not be regarded as sufficient.
In particular, the Home Office stated that more evidence must have been laid before the Crown court independent of the confession, to establish the death of Patricia Anne Hall. As a consequence of the coroner's application to the Home Office, I became involved by receiving requests from relatives and other concerned constituents to support the coroner in his endeavours to hold an inquest.
If such an inquest were held, it could determine for registration purposes that Patricia Anne Hall was dead. The family might then with dignity draw a line through their grievous uncertainty. Moreover, I believed that the case had aroused substantial public interest and that that should be taken into account—supported by a strong local press campaign that an inquest was desirable.
To fulfil the Home Office request for evidence outwith the transcript, the coroner requested West Yorkshire police to provide such evidence that they could obtain that Patricia Anne Hall had died. Senior investigating officers of West Yorkshire police provided a report to the coroner dated 10 November 1994, which sought to meet his request. It concluded:
"In the light of all the evidence gathered it remains the unanimous view of the inquiry team that Mrs. Hall was killed at 11 Moorland Drive, Pudsey, on Monday 27 January 1992."
Accordingly, the coroner wrote to the Home Office on 21 November setting out the revised evidence that, in his view, would support the case for a section 15 application. He concluded with this summary:

"(i) The enclosed report from West Yorkshire Police demonstrates the likelihood that Mrs. Hall is dead.

(ii) Mrs. Hall's home address, which is the place where she likely met her death, is within my jurisdiction.

(iii) The enclosed report from West Yorkshire Police refers to the likely circumstances of the destruction of the body.

(iv) I refer to my previous correspondence regarding my concern for an inquest to be held, which is stated in detail in my letter of the 7th April 1994."

I wrote to the Home Secretary in support of thait application, and I consider that it would be in the best interests of all parties that such an inquest should be held. An inquest could determine, for registration purposes, that Patricia Anne Hall is dead. An inquest would provide substantial relief to Mrs. Hall's relatives and might enable a settlement of her affairs. It would also meet substantial public interest supported by a strong local press campaign and, above all, would allow the coroner to discharge his perceived duty.
As yet, there has been no reply from the Home Secretary on that matter. It is time that such a reply was made, and that is why I applied to Madam Speaker for this Adjournment debate.
I recognise that that request has caused—and probably is causing—difficult legal issues to be raised within the Home Office. The jurisdiction of a coroner is somewhat

1317
constrained. Although the acquittal of the man accused of murdering Mrs. Hall has already determined that particular line of inquiry, it does not seem to me impossible that a coroner's verdict could be arrived at which in no way either involves the taped admission itself—deemed unreliable and inadmissible by the trial judge—or conflicts with the verdict of the higher court. It seems to me that a verdict such as "killed unlawfully" or an open verdict would certainly not conflict with the Crown court. The cause of death could be described in medical terms as "unascertainable". It also seems to me that the Home Secretary has received sufficient additional evidence to demonstrate the likelihood that Mrs. Hall is dead, and there is no doubt that if that evidence is accepted the death clearly occurred within the west Yorkshire coroner's jurisdiction. The report from the West Yorkshire police team indicates the likely circumstances of the disposal and subsequent destruction of the body and shows that such actions would have been practicable.
I deduce from that, therefore, that all the requirements of the coroner by the correspondence with the Home Office and the answers to all the questions that it set down for elucidation before arriving at its decision have now been fully and fairly delivered and that the answers should enable the Home Office to make a recommendation to the Home Secretary that a direction be issued under section 15 of the Coroners Act.
I said at the outset that this is a tragedy—for the family and for the Pudsey community. It should be brought to a fair and final conclusion.
I therefore think it right to ask my hon. Friend, who is responding to the debate on behalf of the Home Secretary, to accept that he has a duty to allow the west Yorkshire coroner to proceed to an inquest, which would be the proper fulfilment of his professional duty to the public whom he serves with distinction. It would also bring one element of justice, so far denied to the devastated family of Patricia Anne Hall.
10.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) for raising this important and tragic case and I pay tribute to the zeal and persistence with which he has pursued it over several months. It is a case that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I have considered extremely carefully, because we recognise its importance to the family of Patricia Anne Hall.
Inquests in England and Wales are conducted in accordance with the Coroners Act 1988 and the coroners rules 1984. Coroners are appointed to investigate sudden or unexplained deaths, in the general interest of the community. Their duty to hold an inquest is triggered when a report is made to them that the body of a deceased person is lying within their district and that there is reasonable cause to believe that he or she has died a violent or unnatural death, a sudden death of unknown cause or has died in custody.
What happens if the coroner has reason to believe that a death has occurred in his district in such circumstances that an inquest should be held, but the body has been destroyed or cannot be recovered? That is what the
1318
coroner believes in this case. This situation is catered for by section 15 of the Coroners Act, which provides that, in such circumstances, the coroner may report the facts to the Secretary of State, who may, if he considers it desirable to do so, direct either the coroner or another one to hold an inquest into the death.
The disappearance of Patricia Anne Hall was reported to the police by her husband, Keith Hall, on 27 January 1992. No body has ever been found, but, following police investigations, Keith Hall was charged with his wife's murder. During those investigations, Mr. Hall admitted to an undercover policewoman that he had strangled his wife and disposed of her body in an incinerator.
That admission was tape-recorded by the police officer. In the course of a preliminary hearing at the trial, the judge ruled that the taped confession was inadmissible in evidence, as the circumstances in which it was made rendered it potentially unreliable. On 10 March 1994, after hearing the rest of the evidence, the jury acquitted Mr. Hall of his wife's murder. It was part of his case that his wife might still be alive.
Following the trial, on 16 March 1994, Her Majesty's coroner for the eastern district of west Yorkshire reported to the Secretary of State his belief that the death of Patricia Anne Hall had occurred in his district, in such circumstances that an inquest should be held and that owing to the destruction of the body by fire an inquest could not be held except in pursuance of section 15 of the Coroners Act. The application was carefully considered by Home Office officials, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State.
A decision was taken, at official level, not to direct the holding of an inquest and that decision was communicated to the coroner in a letter of 22 July 1994. In that letter it was pointed out that, if the inquest had been opened and adjourned to await the outcome of criminal proceedings, as would probably have happened had Mrs. Hall's body been found before her husband's trial, section 16(7) of the Coroners Act would have required that the finding of the inquest as to the cause of death should not be inconsistent with the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
The view was taken that the same principle must apply to an inquest opened only after the criminal proceedings had been concluded, and that it would have been intolerable if the finding of the inquest had effectively been—although not of course couched in those specific terms—that Mrs. Hall had been murdered by her husband when he had been acquitted of that charge in criminal proceedings.
On 31 August 1994 and 21 November 1994, the coroner wrote asking for the matter to be reconsidered. During the same period, my hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey and for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) made representations about the case. Those developments prompted us to look into its implications again. Further legal advice was sought on a number of points and I now propose to outline the major factors that we took into consideration.
I should say straight away that both my right hon. and learned Friend and I can well understand, and have every sympathy with, the desire of Mrs. Hall's family to obtain an official pronouncement of her death, in order not only to be able to register the death and complete their grieving

1319
but also, on a more practical level, to sort out her estate. We have also considered all the matters urged on us by the coroner.
As the hon. Member for Pudsey has made clear, one of the matters most strongly urged was that to which I have just referred: the need of the family and the local community to establish that Mrs. Hall is dead and not just a missing person. However, I am advised that that is not what an inquest is for. The general purpose of an inquest is to ensure that sudden deaths are publicly investigated. The specific purposes of an inquest, as stated in rule 36 of the coroners rules, are to ascertain who the deceased was and how, when and where he came by his death. Of course it is necessary, to trigger section 15, for the coroner to believe that a person is dead, and in this case the coroner has made it quite clear that he believes that Mrs. Hall is dead. But it would not be right for my right hon. and learned Friend to exercise his discretion under section 15 for the purpose of simply establishing the fact of her death rather than for the normal purposes of an inquest, which, as I have said, are to determine how, when and where the death occurred.
There is also the possibility of the inquest verdict being inconsistent with the verdict at the trial. That, as I have said, is an aspect on which the Home Office letter of 22 July 1994 to the coroner concentrated.
Having taken further legal advice on this point, we feel that a verdict at an inquest of unlawful killing would not be inconsistent with an acquittal in a criminal trial in every case, as the coroners rules preclude a coroner from naming the person whom he believes to have committed the unlawful killing. However, a verdict of unlawful killing in this instance could contemplate no one but Mr. Hall, since, as we understand it, the wide–ranging and thorough investigations of the police produced no evidence whatsoever to implicate anyone else. Furthermore, the fact that section 16 of the Coroners Act envisages that an inquest once adjourned might not be resumed—in part because all the facts have been ventilated at a criminal trial—is a factor to be weighed in the balance. In considering the desirability of an inquest, account should also be taken of the spirit of the "no inconsistency provisions" of section 16(7).
Another important question that we have had to address is the difficulty of the coroner admitting in evidence at the inquest the disputed tape-recorded confession. A High Court judge has ruled it inadmissible in criminal proceedings. It would, of course, be a matter for a coroner to consider questions of admissibility in accordance with the law, but we are concerned at the possibility of such evidence being admitted at a coroner's inquisition, where
1320
safeguards built into the criminal process do not apply. We have also given weight to the fact that there has already been a trial lasting nine days at which all the relevant evidence was ventilated, and which led to the acquittal of the person before the court. We have also considered the undesirability of the same issues being subjected to a second judicial process.
The coroner's reasons for wishing to hold an inquest, and the representations received in support of one from my hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey and for Skipton and Ripon and the hon. Member for Leeds, West have been looked at very carefully, but having considered all the circumstances of the case my right hon. and learned Friend has concluded that it would not be desirable to direct that an inquest be held in this case. He has had particular regard to the consequence of not holding an inquest—the practical difficulty facing Mrs. Hall's family in that they are currently unable to obtain an official pronouncement of her death or to register her death. But this factor does not, in the opinion of my right hon. and learned Friend, outweigh the general undesirability of directing an inquest in the circumstances of the case.
I realise that this is a most unwelcome result for the family. My right hon. and learned Friend and I greatly regret the distress that this decision may cause them.
10.24 pm
Sir Giles Shaw: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to speak again as my hon. Friend the Minister has allowed time for me to do so.
It goes without saying that what my hon. Friend has now announced as the decision of the Home Secretary— that he will not proceed to direct an inquest—will be received with very great distress indeed. He has, however, made it clear that substantial legal arguments have led to that decision.
I want my hon. Friend the Minister to know that it seems to me to be desirable to allow the coroner for west Yorkshire to examine with care the statement that my hon. Friend has made in giving the decision on this matter. Should he then believe that it is desirable to ensure that he fully understands the reasoning that has now been adduced in this matter, I might apply to my hon. Friend to visit the Home Office for further discussion. I recognise that it would not be easy, if not impossible, to overturn a decision that has been many months overdue, but it might help to determine precisely why, in legal terms, the Home Secretary has arrived at this decision.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty—six minutes past Ten o 'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals there are to change the 1994–95 cash limit for Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for Her Majesty's Stationery Office, class XVIII, vote 4, will be increased by £59,000 from £2,093,000 to £2,152,000. The increase is necessary to meet a higher than expected level of demand for official publications from United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament, and to restore a shortfall in compensation for the public library discount on official publications, which was occasioned in 1993–94 by excess expenditure on behalf of Members of the European Parliament. The increase will be offset by savings on class XVIII, vote 1, and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Mrs Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to change the 1994–95 cash limit or running costs limit for the Office of Public Service and Science.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The cash limit for the Office of Public Service and Science, class XVIII, vote 1 will be decreased by £1,556,000 from £66,428,000 to £64,872,000 and the gross running cost limit will also be decreased by £1,556,000 from £85,506,000 to £83,950,000. The majority of this decrease, £1,500,000, is in effect a transfer to Cabinet Office other services, class XIX, vote 1, in final settlement of an earlier transfer of functions. The remaining £56,000 is being transferred to HMSO, class XVIII, vote 4, to cover the increase in Members of the European Parliament supplies. The decrease is offset by increases to other Government Departments and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Science Budget
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what changes he proposes to the estimates, class XVIII, vote 2—Science—for 1994–95.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVIII, vote 2 will be increased by £840,000 from £1,225,527,000 to £1,226,367,000 to enable the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council to meet the cost of certain redundancies at Horticulture Research International. The increase is offset by a similar reduction in class III, vote 4 and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The opportunity of the supplementary estimate is also being taken to show changes to the appropriations in aid
  754
  of the vote and to switch resources between certain subheads of the vote.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the distribution of the science budget in 1995–96.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have discussed the allocations with the Director General of Research Councils and have decided that, subject to parliamentary approval of the supply estimates in due course, the science budget of £1,281.675 million should be allocated as follows.

  Allocations for 1995–96

  £ million

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  161.631

  Economic and Social Research Council

  61,232

  Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

  365.702

  Medical Research Council

  277.809

  Natural Environment Research Council

  155.483

  Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council

  196.367

  Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils

  1.500

  Additional funding for LINK schemes (to be allocated to Research Councils in due course)

  3.000

  Royal Society

  20.786

  Royal Academy of Engineering

  2.617

  OST initiatives

  2.250

  Research Councils' Pension Scheme

  33.298

  Total

  1,281.675

  In making these allocations, I need to ensure that momentum is maintained with implementing the science, engineering and technology White Paper "Realising Our Potential". I have therefore decided that some 5 per cent. of the science budget should be targeted to priority initiatives aimed specifically at taking White Paper issues forward. Further details are set out in the paper "Allocation of the Science Budget 1995–96" which I have placed in the Library of the House.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the absenteeism rate for(a) the Central Office of Information, (b) the Office of Public Service and Science, (c) the Chessington Computer Centre, (d) the Civil Service college, (e) HMSO, (f) the occupational health service and (g) the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The average number of days sick leave taken by members of the staff of OPSS in each of the last four years was:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Office of Public Service and Science

  3.2

  4.5

  4.3

  3.3

  These figures include any weekends and public holidays which occurred within a single period of sickness absence.

  I have asked the chief executives of each of the other Departments and agencies the hon. Member mentions to write to him with the information he seeks as they are responsible for operational matters within their organisations.
  755
  Letter from Michael D. Geddes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 30 January 1995:
  Mr. Robert Hughes has asked me to let you have the following information in respect of the average number of days sick leave taken by the staff in the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency; it was:

  1991: 7.2

  1992: 11.1

  1993: 15.8

  1994: 15.1

  I hope that this information is useful to you.

  Letter from Dr. Stephen Hickey to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 26 January 1995:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about the absenteeism rate for the Civil Service College in each year since 1991.
  The average number of days sick leave taken by members of the staff in each of the last four years was:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  4.6

  5.3

  8.2

  7.4

  The figures include any weekends and public holidays which occurred within a single period of sickness absence.

  Letter from Mike Devereau to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 26 January 1995:
  I have been asked by the Challcellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to reply to part of your question on absenteeism.
  The average numbr of days sick leave taken by members of staff in HMSO in each of the last four years was:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  10.0

  9.2

  10.4

  7.2

  Letter from Dr. E. C. McCloy to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 27 January 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Hughes) has asked me to provide for my Agency, the information requested in your Parlimentary Question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the absenteeism rate since 1991.
  The average number of days sick leave taken by members of the staff of the Agency in each of the years since 1991 was:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  4.9

  6.2

  9.5

  11.4

  The information has been taken from records produced by Chessington Computer Center and is provided on the same basis as that given for the Office of Public Service.
  The figures therefore include any weekends and public holidays which occurred within a single period of sickness, and do not necessarily reflect days absent from the office due to sickness.

  Letter from R. N. Edwards to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 26 January 1995:

  Research Scientists and Engineers engaged on R and D within Government 1981–82 to 1994–951

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  United Kingdom2

  20,641

  20,462

  19,914

  19,889

  19,299

  15,4563

  15,121

  Notes:1 This table refers to personnel engaged in R and D, according to the "Frascati" definition, and excludes HEIs.

  2 Includes (a) DTI and its agencies and (b) the Sports Council for Wales, with manpower of 33—FTE—included for the first time in 1990–91.

  3 The drop in numbers reflects the fact that the UKAEA became a public corporation in 1986.

  Sources:

  Annual Review of Government Funded R and D, 1984 (Table 7.1).

  Annual Review of Government Funded R and D, 1992 (Table 2.5.2).

  Forward Look 1994 Statistical Supplement (Table 1.7.3).
  756
  SICK ABSENCE AT CHESSINGTON COMPUTER CENTER
  I refer to your enquiry of 19 January to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster regarding absenteeism at Chessington Computer Centre.
  The average number of days sick leave taken by members of staff at Chessington Computer Center in each of the last four years was:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  8.6

  9.3

  11.5

  10.8

  The figures include any weekends and public holidays which occurred within a single period of sickness absence.

  Letter from Mike Devereau to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 26 January 1995:
  In response to your PQ addressed to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the absenteeism rates for the Central Office of Information in each of the last four years were as follows:

  Year

  Number of staff

  Total number of days sick

  Average rate (days)

  1991

  669.5

  4,776

  7.1

  1992

  620.5

  3,632

  5.9

  1993

  541 5

  5 467

  10 1

  1994

  498.0

  5,033

  10.1

  These figures include any weekends and public holidays which occurred within a single period of sickness absence, so do not necessarily indicate the number of days absence from the office.

  Scientific Researchers
  Dr. Lynn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of the total number of scientific researchers employed in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries was employed in United Kingdom in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The only available data are for the years 1981, 1985 and 1989 and are shown in the table.

  Total number of scientific researchers employed in the UK as a percentage of the total employed in OECD countries

  Per cent.

  1981

  1985

  1989

  United Kingdom

  8.0

  6.9

  6.0

  Source:

  OECD, STIU database (DSTI, EAS Division), January 1995.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what number of scientific researchersunder the Organisation for Economic Co-operationand Development definition were employedby publicy funded institutions in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Available data start from 1981–1982 and are shown in the table.
  757

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  United Kingdom1

  15,019

  14,668

  15,061

  15,027

  15,064

  14,184

  13,487

  Notes:1 Includes (a) DTI and its agencies and (b) the Sports Council for Wales, with manpower of 33—FTE—included for the first time in 1990–91

  Sources:

  Annual Review of Government Funded R and D, 1984 (Table 7.1).

  Annual Review of Government Funded R and D, 1992 (Table 2.5.2).

  Forward Look 1994 Statistical Supplement (Table 1.7.3).

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what changes he plans to the 1994–95 cash limits for the votes of the Lord Chancellor's Department, class IX, vote 1 and the Public Record Office, class IX, vote 5.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IX, vote 1 has been increased by £18,175,000 from £760,918,000 to £779,093,000 as a result of a shortfall in civil court fee income. The running cost limit has been reduced by £2,884,000 from £431,330,000 to £428,446,000.

  The cash limit for class IX, vote 5 has been reduced by £3,000,000 from £53,993,000 to £50,993,000 as a result of reduced expenditure on a major capital project. The running costs limit has been increased by £199,000 from £25,246,000 to £25,445,000. Some £196,000 is for take-up of end-year flexibility entitlement as announced by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1994, Official Report, columns 729–34. The remaining £3,000 has been transferred from HM Treasury for the move to repayment of the average property price lists for calculating additional housing cost allowance. The additional running cost provision is covered by savings in capital provision.

  The increase in the cash limit on class IX, vote 1 is partially offset by the cash limit reduction on class IX, vote 5. The remaining £15,175,000 will be charged to the reserve and will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) which advanced gas-cooled reactors owned by Nuclear Electric are affected by the cracking of welds in steam headers; which Scottish reactors are affected by the same problem; and what changes have been made in their position on privatisation following these problems;

  (2) what considerations his Department is giving within the nuclear review to generic cracking faults in welds on steam leaders of advanced gas-cooled reactors.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The answer I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton on 19 January 1995,Official Report, column 589, explained that cracks had been identified in some of the steam header welds at Heysham 1 and
  758
  Dungeness B advanced gas-cooled reactor power stations. The power stations owned and operated by Scottish Nuclear Ltd. are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland but I understand that no such cracks have been identified in any Scottish nuclear power station. The matter of the cracks does not fall within the scope of the terms of reference of the nuclear review.

  China (Import Quotas)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he plans next to meet representatives from the People's Republic of China to discuss import quotas.

  Mr. Needham
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no such plans.

  Oxygenated Petrol
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research his Department has carried out into oxygenated petrol; what plans for research into the environmental suitability of oxygenated petrol he has.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government are supporting the tri-partite programme, sponsored by the European Commission and the oil and motor industries, which is looking into the effects of motor fuel quality, including the use of oxygenates in petrol, and engine technology on air quality. A report is expected by mid-1995.

  Tenant Farmers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take to protect tenant farmers whose farms are being sold by British Coal.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The sale of British Coal's property is a matter for the corporation.

  However, British Coal, in considering potential purchasers of the proposed agricultural land, will take every step to satisfy itself that they meet appropriate tests on viability and commitment to the future of the property which they are purchasing. Tenants' rights of tenure are also protected by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.

  Iraq Trade Delegation
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what grounds he has given authorisation for a British trade delegation to Iraq on 15 February.

  Mr. Needham
  I have not given authorisation for a British trade delegation to visit Iraq, nor has such authorisation been sought.

  Coal Privatisation
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will detail the present involvement of former
  759
  employees of British Coal in the ownership and management of new companies formed following the privatisation of British Coal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Tower Colliery was purchased by a team of its former employees and the South Wales regional coal company was purchased by a management buy-out team. Bidders' proposals for employee participation were taken into account in the selection of preferred bidders for the regional coal companies and care and maintenance collieries. The purchasers of the regional coal companies have all undertaken to provide the opportunity for employees to acquire shares.

  Video Games
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 5 December 1994,Official Report, column 105, on the publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of video games received on 14 November 1994, when he now expects the report to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Publication will take place as soon as possible. As related in my previous answer, I shall make an announcement once the report has been published.

  Departmental Funding
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent changes have been made and what future changes are planned to his Department's cash and running costs limits for 1994–95.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The cash limit for class IV, vote 1—support for business, consumer and investor protection, energy programmes and administration—has been reduced by £710,000 from £1,185,602,001) to £1,184,892,000. This reduction results from the transfer of responsibility for consultancy initiatives to the Scottish—£400,000—and Welsh—£310,000 —Offices for their respective territories.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the same vote will be increased by a token £1,000 to £1,184,893,000.

  The gross running cost limit for the Department of Trade and Industry will be reduced by £2,758,000 from £342,217,000 to £339,459,000. This reduction will be offset by an increase of £2,759,000 to cover the expected shortfalls against the Department's research laboratories' original net voted provisions.

  In addition, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IV, vote 4—privatisation of the coal industry—will be increased by £2,000,000 from £15,897,000 to £17,897,000. The increase mainly covers additional costs of privatisation advisers' fees.

  N. M. Rothschild and Son Ltd.
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the decision was taken to award the contract to advise the Department of Energy on the future of the coal 760
  industry to N. M Rothschild and Son Ltd.; who took the decision; what other companies were invited to tender; what criteria were used for awarding the contract; what was the value of the contract; and if the contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 31 January 1995]: N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. was appointed on 31 May 1991. The decision to appoint the company was taken by the then Secretary of State for Energy after receiving recommendations from an interdepartmental panel of officials. In addition to N. M. Rothschild, a further seven companies were invited to tender. Their identity is commercially confidential. The contract was awarded to the tenderer offering the best value for money. The value of the contract, which is still continuing, is commercially confidential.

  Nitric Acid
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has authorised the importation of nitric acid from the United States Hanford plant for use in the reprocessing at Sellafield.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]: The Department of Trade and Industry has responsibility for granting import licences. The import of nitric acid from the United States Hanford plant will be subject to import licensing. Applications for import licences are commercially confidential.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Disabled People
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Attorney-General what proportion and number of non-industrial civil servants in the Departments and agencies for which he has responsibility are registered disabled and disabled as defined by the Cabinet Office document, "Focus on Ability".

  The Attorney-General
  The information for the Departments for which I am responsible as at 1 July 1994 is set out in the table.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department also employs people with disabilities who are not registered, but the numbers are not readily available.

  Each of the Law Officers' Departments is an equal opportunities employer.

  Registered disabled staff

  Non-registered disabled staff

  Proportion Per cent.

  Number

  Proportion Per cent.

  Number

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Crown Prosecution Service

  0.5

  31

  0.6

  41

  Serious Fraud Office Treasury Solicitor's

  —

  —

  2.25

  3

  Department

  2.2

  11

  n/a

  n/a

ENVIRONMENT

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government are planning to complete its review of radioactive waste policy.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on Tuesday 6 December,Official Report, column 132.

  Greenpeace
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, columns 109–10, what possible causes of Greenpeace's high readings were investigated apart from the misuse of equipment.

  Mr Atkins
  The radiological measurements made by Greenpeace personnel at the Drigg low level radioactive waste disposal site were just one component of the complaints made by Greenpeace following its illegal entry. Each component was investigated thoroughly by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  The Greenpeace complaint provided no reliable evidence of unauthorised disposals of low level radioactive waste, least of all from its radiological monitoring of waste in the disposal trench.

  HMIP considered the breadth of the findings from its investigations and found no evidence to support the Greenpeace contention that radioactive waste of levels in excess of those permitted had been disposed of at Drigg.

  Energy Efficiency Advertising
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 109, who carried out the monitoring of the advertising campaigns run by his Department; and what were the conclusions of this monitoring, with particular regard to projected energy savings flowing from the campaigns and cost-effectiveness of the campaigns.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The "Helping the Earth Begins At Home" campaign was monitored by BMRB International, which tracked significant changes in public knowledge, attitudes and intended energy saving behaviour. The current "Wasting Energy Costs The Earth" campaign, which is closely synchronised with the private sector, therefore places more emphasis on individual actions and is being monitored by National Opinion Poll.

  Consultants
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 112, if he will list those firms of consultants which are known centrally by his Department to have worked for his Department in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Firms of consultants known centrally to have worked for the Department in 1992–93 762
  and 1993–94 are those employed specifically in connection with the market testing programme.

  The list, excluding those employed direct by the agencies, is as follows:

  Amtec Consulting

  Andersen Consulting

  Capita Management Consultancy Ltd.

  Castle Management Consultants

  Civil Service College

  Coopers and Lybrand

  CSL Group

  Dun and Bradstreet

  Mr P. Dworkin

  Hoskyns Group plc

  PA Consulting Group

  Prime Strategy Consultants

  Ray Tilly Associates

  Shreeveport Limited

  Smith and Williamson

  SPT (Simon Thorpe)

  Symonds Facilities Management plc

  Mr. J. Wormald

  Planning (Funds)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what controls exist on the use to which local authorities may put planning gain money and on the geographical area in which it may be spent; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The use to which local planning authorities put money received in connection with agreements under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and the geographical area in which such money may be spent, will largely depend on the precise terms of the agreement, which will be registered as a local land charge.

  Recycling
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what considerations he proposes to bear in mind in formulating an approach to legislation to increase the recovery and recycling of packaging waste.

  Mr. Atkins
  Clauses 76 to 78 of the Environment Bill, which is currently before Parliament, empower the Secretary of State, subject to certain conditions, to make regulations placing on particular industry sectors a producer responsibility obligation in relation to the waste which arises from their products, and the packaging around them. Individual companies may choose to discharge the obligation by acting alone or by joining an "exemption scheme" which will organise recovery and recycling operations on their behalf.

  The Government propose to legislate using these powers to provide a framework for an industry-led approach to increase the recovery and recycling of packaging waste. This is in response to requests from industry to overcome the potential problem of "free-riders" who might seek to avoid their share of the responsibility to act. The legislative framework will serve to deliver our recovery and recycling obligations under the EC directive on packaging and packaging waste. It will build on the work of the former producer

  763
  responsibility group and the working representative advisory group, which has now been formed with the backing of some 50 major companies.

  The proposed powers are wide in scope and allow a variety of different approaches to suit the circumstances of different waste streams, should legislation be necessary or appropriate. In reaching a conclusion on the best approach for packaging waste, we propose to bear in mind the following considerations:

  (i) the need to be confident that the available options can ensure that the targets set by the packaging directive will be met;

  (ii) the practicality, cost-effectiveness, potential benefits as against the likely costs, taking account of environmental and economic considerations, and fairness of the available options;

  (iii) the desirability of minimising regulatory burdens on business;

  (iv) the desirability of business choice in the manner in which the obligation is satisfied, both in terms of the provision of an individual compliance route which is reasonable and practicable, and the potential for multiple exemption schemes to co-exist;

  (v) the compatibility of the available options with existing EC and domestic law, for example to ensure that they do not create a barrier to trade with other member states in the Community;

  (vi) the need to take account of competition policy, for example to ensure that the regulations do not have the effect of distorting competition unnecessarily;

  (vii) the desirability of business freedom and flexibility to control and administer collaborative schemes run on its behalf and of minimising the role of the public sector agencies, compatible with effective enforcement;

  (vii) the desirability of targeting as closely as possible those responsible for determining the content, nature and amount of packaging used for a particular product.

  In drawing up the statutory obligation for individual businesses, consistent with these considerations, the main issues concern the coverage and nature of the obligation. On the coverage of the obligation, there are options encompassing all those businesses which are involved in some way with packaging or packaged products; or a narrower obligation, perhaps on those who make use of packaging for products which they manufacture or control; or some combination of the two. In reaching a view, we will take into account market characteristics, the nature of the recovery and recycling operations, and evidence of the willingness of different business sectors to work together, as well as the need to minimise the extent of the legislative burden placed on industry. In the event that the regulations were found not to work there would, however, be scope for changing the obligation.

  The second main issue concerns the nature of the legal obligation. Value from packaging waste is recovered in a variety of ways. Detailed involvement by an enforcement agency in monitoring a large number of processes for those businesses involved in packaging would require significant resources and is likely to prove expensive for the businesses concerned. We will therefore seek to define the producer responsibility obligation in a simple and straightforward way which:

  (a) is intended to achieve our obligations under the packaging directive;

  (b) allows wide discretion to industry as to how to respond;

  764

  (c)is amenable to external auditing. The scope for independent certification is an important objective in minimising the burdens of the regulatory approach.

  Officials from my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry are continuing discussions with a wide range of interested parties in the packaging industry. Once we have formulated a set of proposals, we will bring forward a consultation paper on these issues.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase the funds available for the home energy efficiency scheme in the current financial year.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am pleased to announce that we have been able to increase the provision for the home energy efficiency scheme by £8.85 million, bringing the total available for grants in 1994–95 to about £77 million. This is a welcome boost to a successful and high quality scheme.

  Departmental Funding
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to change his Department's cash limits and running costs limits for 1994–95.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Housing Corporation non-voted cash limit, covering grants and capital expenditure financed by the Housing Corporation in England, will be increased by £5,832,000 to £1,484,540,000. The increase will allow additional expenditure of £2,177,000 on city challenge projects, and of £3,655,000 on the corporation's approved development programme.

  The regeneration initiatives non-voted cash limit will be increased by £2,612,000 from £292,853,000 to £1,295,465,000. The changes reflect a transfer of £2,177,000 to the Housing Corporation cash limit to cover additional expenditure on city challenge projects; a transfer of £715,000 from the regeneration initiative cash limit to allow increased payments on urban programme loan charges within class VII, vote 3, regeneration initiatives; and an increase of £5,504,000 to allow the issue of an all—purpose supplementary credit approval in respect of East Manchester regeneration programme expenditure. The increase is covered in full by take-up of part of the entitlement to capital end year flexibility announced by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1994, Official Report, columns 729–34.

  The cash limit for class VII, vote 5—central environmental services and so on—will be reduced by £2,500,000 from £439,645,000 to £437,145,000. This change reflects a reduced requirement for grant in aid by the National Rivers Authority. The savings will be transferred to the Housing Corporation cash limit to cover increased expenditure on the Housing Corporation's approved development programme.

  The cash limit for class VII, vote 6—property holdings and other services to Government—will be increased by £1,000 to £3,000. This reflects the token supplementary

  765
  estimate for this vote. Property holdings gross running costs limit will be increased by £135,000 to £19,976,000.

  The cash limit for class VII, vote 7—administration—will be reduced by £612,000 from £227,347,000 to £226,735,000. This reflects the net position after a number of small transfers, the most significant being transfers to the Department of National Heritage of £184,000 in respect of the conservation unit, and of £255,000 to the Housing Corporation cash limit to cover increased expenditure on the Housing Corporation's approved development programme. The Department of the Environment's gross running costs limit will be reduced by £2,316,000 from £227,465,000 to £225,149,000. In the main, this reduction is due to savings made to enable the Department to capitalise early retirement costs.

  The cash limit for class VII, vote 8—revenue support grant, payments of non-domestic rates, Valuation Office services, and so on, England—will be reduced by £900,000 from £29,634,332,000 to £29,633,432,000 to reflect savings in expenditure by, and on behalf of, the Valuation Tribunals. The savings will be transferred to the Housing Corporation cash limit to cover increased expenditure on the Housing Corporation's approved development programme.

  The local government reorganisation non-voted cash limit will be reduced by £9,540,000 from £54,200,000 to £44,660,000. This reduction consists of £9,440,000 for deemed debt supplementary credit approvals and £100,000 for local government residuary body borrowing provision.

  The running costs limit for the Office of Water Services—class VII, vote 9—will be increased by £254,000 from £9,106,000 to £9,360,000 under end-year flexibility arrangements for running costs announced by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1994, Official Report, columns 729–34. This will be offset by reductions on capital expenditure so no overall increase in the cash limit is required.

  The cash limit for class VII, vote 1 I—PSA Services—will be reduced by £40,000 from £98,661,000 to £98,621,000. This reflects a transfer to Property Holdings to cover senior staff costs. The net running cost limit on this vote will also be reduced by £40,000 from £98,261,000 to £98,221,000.

  All increases will be offset by savings or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Agencies
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many employment agencies provided social work or social work or social care staff for each of the last five years;

  (2) how many employment agencies provided domiciliary care staff for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is not available in the form requested. However,.it is estimated that immediately prior to the abolition of licensing on 3 January 1995, there were about 3,000 licensed 766
  employment agencies which had indicated that their field of activity might include domiciliary or social care work.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State on 30 November 1992, Official Report, column 55.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has of the cost of market testing the careers service; and if he will detail(a) the transaction costs and (b) the tendering costs.

  Mr. Paice
  The process by which my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State is meeting his duty to provide the careers service is competitive tendering, not market testing.

  I have no information on the costs of compiling bids; they were met by the bidders. The costs to the Employment Department were about £300,000, which were found from existing resources. They included £220,000 on staff and associated costs for a small team of administrators—1994–95—and £74,000 on a prospectus and publicity for tendering in 1994–95. In addition, some staff from the 10 Government offices were involved. Further figures could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list which of the careers services that have gone out for tender have(a) remained in-house, (b) been won by the private sector and (c) are still outstanding.

  Mr. Paice
  This information is not yet available. No contracts have been awarded. Preferred bidders have been selected for post-tender negotiation and the contracts will be announced after negotiations are complete.

  Tele-workers
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently employed as tele-workers; and what is his estimate of the number that will be employed in 2000.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I regret that the requested information is not available.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the principal components of the league tables by which he measures the effectiveness of training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Paice
  The most recent table of inter-TEC performance comparisons consisted of the following indicators:

  1. The cost per output point for youth training and youth credits;

  2. The number of national vocational qualifications per 100 leavers for youth training and youth credits;

  3. The cost per output point for training for work;

  4. The number of NVQs per 100 leavers for TfW;

  767

  5. The number of positive outcomes per 100 leavers for TfW;

  6. The percentage achievement against the investors in people commitments target;

  7. The performance of the TEC in relation to the Government's YT guarantee.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give details of the rules for approving spending projects by the training and enterprise councils to spend surpluses earned in contracts with his Department.

  Mr. Paice
  Training and enterprise councils are required to agree annual business plans and three-year corporate plans with the Department. Where an operating surplus occurs, a TEC is contractually required to use it solely on activities agreed with the Department to further the objectives of its corporate plan and business plan. Where projects have been specifically identified in an agreed business plan, a TEC may carry them out without further agreement. Separate approval is required for the use of surpluses on projects not specifically identified in the business plan, although meeting the plan's objectives. For such a project, the Department needs to be satisfied that it is in accordance with the aims of the plan and represents value for money. The TEC also needs to show that it has the authority to implement the project under its memorandum and articles of association, that the project is financially viable and that it is not in conflict with other parts of the TEC operating agreement or with Government policy. TECs are under a general contractual obligation to provide value for money on the expenditure of all funds which derive from the Government.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the principal elements of the debenture held against each of the training and enterprise councils at the commencement of each financial year.

  Employees whose pay for the survey pay period was not affected by absence—distribution of gross hourly earnings showing numbers and percentages. April 1994

  Below £1.50

  £1.50 to £2.50

  £2.50 to £3.50

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Full-time males

  Wales

  0

  0

  4,741

  1.1

  18,964

  4.4

  Great Britain

  9,000

  0.1

  66,000

  0.7

  292,000

  3.1

  Full-time females

  Wales

  0

  0.1

  2,000

  0.7

  24,000

  9.9

  Great Britain

  6,000

  0.1

  50,000

  0.9

  427,000

  7.7

  Part-time males

  Wales

  0

  0.9

  3,000

  5.4

  15,000

  29.5

  Great Britain

  17,000

  1.5

  48,000

  4.3

  269,000

  23.9

  Part-time females

  Wales

  9,000

  3.8

  5,000

  2.1

  57,000

  24.1

  Great Britain

  43,000

  0.9

  116,000

  2.4

  1,099,000

  22.8

  Note:

  Estimates of numbers of employees are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Labour Statistics
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of persons in Islwyn in full-time work in(a) hairdressing, (b) the retail trade, (c) clothing manufacturing and (d) hotel and
  768
  Mr. Paice
  The Department agreed the same debenture arrangements with all training and enterprise councils when they were first set up. The debenture gives the Department a charge over all of a TEC's fixed and floating assets. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Training Providers
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training providers will have to close as result of the reduction in expenditure on training for work announced in the Budget.

  Mr. Paice
  Training and enterprise councils contract with training providers for the delivery of training for work. It is a matter for TECs to decide with whom they will contract according to the scale and nature of the training required locally. Government regional offices are currently negotiating with TECs for 1995–96 contracts.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list for(a) Islwyn, (b) Wales and (c) Great Britain the number of persons and percentage of persons in (i) full-time work and (ii) part-time work earning (1) less than £1.50 an hour, (2) between £1.50 and £2.50 an hour and (3) between £2.50 and £3.50 an hour breaking these figures down by gender;

  (2) what is the (a) mean hourly rate of pay, (b) median hourly rate of pay and (c) modal hourly rate of pay for (i) full-time work and (ii) part-time work in Islwyn;

  (3) if he will list the current average hourly pay rate in Islwyn for full-time work in (a) hairdressing, (b) retail trade, (c) clothing manufacturing and (d) hotel and catering sectors.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information for Islwyn is not available.

  Information available from the new earnings survey for Wales and Great Britain is provided in the table:

  catering sectors in the last five years, also expressing these numbers as a percentage of the work force.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The available information is from the periodic censuses of employment and is shown in the table.
  769
  The information for hairdressing and clothing manufacturing, is confidential under the Statistics of Trade Act 1947.

  Number of full-time jobs in the retail trade1 in Islwyn, September of each year

  Year

  Number

  Per cent.

  1987

  700

  5.3

  1989

  400

  3.3

  1991

  700

  5.8

  1 Class 64/65 of the standard industrial classification 1980. 1. Percentages are of total number of employees rather than the total work force.

  Number of full-time jobs in the hotel and catering sectors1 in Islwyn, September of each year

  Year

  Number

  Per cent.

  1987

  200

  (1.4)

  1989

  200

  (1.6)

  1991

  100

  (1.0)

  1 Class 66 of the standard industrial classification 1980. 1. Percentage are of total number of employees rather than the total work force.

  Departmental Funding
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State Employment what proposals he has to change for his Department's cash limits and running costs limits in 1994–95.

  Mr. Portillo
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, these changes will be made:

  (a) the cash limit for class V, vote 1, Department of Employment: programmes and central services, will be increased by £14,414,000 from £2,302,056,000 to £2,316,470,000. The increase in the cash limit arises from additional Employment Department group restructuring costs, training and enterprise councils' administrative costs and Skills Training Agency costs of £36,514,000 offset by programme underspends of £15,300,000 and running costs underspends of £6,800,000;

  (b) the cash limit for class V, vote 2, Department of Employment: Employment Service, will be reduced by £15,300,000 from £738,529,000 to £723,229,000;

  (c) the single running costs limit for class V, vote 1, Department of Employment: programmes and central services, and class V, vote 2, Department of Employment: Employment Service, will also be increased by £14,414,000 from £1,437,932,000 to £1,452,346,000. The increase reflects the take-up of £12,614,000 in respect of end-year flexibility arrangements for running costs expenditure, as announced by my right hon. Friend, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1994, Official Report, columns 729–34, and a transfer of £1,800,000 from class V, vote 3, Health and Safety Executive;

  (d) the cash limit on class V, vote 3, Health and Safety Executive and Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, will be reduced £1,800,000 from £212,779,000 to £210,979,000 as a result of a transfer to class V, vote 1, Department of Employment: programmes and central services;

  (e) the Health and Safety Executive running costs limit will be reduced by £1,800,000 from £179,124,000 to £177,324,000 as a result of a transfer to class V, vote 1, Department of Employment: programmes and central services.

  770
  The increases will be offset by savings, transfers or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Palestinian Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the actual or estimated level of funding from the Overseas Development Administration budget to Palestinian non-governmental organisations in each of the years 1991 to 1995; and if he will list the organisations funded.

  Mr. Baldry
  We fund the programmes of a number of British non-governmental organisations which provide assistance to Palestinians. The majority of these work with Palestinian partner organisations. We estimate that since 1991–92, our expenditure through such agencies operating in the occupied territories has been:

  Year

  £

  1991–92

  953,000

  1992–93

  1,271,000

  1993–94

  1,280,000

  1994–95 (to date)

  845,000

  In addition, Palestinians have benefit from assistance provided through non-governmental organisations working in the Lebanon.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the European Community attribution of overseas aid by recipient country in 1993–94.

  Mr. Baldry
  Country by country figures for EC aid spending in 1993–94 are not readily available.

  For the calendar year 1993, total payments on aid from EC budget, as set out in the draft EC general budget for 1995, were:

  mecu

  Food aid and humanitarian aid

  774.7

  Asia and Latin America

  354.0

  Mediterranean

  351.5

  Eastern and central europe

  719.5

  Other co-operation measures (includes co-operation with NGOs and aid to South Africa)

  338.3

  Total

  2,538.0

  The cost to the United Kingdom of this expenditure was as shown in the table, based on an average exchange rate for 1993 of £1 = ecu 1.2829, and a United Kingdom share of the EC budget for 1993 of 16.52 per cent.

  £ million

  Food aid and humanitarian aid

  99.8

  Asia and Latin America

  45.6

  771

  £ million

  Mediterranean

  45.3

  Eastern and central europe

  92.7

  Other co-operation measures

  43.6

  Total

  327.0

  World Health Organisation
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanisms exist for the Government to review the value for money of contributions to the World Health Organisation for its work in the developing world.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom has been active in seeking reforms necessary to ensure that its assessed and voluntary contributions to the World Health Organisation achieve the optimum value for money. For instance, the United Kingdom has chaired the committee of the WHO executive board set up to review the role of WHO. In addition, the United Kingdom targets its voluntary contributions to specific WHO-managed programmes on those that tackle priority problems in developing countries and has established a set of procedures by which to assess their effectiveness.

  International Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was given to the International Atomic Energy Authority out of the overseas aid budget in 1993–94; and on what grounds.

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1993–94, the Overseas Development Administration gave the IAEA an accountable grant of £500,000 to cover the cost of selected projects, aimed at sustainable development, in developing countries who are signatories of the non proliferation treaty. This grant was paid as part of the £2.5 million pledged by the UK over five years commencing 1991–92 to encourage countries who are signatories of the non-proliferation treaty in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

  Bilateral Emergency Aid
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which 10 countries have received most out of the bilateral emergency aid budget in the last 10 years; and what amounts they have received.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is not possible to provide comparable country-specific information on the bilateral emergency aid programme for years before 1987–88. The top 10 bilateral emergency aid recipients between 1987–88 and 1993–94 are given in the table.

  Top 10 ODA bilateral emergency aid recipients 1987–88 to 1993–94

  Country

  Expenditure (£ million)

  Ethiopia

  100.8

  States of ex-Yugoslavia

  89.9

  Sudan

  78.0

  Mozambique

  59.3

  Iraq

  47.3

  Pakistan

  30.2

  Malawi

  29.3

  772

  Top 10 ODA bilateral emergency aid recipients 1987–88 to 1993–94

  Country

  Expenditure (£ million)

  Somalia

  25.5

  Bangladesh

  21.1

  Angola

  17.8

  Note: There is no United Kingdom aid to the Government of Iraq. The amounts recorded as emergency aid to Iraq are provided through UN agencies and NGOs for Iraqi citizens.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which 10 countries have received most out of the aid and trade provision of the overseas aid budget in the last 10 years; and what amounts they have received.

  Mr. Baldry
  The top 10 recipients of the aid and trade provision expenditure between 1984 and 1993–94 are given in the table:

  Country

  Expenditure (£ million)

  China

  117.6

  Malaysia

  82.2

  Indonesia

  44.5

  Turkey

  43.2

  Zimbabwe

  40.9

  Kenya

  31.4

  India

  30.9

  Philippines

  25.0

  Morocco

  21.9

  Ghana

  19.7

  Nigeria
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what British aid to Nigeria was spent in 1993 to 1995.

  Mr. Baldry
  At the time of the annulment of democratic elections in June 1993, British aid to Nigeria was supporting projects in education, agriculture, forestry, health, energy and public administration. There was also residual expenditure from balance of payments agreements signed in 1989 and 1990. Since June 1993, new aid has been confined to projects bringing direct benefits to poor Nigerians in the health/water, education and natural resources sectors. This accords with EU guidelines agreed last year. We have also met outstanding commitments to projects already under way in June 1993.

  Africa
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the European Community's attribution of overseas aid to Africa in 1993–94.

  Mr. Baldry
  For the calendar year 1993, total payments from the European Development Fund—most of the beneficiaries of which are in sub-Saharan Africa—were 1,337 million ecu or £1,042 million1. A country by country breakdown of cumulative expenditure from successive European development funds is available in the

  773
  Commission report "EU-ACP Co-operation", a copy of which has been placed in the library.'

  United Kingdom contributions to the European Development Fund totalled £172 million in the UK financial year 1993–94.

  Expenditure from the European Community budget in 1993 on the "Programme of positive measures regarding South Africa" amounted to 60.4 million ecu or £47.1 million.

  1 At an average exchange rate for the year of £1 = 1.2829 ecu.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made in the 1994–95 cash limit for expenditure by the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mr. Baldry
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit on the external assistance vote-class II, vote 5—will be reduced overall by £24,176,000 from £1,923,943,000 to £1,899,767,000. The overall reduction is the net effect of a decrease of £30,500,000 due to overspend on European Community budgetary spending on aid for developing countries in 1993; a decrease of £2,700,000 under roll-over arrangements in respect of the Commonwealth Development Corporation's excess cash holding at the end of 1993–94; an increase of £8,964,000 in respect of new provision for certain aid and trade provision projects which are no longer being financed under the authority of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980; and an increase of £59,000 in respect of the eventual transfer of the Crown Agents to an independent foundation. Pending parliamentary approval of the new provision for certain aid and trade provision projects, urgent expenditure, estimated at £4,627,000, will be met by a repayable advance from the contingencies fund.

  Zambia and Zimbabwe
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give figures for each of the last five years, including current expenditure plans, for balance of payments support for Zambia and Zimbabwe paid for from(a) the overseas aid budget and (b) any other source.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 1 February 1995]: Expenditure from the overseas aid budgets is as follows:

  Bilateral programme aid to Zambia and Zimbabwe 1989–90 to 1993–94 (£000)

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  1989–90

  —

  53

  1990–91

  30,000

  1-6

  1991–92

  12,500

  7,500

  1992–93

  27,500

  22,500

  1993–94

  25,000

  15,000

  1 Undisbursed programme aid repaid by Crown Agents.

  During the current financial year, 1994–95, for Zambia we have already spent £12.5 million and plan to disburse a further £12.5 million shortly, and for Zimbabwe we plan
  774
  to disburse £15 million programme aid subject to confirmation from the IMF board that the Government's economic reform programme is on track.

  We do not have figures for other donors' balance of payments support for Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, for each year since 1988, including current expenditure plans, expenditure on aid to(a) Zimbabwe and (b) Zambia in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms, broken down according to the principal objectives for British aid as stated in the British aid overseas aid annual review 1994.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 1 February 1995]: Tables containing the information have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of publications produced by his Department assessing the performance of British aid in(a) Zambia and (b) Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 1 February 1995]: Recent published reports on British aid projects in Zambia and Zimbabwe are listed in ODA's catalogue of evaluation studies, copies of which are in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, for each of the last five years, total aid expenditure to(a) Zambia and (b) Zimbabwe in support of structural adjustment programmes; and if he will give these figures as a proportion of total aid expenditure to these countries.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 1 February 1995]: A table showing support for economic reform has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Training Courses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list each training and tuition course with a total cost exceeding £5,000 paid for by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies during the last i2 months, showing the title and objectives of each course, the name of the organisations engaged, the total cost of each course, a summary of the responsibilities of staff members taking part and the process for course evaluation by his Department or agency.

  Mr. Newton
  No training course undertaken by staff of the Privy Council Office in the last 12 months has cost in excess of £5,000. I am not responsible for any agencies.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Visits
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to visit Belfast, South.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 February.

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

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 26 January,Official Report, column 300, to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), if he will list the representations he has received concerning the impact of reduced activity by the Countryside Council for Wales on the commitment arising from the biodiversity convention under the Rio treaty; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have now received three such representations—from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Wales Wildlife and Countryside Link and a member of the public. My right hon. Friend has no plans to privatise the Countryside Council for Wales.

  Cabinet Office Funding
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals there are to change the 1994–95 cash limit or running costs limit for the Cabinet Office: other service vote.

  The Prime Minister
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for the Cabinet Office: Other Services, class XIX, vote 1, will be increased by £1,500,000 from £44,833,000 to £46,333,000. At the same time the running costs limit will be increased by £1,000,000 from £43,214,000 to £44,214,000.

  The increases reflect transfers from the Cabinet Office: Office of Public Service and Science, class XVIII, vote 1, of £500,000 for central services and £1,000,000 running costs coverage in respect of functions already transferred to class XIX, vote 1.

  Both increases are offset by inter-departmental transfers and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Training Courses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list each training and tuition course with a total cost exceeding £5,000 paid for by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies during the last 12 months, showing the title and objectives of each course, the name of the organisations engaged, the total cost of each course, a summary of the responsibilities of staff members taking part and the process for course evaluation by the Department or agency.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The breakdown of expenditure over the last 12 months by the Department of National Heritage, including its two executive agencies, Royal Parks and Historic Royal Palaces is as set out. The breakdown 776
  covers individual courses or series of courses where the total costs exceeds £5,000.

  (a) Training for the Department of National Heritage
  (1) Title: Introduction to WordPerfect 6 For Windows
  Objectives: To make staff aware of the functions available within WordPerfect 6 For Windows enabling competent use in their everyday work.
  Training Provider: Harley-West.
  Staff Responsibilities: Open to all grades upon receipt of the software upgrade of WordPerfect 6 on their Personal Computers.
  Cost: £5,170 (for a series of courses)
  Post Course Evaluation: By Information Services Branch of DNH and by the provider, Harley-West.
  (2) Title: Introduction to Excel 5
  Objectives: To give the user a good understanding of spreadsheet design, commands etc, to help them become competent in the use of the software in their everyday work.
  Training Provider: Harley-West
  Staff Responsibilities: Those staff who have financial management responsibilities.
  Cost: £6,227.50 (for a series of courses)
  Post Course Evaluation: Information Services Branch of the DNH and by the provider, Harley-West.
  (3) Title: Promotion Board Interviewing Skills Course for Board Members
  Objectives: Awareness of procedures which underpin a Promotion board. To provide a full understanding of the importance of good interviewing techniques including assessing candidates fairly and accurately.
  Training Provider: Recruitment and Assessment Services
  Staff Responsibilities: Staff within the Department who have volunteered to sit on Promotion Boards.
  Cost: £6,050 (for a series of courses)
  Post Course Evaluation: By Personnel Division of the DNH and by Recruitment and Assessment Services.
  (4) Title: Performance Management Course
  Objectives: To familiarise and prepare staff for the introduction of the newly created Performance Appraisal System.
  Training Provider: KMPG Marketing Consultancy
  Staff Responsibilities: For all staff in the Department.
  Cost: £93,990.61 (for a series of courses)
  Post Course Evaluation: By Personnel Division within the DNH and by the provider, KMPG Marketing Consultancy

  (b) Training for the Historic Royal Palaces Agency (HRPA) and Royal Parks Agency (RPA)
  HRPA: Tower of London
  (1) Title: Customer Care and Interpersonal Skills
  Objectives: To develop 'dealing with people skills' of the Warding staff in the Yeoman body, the Jewel House and sales staff in the Retail Department.
  Training Provider: MSB Training
  Staff Responsibilities: All front of house staff dealing with the public.
  Cost: £13,500
  Post Course Evaluation: By Personnel Unit within the Agency and by the provider MSB Training
  HRPA: Hampton Court Palace
  (1) Title: Customer Care and Interpersonal Skills
  Objectives: To develop 'dealing with people skills' of the State Apartment Warding Team.
  Training Provider: MSB Training
  Staff Responsibilities: All front of house staff dealing with the public.
  Cost: £31,192 (for a series of courses)

  777
  Post Course Evaluation: By Personnel unit within the Agency and by the provider MSB Training
  RPA:
  (1) Title: Objective Setting and Appraisal Workshops
  Objectives: Direct staff performance towards the Agency goals. Raise standards of performance and appraisal.
  Training Provider: RTCC Training Consultancy Company Ltd
  Staff Responsibilities: All staff excluding constables of the Royal parks Constabulary.
  Cost: £10,562 (for a series of courses)
  Post Course Evaluation: End of course review conducted jointly by the Personnel Unit and by the course provider.

  Summary
  The total cost of the training and tuition outlined above was £138,692.11.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the weekly revenue to the Football Trust and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts since 1 April 1994; what is his estimate of the national lottery's impact on the work of these two bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  Details of the weekly revenue to the Football Trust and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts since 1 April 1994 are shown in the table. It is for the foundation and the Football Trust to assess the extent of any impact that the national lottery may have on their operations. I understand that the foundation is considering how best to adjust its grant regime to complement the national lottery, in particular through a greater element of revenue funding. I welcome this.

  Week

  FT/RPBD1 £

  FT/STB2 £

  FSA3 £

  2 April 1994

  472,938

  290,772

  1,384,512

  9 April 1994

  455,776

  260,358

  1,368,005

  16 April 1994

  496,706

  299,212

  1,489,597

  23 April 1994

  460,668

  284,011

  1,381,482

  30 April 1994

  467,729

  287,575

  1,401,470

  7 May 1994

  465,822

  257,018

  1,396,952

  14 May 1994

  446,456

  321,889

  1,338,873

  21 May 1994

  453,330

  285,620

  1,359,497

  28 May 1994

  442,890

  292,099

  1,328,156

  4 June 1994

  425,367

  240,062

  1,275,652

  11 June 1994

  439,093

  297,768

  1,316,772

  18 June 1994

  437,215

  291,187

  1,311,169

  25 June 1994

  428,668

  268,868

  1,285,525

  2 July 1994

  426,861

  268,395

  1,280,104

  9 July 1994

  419,999

  262,881

  1,259,535

  16 July 1994

  428,982

  246,560

  1,286,472

  23 July 1994

  431,189

  265,883

  1,293,081

  30 July 1994

  415,037

  248,205

  1,235,054

  6 August 1994

  417,838

  243,639

  1,253,026

  13 August 1994

  429,801

  250,760

  1,288,889

  20 August 1994

  435,782

  247,901

  1,306,816

  27 August 1994

  453,486

  249,846

  1,359,927

  3 September 1994

  460,306

  262,087

  1,380,386

  10 September 1994

  453,154

  273,094

  1,358,920

  17 September 1994

  459,028

  270,485

  1,376,437

  24 September 1994

  467,589

  274,187

  1,402,085

  1 October 1994

  471,486

  254,502

  1,413,657

  8 October 1994

  467,954

  255,235

  1,402,557

  15 October 1994

  473,433

  260,026

  1,420,043

  22 October 1994

  473,752

  259,998

  1,419,991

  29 October 1994

  468,851

  255,899

  1,406,937

  5 November 1994

  479,946

  279,026

  1,439,882

  12 November 1994

  473,315

  256,843

  1,420,410

  19 November 1994

  455,816

  248,092

  1,367,132

  26 November 1994

  450,908

  243,429

  1,354,540

  778

  Week

  FT/RPBD1 £

  FT/STB2 £

  FSA3 £

  3 December 1994

  448,161

  227,548

  1,343,960

  10 December 1994

  460,085

  236,057

  1,379,731

  17 December 1994

  924,477

  535,887

  2,772,122

  26 December 1994

  116,368

  2,955

  349,055

  31 December 1994

  160,420

  1,329

  481,210

  7 January 1995

  393,654

  189,906

  1,180,499

  14 January 1995

  404,662

  205,343

  1,213,509

  1 Funding received from the pools companies, representing a 2.5 per cent. reduction in pool betting duty.

  2 Funding received from the pools companies from spotting the ball and spot the ball competitions.

  3 Funding received from the pools companies, representing a further 2.5 per cent. RPBD; and from a 5p in the pound levy on pools coupons.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of(a) the revenue earned for the Exchequer to date by national lottery ticket sales, (b) the interest earned on the moneys lodged in the national lottery distribution fund prior to disbursement by the lottery distribution bodies and (c) the revenue accrued to the Exchequer from any of the funds under (b) above invested in gilt-edged securities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Lottery duty collected by Customs and Excise for the period to the end of December 1994 was £44,348,381. Interest earned to date by the national lottery distribution fund through investment of the proceeds of the lottery, and which accrues to the good causes, totals £661,699. No revenue accrues to the Exchequer from the investment of the NLDF in gilt-edged securities; all gains are for the benefit of the good causes.

  Electricity Companies (Sponsorship)
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his estimate of the amount spent on sponsorship of arts, sporting and other local community events by(a) Northern Electric and (b) the other regional electricity companies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Detailed information on the sponsorship activities of individual companies is not held by my Department.

  Departmental Funding
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what changes he proposes to make to his Department's cash limits and running costs limits for 1994–95.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:

  (i) The cash limit of class XI, vote 1, museums and galleries, will be increased by £4,226,000 from £223,122,000 to £227,348,000 to increase provision for the Government indemnity scheme by £200,000 and for assets accepted in lieu of tax by £4,160,000.

  (ii) The cash limit for class XI, vote 3, libraries, will be increased by £6,500,000 from £139,303,000 to £145,803,000 to increase provision for British Library St. Pancras project.

  (iii) The provision for class XI, vote 4, home broadcasting, will be increased by £8,438,000 from £1,826,205,000 to £1,834,643,000 to provide extra funds for the British Broadcasting Corporation of £10,107,000, additional provision for the Independent Television Commission to reimburse certain independent television companies who paid excess levy to the consolidated fund in 1992 of

  779
  £330,000, and to meet certain reimbursement costs in respect of the overpayment of television broadcasting licence fees of £390,000.

  (iv) The cash limit for class XI, vote 5, film, tourism, sport and broadcasting, will be increased by £3,122,000 from £129,653,000 to £132,775,000 to reflect the increased receipts in respect of tourism grant repayments of £250,000, the appropriation in aid of certain receipts from the Sports Council of £459,000, increased provision for the Broadcasting Standards Council and for broadcasting regulatory services of £1,244,000, and to provide provision for the commemorations to mark the 50th anniversary of the end of world war II of £3,000,000.

  (v) The cash limit for class XI, vote 6, royal palaces, Historic Royal Palaces Agency, Royal Parks Agency, historic buildings, ancient monuments and national heritage, will be increased by £2,154,000 from £194,962,000 to £197,116,000. The increase is the net result of additional provision of £1,438,000 for urgent capital works and maintenance expenditure on certain historic buildings and £100,000 in the Royal Parks; and to cover the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England superannuation costs of £675,000.

  (vi) The cash limit for class XI, vote 7, administration, has been increased by £283,000 from £21,600,000 to £21,883,000. This is required to provide for the transfer of functions of the conservation unit from the Department of the Environment to the Department of National Heritage. As a result, the Department's gross running cost limit will be increased by £281,000 from £27,928,000 to £28,209,000.

  (vii) The cash limit for class XI, vote 8, Office of the National Lottery, has been increased by £500,000 from £2,500,000 to £3,000,000. This is required to meet the capital costs of setting up Oflot's new offices and as a result of firmer costs being produced for consultancy, professional arid legal advice associated with the grant of licences. Consequently, the Departments running costs limit will be increased by £266,000 from £2,070,000 to £2,336,000. A sum equal to the net provision required will be paid from the national lottery distribution fund to the consolidated fund as extra receipts.

  (viii) The increases will be offset by savings and charges to the reserve, and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

EDUCATION

  Private Schools
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Eduction how many and what percentage of the school-age population, aged five to 16 years, are being educated in private schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In England in January 1994 there were 411,200 pupils aged five to 16 in independent schools. This represents 6.2 per cent. of pupils aged five to 16 in all schools.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many four-year-olds are in receipt of nursery education; and what percentage of the total number of children in that age group that constitutes.

  Mr. Forth
  In January 1994, 48,000 four-year-olds, who were also aged four at the previous 31 August in England were being taught in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools, representing 11 per cent. of the relevant age group. The 780
  number of pupils who reached age four during the autumn term is not collected centrally.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the absenteeism rates for(a) her Department and (b) the Teachers' Pensions Agency in 1994.

  Mr. Forth
  Information about sickness absence rates for 1994 in the Department, including the Teachers' Pensions Agency, is not yet available.

  Schools, Warwickshire
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the current number of children of statutory school age in Warwickshire schools other than grant-maintained schools; and what was it in 1990.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In January 1994, 57,900 pupils aged five to 16 were being taught in primary, middle secondary and special schools maintained by Warwickshire local education authority. In January 1990, the corresponding figure was 60,100.

  "The World at War"
  Mr. Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will encourage all secondary schools in the public sector to show the Thames Television film "The World at War" every four years.

  Mr. Forth
  Decisions on the use of any particular television programme or other source material as a teaching aid in schools are a matter for individual schools and teachers. However, the Government have taken steps to ensure that pupils are taught about the second world war by ensuring that it remains a compulsory part of the history curriculum taught to pupils aged 11 to 14 in maintained schools in England and Wales. In addition, and in view of the importance of the forthcoming national commemorations of the end of the second world war, the Department has commissioned the production of educational packs for all primary and secondary schools on the ending of the second world war and the significance of VE and VJ days.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information he has(a) on the capital borrowing allocation given to each local education authority, the bid submitted by each authority and the number of pupils in the area and (b) the same information for grant-maintained schools within each local education authority area.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on local education authority capital bids for 1995–96 was given in the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 1 December 1994,Official Report, columns 955–58. Information on capital borrowing allocations for 1995–96 was given in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on 20 December 1994, Official Report, columns 119–20. Information on numbers of

  781
  pupils in maintained schools and grant-maintained schools by local authority area, as at January 1994, is attached.

  The information requested on capital bids and allocations for grant-maintained schools are a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman of the Funding Agency for Schools to write to the hon. Member with this information.

  Pupils in maintained schools in each LEA in England January 1994

  Primary and secondary schools

  LEA maintained

  Grant-maintained

  Corporation of London

  214

  0

  Camden

  19,204

  2,381

  Greenwich

  35,060

  0

  Hackney

  24,328

  0

  Hammersmith

  13,839

  1,237

  Islington

  22,872

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  8,659

  944

  Lambeth

  20,645

  4,593

  Lewisham

  31,281

  421

  Southwark

  27,771

  4,133

  Tower Hamlets

  32,729

  891

  Wandsworth

  19,197

  7,181

  Westminster

  16,690

  0

  Barking

  25,858

  0

  Barnet

  33,023

  9,769

  Bexley

  30,746

  3,287

  Brent

  26,095

  8,997

  Bromley

  27,777

  11,803

  Croydon

  37,245

  4,680

  Ealing

  31,667

  7,408

  Enfield

  35,880

  5,791

  Haringey

  28,999

  0

  Harrow

  27,140

  528

  Havering

  31,123

  3,877

  Hillingdon

  19,487

  15,171

  Hounslow

  31,998

  2,123

  Kingston upon Thames

  15,409

  3,149

  Merton

  22,967

  0

  Newham

  39,071

  582

  Redbridge

  33,944

  1,125

  Richmond upon Thames

  18,817

  0

  Sutton

  17,257

  7,572

  Waltham Forest

  29,571

  2,099

  Birmingham

  157,626

  14,802

  Coventry

  48,838

  0

  Dudley

  42,652

  5,054

  Sandwell

  50,056

  653

  Solihull

  33,066

  559

  Walsall

  41,666

  6,366

  Wolverhampton

  39,205

  2,404

  Knowsley

  27,365

  731

  Liverpool

  79,806

  2,366

  St. Helens

  29,394

  0

  Sefton

  46,429

  0

  Wirral

  50,684

  2,107

  Bolton

  41,408

  3,261

  Bury

  27,348

  232

  Manchester

  68,616

  0

  Oldham

  41,105

  0

  Rochdale

  32,590

  2,010

  Salford

  34,474

  430

  Stockport

  41,614

  0

  Tameside

  34,297

  2,371

  Trafford

  29,429

  3,083

  Wigan

  49,486

  0

  Barnsley

  34,232

  0

  Doncaster

  51,327

  0

  Rotherham

  43,141

  0

  Sheffield

  69,039

  2,505

  Bradford

  81,961

  5,565

  Calderdale

  28,562

  4,709

  782

  Pupils in maintained schools in each LEA in England January 1994

  Primary and secondary schools

  LEA maintained

  Grant-maintained

  Kirklees

  61,327

  1,267

  Leeds

  111,871

  1,184

  Wakefield

  50,792

  0

  Gateshead

  30,117

  0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  39,343

  0

  North Tyneside

  30,957

  0

  South Tyneside

  25,593

  0

  Sunderland

  49,493

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  291

  0

  Avon

  133,408

  1,710

  Bedfordshire

  78,655

  9,567

  Berkshire

  99,627

  9,833

  Buckinghamshire

  87,878

  11,653

  Cambridgeshire

  82,757

  17,274

  Cheshire

  150,600

  2,927

  Cleveland

  101,539

  0

  Cornwall

  69,508

  0

  Cumbria

  64,282

  9,773

  Derbyshire

  125,694

  17,272

  Devon

  134,476

  4,983

  Dorset

  77,498

  9,591

  Durham

  94,042

  0

  East Sussex

  86,330

  0

  Essex

  143,358

  76,532

  Gloucestershire

  55,272

  21,714

  Hampshire

  197,332

  19,180

  Hereford and Worcester

  93,080

  3,643

  Hertfordshire

  134,073

  19,099

  Humberside

  141,179

  341

  Isle of Wight

  17,712

  0

  Kent

  180,360

  51,103

  Lancashire

  207,730

  7,103

  Leicestershire

  137,141

  3,270

  Lincolnshire

  65,275

  22,410

  Norfolk

  92,362

  11,347

  North Yorkshire

  103,253

  0

  Northamptonshire

  83,709

  12,466

  Northumberland

  50,371

  650

  Nottinghamshire

  154,815

  1,837

  Oxfordshire

  76,359

  81

  Shropshire

  57,225

  3,989

  Somerset

  63,860

  631

  Staffordshire

  158,531

  4,470

  Suffolk

  92,379

  0

  Surrey

  105,591

  13,139

  Warwickshire

  66,750

  4,783

  West Sussex

  93,110

  0

  Wiltshire

  69,765

  12,927

  England

  6,618,649

  556,699

  The numbers of pupils are a headcount of pupils of all ages on roll. Information on pupils is derived from returns made by the schools to the Department in January each year (annual schools census—form 7).

  Does not include special schools.

  Head Lice
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the incidence of the problem of head lice in schools; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Neither the Department for Education nor the Department of Health, which leads in this subject,
  783
  conducts surveys of the incidence of head lice in schools. There are limited benefits in holding such information centrally because the incidence fluctuates so quickly and widely. However, figures maintained by the pharmaceutical industry show that around 2.5 million units of head lice treatment are supplied through retail pharmacies each year.

  The Government seek to combat this distressing problem through advice to teachers, children and parents as part of health promotion in schools.

  Departmental Funding
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what changes she has to announce to cash limits and running costs on votes within her responsibility for 1994–95.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limits for class X, vote 1—schools, research and miscellaneous services—vote 2—higher and further education—and vote 6—Office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in England—will be amended. The changes are as set out:

  Class and vote

  Current cash limit £

  Change £

  Revised cash limit £

  X.1

  800,296,000

  -12,500.000

  787,796,000

  X.2

  5,672,793,000

  +3,415,000

  5,676,208,000

  X.6

  76,901,000

  -12,500,000

  64,401,000

  The reduction in cash limits on class X, vote 1 and vote 6 are made as a contribution towards offsetting the increase of £117.5 million sought via a supplementary estimate for class X, vote 3—student awards, loans and compensation payments—which is not cash limited.

  The opportunity is being taken to provide for the appropriation in aid to class X, vote 1 of additional receipts from the Welsh office, representing contributions to the Centre for Information on Language Teaching, and from OFSTED, representing their contribution to the costs of the third international maths and science study. There will be no increase in net provision on the vote as a result.

  The increase of £3,415,000 on class X, vote 2 is to be made available to the Higher Education Funding Council for the costs of students attending diploma in social work courses and funding of probation training. The opportunity has also been taken to provide for the appropriation in aid of additional receipts from the scale of properties by the Royal College of Art to support increased capital expenditure by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. This increase will be offset by transfers of £2,946,000 from the Department of Health and £469,000 from the Home Office and increased receipts, and will not therefore add to the planned total for public expenditure.

  The reduction to the cash limit on class X, vote 6 arises principally because fewer independent registered inspectors than expected put themselves forward to lead
  784
  primary and special school inspections. A number of the inspections planned for 1994–95 have therefore been postponed.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made by the United Nations towards achieving its target of human rights monitors in Rwanda.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 26 January, 79 human rights monitors were in Rwanda. The eventual target is 147. We expect more to be deployed shortly.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions he has had with representatives of the United Nations in regard to assisting the Rwandan authorities in bringing those responsible for human rights violations to justice;

  (2) what discussions he has had with the United Nations regarding the establishment of an international criminal tribunal for Rwanda.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 30 January,Official Report, column 490.

  Kenya
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made to the Kenyan Government about events in Nakuru just before Christmas involving compulsory dispersal of victims of ethnic clashes;

  (2) if he will seek a report from the United Nations. Development Programme in Kenya about the forced closure of Maela camps, in Nakuru on 23 December, and place that report in the Library;

  (3) if he will ask the high commission in Nairobi for a report on the forced closure of Maela camps on Friday 23 December, and the number of people removed and their destination; and if he will place that report in the Library.

  Mr. Baldry
  The UNDP has not published a report øn the dispersal at Maela. However figures from them, confirmed by the British High Commission in Nairobi, indicate that up to 2,500 displaced people were moved from Maela, on or soon after 23 December 1994. Of these, some 1,200 were resettled on Agricultural Development Corporation land in the area; the rest were taken to locations in central province.

  We have made clear to the Kenyan Government at high level our concerns about the way in which the dispersal was carried out. We support the joint Kenya Government-UNDP programme which is addressing the needs of displaced people in Kenya both financially and through the High Commission's participation in Nairobi in the National Committee for Displaced Persons. We are keen to see the programme continue in an orderly fashion.

  European Council
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement
  785
  on forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The following meets are planned:

  Date

  Business

  February 6–7

  Foreign Affairs Council

  February 20

  ECOFIN

  February 20–21

  Agriculture Council

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  6 to 7 February: Foreign Affairs Council
  Provisional agenda.
  Adoption of the agenda
  Approval of the list of "A" items
  Resolutions adopted by the European Parliament at its part-session (Strasbourg, 16–20 January 1995)
  Commission report on the setting up of the WTO, policy debate on the sectoral negotiations (aeronautics, steel, negotiating directives on services) and on new subjects (environment, Social standards)
  Negotiations under article XXIV-6 of GATT following Enlargement: adoption of negotiating directives
  Relations with the countries of cEntral and eastern Europe
  Commission report on the preparation of the White Paper
  Current state of negotiations with the Baltic Countries
  Slovenia: Adoption of negotiating directives
  Stability pact, including submission by the Commission of the report on accompanying measures
  Former Yugoslavia, in particular:
  financing the Mostar administration in 1995
  Chechnya
  Ukraine: European Union action programme for nuclear safety progress report
  Mediterranean policy
  (poss) Relations with Israel
  Preparation for the 13th meeting of the EC-Israel cooperation council at ministerial level.
  Mid term review of the Lomé IV and 8th EDF preparation for the second ministerial conference to renegotiate the fourth ACP-EC convention (Brussels, 16 and 17 February 1995)
  Rum: discontinuation of the ACP and OCT import quotas and measures to be adopted within the framework of Poseidom
  (poss) Preparation for the Panama meeting with the San Jose group (23 and 24 February 1995)
  Adoption in the official languages of the communities of a common position on the directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.

  20 February, ECOFIN
  Presentation by Commission of work programme within ECOFIN's area of competence
  Follow up to Essen European Council
  Fight against money laundering. Examination of Commission report
  Fight against fraud. Commission work programme for 1995
  Preparation for meeting with associated countries of central and Eastern Europe.

  20 to 21 February: Agriculture Council
  Reform of the wine regime
  Reform of the sugar regime
  Set-aside (biomass)
  CAP financing
  Rules for the recovery of FEOGA securities
  Amending directive 64/432 (trade in live animals).

  Human Rights
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has received from human rights organisations regarding human rights violations in Rwanda and Nigeria;

  (2) what investigation he has made of human rights violations in Rwanda and Nigeria regarding (a) the welfare of refugees and (b) allegations of killings taken place.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have received many representations from human rights organisations, hon. Members and members of the public concerning human rights in Nigeria and Rwanda.

  Britain fully supported the UN Commission of Experts' investigation into the atrocities committed in Rwanda last year and subsequently co-sponsored the resolution that established the International Criminal Tribunal which is now being set up in Rwanda and which aims to bring the organisers of the genocide to justice. We have also made it clear to the Rwandan authorities that we hold them responsible for the safety of returning refuges and internally displaced persons.

  We are well aware of the recent reports of extra-judicial killings in Nigeria. The European Union has made efforts to establish the truth of the allegations, but the results have been inconclusive. We continue to watch the situation closely.

  Departmental Funding
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further changes he proposes to make in his Department's diplomatic wing cash limits and running costs limits for 1994–95.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made.

  The cash limit for class II, vote 1, overseas representation, will be increased by a token amount of £1,000 from £688,207,000 to £688,208,000. Parliamentary authority will be sought for additional provision for higher than expected expenditure on running costs, other current expenditure and capital as a result of adverse overseas price expenditure and capital as a result of adverse overseas price movements; to take up capital provision of £13,940,000 under the end-year flexibility scheme, as announced by the then Chief Secretary of the Treasury on 14 July 1994, Official Report, columns 729–34, and to reflect inter-departmental transfers totalling £239,000 net. These increases are offset by reduced running costs and by increased appropriations in aid.

  The gross running costs limit on class II, vote 1 will be reduced by £12,715,000 from £512,892,000 to £500,177,000. This is a net decrease taking account of

  787
  transfers between departments, adjustment for adverse overseas price movements and additional VAT receipts.

  The cash limit for class II, vote 2, other external relations, will be increased by a token amount of £1,000 from £456,842,000 to £456,843,000. Parliamentary authority will be sought for additional expenditure in respect of certain international organisations and for adverse overseas price movements. The increase will be met by increased appropriations in aid and by provision from elsewhere in the vote.

  The cash limit for class II, vote 4, the British Council, will be increased by £2,119,000 from £97,499,000 to £99,618,000 in respect of adverse overseas price movements. The increase will be met from the reserve.

  North Belfast

  Enrolments

  School

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Holy Cross Boys' PS

  441

  439

  439

  430

  443

  Holy Family Boys' PS

  291

  290

  284

  291

  228

  Our Lady of Lourdes CB PS

  506

  526

  545

  572

  580

  Our Lady's Girls' PS

  466

  458

  462

  463

  463

  Edmund Rice CB PS

  439

  427

  416

  418

  417

  Holy Family Girls' PS

  303

  305

  285

  285

  268

  Holy Cross Girls' PS

  223

  217

  245

  248

  243

  Mercy PS

  708

  674

  628

  602

  593

  St. Vincent De Paul PS

  247

  254

  247

  235

  214

  St. Mary's Star of the Sea

  256

  253

  253

  244

  236

  St. Therese of Lisieux PS

  471

  501

  500

  494

  482

  Star of the Sea PS

  243

  260

  269

  289

  305

  Sacred Heart Boys' PS

  305

  311

  344

  377

  399

  St. Patrick's Boys' PS1

  220

  213

  413

  425

  376

  St. Patrick's Girls' PS1

  214

  211

  413

  425

  376

  1 St. Patrick's Boys' and St. Patrick's Girls' amalgamated in 1991 to form St. Patrick's Primary School.

  West Belfast

  School

  Enrolments

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  St. Catherine's PS

  232

  255

  253

  261

  264

  St. Gall's Monastery PS

  317

  325

  329

  336

  350

  St. John's Girls' PS

  92

  88

  111

  109

  125

  St. Mary's Boys' and Girls' PS

  119

  115

  110

  102

  102

  St. Aidan's CB PS

  384

  378

  376

  411

  382

  St. Bernadette's Girls' PS

  399

  391

  391

  383

  385

  St. Paul's Boys' PS

  191

  203

  216

  239

  218

  St. Teresa's Boys' PS

  336

  334

  339

  343

  347

  St. Teresa's Girls' PS

  307

  296

  290

  302

  305

  Holy Trinity Boys' PS

  416

  435

  449

  472

  465

  St. Oliver Plunkett Boys' PS

  384

  374

  379

  363

  387

  St. Oliver Plunkett Girls' PS

  391

  376

  394

  380

  380

  Holy Trinity Girls' PS

  409

  421

  430

  418

  403

  St. Bride's PS

  694

  700

  710

  739

  755

  St. John the Baptist Girls' PS

  625

  639

  646

  664

  679

  St. John the Baptist Boys' PS

  723

  725

  738

  757

  753

  St. Mary's Girls' PS

  197

  189

  214

  214

  218

  St. Paul's PS

  135

  127

  140

  183

  171

  St. Malachy's PS

  290

  277

  291

  287

  299

  St. Peter's PS

  535

  517

  495

  492

  474

  St. Joseph's PS

  253

  264

  266

  261

  257

  St. Comgall's PS

  152

  159

  153

  137

  122

  St. Kevin's Boys' PS1

  311

  325

  328

  647

  673

  St. Kevin's Girls' PS1

  261

  278

  298

  647

  673

  Holy Child Boys' PS2

  364

  354

  366

  366

  764

  Holy Child Girls PS2

  321

  329

  354

  371

  764

  Bunscoil Ghaelach PS

  361

  370

  382

  387

  371

  Gaelscoil Na Bhfal

  —

  —

  —

  97

  122

  1 St. Kevin's Boys' and St. Kevin's Girls' amalgamated in 1992 to form St. Kevin's Primary School.

  2 Holy Child Boys' and Holy Child Girls' amalgamated in 1993 to form Holy Child Primary School.

  788
  All the increases will be offset by savings or charged to the reserve, and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Primary School Pupils
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of pupils enrolled at each maintained primary school in the constituencies of Belfast, West and Belfast, North, in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information requested is as set out:

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost to public funds of the production, printing, distribution and advertising of the patients charter when launched in 1991; and how many copies were printed.

  Mr. Moss
  The total cost to public funds of the launch of the Northern Ireland charter for patients and clients in March 1992 was £85,328. This was made up of £17,900 for production, £49,318 for printing and £18,110 for distribution. There were no advertising costs. Some 17,000 copies of the full charter and 1 million copies of the summary guide were printed.

  Super Dump, Magheramorne
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how objectors to the proposal for a super dump at Magheramorne, County Antrim former limestone quarry will be able to know that their response to the Blue Circle published planning application has been received at the Department of Environment Northern Ireland planning service if no acknowledgement is issued to each objector who writes to the Department of Environment, Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Moss
  All representations received will be acknowledged.

  Fishing
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fishing boats over 10m there were at Portavogie harbour; how many persons were employed in the fishing industry in Portavogie in 1985; and what are the current figures.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on the number of fishing boats at Portagovie harbour over 10m length in 1985 is not available but there were 62 vessels of 40ft and over in length at 31 December 1985. The comparable figure at 31 December 1994 was 68 vessels, six of which are to be taken out of the fleet under the decommissioning scheme. In February 1985 it was estimated there were 586 full-time and part-time persons employed at Portagovie in fish catching, processing and ancillary services. The comparable estimate in February 1994 was 454 persons.

  Agricultural Land
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has showing the proportion of agricultural land which was tenanted in Northern Ireland for(a) 1965, (b) 1970, (c) 1980, (d) 1990 and (e) the latest available date.

  Mr. Ancram
  The requested information is not readily available. However, in general terms, tenancies do not feature to any meaningful extent as a basis of land tenure in Northern Ireland and the proportion of agricultural land involved in tenancies is therefore negligible.

TREASURY

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much a 1 per cent. increase in interest 790
  rates increases Government expenditure on housing benefit.

  Mr. Aitken
  Interest rate changes do not affect expenditure on housing benefit which provides assistance towards rents.

  Public Sector Debt
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the current public sector debt and its forecast growth.

  Mr. Aitken
  Net public sector debt stood at 38.3 per cent. of GDP at end-March 1994. It is forecast to peak as a share of GDP at end-March 1996, and to decline thereafter.

  Budget (Effects)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of how much an individual on five times average earnings will gain from his last Budget.

  Sir George Young
  Tax measures taking effect over the next year are expected to cost the richest 20 per cent. of households an average of £3.90 a week compared to £2.30 a week averaged across all households. Pensioners, on average, will be no worse off. The effect for any particular individual will vary with their household composition and spending pattern.

  Investment Levels
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the level of general and local government investment in 1997–98; and what it is currently, in real terms.

  Mr. Aitken
  General Government capital expenditure at 1993–94 prices is projected to be £15.2 billion in 199798 of which £5.9 billion is projected to be by local authorities. In the current year, we estimate the capital expenditure figure will be £16.8 billion of which local authorities will contribute £7.9 billion.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on recent progress under the private finance initiative.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I announced in the Budget that we are on target to sign contracts in 1995 under the private finance initiative leading to £5 billion of capital investment. Since then, additional projects worth a further £1 billion have been identified and are being taken forward.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the vehicle excise duty for lorries in the light of the discrepancy between revenue raised and total cost to public funds revealed by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Vehicle excise duty for lorries is reviewed before each Budget.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce United Kingdom road tax in respect of international hauliers.
  791
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reviews vehicle excise duty before each Budget, taking account of a number of factors, including the competitive position of international hauliers. Vehicle excise duty for most lorry classes has been frozen in the past five budgets.

  Public Limited Company Directors
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the initiative of the Confederation of British Industry to investigate the structure within which the pay and conditions for public limited company directors is determined.

  Mr. Aitken
  I welcome the group set up under Sir Richard Greenbury to review this matter and look forward to their proposals. The CBI initiative gives positive proof of the private sector's willingness to respond positively to public concerns.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the initiative of the Confederation of British Industry to investigate the structure within which the pay and conditions for public limited company directors is determined.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. member to the reply I gave the hon. member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) earlier today.

  Single European Currency
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the EU will establish a single currency; and what assessment he has made of the benefits and disbenefits of United Kingdom participation.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear he does not expect conditions to be right for any move to a single currency in 1997. Whether the United Kingdom would benefit from a later move to a single currency would depend a great deal on whether significant convergence had been achieved among the member states concerned. When and if the timing of any moves to stage 3 becomes clearer, the Government have ensured that United kingdom participation could not occur without the approval of a full Act of Parliament.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will undertake a compliance cost assessment with regard to the obligations likely to be imposed upon the United Kingdom's financial institutions in order to be prepared for the possible adoption of the single European currency; what discussions he, his Department, or the Bank of England have had on such obligations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  At the appropriate time, the Government will make an assessment of the costs and benefits of participating in a single currency, should this question arise. In carrying out their functions, both the Treasury and the Bank of England maintain a wide range of contacts with financial institutions. In this context, a number of them have raised the question of the implications for the United Kingdom financial sector and the wider United kingdom economy of a single European Currency.

  Growth Rates
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the growth rates over the past two years for each EC country; and if he will list them, with the least growth first.

  Mr. Nelson
  The UK achieved the highest growth rate of any major EU economy over the last two-years for which full year data are available. EU member countries' growth rates over the two-year period 1992 to 1993 were as set out:

  Percentage change real GDP 1992–93

  Finland

  -6.4

  Sweden

  -4.0

  Spain

  -0.7

  Germany

  -0.3

  Belgium

  0.1

  Italy

  0.1

  France

  0.5

  Portugal

  0.8

  Greece

  0.8

  Austria

  1.4

  Netherlands

  1.6

  UK

  1.6

  Luxembourg

  2.2

  Denmark

  2.7

  Ireland

  7.1

  Monetary Conditions
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the European Finance Ministers to discuss monetary conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  European Finance Ministers discuss monetary conditions as a matter of course in meetings of the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers of the European Union—ECOFIN.

  There is strong agreement that, to sustain the recovery, it will be necessary to maintain progress towards price stability. This commitment to sustaining low inflation depends to a large extent on the conduct of macroeconomic and structural policies.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has that the business taxation regime has encouraged inward investment into Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  A business takes a large number of factors into account when deciding on the location of international investment, and it is difficult to isolate the role of tax or any other factor. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom has the lowest rate of tax amongst the major industrial countries. This is one of the reasons why in 1993, the UK attracted more than 40 per cent. of inward investment into the European Union from both the USA and Japan.

  Non-aid Debt
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to write off non-aid debt
  793
  from developing countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government have sought agreement for their Trinidad terms proposals launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in 1990. In December 1994, the Paris Club group of official creditors agreed to implement these terms in full. These offer reductions in the stock of eligible debt at a benchmark of 67 per cent. to the poorest, most severely indebted countries on a case by case basis.

  Demand
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the level of total demand in the economy.

  Mr. Aitken
  Total final demand rose by 0.5 per cent. in the third quarter of 1994 to a level of 3.8 per cent. above its previous peak in the second quarter of 1990.

  Trade Figures
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present trend in trade figures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The United Kingdom's recent trade performance has been much better than expected: latest figures show a current account surplus, the first since 1987; and exports growing at 13 per cent., more than double the rate for imports. Prospects remain excellent. The CBI reports export optimism for the year ahead at its highest level since 1973.

  Job Creation
  Mrs. Roe
  To as the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the effect of the Budget on job creation.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Budget contained a package of measures, estimated to cost £700 million in a full year, to improve work incentives and reduce the cost to employers of taking on unemployed people. The Budget also underlined the Government's commitment to sound public finances and low inflation, which are necessary for a sustainable recovery and falling unemployment.

  Fraud
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken or intends to take to enable the Inland Revenue to exchange information with the Department of Social Security and other agencies to assist in the detection of fraud; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The Government's determination to detect fraud is reflected in existing arrangements for the Inland Revenue to share information with other Government Departments relevant to specific risks. Under plans announced in the Budget, the Inland Revenue will be exchanging more information with Customs and Excise, but the effectiveness of the inland Revenue's own work is largely dependent on its ability to obtain information from taxpayers. This information will be 794
  given more freely if taxpayers are assured that it will be treated as confidential. The need to provide privacy is extremely important to the Inland Revenue because it encourages openness by taxpayers in providing the fullest information on which the Revenue can base assessments of tax.

  Foreign Vehicles
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce a tax on foreign vehicles entering the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no such plans.

  Redundancy Terms
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will place a copy of the Treasury document, "Information on Outplacement Services and Redundancy Terms", in the Library;

  (2) what are the redundancy terms for Treasury civil servants contained in the documents "Information on Outplacement Services and Redundancy Terms".

  Mr. Nelson
  Redundancy terms for Treasury civil servants are contained in the document "Information on Outplacement Services and Redundancy Terms". They apply, under the civil service compensation scheme formerly section 10 of the principal civil service pensions scheme, to permanent civil servants with more than one year's service. These terms operate throughout the civil service and are not unique to the Treasury. Details of the redundancy terms can be found in the civil service compensation scheme 1994 which was laid before Parliament on 20 December 1994.

  I have arranged for a copy of the document "Information on Outplacement Services and Redundancy Terms" to be placed in the House Library.

  EU Economic and Social Committee
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual cost of the United Kingdom contribution to the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union in the current year and over the past five years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Member states contributions are made in respect of the whole of the Community budget, and not to particular parts. On the assumption that our overall financing share, after abatement, applies equally to all parts of the budget then, as a matter of arithmetic, the United Kingdom's contributions to the Economic and Social Committee for 1995 and the previous five years are as set out:

  Year

  Economic and Social Committee annual cost £ million1

  United Kingdom share of Community revenue (after abatement) Percentage2

  Implied United Kingdom contributions to the ESC £ million

  1990

  31,838,027

  15.0

  4,775,704

  1991

  33,776,369

  11.7

  3,951,835

  1992

  37,881,157

  12.5

  4,735,145

  795

  Year

  Economic and Social Committee annual cost £ million1

  United Kingdom share of Community revenue (after abatement) Percentage2

  Implied United Kingdom contributions to the ESC £ million

  1993

  43,554,261

  12.1

  5,270,066

  19943

  57,835,872

  11.6

  6,708,961

  19953

  57,412,830

  12.7

  7,291,429

  1 The annual costs for 1990–1993 are outturn figures. For 1994, the figure is taken from the 1994 adopted Budget. For 1995, the figure is taken from the draft general budget.

  2 Calculated from the revenue tables for the adopted budgets for the years in question.

  3 Includes appropriations for the joint organisational structure with the Committee of the Regions.

  Unearned Income
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total unearned income of the top 1 per cent. of tax payers for each year since 1990–91 divided into income from(a) shares and securities, (b) bank and interest-bearing accounts, (c) building societies accounts and deposits, (d) rents, (e) pensions and annuities and (f) other.

  Sir George Young
  Estimates for the top 1 per cent. of taxpayers are given in the table for 1991–92 and 199293, the latest year for which a breakdown of unearned income is available. Income from pensions is not included in the table as this is classified as earned rather than unearned.

  £billion

  Dividends

  Bank and building society interest

  Rents

  Other unearned income

  1991–92

  3.6

  1.9

  0.5

  1.8

  1992–93

  3.0

  1.1

  0.5

  1.8

  World Economic Forum
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals in regard to the financing of environmental protection and environmentally friendly manufacturing have been put forward by Her Majesty's Government to the world economic forum in Davos in Switzerland, which started on 26 January.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average growth of the economy between the years February 1974 to 1979 and 1979 to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  Average growth in real GDP—gross domestic product at constant factor cost—between the 796
  years 1974 to 1979 is 2 per cent. Between 1979 and the present day, average growth in GDP is 1.9 per cent.

  Public Bodies (Running Costs)
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the Registry of Friendly Societies running costs limits in 1994–95.

  Mr. Nelson
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the running costs limit for class XVII, vote 10 will be increased by £158,000, from £8,365,000 to £8,523,000. The increase will be offset by additional appropriations in aid and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The increase in the running costs limit is made up of two components: first, to meet unexpected additional expenditure of £108,000 in legal costs resulting from the Lloyds/Cheltenham and Gloucester case; and second, to carry out an investigation in support of prudential supervision by the sector, at an estimated cost of £50,000.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the National Investment and Loans Office cash and running costs limits in 1994–95.

  Mr. Nelson
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVII, vote 11 will be increased by £199,000 from £1,000 to £200,000. The additional provision is required to cover a shortfall in fees payable on loans to local authorities. The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure. The running costs limit will be reduced by £25,000 from £1,334,000 to £1,309,000.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the Central Statistical Office's cash and running costs limits in 1994–95.

  Mr. Nelson
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the cash limit for class XVII, vote 13 will change from £48,002,000 to £48,062,000 and the running costs limit will decrease by £641,000 from £48,463,000 to £47,822,000.

  These changes reflect a transfer of £60,000 from the Department of Employment, class V, vote 1, in respect of funding for the international passenger survey and the transfer of £701,000 to non-running costs. These changes do not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions departmental officials met representatives of Ian Greer Associates(a) formally and (b) informally on 26 January to discuss matters relating to their clients' interests.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 31 January 1995]: To my knowledge there were no meetings, formal or informal, between Treasury officials and representatives of Ian Greer Associates on 26 January 1995.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Parkhurst Prison
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who authorised the removal of the governor from his duties and prison staff from Her Majesty's prison, Parkhurst.

  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. Doug Hoyle, dated 2 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking who authorised the removal of the Governor from his duties and prison staff from Her Majesty's Prison, Parkhurst.
  The decision that the Governor of Parkhurst should be moved from his duties at Parkhurst, for operational reasons, was taken by me and the Directors of Custody, Security and Personnel. I should make it clear that he was neither sacked nor suspended. He will be assisting the further inquiries which have now to take place into the escapes and will then take up a non-operational post in Prison Service Headquarters. Authorisation for the sending of any other staff closely involved in the events of 3 January on detached duty pending the further investigations (including the disciplinary investigation) and in their own interests was given in principle by me in conjunction with the Directors of Personnel and Custody.
  I want to make it quite clear that these moves are entirely without prejudice to the disciplinary investigation, which will take place as soon as Sir John Learmont's assessment of security has been completed, or to any disciplinary proceedings which may follow the disciplinary investigation.

  "Red Book of Captain Ramsey"
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the circumstances in which the "Red book of Captain Ramsey", mentioned in his answer of 29 March 1994,Official Report, column 614, was returned to private hands; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the entries in the "Red book of Captain Ramsey" made when he was imprisoned under regulation 18B.

  Mr. Howard
  No. Records do not show the movements of "Captain Ramsey's Red Book". I therefore cannot comment on its current whereabouts or how it reached its present owner. As the book is private property and is not held by the Government, the question of my placing copies of extracts in the Library does not arise.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he or the Director of Prison Services has received to the effect that the testing of prisoners for cannabis use encourages the use of harder drugs; and if he will make a statement.

  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. Harry Cohen, dated 2 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question enquiring about representations received to the effect that the testing of prisoners for cannabis use encourages the use of harder drugs. The Secretary of State has not received any
  798
  specific representations; I have received one letter recently which touched on the issue.
  We are aware that heavy users of cannabis may retain the drug in their bodies for much longer than light users of cannabis or users of harder drugs. This has been taken into account in the development of the drug testing policy within prisons and we are taking a number of precautions to ensure that prisoners are not encouraged to move from cannabis to harder drugs in the mistaken belief that they will more easily escape detection.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on(a) sentence planning for all sentenced prisoners and (b) custody plans for remand prisoners.

  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 2 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what progress has been made on extending sentence planning to all sentenced prisoners and custody plans for remand prisoners.
  Sentence planning was introduced for longer term prisoners (serving 4 years or more) in October 1992 and for prisoners serving 12 months and over in November 1993. It is undertaken for all young offenders in Young Offender Institutions. In addition, some establishments have extended the process to prisoners serving under 12 months and remand prisoners.
  An extensive review of all aspects of sentence planning is currently underway. Consideration will then be given to extending it formally to a wider group of prisoners, including the introduction of custody plans for remand prisoners.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were serving four years or more on(a) 30 June 1979, (b) 30 June 1984 and (c) 30 June 1989.

  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 2 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many prisoners were serving four years or more on (a) 30th June 1979, (b) 30th June 1984 and (c) 30th June 1989.
  The following information is for prisoners with sentence lengths of over four years, including those serving life sentences.

  Year

  Number

  1979

  5,678

  1984

  6,191

  1989

  12,112

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what national studies his Department is undertaking into vulnerable prisoners.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  799
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. George Howarth, dated 2 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what national studies are being undertaking into vulnerable prisoners.
  The Prison Service is currently conducting a review of arrangements for the management of vulnerable prisoners. In addition, a research study commissioned to examine the effectiveness of integrated regimes between vulnerable and ordinary prisoners is in progress at Risley prison and other establishments.

  Advertisements
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions and in what circumstances in the last five years advertisements have been placed in newspapers or periodicals which have been described as being issued by or on behalf of Ministers in his Department rather than on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Howard
  No advertisements have been placed in newspapers or periodicals in the past five years which have been described as being issued by or on behalf of Ministers in my Department.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the prison population of the United Kingdom in 1991, 1992 and 1993; and what is the current figure.

  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. Ellyn Llwyd, dated 2 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent question asking about the size of the prison population of the United Kingdom in 1991, 1992 and 1993; and about the current figure.
  The available information is given in the attached table. The latest available figure for the prison population for the United Kingdom is 56,836. This uses figures for 27 January for England, Wales and Scotland and for the end of November from Northern Ireland.

  Average population in custody1 United Kingdom

  Year

  Average population

  1991

  52,532

  1992

  52,884

  1993

  52,136

  1 Includes prisoners held in police cells.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the absenteeism rates for(a) the United Kingdom Passport Agency and (b) his Department in 1994.

  Mr. Howard
  I regret that information on sick absence for the Department as a whole in not yet available.

  A special exercise by the United Kingdom Passport Agency has shown that the average number of working days lost through sick absence for the calendar year 1994 is 14.09 days. This figure is calculated by including
  800
  non-working days which fall within the period of sick absence.

  Licensed Premises
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licensed premises in each region have applied for children's certificates.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The changes to the Licensing Act 1964 which enable licensees to apply to the licensing justices for children's certificates came into effect on 3 January 1995. No information about the number of applications made is yet held centrally.

  Asylum Division
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department from what date the reorganisation of the asylum division, with separate allocations of staff to deal with incoming or existing cases, took effect.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  From July 1993.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the latest figure of the number of assaults on prisoners at Blakenhurst prison;

  (2) what is the latest figure for the number of assaults on custody officers at Blakenhurst prison.

  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, dared 2 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the number of assaults on prisoners and on custody officers at Blakenhurst prison.
  The latest information is for assaults proved at adjudication during the calendar year 1994. Figures for 1993 were published in "Statistics of offences against prison discipline and punishments, England and Wales, 1993" (cm. 2664).
  Provisional figures are that in 1994 there were 23 assaults on prisoners and 89 on staff (includes a number of assaults on others).
  The current rate of assaults at Blakenhurst, relative to the size of the prisoner population, is comparable to the average of other local prisons.

  Suicidal Prisoners
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in implementing the chief inspector of prisons' recommendation of November 1994 in respect of monitoring of suicidal prisoners.

  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 2 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your Question on the progress on implementing the Chief Inspector of Prisons'

  801
  recommendation of November 1994 on the monitoring of suicidal prisoners.
  In his Annual Report for 1994, Judge Tumim commented that a better way of continuous monitoring of suicidal prisoners should be found.
  Twenty four hour monitoring is carried out where it is considered appropriate in the clinical judgement of the medical officer. However, care has to be exercised to ensure that lack of privacy does not create a feeling of oppression which exacerbates suicidal feelings. In November 1994 an Instruction to Governors was issued which prescribed that 15 minute watches should only be used as a supplement to other supportive precautionary measures, such as cell sharing.

  Probation Service
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) probation orders, (b) community service orders and (c) combination orders were held by the probation service in England and Wales on (i) 30 June 1992, (ii) 30 June 1993 and (iii) 30 June 1994.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information relating to 31 December is published annually in "Probation Statistics England and Wales"—table 1.3 of the 1993 issue—copies of which are in the Library. The table gives the information for 30 June; figures for 1994 are not yet available.

  Persons supervised by the probation service, England and Wales

  30 June 1992

  30 June 1993

  Probation orders

  51,884

  46,695

  Community service orders

  30,807

  36,180

  Combination orders

  Nil1

  5,072

  1 Introduced on 1 October 1992.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many posts he estimates were lost from the probation service in England and Wales during the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information recorded in probation services returns of staff establishment shows an increase of about 570 posts between 31 March 1993 and 30 June 1994, the latest date for which information is currently available.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation service officers or their equivalent were employed by the probation service in England and Wales in(a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990 and (d)

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The number of probation services' officers—formerly ancillaries—employed by probation services in England and Wales since 1980 is as follows:

  1980: 913

  1990: 1,918

  1993: 2,104

  Information about 1970 is not readily available in the form requested.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff and at what levels were employed by the probation service in England and Wales on 30 June 1991, 30 June 1992, 30 June 1993 and 30 June 1994.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information is given in the table.
  802

  Staff employed by probation services in England and Wales, in post at 30 June, full time or part time, by grade and type.

  Probation Officers

  30 June 1991

  30 June 1992

  30 June 1993

  30 June 1994

  Chief

  55

  55

  55

  54

  Deputy and assistant chief

  230

  252

  268

  270

  Senior

  1,152

  1,195

  1,261

  1,274

  Main grade

  5,747

  6,013

  6,294

  6,419

  Total

  7,184

  7,515

  7,878

  8,017

  Non-probation grade staff

  Probation services officers1

  1,955

  2,043

  2,116

  2,145

  Clerical/secretarial

  4,407

  4,553

  4,697

  4,735

  Administrative

  689

  745

  832

  936

  Other non-probation grade staff2

  3,088

  3,095

  3,131

  3,011

  Hostel staff

  843

  981

  1,141

  1,187

  Total non-probation grade staff

  10,982

  11,417

  11,917

  12,014

  Total probation staff

  18,166

  18,932

  19,795

  20,031

  1 Formerly ancillaries

  2 Figures include sessional supervisors on community service schemes, staff employed in student training units and on miscellaneous functions.

  Figures exclude hostel staff.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of court reports compiled per qualified probation officer in England and Wales in(a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c)

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The average number of reports completed per main grade probation officer was 52.5 in 1992 and 51.1 in 1993—table 12.3 of "Probation Statistics, England and Wales 1993". The information for 1994 is not yet available. The figures for probation officers are on the basis of whole-time equivalents of established main grade probation officers on field work duties excluding temporary and trainee officers.

  The Wolds Prison
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number and types of instances where the required level of service has not been provided or specific contract terms have not been met by Group 4 since the start of the contract to run The Wolds prison.

  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. Mike Hall, dated 2 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Group 4 and the Wolds prison.
  There has been one default notice. This was issued as a result of the escape of a prisoner from hospital, early in 1994.

  Departmental Reports
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the internal report and project on violence in prisons.

  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 2 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the Prison Service project to reduce violence against staff.
  The position on this project remains unchanged from that given in my letter of 20 December in reply to your earlier Question (Hansard 20 December, col 251), in which I indicated that there are no plans to publish the internal report which contains the preliminary results.

  Prisons
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to limit use of private cash in prisons.

  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 2 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what plans there are to limit private cash in prisons.
  The Secretary of State announced in the House on 19 December 1994 that a system under which prisoners would have to earn privileges would be introduced. At the same time, he stated that, as part of this new approach, the amount of private cash that prisoners

  Police overtime

  Total cost 1992–93 £

  Average per officer £

  Total cost 1993–94 £

  Average per officer £

  Avon and Somerset

  6,483,805

  2,113

  3,411,264

  1,125

  Bedfordshire

  2,465,006

  2,110

  2,005,596

  1,742

  Cambridgeshire

  3,482,000

  2,753

  2,452,994

  1,942

  Cheshire

  4,442,473

  2,328

  2,849,688

  1,498

  City of London

  2,173,705

  2,635

  2,414,334

  2,704

  Cleveland

  1,645,093

  1,113

  1,860,389

  1,302

  Cumbria

  2,355,384

  1,969

  1,772,714

  1,510

  Derbyshire

  3,258,958

  1,781

  2,606,392

  1,432

  Avon and Cornwall

  6,061,765

  2,083

  4,308,050

  1,478

  Dorset

  1,729,899

  1,329

  1,496,308

  1,154

  Durham

  1,670,907

  1,210

  1,850,700

  1,338

  Dyfed Powys

  2,142,357

  2,215

  1,385,499

  1,436

  Essex

  5,628,590

  1,917

  5,897,104

  2,008

  Gloucestershire

  1,539,963

  1,340

  1,986,563

  1,714

  Greater Manchester

  24,271,289

  3,438

  15,174,820

  2,178

  Gwent

  1,553,956

  1,548

  1,381,970

  1,392

  Hampshire

  7,107,374

  2,170

  6,577,017

  2,011

  Hertfordshire

  2,324,840

  1,368

  2,721,585

  1,618

  Humberside

  3,280,068

  1,614

  3,583,821

  1,758

  Kent

  5,598,524

  1,780

  6,013,068

  1,912

  Lancashire

  6,967,479

  2,173

  4,521,393

  1,426

  Leicestershire

  3,875,318

  2,147

  2,165,623

  1,187

  Lincolnshire

  2,343,488

  1,953

  2,090,057

  1,734

  Merseyside

  13,660,235

  2,926

  9,685,750

  2,064

  Norfolk

  3,484,596

  2,420

  2,926,125

  2,022

  Northamptonshire

  2,804,613

  2,339

  2,043,539

  1,747

  Northumbria

  10,559,857

  2,964

  6,289,065

  1,748

  North Wales

  2,351,525

  1,729

  2,037,388

  1,507

  804
  are permitted to spend would be reduced. Detailed plans for the implementation of this policy are currently being finalised.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the progress which has been made in respect of improvements in co-operation between Prison Service establishments in close proximity to each other.

  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, dared 2 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what assessment he has made of the progress in respect of improvements in co-operation between prison service establishments in close proximity to each other.
  Community prison clustering arrangements are being developed in the Kent and East Anglia Areas; where co-ordinated regime provision and population management procedures are working satisfactorily. In addition, opportunities are being taken by other prisons in close proximity to share resources. Examples include the merger of Thorp Arch and Rudgate prisons and co-operation between Blakenhurst, Brockhill and Hewell Grange prisons.

  Police (Overtime Payments)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were(a) the total and (b) the average overtime payments for police officers in each police force in England and Wales for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  The table shows overtime costs for each police force in 1992–93 and 1993–94. Figures for earlier years are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The average overtime payment has been calculated by dividing the total cost of overtime for the force by its recorded police strength as at 31 March in the year in question.
  805

  Police overtime

  Total cost 1992–93 £

  Average per officer £

  Total cost 1993–94 £

  Average per officer £

  North Yorkshire

  3,001,970

  2,155

  2,155,751

  1,636

  Nottinghamshire

  2,582,689

  1,110

  2,176,532

  935

  South Wales

  5,553,765

  1,749

  4,840,639

  1,546

  South Yorkshire

  7,415,640

  2,446

  6,150,043

  2,034

  Staffordshire

  3,716,068

  1,705

  3,555,875

  1,610

  Suffolk

  2,358,621

  1,901

  1,937,984

  1,604

  Surrey

  3,244,020

  1,916

  2,761,499

  1,655

  Sussex

  6,215,486

  2,066

  4,857,135

  1,614

  Thames Valley

  9,882,241

  2,574

  9,822,938

  2,514

  Warwickshire

  1,836,204

  1,800

  1,679,423

  1,606

  West Mercia

  4,261,532

  2,075

  3,097,475

  1,504

  West Midlands

  11,628,414

  1,672

  9,948,439

  1,418

  West Yorkshire

  7,933,671

  1,575

  7,361,286

  1,459

  Wiltshire

  2,387,129

  1,887

  1,653,739

  1,308

  Metropolitan

  76,857,000

  2,900

  71,113,000

  2,567

  Electric Shock Equipment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which companies he has issued with section 5 firearm licences for the storage, handling or development of electro-shock equipment since 1988.

  Mr. Maclean
  No company has been granted authority specifically to store, handle or develop electric shock weapons in the last three years. Information about the granting of authority for these purposes in earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  British Visitors Passports
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British visitors passports were issued in each of the years 1992, 1993, and 1994.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The number of British visitors passports issued in each of the last three years was:

  1992: 2,058,977

  1993: 1,972,312

  1994: 1,812,237

  National Criminal Intelligence System
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 1994,Official Report, columns 552–53, on the cost of developing the computer for the national criminal intelligence services, how many police officers were trained to use the new computer system; what is the cost of this training; how many police forces now share computer facilities; and if there is a requirement that a police authority establishing its own computer facilities must ensure that it is compatible with computers operated by other police authorities.

  Mr. Maclean
  As the integrated national criminal intelligence system did not proceed beyond the design stage, no police officers were trained to use the system. All police forces share some of their computer facilities; for example, through their use of the police national computer. The national strategy for police information 806
  systems, which was launched by my right hon. and learned Friend in November 1994 sets out arrangements for ensuring compatibility and interoperability between computers operated by different police forces.

  Speeding
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of persons prosecuted for speeding offences last year and the year before was male.

  Mr. Maclean
  The readily available information relates to the percentage of findings of guilt for speeding offences which had been committed by males and was 92 per cent. in 1993.

  Figures for 1994 are not yet available.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to enable the Metropolitan police to create a financial reserve.

  Mr. Howard
  I have arranged to make available to the Metropolitan police £20 million to help create a financial reserve. This sum represents the total value of savings the force has said that it expects to make against the cash limit for 1994–95. The reserve will be available for use in subsequent years outside the Metropolitan police non-voted cash limit and I am reducing the 1994–95 cash limit by £20,000,000 from £1,616,511,000 to £1,596,511,000 accordingly. The relevant sum of police current grant will be paid as a special grant under section 1 of the Police Act 1909.

  This new flexibility is, I know, welcomed by the commissioner and the receiver.

  Criminal Justice Act 1993
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Home Department, when he expects to implement the remaining confiscation provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1993.

  Mr. Howard
  The Drug Trafficking Act 1994, which enters into force tomorrow, implements and consolidates the following drug trafficking confiscation provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1993: sections 7 to 15, 24(1) to (11), section 25 and consequential amendments in schedule 5. These include new powers to obtain a
  807
  revaluation of the defendant's proceeds of drug trafficking within six years of conviction and to confiscate the proceeds of drug traffickers who abscond or who die after conviction.

  The following confiscation provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 are also being brought into force tomorrow by means of Commencement Order No 8: sections 24(12) to (15), 27, 28 and 36 to 43, together with related provisions in schedules 5 and 6. The provisions mainly amend the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, which provides for the confiscation of the proceeds of terrorist related activity in Northern Ireland.

  With these measures the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, except part I of that Act, is complete. A further announcement about the implementation of part I will be made in due course.

  Charity Commission Funding
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he has made to the cash limits and running costs limits for the Charity Commission for 1994–95.

  Mr. Howard
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class VIII, vote 4, Charity Commission, will be increased by £300,000 from £24,924,000 to £25,224,000 and the running costs limit by £200,000 from £23,254,000 to £23,454,000. The increases reflect a transfer of £300,000 from Property Holdings as a contribution towards the Charity Commission's removal and fitting out costs incurred during the relocation of its Liverpool office. The transfer represents part of an estate rationalisation scheme.

  Departmental Funding
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for changes to the 1994–95 cash limits and running costs within his responsibilities.

  Mr. Howard
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class VIII, vote 3, Home Office administration, immigration, probation and police support services, England and Wales, will be increased by £20,422,000 from £1,212,721,000 to £1,233,163,000. This includes the take-up of £13,650,000 running costs end year flexibility and £7,591,000 claim on the reserve. Transfers are also being made of £154,000 from the Department of National Heritage in respect of royal palace security work and £3,000 in respect of administration of additional housing costs allowance.

  In consequence of these changes, the Home Office gross running cost limit will be increased by £13,653,000 from £1,706,176,000 to £1,719,829,000.

  The amount required has been reduced by a diminution in provision for administration of justice of £5,000,000; and by transfers of voted provision of £487,000 to the
  808
  Crown Prosecution Service in respect of forensic science service charges: and £469,000 to the Department for Education for additional places for probation students. Additional spending on ethnic minority grants and DTELS residual privatisation will be offset by increased appropriations in aid.

  Prison Escapes
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many escapes occurred from prisons in the Greater London region in(a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c) the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) how many escapes occurred from prisons in (a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c) the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answers 18 January 1995]: 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 Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 2 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the number of escapes from prisons generally and the number from the Greater London region in (a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c) the last year for which figures are available.

  The information you request is shown in the table below:

  Year

  Escapes from Prisons

  Escapes from Greater London Prisons

  1979

  97

  2n/a

  1984–85

  114

  2n/a

  1985–86

  117

  2n/a

  1993–94

  1171

  11

  1 Excludes non-Key Performance Indicator escapes (i.e. those recaptured within 15 minutes).

  2 Information not available

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department spent during 1994 on recruiting staff to his Department and its executive agencies; and how many staff were recruited.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 27 January 1995]: Excluding the Prison Service, the Home Office spent £869,816 in 1994 on recruiting staff to the Department. This figure excludes salary costs. Some 850 staff were recruited. Figures for the Prison Service could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sop and Search
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many stop and search incidents took place in each division of the Metropolitan police in each of the last three years; and if he will provide the ethnic breakdown of those stopped and searched.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 January 1995]: Figures are not available for 1992, 1993 or, at present, for the final quarter of 1994. The tables give the divisional breakdown for each area of the Metropolitan police district, by ethnic appearance, for the first three—quarters of 1994.
  809

  White

  Black Afro Caribbean

  Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi

  Other ethnic minority

  Unknown

  Total

  1 Area

  Belgravia

  2,881

  534

  149

  313

  104

  3,981

  Brompton

  2,617

  1,210

  149

  1,045

  75

  5,096

  Notting Hill

  519

  705

  31

  298

  0

  1,553

  West End Central

  4,459

  1,241

  273

  835

  1

  6,809

  Charing Cross

  3,576

  740

  222

  723

  707

  5,968

  Paddington

  1,710

  1,713

  289

  655

  300

  4,667

  Marylebone

  1,488

  714

  170

  246

  169

  2,787

  Fulham

  866

  522

  28

  53

  15

  1,484

  Hammersmith

  1,192

  1,029

  93

  114

  329

  2,757

  2 Area

  Hampstead

  848

  239

  49

  57

  4

  1,197

  Kentish Town

  1,031

  350

  184

  113

  257

  1,935

  Holborn

  1,830

  682

  119

  188

  106

  2,925

  Holloway

  3,108

  1,728

  188

  509

  0

  5,533

  Islington

  2,340

  886

  113

  242

  0

  3,581

  Barnet

  1,377

  92

  38

  70

  0

  1,577

  Golders Green

  674

  187

  64

  62

  95

  1,082

  West Hendon

  1,003

  200

  65

  73

  0

  1,341

  Harrow

  1,024

  233

  122

  19

  4

  1,402

  Wembley

  531

  428

  238

  23

  35

  1,255

  Kilburn

  1,017

  1,500

  135

  90

  152

  2,894

  Ealing

  1,456

  981

  264

  99

  99

  2,899

  Southall

  1,046

  534

  1,106

  30

  188

  2,904

  Hornsey

  638

  566

  37

  108

  87

  1,436

  Tottenham

  1,945

  2,462

  149

  736

  3

  5,295

  3 Area

  Hackney

  2,178

  2,111

  205

  318

  361

  5,173

  Stoke Newington

  2,396

  3,392

  303

  1,229

  0

  7,320

  Limehouse

  1,342

  403

  231

  76

  246

  2,298

  Whitechapel

  2,208

  805

  2,239

  173

  267

  5,692

  Barkingside

  1,845

  189

  124

  72

  350

  2,580

  Ilford

  1,539

  389

  349

  73

  111

  2,461

  Leyton

  1,306

  972

  411

  97

  98

  2,884

  Havering

  2,102

  88

  21

  28

  470

  2,709

  Forest Gate

  1,680

  1,212

  1,033

  139

  0

  4,064

  Dagenham

  1,780

  188

  56

  26

  20

  2,070

  Plaistow

  1,485

  627

  380

  64

  164

  2,720

  Edmonton

  1,734

  621

  134

  631

  95

  3,215

  Enfield

  3,422

  258

  67

  371

  235

  4,353

  Chingford

  976

  513

  192

  46

  131

  1,858

  4 Area

  Southwark

  2,385

  485

  93

  111

  267

  3,341

  Peckham

  3,126

  2,678

  66

  226

  879

  6,975

  Walworth

  3,329

  2,155

  87

  268

  14

  5,853

  Catford

  2,003

  677

  35

  92

  16

  2,823

  Lewisham

  3,596

  3,283

  139

  331

  92

  7,441

  Orpington and Bromley

  4,574

  389

  45

  55

  24

  5,087

  Plumstead

  1,643

  266

  53

  49

  192

  2,203

  Greenwich

  4,743

  823

  115

  161

  314

  6,156

  Bexleyheath

  3,929

  43

  64

  18

  0

  4,054

  Croydon

  2,657

  618

  112

  61

  112

  3,560

  South Norwood

  849

  390

  42

  25

  7

  1,313

  Epsom and Sutton

  2,257

  116

  44

  59

  0

  2,476

  5 Area

  Brixton

  988

  1,970

  24

  124

  316

  3,432

  Streatham

  1,779

  1,573

  105

  96

  498

  4,051

  Vauxhall

  2,881

  2,145

  113

  210

  255

  5,604

  Hounslow

  1,324

  137

  383

  29

  0

  1,873

  Chiswick

  1,483

  368

  305

  69

  1

  2,226

  Twickenham

  1,101

  176

  80

  56

  352

  1,765

  Spelthorne

  1,370

  21

  15

  21

  0

  1,427

  Kingston

  2,044

  81

  47

  43

  0

  2,215

  Wandsworth

  1,761

  952

  118

  82

  249

  3,162

  Battersea

  1,239

  1,418

  93

  41

  66

  2,857

  Hillingdon

  2,391

  147

  285

  69

  3

  2,895

  Merton

  2,754

  439

  74

  93

  149

  3,509

  Heathrow

  231

  32

  34

  16

  0

  313

  810

  Crime Victims (Telephone Hotline)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the telephone hotline for crime victims was established; how many calls have been made to it; how many staff have been employed to operate the hotline; how many hours a day it is in operation; and what has been the total cost of operating the service since its inception.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 30 January 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. Stephen Byers, dated 2 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the Victim's Helpline.
  The Helpline started operation on 5 December 1994 and by 26 January had received 49 calls. Three staff are available at any one time, undertaking other duties when they are not taking calls. Initial start-up costs for staff training, telephone lines and equipment, and other items were £8,400. Subsequent running costs are estimated to be in the region of £6,000.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have made applications since the enactment of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993; how many of these applications have been determined; and how many applicants whose cases have been detained have(a) been granted refugee status, (b) been granted exceptional leave to remain and (c) been refused.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  During the period 1 August 1993 to 31 December 1994, 20,255 decisions were taken on 41,765 applications for asylum which were lodged during the same period. A further 1,935 of these applications were withdrawn.

  As at 30 January 1995, 471 persons who had sought asylum and had their application for asylum refused, were detained. This figure includes people awaiting removal following refusal of the application and dismissal of any appeal and those whose appeal was still pending. Information on the number of persons who have had an initial decision on their claim for asylum and who had at some time in the application stage spent time in detention, is not available.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the cases unresolved at the date the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 came into force remain unresolved.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  At 31 December 1994—the latest date for which information is available—an estimated 35,700 asylum applications which were lodged prior to the implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, 26 July 1993 were outstanding.

WALES

  National Park Authorities
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he has given to local authorities and other bodies in Wales about the potential establishment of the 812
  national authorities provided for in the Environment Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have today issued advice to the local authorities in Wales about the national park authorities which I intend to establish for the three national parks in Wales should the Environment Bill receive Royal Assent. I have placed a copy of this advice in the Library of the House.

  The advice also covers the interaction between the national park provisions in the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 and the Environment Bill, and the effect that local government reorganisation will have on the process of establishing Welsh national park authorities.

  Further guidance will be issued once the Environment Bill is enacted and comments are being sought from the local authorities and other bodies in the interim.

  The national park authorities in Wales will operate with the same purpose and duties, and with the same relationship towards their constituent local authorities as those in England.

  Health Services (Resources)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has now reached decisions about the allocation of resources for hospital, community and family health and related services for Wales for 1995–96.

  Mr. Redwood
  I announced on 14 December, an additional £114 million for the national health service in Wales for 1995–96. This brings total NHS spending to £2,191 million. Within this sum I now propose to allocate £1,620 million to hospital and community health services and the cash limited element of the family health services in Wales. This amount will be distributed as follows: health authorities will receive £1,364.7 million for revenue purposes, an increase of £69.3 million or 5.3 per cent. over 1994–95 plans. They will also receive £118.7 million for capital investment.

  £69.5 million is due to be invested in education and training for NHS staff. Family health services authorities will receive £12.6 million to meet their support costs and £50.8 million for general medical service practice costs. A further £3.6 million will be provided as contributions toward FHSA-related services; most notably as contributions toward the running cost of England and Wales bodies and centrally administered services.

  In addition, authorities and trusts will be expected 1:0 generate efficiency savings of at least 3 per cent. This amounts to some £49 million including £3.25 million savings in management costs. These savings, together with the £82 million cash increase, will be available to meet inflationary and other pressures and enable further investment to be made in patient care.

  Details of the allocations to health authorities and family health authorities and the provisional external financing limits for NHS trusts is contained in a statement which has been placed today in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he proposes to make to the cash limits for his Department for the current financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limit on class XV, vote 2 will be reduced by £8,000,000 from
  813
  £153,581,000 to £145,581,000; the cash limit on class XV, vote 4 will be increased by £6,810,000 from £570,153,000 to £576,963,000, the cash limit on class XV, vote 8 will be reduced by £7,230,000 from £1,511,411,000 to £1,504,211,000; and the cash limit on class XV, vote 10 will be reduced by £1,000,000 from £2,214,412,000 to £2,213,412,000.

  The decrease on the cash limit for vote 2 results mainly from lower than expected expenditure on agricultural and environmental schemes and slippage on arterial drainage, flood and coast protection grant schemes. The increase in the cash limit for vote 4 will provide for an additional £4,500,000 for the Higher Education Funding Council for equipment and building maintenance, £2,000,000 for equipment to expand the modern apprenticeship scheme and £310,000 for the enterprise initiative consultancy scheme transferred from class IV, vote 1.

  The net decrease in the cash limit for vote 8 allows mainly for an additional £2,500,000 for improvements to the community dental service and a transfer of £9,757,000 of provision to class XV, vote 7 in respect of a revised estimate of drug expenditure for GP fundholders. This transfer comprises part of a spring supplementary estimate for class XV, vote 7 of £23,051,000.

  The reduction of £1,000,000 in the cash limit for vote 10 results mainly from lower than expected unit costs at the Valuation Office Agency.

  None of the proposed changes will add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Educational Funding Councils
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she proposes to make additional resources available this year to the educational funding councils.

  Mr. Redwood
  Yes. I have announced today that, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, I will be making £4.5 million available to the Higher Education Funding Council. Because of underspendings elsewhere, I am also able to allocate a further £3.5 million to the funding councils.

  I have decided to provide an extra £5.5 million in total to the Higher Education Funding Council and an extra £2.5 million to the Further Education Funding Council.

  The £5.5 million for the higher education sector will be made available for information technology developments, for facilities to support students with special needs and for projects to increase efficiency in estate management.

  The additional £2.5 million for the Further Education Funding Council is in addition to £4.5 million extra funds made available earlier in the year and will be used to assist colleges in meeting equipment needs to cater for the growing number of students and new educational initiatives.

  Forestry
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many stands of woodland in Wales under the control of Forest Enterprise are currently offered for sale.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Thirty.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many disposals of woodlands were made by Forest Enterprise in Wales in 1992, 1993 and 1994.
  814
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Forestry Commission sold 55 woodlands in 1992, 79 in 1993, and 85 in 1994.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hectares of wooded land under the control of the Forestry Commission and Forest Enterprise there are in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  At 31 March 1994, the Forestry Commission's Forest Enterprise managed 124,931 hectares of woodland in Wales.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many access agreements have been completed by Forest Enterprise and the Forestry Commission in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Twenty-three.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current number of agricultural holdings in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is estimated that there are currently 36,600 holdings in Wales. This total includes an estimate of 6,800 very small holdings derived from the 1989 census of minor holdings.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total acreage of agricultural land in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The total area of agricultural land at 1 June 1994, the latest date for which information is available was 1,689,000 hectares. This total was derived from the 1994 June agricultural census and includes estimates for very small holdings from the 1989 census of minor holdings. Also included are estimates for areas of common rough grazing which are not collected in these two censuses.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many agricultural holdings there were in Wales in 1990.

  Mr. Gwilyn Jones
  There were an estimated 36,500 holdings in Wales at 1 June 1990. This total includes an estimated 6,800 very small holdings derived from the 1989 census of minor holdings.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has showing the proportion of agricultural land which was tenanted in Wales for(a)1965, (b)1970, (c)1980, (d)1990 and (e)the latest available date.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The proportion of land on holdings that is rented by their occupiers has been collected in the June agricultural census since 1969. The following table shows the available information.

  Proportion of rented agricultural land in Wales1

  Year

  Percentage

  1970

  38.3

  1980

  29.8

  1990

  24.0

  1994

  22.9

  Source:

  June agricultural and horticultural census.

  Note:

  1 Estimates for minor holdings are included except for 1970.

  Common Land
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hectares of registered common land there are currently in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilyn Jones
  The latest information available is that published by the Countryside Commission in 1989 which was obtained from the registers of common land held by local authorities. The total for Wales was estimated to be 185,300 hectares.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the GDP in Wales expressed as a percentage of the United Kingdom average figure in each year from 1990 to 1993.

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

  GDP per head in Wales as a percentage of United Kingdom GDP per head—at factor cost, current prices

  Year

  Percentage

  1990

  84.6

  1991

  85.0

  1992

  83.4

  19931

  84.7

  Note:

  1 Provisional

  Source:

  CSO

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current GDP in Wales expressed as a percentage of the average United Kingdom figure.

  Mr. Redwood
  The latest available data are for 1993, when GDP per head in Wales, at factor cost, was estimated to be 84.7 per cent. of the United Kingdom figure.

  Wales Tourist Board
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times he or other Ministers met representatives of the Wales tourist board in 1994.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Twice.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met with the Council of Welsh Districts to discuss the progress of local government reorganisation in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I met a delegation from the Council of Welsh Districts on 7 June last year to discuss progress with reorganisation.

  Less Favoured Areas
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total acreage of land in Wales classed as less favoured areas.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The less favoured area classification of agricultural land applies to an estimated 1,365,900 hectares-81 per cent. of all agricultural land.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of the holdings in Wales in the less favoured areas as on 31 December 1994.
  816
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A farm holding is normally classed as being in the less favoured areas if more than half of its land is within the boundaries of the areas designed as being less favoured. At 31 December 1994 there were an estimated 23,400 such holdings in Wales. This total includes an estimate of 3,400 very small holdings derived from the 1989 census of minor holdings.

  Police Authorities
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State when a final announcement on the standard spending assessments for police authorities in Wales will be announced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I announced my decisions on police funding for 1995–96 on 30 January,Official Report,column 533.The House will have the opportunity shortly to debate my decisions.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current number of non-departmental public bodies operating in Wales; and what is their combined annual budget.

  Mr. Redwood
  Details of the Welsh Office's executive and advisory non-departmental public bodies will be included in "Public Bodies 1994", to be published in the next few days. Total expenditure in 1994–95 is expected to be £948.1 million.

  Smallholdings
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many council-owned rented smallholdings there are in each of the existing Welsh counties.

  Mr. Redwood
  At 31 March 1994, the numbers of county council smallholdings rented or available for rent in each of the existing Welsh counties were as follows:

  Number

  Clwyd

  154

  Dyfed

  163

  Gwent

  92

  Gwynedd

  178

  Mid Glamorgan

  4

  Powys

  219

  West Glamorgan

  2

  South Glamorgan

  35

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the principal elements of the debenture held against each of the training and enterprise councils at the beginning of each financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  The same debenture arrangements were agreed with all TECs when they were first set up. The debenture protects the Department against any debts it is owned by a TEC by providing a charge over all of the TEC's assets. A copy will be available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the procedure and criteria for his Department's approval of training and enterprise council projects for spending surpluses earned on training
  817
  contracts with his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Training and enterprise councils are required to give details of their proposals for the utilisation of surpluses in their business plans which are submitted to the Welsh office each year. TEC business plans are approved as part of the process by which annual contracts are agreed with TECs. Separate approval is required for spend of surplus on projects not identified in the business plan.

  TEC proposals for utilising surpluses are assessed against the following criteria as set out in the TEC operating agreement.

  The proposals must be:

  (i) within the terms of the TECs memorandum and articles of association;

  (ii) consistent with the terms of the operating agreement;

  (iii) not in conflict with current Government policy;

  (iv) financially prudent and take account of independent professional advice where appropriate;

  (v) practical and represent good value for money.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many expenditure projects have been submitted from each of the training and enterprise councils; if he will give details of the main projects awaiting his approval; and how long each project has been awaiting his approval.

  Mr. Redwood
  TEC proposals for expenditure across the whole range of training, education and enterprise activities are set out in the annual business plan which is integral to the contracting process with the Welsh Office. This contractual relationship is commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what league tables he has set up to evaluate the relative effectiveness of the training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  A table of inter-TEC performance comparisons covering all TECs in England and Wales was published on 25 August 1994. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the aggregate level of surpluses of the Welsh training and enterprise councils at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Redwood
  The latest information on the aggregate level of surpluses of training and enterprise councils in Wales is contained in the appropriation accounts for 1993–94, volume 11, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Schools
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the average school rolls in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each local education authority in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The average size of LEA and grant-maintained primary and secondary schools, in terms of number of pupils, in each local education area in Wales as at January 1994 is given in the following table.
  818

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Clwyd

  167

  836

  Dyfed

  103

  793

  Gwent

  214

  909

  Gwynedd

  105

  666

  Mid Glamorgan

  189

  919

  Powys

  99

  610

  South Glamorgan

  257

  1,052

  West Glamorgan

  231

  884

  Business Links
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of his proposed expenditure on(a) telecommunications and data links and (b) other items on the proposed new business links organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have approved expenditure of £1 million in 1994–95 and £0.5 million is potentially available in 1995–96 as start-up finance for the new arrangements. It supports the provision of information and new training and communications facilities.

  In addition, European regional development fund resources are available in 1995–96 to pump prime the business development consortia in both industrial south wales and rural Wales.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the business links organisations to provide a one-stop shop service for small and medium-sized enterprises that he proposes; and what consultations he has had with the chairmen of the training and enterprise councils concerning their participation.

  Mr. Redwood
  In June 1994, my "Prospectus for Improving Business and Enterprise Support Services in Wales" invited local authorities, training and enterprise councils and other local partners to put forward proposals for improving the co-ordination of business support services in Wales. The prospectus set out general guidelines. All seven training and enterprise councils were part of the eight successful consortia bids which I approved last month.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Training Courses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each training and tuition course with a total cost exceeding £5,000 paid for by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies during the last 12 months, showing the title and objectives of each course, the name of the organisations engaged, the total cost of each course, a summary of the responsibilities of staff members taking part and the process for course evaluation by his Department or agency.

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

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the headings under which
  819
  the Child Support Agency returns data each month to Ministers on the operations of the agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Frank Field, dated 2 February 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the headings under which the Child Support Agency returns data to Ministers.
  The six headings under which the Agency reports monthly performance to Ministers are as follows; Targets; Maintenance Assessment; Operational Accounting; Reviews and Appeals; Customer Service and Quality; Recovery Plan Implementation and Other Issues.
  I hope that this is of help.

  Income Support (Housing Costs)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 23 January,Official Report,columns 82–83,when he expects to be able to publish figures for 1994 on the assistance towards mortgage interest and rents to recipients of income support.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information on local authority tenants and private and housing association tenants for 1994 will be available when the housing management information statistics are published in late August or early September. Information on income support mortgage interest recipients is available from the February 1994 quarterly statistical inquiry and is set out in the table. We expect information for May 1994 to be available in March.

  February 1994

  Number of Income Support recipients with mortgage interest included in the assessment

  548,000

  Average weekly cost

  £37.98

  Implied annual cost

  £1,082 million

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand, average amount to the nearest penny and annual expenditure to the nearest million.

  2. The implied annual expenditure has been calculated from the average weekly amount at the time of the enquiry.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry February 1994.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of individuals who may not be able to obtain insurance to cover the payment of their mortgages in the event of becoming unemployed and income support no longer being available.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No such estimate has been made. We expect the proposals for income support mortgage interest will stimulate the insurance market and more comprehensive cover will develop. The Association of British Insurers has said that there is no reason why anyone meeting the criteria to obtain a mortgage should be refused insurance. We recognise that in some circumstances insurance may not be available. For this reason, pensioners will be protected under the new scheme. We shall be considering the position of other groups during the consultation period.

  Advertising
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on which occasions in the last five years his Department has placed newspaper advertisements arising from Government Bills from his Department(a)before proceedings in Standing Committee on the Bills have begun and (b)on the publication of a White Paper relating to the Bill.

  Mr. Hague
  In the past five years, this Department has placed press advertisements on three occasions on the publication of a White Paper relating to a Bill."Security, Equality and Choice: the future for pensions"—July 1994;
  "Ending Discrimination Against Disabled People"—January 1995;
  "Improving Child Support"—January 1995.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many occasions and in what circumstances in the last five years advertisements have been placed in newspapers or periodicals which have been described as being issued by or on behalf of Ministers in his Department rather than on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Hague
  The office of Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has a Government-wide remit and as such all advertisements relating to this area are described as issued on behalf of the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. These campaigns are:Everyone needs access for a better living environment (Enable) March 1994;
  Government measures aimed at tackling discrimination against disabled people, July 1994;
  You and Disability, December 1994; and
  Ending discrimination against disabled people, January 1995.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what factors were taken into account in deciding to place the advertisement, "Ending discrimination against disabled people", in The Guardian newspaper on 25 January, and that on child support in The Daily Telegraph on the same date.

  Mr. Hague
  As part of a series of insertions in a variety of publications between 18 and 26 January 1995,The Guardian was selected because of the society supplement on that day. Other insertions are as follows:

  The Guardian, 18 and 25 January 1995

  The Independent, 19 and 26 January 1995

  Community Care w/c 23 January 1995

  Care Weekly w/c 23 January 1995

  The child support advertisement appeared in The Daily Telegraph on that day as part of a series of inserts in a variety of national newspapers as follows:

  The Independent, 24 January 1995

  Daily Express

  Daily Star

  The Sun

  The Daily Telegraph, 25 January 1995

  Today, 26 January 1995

  Belfast Telegraph

  Daily Record, 27 January 1995

  The Independent, 28 January 1995

  The Sunday Telegraph, 29 January 1995

  The Observer

  The Independent on Sunday

  The Mail on Sunday

  News of the World

  Sunday Mirror

  The People

  821
  Advertisements are booked to achieve value for money and to reach appropriate audiences.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the cost of the advertising campaign entitled, "Ending discrimination against disabled people";

  (2) in which newspapers, journals or periodicals the advertisement headed "Ending Discrimination against Disabled People" has appeared; and what are the future plans for using the advertisement.

  Mr. Hague
  The advertisement, "Ending discrimination against disabled people", has appeared in the following publications:

  The Guardian 18 and 25 January 1995

  The Independent 19 and 26 January 1995

  Community Care w/c 23 January 1995

  Care Weekly w/c 23 January 1995.

  Number and percentage of claimants by benefit entitlement

  Thousands

  Year

  Total unemployment count(100 per cent.)

  Unemployment

  Benefit only

  Unemployment Benefit and Income Support

  Income Support only

  No Benefit

  (Percentages of total count are shown in parenthesis)

  1965

  319

  139

  (43.6)

  24

  (7.5)

  75

  (23.5)

  81

  (25.4)

  1966

  295

  128

  (43.4)

  25

  (8.5)

  65

  (22.0)

  78

  (26.4)

  1967

  543

  260

  (47.9)

  76

  (14.0)

  94

  (17.3)

  114

  (21.0)

  1968

  559

  236

  (42.2)

  70

  (12.5)

  135

  (24.2)

  119

  (21.3)

  1969

  532

  218

  (41.0)

  63

  (11.8)

  129

  (24.2)

  122

  (22.9)

  1970

  576

  237

  (41.1)

  65

  (11.3)

  140

  (24.3)

  134

  (23.3)

  1971

  736

  302

  (41.0)

  94

  (12.8)

  177

  (24.0)

  163

  (22.1)

  1972

  873

  343

  (39.3)

  114

  (13.1)

  255

  (29.2)

  161

  (18.4)

  1973

  621

  196

  (31.6)

  58

  (9.3)

  234

  (37.7)

  133

  (21.4)

  1974

  546

  176

  (32.2)

  59

  (10.8)

  190

  (24.8)

  121

  (22.2)

  1975

  808

  301

  (37.3)

  95

  (11.8)

  251

  (31.1)

  161

  (19.9)

  1976

  1,200

  446

  (37.2)

  141

  (11.8)

  413

  (34.4)

  200

  (16.7)

  1977

  1,229

  408

  (33.2)

  130

  (10.6)

  489

  (39.8)

  202

  (16.4)

  1978

  1,283

  413

  (32.2)

  113

  (8.8)

  511

  (39.8)

  246

  (19.2)

  1979

  1,106

  366

  (33.1)

  85

  (7.7)

  466

  (42.1)

  188

  (17.0)

  1980

  1,304

  489

  (37.5)

  105

  (8.1)

  486

  (37.3)

  225

  (17.3)

  19811

  2,195

  940

  (42.8)

  225

  (10.3)

  735

  (33.5)

  294

  (13.4)

  1982

  2,573

  731

  (28.4)

  251

  (9.8)

  1,202

  (46.7)

  390

  (15.2)

  1983

  2,864

  713

  (24.9)

  253

  (8.8)

  1,539

  (53.7)

  359

  (12.5)

  19841

  2,999

  750

  (25.0)

  223

  (7.4)

  1,661

  (55.4)

  364

  (12.1)

  19852

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  3,079

  732

  (23.8)

  194

  (6.3)

  1,684

  (54.7)

  469

  (15.2)

  1987

  2,752

  645

  (23.4)

  152

  (5.5)

  1,514

  (55.0)

  442

  (16.1)

  1988

  2,264

  504

  (22.3)

  132

  (5.8)

  1,254

  (55.4)

  374

  (16.5)

  1989

  1,649

  278

  (16.9)

  100

  (6.1)

  997

  (60.5)

  274

  (16.6)

  1990

  1,432

  251

  (17.5)

  48

  (3.4)

  914

  (63.8)

  220

  (15.4)

  1991

  2,048

  453

  (22.1)

  102

  (5.0)

  1,212

  (59.2)

  280

  (13.7)

  1992

  2,546

  545

  (21.4)

  124

  (4.9)

  1,564

  (61.4)

  313

  (12.3)

  1993

  2,759

  543

  (19.7)

  116

  (4.2)

  1,765

  (64.0)

  335

  (12.1)

  1994

  2,551

  428

  (16.8)

  113

  (4.4)

  1,729

  (67.8)

  281

  (11.0)

  Notes:

  1 February figures are given: figures for May are not available due to industrial action.

  2 Figures not available due to industrial action.

  1. Figures and percentages are as at second Thursday of May each year.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Percentages have been rounded to one decimal place.

  4. Figures are based on a 100 per cent. count.

  5. Component parts may not sum to totals due to rounding.

  6. Income support replaced supplementary benefit in 1988.

  7. Supplementary benefit replaced the national assistance scheme in 1966.

  Sources:

  Before November 1978: 100 per cent. count of the registered unemployed.

  From November 1978: 100 per cent. count of the registered unemployed claimants.

  From November 1992: 100 per cent. count of unemployed claimants.
  822
  The cost of the advertising campaign was £16,581. There are no future plans for using this advertisement.

  Benefits
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each of the past 30 years(a)the number and percentage of unemployed who draw national insurance benefit only, (b)the number and percentage claiming unemployment benefit and income support, (c) the number and percentage claiming income support only, (d)the number and percentage claiming housing benefit only and (e)the number claiming no benefit.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table. Information relating to unemployed claimants claiming housing benefit is not kept.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pension awards have been made by the War Pensions Agency to service personnel(a)who are claiming to suffer from gulf war syndrome and (b)who have claimed disablement as a result of being the subject of tests and studies at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No awards have been made in respect of alleged Gulf war, or Desert Storm, syndrome, which is not recognised as a discrete medical condition. Eleven awards have been made in respect of ex-service personnel making such claims, but in all cases the awards were for recognised medical conditions.

  The other information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of family credit claimants currently employed in schools, who have lost or will lose benefit as a result of the ruling by Social Security commissioners in October 1994; what plans he has to monitor the situation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Precise information is not available but we estimate that there may be about 7,500 people who work in schools, or similar establishments, who have been affected by the commissioner's decision. Although these people may have lost eligibility for family credit, many have been able to claim income support. We have been monitoring the situation closely and intend to amend the regulations, to reverse the effects of the commissioner's decision, at the earliest opportunity, following consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee and the local authorities associations.

  Mucous Membrane Disease
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details, including dates, duration and numbers attending, of all specialist training courses held since January 1994 on the industrial disease mucous membrane PD4 for experienced medical practitioners employed by the Benefits Agency Medical Services Section which has responsibility for Northumberland and Tyne and Wear.

  Mr. Hague
  All the doctors employed by the Benefits Agency medical services and the doctors who act as independent adjudicating medical practitioners assessing disablement benefit have had access to an up-to-date paper on prescribed disease D4—inflammation or ulceration of the mucous membrane of the upper respiratory passages or mouth produced by dust, liquid or vapour—prepared by a senior medical adviser of the Department of Social Security in January 1995.

  In addition, two full-time medical advisers from the Northumberland and Tyne and Wear areas attended a one day international symposium on PD D4 on 20 June 1994.

  Net Incomes
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much the real net incomes after housing costs of(a)the poorest 10 per cent. and (b)the richest 10
  824
  per cent. of householders with children have changed since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Reliable estimates of the changes in the real net incomes for the top 10 per cent. and bottom 10 per cent. of householders with children are not available. The following table gives the information for the top 20 per cent. and bottom 20 per cent. The latest period for which information is available is 1991–92, that is the two calendar years combined.

  Information is given both before and after housing costs.

  The fall in income for the bottom 20 per cent. was due mainly to the decline in employment among couples with children and the increased in lone parenthood.

  Percentage change in real incomes of top 20 per cent. and bottom 20 per cent. of families with children, 1979 to 1991–92

  percentage change

  Quintile 1 bottom 20 per cent.

  Quintile 5 top 20 per cent.

  Before housing costs

  (-2)

  51

  After housing costs

  (-12)

  49

  Notes:

  1. The figures relate to the top 20 per cent. and bottom 20 per cent. of individuals in families with children.

  2. Percentage growth estimates are calculated from the median income of each quintile.

  3. Estimates in brackets 0 are particularly uncertain; see Appendix.

  5 Of "Households Below Average Income 1979 to 1991–92"—a copy of which is in the Library—for details of the tests applied to estimates of changes in real incomes.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the increase in employees' national insurance contributions since 1979.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In 1979, not contracted-out employees paid national insurance contributions at a flat rate of 6.5 per cent. of earnings. Currently, all employees pay an initial contribution of 2 per cent. on earnings up to the lower earnings limit of £57 a week and then at 10 per cent. on the balance of earnings up to the upper earnings limit of £430 a week. As a result, the percentage of earnings paid in contributions rises progressively as earnings increase; from 2 per cent. for those earning at the lower earnings limit to just under 9 per cent. for those earning at the upper earnings. limit. The present structure benefits the lower paid more. Employees earning up to about £130 a week pay less contributions now than they would have done if the flat 6.5 per cent. contribution rate and structure in force in 1979 still applied.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the budgets for departmental running costs for each of the past five years for which figures are available for(a)his Department, (b) Historic

  825
  Scotland, (c) the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency, (d)the Scottish Fish Protection Agency, (e)the Scottish Office Pensions Agency, (f) the Student Awards Agency for Scotland, (g)Scottish Home and Health Department Prison Service, (h)the Scottish Courts Administration, (i) the General Register Office (Scotland), (j) Registers of Scotland and (k)the Scottish Records Office.

  £ million

  1989–90 Outturn

  1990–91 Outturn

  1991–92 Outturn

  1992–93 Outturn

  1993–94 Outturn

  (a) Scottish Office Administration

  114.7

  123.5

  142.9

  155.5

  152.0

  (b) Historic Scotland

  8.6

  9.8

  11.4

  12.7

  12.6

  (c) Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  3.8

  4.0

  4.0

  4.5

  4.7

  (d) Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  9.5

  10.0

  10.8

  11.2

  12.1

  (e) Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  3.8

  3.9

  4.0

  4.2

  4.5

  (f) Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  1.7

  1.9

  2.1

  2.3

  2.6

  (g) Scottish Prison Service

  97.9

  105.0

  119.4

  114.8

  135.3

  (h) Scottish Courts Administration

  26.0

  33.0

  36.8

  39.3

  40.0

  (i) General Register Office (Scotland)

  6.2

  8.5

  13.5

  8.3

  7.6

  (j) Registers of Scotland

  14.6

  20.8

  26.3

  28.6

  27.5

  (k) Scottish Record Office

  2.9

  3.3

  3.8

  4.1

  4.0

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the figures for total full-time equivalent staff for each of the past five years for which figures are available for(a) his Department, (b) Historic Scotland, (c) the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency, (d) the Scottish Fish Protection Agency, (e) the Scottish Office Pensions Agency, (f) the Student Awards Agency for Scotland, (g) the Scottish Home and Health

  Staff in post (full time equivalent) 1990 to 1994.

  Figures as at 1 April.

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  The Scottish Office Core

  6,275.0

  5,475.0

  5,247.5

  4,923.0

  4,835.0

  Scottish Office Agencies1

  Historic Scotland

  —

  610.5

  630.5

  642.0

  636.0

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  —

  196.5

  215.5

  226.5

  250.0

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  —

  —

  138.5

  142.0

  138.0

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  —

  —

  —

  164.5

  175.5

  Scottish Prison Service

  3,999.5

  4,004.0

  4,228.5

  4,625.0

  4,498.5

  Other:

  Scottish Courts Administration

  887.0

  928.0

  939.0

  952.0

  977.0

  General Register Office

  303.0

  332.5

  309.0

  271.5

  246.5

  Scottish Record Office

  113.5

  119.0

  117.0

  114.5

  115.5

  Registers of Scotland

  997.0

  1,204.5

  1,336.5

  1,257.5

  1,187.5

  1 On 5 April 1994 the Student Awards Agency for Scotland was established.

  Staff are counted in the Scottish Office core prior to that date.

  Egg Market
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what percentage of the Scottish egg market is supplied by egg producers in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) the Republic of Ireland;

  (2) what percentage of the Scottish egg market is supplied by Scottish egg producers;

  (3) from which countries eggs are imported into Scotland; and what percentage of the Scottish egg market each country has.

  Sir Hector Monro
  There is no reliable information on the size of the Scottish egg market or the share of its supplies from different sources.
  826
  Mr. Lang
  The information is set out in the table below.

  Agencies came into being on various dates during this period. To give a consistent time series a full five-year run of figures has been prepared irrespective of when the agencies were created. The table shows outturn expenditure since information is not readily available over the full five-year period on a budget basis.

  Department Prison Service, (h) the Scottish Courts Administration, (i) the General Register Office (Scotland), (j) Registers of Scotland and (k) Scottish Records Office.

  Mr. Lang
  The total full-time equivalent staff in post figures for the Scottish Office, its executive agencies, associated departments, Scottish courts administration and Registers of Scotland for the years from 1990 to 1994 are shown in the table.

  Training Courses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each training and tuition course with a total cost exceeding £5,000 paid for by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies during the last 12 months, showing the title and objectives of each course, the name of the organisation engaged, the total cost of each course, a summary of the responsibilities of staff members taking part and the process for course evaluation by his Department or agency.

  Mr. Lang
  The list of courses paid for from the Department's central budget for developmental training is set out below. Information about agencies is not held centrally. Staff members taking part in the courses listed
  827
  undertake a wide range of administrative and professional duties within the Department. The Department operates a system of evaluation which involves participants, line

  Courses costing more than £5,000

  Course

  Cost

  Aim

  Effective Manager I

  £17,273

  To help course members to operate effectively as managers by making the test use of their staff resources. The course provides a comprehensive introduction to the manager's task and develops relevant awareness and skills.

  Effective Manager II

  £16,852

  To improve course members' effectiveness as managers by helping them to meet new demands facing them by extending and enhancing their capabilities in areas selected according to individual needs.

  Policy Programme II

  £15,214

  To enhance and develop policy-related skills building on a foundation of knowledge. By the end of the module students should be able to demonstrate written and oral policy skills in drafting, briefing and presenting. This is the second stage of the central Policy Programme and provides a body of skills essential to its completion.

  Leadership Development for Managers

  £17,719

  To increase middle managers' understanding of their role as active leaders by expanding their knowledge of current thinking about leadership and practising the appropriate skills that will enable them to be more effective leaders.

  EC Personal Development

  £16,094

  To enable participants to identify their strengths and preferences at work and to give an indication of competences and skills that need further development for their future career.

  Introduction to Management for Senior Staff: Resource Management

  £9,835

  To develop a practical understanding and awareness of the essentials of resource management.

  Policy Programme I (2 courses)

  £29,563

  To train managers for active involvement in policy work by examining the outline structure of central Government and the pressures and constraints on civil servants working within it. By the end of the module students should be able to describe the key elements of the government framework.

  Note:

  All these courses were provided by the Civil Service College.

  Beaches
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) beach rangers are working in Scotland and (b) beaches are patrolled by beach rangers; and what is the estimated size of coastline of the beaches patrolled.

  Sir Hector Monro
  District and islands councils are responsible for management of beaches in their control. Information on beach rangers is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what community initiatives he has proposed to clean up Scotland's beaches.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Beach clean-ups are organised by district and islands councils, "Keep Scotland Beautiful" and other voluntary organisations. Local community groups are often involved in these projects.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many GP fundholding practices there are in(a) Fife and (b) North East Fife.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are currently four GP fundholding practices in Fife. In addition, one practice is preparing to commence operational fundholding from 1 April 1995. None of these practices is in North East Fife district.
  828
  managers and training professionals and ranges from validation of the event itself to the effect of the training on the work of the Department.

  Information Technology
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been allocated to the development of information technology in(a) criminal and (b) civil courts in Scotland; and what arrangements have been made for (i) judges, (ii) sheriffs and (iii) clerks of court who participate in information technology training courses.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since 1989, an investment programme at a level of approximately £1.1 million annually has been allocated to information technology provision in the supreme and sheriff courts. Initially, the investment was used primarily to produce a criminal operations system for the sheriff courts and is now being utilised mainly to develop a system to support the handling of civil business in the court of session and the sheriff courts, and to provide personal computers to members of the judiciary. Training is provided either by commercial organisations, under contract, or by the court service training centre, as appropriate.

  Courtroom Assaults
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of assault by an accused have taken place in courtrooms in Scotland in the last 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Housing, Irvine
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provisions there were in the agreement reached between Irvine development corporation and Irvine housing association for the lease of development corporation properties for the eventual purchase of these properties by Irvine housing association; and how much money has been received by Irvine development corporation from Irvine housing association under this agreement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The leases between Irvine development corporation and Irvine housing association contain an option to purchase. No sales have been finalised to date.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the agreement was reached between Irvine development corporation and Irvine housing association for the lease by the association of the corporation's properties; and whether Scottish Office approval was sought and given for this agreement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The agreement was reached in July 1994. There was no requirement to seek approval from the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of how the rent levels for tenants of Irvine development corporation compare with the rent levels of tenants of Irvine housing association living in Irvine development corporation tenancies.

  Mr. Stewart
  None. This is not a matter for my right hon. Friend.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 468, if he will make a statement giving further information about how the money spent by Irvine development corporation on the Irvine housing association has been spent.

  Mr. Stewart
  The expenditure by Irvine development corporation has met start-up costs of Irvine housing association. These have comprised consultancy fees, staffing and the fitting out of the association's offices.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 468, how much rental income Irvine housing association has collected on behalf of Irvine development corporation; and how much the Irvine housing association has recovered from Irvine development corporation to offset its management and maintenance costs.

  Mr. Stewart
  The total rents remitted by Irvine housing association were £94,300 as at 31 December 1994. The association has not yet incurred costs on management and maintenance expenditure.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the right to buy of the tenants occupying the Irvine development corporation properties leased to Irvine housing association has been altered by their current tenancy status.

  Mr. Stewart
  No tenanted stock has been leased by Irvine development corporation to Irvine housing association. There were therefore no tenancy agreements to be altered. The tenancy agreements offered by Irvine housing association are a matter for the association.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many vacant properties Irvine development 830
  corporation has let during each of the last five financial years.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is shown in the table:

  Number

  1989–90

  418

  1990–91

  378

  1991–92

  404

  1992–93

  372

  1993–94

  311

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many residential properties Irvine development corporation expects to lease to Irvine housing association prior to the start of the process of balloting its tenants on the disposal of the housing stock.

  Mr. Stewart
  Approximately 300 houses.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which housing associations other than Irvine housing association have indicated an interest to Irvine development corporation in bidding for its properties prior to the corporation's wind-up.

  Mr. Stewart
  Irvine development corporation will shortly be seeking expressions of interest.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what involvement he will have in making the decision on the possible purchase of the properties currently leased by Irvine housing association from Irvine development corporation.

  Mr. Stewart
  In terms of the guidance issued by the Scottish Office to the development corporations for the disposal of housing, my right hon. Friend will be asked to approve the sale only if the corporation proposes to accept a price below the valuation of the district valuer.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Irvine housing association offered to purchase housing stock from Irvine development corporation; and when he expects Irvine development corporation to make a decision on this offer.

  Mr. Stewart
  The offer to purchase was received by Irvine development corporation on 12 January 1995. The timing of the corporation's decision on it is a matter for the corporation.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 468, which of the 183 Irvine development corporation properties leased by Irvine housing association are not the subject of a purchase offer by Irvine housing association to Irvine development corporation.

  Mr. Stewart
  The 23 houses leased to Irvine housing association after the date on which the district valuer was instructed to value the 160 houses currently under offer are not currently the subject of a purchase offer. Irvine housing association is expected to include the 23 houses in a future bid for Irvine development corporation stock.

  Head Lice
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the incidence of the problem of head lice in Scottish schools; and if he will make a statement.
  831
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many residential properties belonging to each of Scotland's development corporations have been transferred to housing associations; if he will name the bodies to which these properties have been transferred; what was the number of properties involved in each case; and if he will make a statement on the nature of the agreement which exists in each case.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information as at 31 January is set out in the table:

  Development corporation

  Housing association

  Number of properties transferred

  Glenrothes

  Kingdom

  234

  Link

  30

  Collydean

  190

  East Kilbride

  Loretto

  20

  Link

  60

  East Kilbride and District

  130

  Cumbernauld

  Bield

  64

  Link

  163

  West of Scotland

  136

  Gap

  57

  YWCA

  23

  Livingston

  Almond

  71

  Castle Rock (Livingston)

  29

  Edinvar in Livingston

  23

  Canmore

  92

  Information on the terms of the transfer agreements between the Corporations and the housing associations are not held centrally.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the housing associations on which Scottish Homes has spent money establishing or administering up until 31 December 1994; and how much each housing association received in payments.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is a matter for Scottish Homes. I have asked the chairman of Scottish Homes, Sir James Mellon, to write to the hon. Member with the relevant information.

  Agricultural Land
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has showing the proportion of agricultural land which was tenanted in Scotland for(a) 1965, (b) 1970, (c) 1980, (d) 1990 and (e) the latest available date.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The answer is as set out in the table:

  Percentage

  1965

  1970

  1980

  1990

  1994

  41

  43

  42

  39

  38

  1 Includes minor holdings.

  Departmental Funding
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he intends to make to the cash limits and running costs provision for 1994–95 within his responsibility.

  Mr. Lang
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, I intend to make changes to seven voted cash limits, one non-voted cash block, one non-voted cash limit and four running costs limits:

  a. The cash limit for class XIV, vote 3, training programmes, roads and transport services and industrial support, Scotland, will be increased by £25,487,000 from £876,652,000 to £902,139,000. The increase includes a transfer of £400,000 from the Department of Trade and Industry to provide innovation and technology support to small and medium sized businesses: a transfer of £16,000 to class XIV, vote 9 in respect of additional revenue support grant for air passenger duty inter-island services: increased provision of £15,984,000 for roads and transport to meet revised expenditure plans; and increased provision of £9,103,000 transferred from Department of Transport for grants to Strathclyde passenger transport authority to meet the revised costs of supporting rail services resulting from the restructuring of the railways.

  b. The cash limit for class XIV, vote 7, housing and environmental services, Scotland will be decreased by £1,018,000 from £433,798,000 to £432,780,000. The reduced cash limit takes account of a reduced requirement of £1,267,000 for housing support grant; and a decrease in provision of £2,000 in appropriations in aid. There is a £250,000 increase in Scottish Homes's grant in aid to assist housing associations in the acquisition of local authority and new town development corporation housing stock. This increase will be fully offset by a reduction in the SO/LA2 non-voted cash limit. Gross running cost provision for Historic Scotland will be increased by £396,000 from £14,704,000 to £15,100,000, which will be offset fully by a matching increase in appropriations in aid for the agency.

  c. The cash limit for class XIV, vote 9, revenue support grants, etc, Scotland, will be decreased by £14,000 from £4,882,291,000 to £4,882,277,000. The decrease takes account of a reduced requirement of £100,000 for council tax valuation grant offset by a transfer of £70,000 from Department of Social Security for additional revenue support grant arising from the transfer of Scottish Homes property to the WESLO housing association: and a transfer of £16,000 from class XIV, vote 3 in respect of additional revenue support grant for air passenger duty inter-island services.

  d. The cash limit for class XIV, vote 14, hospital, community health, family health (part) and other health services, Scotland will be decreased by £1,712,000 from £3,012,073,000 to £3,010,361,000. The decrease takes account of a transfer of £1,500,000 to class XIV, vote 13, for changes in the requirements for GP practice fundholders: and a decrease of £212,000 as a result of an increase in the non-voted element of the NHS trusts' external financial limit. Overall, the NHS trusts' external financing limit has been increased by £6,714,000.

  e. The cash limit for clause XIV, vote 21, Scottish Office administration, will be decreased by £75,000 from £168,734,000 to £168,659,000 with the provision being transferred to class XIV, vote 22.

  f. The cash limit for class XIV, vote 22, Scottish Record Office, will be increased by £75,000 from £9,027,000 to £9,102,000. Within this total, the SRO running cost limit increases by £30,000 from £5,203,000 to £5,233,000 in order to give archive advice to local governments as a result of local government reorganisation. This increase will be offset fully by a matching increase in appropriations in aid. The additional capital provision is needed for the early installation of mobile shelving for the new purpose built repository.

  g. The cash limit for class XIV, vote 23, General Register Office (Scotland), will be increased by £1,000 from £5,994,000

  833
  to £5,995,000. Within this total, the running cost limit for GRO(S) increases by £95,000 from £7,380,000 to £7,475,000 to offset unforseen delays attributed to the Census output programme. This increase will be mostly offset by excess income related to the census programme and as a result the appropriations in aid increase by £94,000.

  h. The cash limit for class XIV, vote 24, the registers of Scotland, will be increased by £1,000 from £1,000 to £2,000. Within this total, running cost provision increases by £611,000 to allow for the compensation payments for the increased number of staff taking voluntary early retirement and also the costs associated with the advancement of the agency's information technology strategy. The increase will be met from additional fee income of £610,000.

  i. The non-voted cash limit SO/LA2, which covers housing capital expenditure by local authorities and capital expenditure by new towns, will be reduced by £250,000 from £276,207,000 to £275,957,000. This will fully offset the increase in Scottish Homes's grant in aid in class XIV, vote 7.

  j. The overall running cost limit for the Scottish Office together with its agencies, including the new student awards agency for Scotland, will be increased by £396,000 from £338,589,000 to £338,985,000.

  k. The non-voted cash limit SO/ERDF which covers European regional development fund payments in Scotland will be decreased by £24,000,000 from £124,000,000 to £100,000,000. This reflects slower than expected claims for payment and delays in new programmes coming on stream. (The cash limit of £124,000,000 was incorrectly shown as £122,977,000 in "Supply Estimates 1994–95: Summary and Guide", printed in March 1994 by HM Treasury, although the figure was correct in the estimate itself).

  The net increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many parliamentary answers on health issues have been refused on the grounds of disproportionate cost or information not being held centrally(a) as a total and (b) as a percentage of all health answers in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 February 1995]: The number of parliamentary questions on readily identifiable health issues in each of the last five years for which it was not possible to provide an answer because of disproportionate cost is as follows:

  Session

  Number

  Percentage

  1989–90

  2

  0.6

  1990–91

  4

  1.1

  1991–92

  0

  0

  1992–93

  2

  0.6

  1993–94

  5

  1.1

  In addition, the following parliamentary questions were not given a full answer because the information requested was not held centrally:

  Session

  Number

  Percentage

  1989–90

  12

  3.6

  1990–91

  13

  3.7

  1991–92

  5

  4.3

  1992–93

  15

  4.3

  1993–94

  35

  7.6

  Electric Shock Equipment
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment he has made that guidelines relating to the manufacture, marketing and supply of(a) electro-shock weapons and (b) instruments of torture are being fully complied with; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what further steps he is taking to review the operation of guidelines relating to the manufacture, marketing and supply of (a) electro-shock weapons and (b) weapons of torture; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]: Electric shock weapons are prohibited by section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968, and cannot be possessed, manufactured or sold without the authority of the Secretary of State. The procedures for granting or refusing authority to possess prohibited weapons are kept under regular review.

  It is not practicable to control trade in the wide range of goods which could be misused for the purposes of torture. The Government are willing to look at any tangible evidence of British companies knowingly involved in supplying materials and expertise for the purposes of repression.

  British Rail
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in respect of his meeting with the chairman of British Rail on 24 January(a) the specific issues which were discussed, (b) the conclusions arrived at over each and (c) when he next plans to discuss these and other related matters with the chairman.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]: My right hon. Friend and I discussed with the chairman of British Rail a wide range of topics relating to railway matters affecting Scotland. The meeting was private. Further contacts will be arranged as necessary.

  Commercial Lobbying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions in the last four months he or any of his Ministers have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 January 1995]: Ministers receive numerous representations about a wide variety of matters at informal or unofficial engagements but the information requested is not collected.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions in the last four months of which he has knowledge any civil servants in his Department have been approached by commercial lobbying organisations on behalf of their clients at informal or unofficial engagements.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 January 1995]: Officials may receive representations about a variety of matters at informal or unofficial engagements, but the information requested is not collected.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to meet Monklands district
  835
  council to discuss matters of environmental concern including (a) the Dalmacoulter landfill project and (b) the dumping at Kilgarth tip; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 January 1995]: I have no plans to meet Monklands district council to discuss these matters.

  The Dalmacoulter landfill gas project was one of eight such projects bidding for support under the Scottish renewables obligation. I understand that the Dalmacoulter bid was the most expensive of all the bids from landfill gas projects and was above the price ceiling recommended by the Director General of Electricity Supply for waste-to-energy projects.

  I understand that the City of Glasgow district council is continuing to deposit waste at Kilgarth coup. Any environmental concerns at the site are for the two district councils to resolve.

HEALTH

  Nurses
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses were employed by the NHS(a) in 1989 and (b) at present.

  Mr. Sackville
  Qualified and unqualified nursing and midwifery staff employed in the NHS, excluding agency staff, in England as at 30 September each year, whole-time equivalents1.

  Number

  1989

  Total

  3340,590

  Student population

  262,100

  1993

  Total

  3350,020

  Student population

  249,040

  Source:

  Non-medical work force census.

  Notes:

  1 All figures are whole-time equivalents, rounded to the nearest 10, as at 30 September of each year.

  2 The student population figure for 1993 includes approximately 28,000 Project 2000 students. Traditional salaried training of nurses is being replaced by non-salaried Project 2000 training which was implemented in 1989, although the student population for 1989 does not contain any project 2000 students. Project 2000 students are supernumerary and not included in workforce numbers.

  3 Figures include practice nurses who are employed and paid by general practitioners.

  Source:

  PD (scats) B non-medical work force census.

  Project 2000 figures obtained from English National Board annual report.

  Consultants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what average hours consultants on maximum part-time contracts work for the NHS and how many in the private sector;

  (2) what is the definition of reasonable used in deciding how many half-days a consultant may take off for private practice if he or she is full-time or maximum part-time in the NHS.
  836
  Mr. Malone
  National health service consultants are able to undertake private work as well as NHS work provided that it is not to the disadvantage of the NHS or NHS patients. Consultants employed on a whole-time basis may not earn more than 10 per cent. of their gross NHS earnings from private work. The provisions of the maximum part-time contract allow practitioners to carry out private practice without a specific limit and it is for the employer and the employee to agree the balance between NHS and private work. The actual number of hours spent on NHS work is for local agreement. Consultants on both forms of contract under national terms of service are expected to devote substantially the whole of their professional time to their NHS duties. Information is not available on the average number of hours such consultants work in the private sector.

  Mental Illness
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many young people under the age of 14 years have been admitted to psychiatric hospitals with severe emotional problems in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Bowis
  "Severe emotional problems" is not a term used in the collection of information.

  Senior Citizens
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to implement the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1993 in full, with particular reference to senior citizens.

  Mr. Bowis
  The implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 was phased in between 1991 and 1993. The core provisions, including those for older people, have all been in force since 1 April 1993.

  Childline
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proposals she has for increasing the amount of grant paid to the charity, Childline;

  (2) what discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding value added tax paid by Childline.

  Mr. Bowis
  The overall level of tax reliefs for charities is worth over £1.4 billion a year. The full range of reliefs means that charities are relieved of about one third of their potential VAT bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had not discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about value added tax. Amounts of funding under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act (1968) for 1995–96 will be made in due course.

  In the past eight years, Childline has received start-up, core and project funding from this and other Government Departments and I am pleased to note that this has enabled it to attract other funding such that its total income last year was £3.9 million and that it has been able to build up assets of some £1.4 million.

  Information
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she intends to publish a code on practice on access to health service information.
  837
  Mr. Malone
  Yes. The code of practice of openness in the national health service will be published during 1995.

  Training Courses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list each training and tuition course with a total cost exceeding £5,000 paid for by(a) her Department and (b) her agencies during the last 12 months, showing the title and objectives of each course, the name of the organisations engaged, the total cost of each course, a summary of the responsibilities of staff members taking part and the process for course evaluation by the Department or agency.

  Mr. Sackville
  Decisions on training have been largely devolved to line management. The information the hon. member seeks is therefore not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I understand, however, that courses with per capita costs exceeding £5,000 would be very rare.

  One agency sponsored a member of staff for a course where fees exceeded £5,000. The details requested are:
  Title: Master of Business Administration
  Cost: £6,000
  Organisations: Henley Management College
  Summary of responsibilities of staff member taking part: Project manager for health facilities engineering team, including strategic management and provision of professional advice. Objectives: To enhance business management skills to enable the officer to take a more proactive and growing role in the success of the agency. To develop consultancy skills to work effectively in support of health service clients. To develop own major projects.
  Course evaluation: An evaluation form is completed by the individual. This is used in a formal evaluation process to access the contribution of the course to overall business objectives and individual development needs. A subsequent review assesses long-term impact on individual and business performance.

  Residential and Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the latest statistics available showing the proportion of(a) residential accommodation and (b) domiciliary services which are provided by the independent sector in each local authority area.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested on residential accommodation (excluding nursing homes) is published in table Al of "Key indicators of local authority social services 1994", copies of which are available in the Library. Information on domiciliary services purchased by local authorities is included in table A3 of the same publication. More recent statistics on the number of residential accommodation places, excluding nursing homes at 31 March 1994 were published in table 1 of "Residential Accommodation in England 1994", Statistical Bulletin 1994/13, copies of which will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authority residential care home beds were provided under part III of the National Assistance Act 1948 by local authority in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested for England for the period 1988 to 1994 and by local authority for 1994 was published in "Personal Social Services: Residential Accommodation in England 1994", Statistical Bulletin 1994/13. The readily available information by local authority for earlier years was published in "Residential 838
  Accommodation for Elderly and for Younger Physically Disabled People: All Residents in Local Authority, Voluntary and Private Homes Year Ending 31 March 1988 to Year Ending 31 March 1993 England", RA/88–93/2(H). Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  Royal Infirmary, Leicester
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement on the length of time the royal infirmary, Leicester takes to perform operations on women;

  (2) if she will make a statement on the case of Yvonne Smith and others whose operations at the royal infirmary, Leicester were delayed;

  (3) if she will issue guidelines to ensure that there are no delays in the performing of operations on women whose pregnancies have come to an end.

  Mr. Sackville
  Any delays experienced in these cases are regrettable.

  Hospitals take such decisions on the basis of clinical need and these are matters for Leicester royal infirmary national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Philip Hammersley, chairman of the trust, for details.

  NHS Trusts (Termination Payments)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answers of 9 December 1994,Official Report, column 395, and 16 December, Official Report, columns 831–32, what were the reasons why severance payments did not conform to the guidance set out in TEL(94)3.

  Mr. Malone
  The national health service executive has requested additional information about certain payments to establish whether they conformed to guidelines in TEL(94)3. Until this additional information is received and analysed, the NHS executive cannot say whether the level of payment was or was not consistent with the recommended method of calculation.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 19 December,Official Report, columns 985–86, if she will update the table on termination payments made to chief executives and general and senior managers of trusts.

  Mr. Malone
  The table sets out the latest information about termination payments made since April 1994 which national health service trusts have notified to the NHS Executive, under the arrangements in TEL(94)3.

  NHS Trust

  Number of payments

  Amount £

  Broadgreen Hospital NHS trust

  3

  4,487

  7,323

  31,078

  Bromley Hospitals NHS trust

  25,400

  Burnley Health Care

  245,000

  Burton Hospitals NHS trust

  7,053

  Cheviot and Wansbeck NHS trust

  2

  10,086

  6,329

  839

  NHS Trust

  Number of payments

  Amount £

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS trust

  28,749

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Learning Disabilities NHS trust

  11,000

  Dudley Priority Health NHS trust

  3

  37,222

  7,481

  9,639

  East Surrey Learning Disability and Mental Health Services NHS trust

  36,677

  Enfield Community Care NHS trust

  35,522

  Epsom Healthcare NHS trust

  15,000

  Fosse Health NHS trust

  19,500

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS trust

  2

  47,616

  75,073

  Herefordshire Community Health NHS trust

  28,416

  Heathlands Mental Health NHS trust

  25,008

  Hertfordshire Health agency

  3

  3,000

  3,000

  3,000

  Kings Healthcare NHS trust

  3

  55,573

  1,005

  23,627

  The Medway NHS trust

  3

  12,991

  12,803

  13,501

  Mid Anglia Community Health

  5,449

  Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS trust

  31,549

  North East Essex mental health services

  26,188

  North Hampshire Hospitals NHS trust

  30,000

  North Mersey Community NHS trust

  11,300

  North Tees Health NHS trust

  27,764

  Northern Devon Healthcare NHS trust

  25,000

  Northampton Community Healthcare NHS trust

  2

  20,259

  19,540

  Pilgrim Health NHS trust

  7,864

  Plymouth Hospitals NHS trust

  7,865

  Queens Medical Centre Nottingham University NHS trust

  77,715

  Royal Free Hampstead NHS trust

  35,295

  Royal Liverpool University hospital

  2

  47,355

  7,242

  Royal Liverpool Children's NHS trust

  18,466

  Royal United Hospital Bath NHS trust

  19,343

  Salford Mental Health Services NHS trust

  15,847

  South Bedfordshire Community Healthcare trust

  17,771

  South Kent Community Healthcare trust

  30,636

  South Kent Hospitals NHS trust

  8,626

  South Warwickshire General Hospitals NHS trust

  34,829

  Southend Healthcare NHS trust

  3

  43,908

  29,901

  7,031

  Stockport Healthcare NHS trust

  21,940

  Teddington Memorial Hospital NHS trust

  18,750

  United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS trust

  30,000

  Walsall Community NHS trust

  35,000

  Walsall Hospital NHS trust

  6,926

  West Herts Community Health NHS Trust

  4

  2,633

  2,276

  29,505

  40,000

  Wiltshire Ambulance Service NHS trust

  27,314

  Worcester Royal Infirmary NHS trust

  22,167

  Worthing and Southlands hospitals NHS trust

  2

  34,547

  18,200

  840
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 19 December 1994,Official Report, columns 985–86, how many of those receiving termination payments are still working in the NHS in any capacity.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Private Psychiatrists
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by district health authorities on private psychiatric services over the last five years by authority.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) on 1 July 1993,Official Report, column 616.

  NHS Contracts
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a copy of the agreement made with the chief executive of the NHS executive between 1986 and 1989 regarding his non-involvement in NHS contracts with IBM.

  Mr. Sackville
  The agreement between IBM and the Department of Health and Social Security dated 10 February 1986 formed the contractual basis of the secondment of Sir Leonard Peach as director of personnel, national health service management board. It sets out the detailed terms and conditions of his appointment. It would not be appropriate to place a copy in the Library.

  The relevant extract from the agreement covering Sir Leonard Peach's non-involvement in NHS contracts with IBM reads:
  "The secondee will not undertake work in any way connected with procurement of products or selection of suppliers in any of IBM's spheres of operation. His work should not in any way relate to IBM or any of its competitors and he will be asked to sign a conflict of interest statement, a copy of which is attached to this contract.
  In addition he will absent himself from any discussions on the NHS Management Board or elsewhere, which might lead to DHSS letting a contract or commission to IBM. Also he is required to make a declaration to the Chairman of the NI-IS Board whenever IBM submits a tender to the DHSS or a Health Authority in England or obtains a contract PROVIDED that such declaration shall only be required in respect of major bilis. These are defined as IBM System 370 architectured systems or volume purchase agreements for small systems. In particular, this definition excludes typewriters, personal computers, supplies, single small-system bids and all bids or sales by Agents or third parties."
  I regret that it has not been possible in the time available to find a copy of the conflict of interest statement referred to in the first paragraph of this extract.

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many operations have been cancelled at St. Bartholomew's hospital, London, because of bed shortages in the past two years;

  (2) how many people were admitted to St. Bartholomew's hospital, London, in 1990–91, 1991–2, 1992–93 and 1993–94;

  (3) how many patients were admitted to St. Bartholomew's hospital, London, and through what routes

  841
  other than accident and emergency, in 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally. Detailed information may be obtained by contacting Sir Derek Boorman, chairman of the Royal Hospitals NHS trust.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many nursing posts will be lost as a result of the closure of St. Bartholomew's hospital, London;

  (2) what will happen to the specialist services currently provided on the St. Bartholomew's hospital site after its closure; and what will happen to existing nursing terms working on specialist wards at St. Bartholomew's hospital;

  (3) how many extra beds will be added to (a) St. Thomas's hospital, London, (b) King's College hospital, London, (c) Royal London hospital, (d) Homerton hospital, London, (e) University College hospital, London and (f) Whittington hospital, London to accommodate the extra demand as a result of St. Bartholomew's hospital, London, closure;

  (4) to which hospital patients will be referred once St. Bartholomew's hospital, London, has closed.

  Mr. Malone
  Detailed changes in the deployment of resources at the Royal Hospitals national health service trust and neighbouring hospitals are a matter for local providers and commissioning authorities, taking account of the outcome of the public consultation exercise currently being undertaken by East London and the City health authority.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much extra money is being invested in primary health care and community care to offset the effects of the closure of St. Bartholomew's hospital, London.

  Mr. Malone
  For 1993–94 and 1994–95, an extra £15 million is being invested in developing primary health care in the East London and the City health district.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people attended the accident and emergency department at St. Bartholomew's hospital, London, in 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Malone
  Figures are shown in the table.

  A and E attendances at St. Bartholomew's Hospital by financial year

  Year (April/March)

  First attendances

  Follow-up attendances

  Total attendances

  1990–91

  37,139

  5,185

  42,324

  1991–92

  35,184

  4,529

  39,713

  1992–93

  31,187

  2,740

  33,927

  1993–94

  29,801

  2,559

  32,360

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to respond to the open letter sent to her on 26 January by the Islington Gazette about the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital and of health services generally for the people of Islington.

  Mr. Malone
  We have no record of receiving any such letter.

  Hospitals, London
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average and mean rate of bed occupancy 842
  for (a) St. Thomas's hospital, London, (b) King's College hospital, London, (c) Royal London hospital, (d) Homerton hospital, London, (e) University College hospital, London and (f) Whittington hospital, London, in 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94; and what is the estimated increase in journey times for patients in the areas immediately surrounding St. Bartholomew's hospital, London, to travel to these hospitals.

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the average and mean rates of bed occupancy is not available centrally. Detailed information about individual trusts may be obtained by writing to the appropriate trust chairmen.

  Studies have shown that St. Thomas hospital, King's College hospital, the Royal London hospital, Homerton hospital and University College hospital are all within 15 minutes driving time1 of St. Bartholomew's hospital. The journey time to the Whittington is only slightly longer.

  1 Based on average traffic speed, Monday to Friday off-peak.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current bed capacity of(a) St. Thomas's hospital, London, (b) Kings College hospital, London, (c) Royal London hospital, (d) Homerton hospital, London, (e) University College hospital, London and (f) Whittington hospital, London.

  Mr. Malone
  The bed capacity of individual hospital sites within hospital trusts is not available centrally. Available information for hospital trusts is shown in the table:

  Acute bed numbers in inner London trusts—average available beds 1993–94

  Trust

  Acute

  Guys and St. Thomas's Hospital Trust1

  1,054

  King's Healthcare2

  634

  Royal Hospitals NHS Trust3

  610

  Homerton Hospital4

  321

  University College London Hospitals5

  562

  Whittington Hospital NHS Trust

  420

  1 Includes Guy's hospital and St. Thomas's hospital.

  2 Includes King's College hospital and Dulwich hospital.

  3 Includes the Royal London hospital, St. Bartholomew's hospital and the London Chest hospital.

  4 Shadow Trust.

  5 Includes University College hospitals and the Central Middlesex hospital.

  Acute beds includes:
  General patients excluding elderly, younger physically disabled, neonatal cots not in maternity wards, terminally ill/palliative care. Mental illness and maternity beds are not included.

  Fertility Treatment
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the policy of each health authority with regard to fertility treatment in general and in vitro fertility treatment in particular, including details of restrictions placed by age and the existence of children by the present or previous relationship.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. It is the responsibility of each individual health authority to determine the local availability of infertility services.

  Waiting Times
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the average current waiting times in the accident and emergency departments in(a) St. Thomas's hospital, London, (b) King's College hospital, London, (c) Royal London hospital, (d) Homerton hospital, London, (e) University College hospital, London and (f) Whittington hospital, London.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Hugh Fraser
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will direct the chief executive of the Lewisham hospital trust to reply to the inquiries of 29 November 1994, 20 December 1994 and 18 January from the hon. Member for Lewisham, West relating to the case of Mr. Hugh Fraser.

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand Lewisham Hospital national health service trust has now sent a full reply.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whom she has appointed as the new chairman of the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have recently appointed, in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for National Heritage, for Scotland and Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Clive Whitmore GCB CVO to be the new chairman of the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes she plans to make to the cash limits of her Department in 1994–95.

  Mrs. Virginnia Bottomley
  The cash limit for class XII, vote 1—hospital, community health, family health services, part, and related services, England—will be increased by £9,076,000—from £21,734,116,000 to £21,743,792,000. This allows for an increase of £11,287,000 to the external financing limits of national health service trusts—£25,887,000 in respect of 1993–94 external financing limit end-year flexibility carryforward less £14,600,000 financed from trusts own cash balances—partially offset by transfers of £1,457,000 to class XII, vote 3—Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England—for the work of the Health Education Authority; for part-time training posts for career registrars in the public health laboratory service and a grant towards the renovation of Tadworth Court hospital; £116,000 to class XIV, vote 18—Student awards, Scotland—for orthoptic clinical placements of Glasgow Caledonian university students; £11,000 to—Department of Health and Social Services, Northern Ireland—and £27,000 to class XV, vote 8—hospital, community health, family health services, part, and related services, Wales—for the national poisons information service.

  The cash limit for class XII, vote 3—Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and
  844
  personal social services, England—will be reduced by £1,369,000—from £1,591,256,000 to £1,589,887,000. This reduction allows for a transfer of £2,946,000 to class X, vote 2—higher and further education—for the conversion of social work training courses. The overall decrease is partially offset by a transfer of £1,457,000 from class XII, vote 1 as mentioned above and £120,000 from class XIV, vote 14—hospital, community health, part, and other health services, Scotland—for the work of the clinical standards advisory group.

  The Department's gross running cost limit will be reduced by £5,655,000 from £257,853,000 to £252,198,000. This reflects a reallocation of £4,800,000 for capital works, £625,000 for the work of the Mental Health Act Commission and £230,000 for the national aids helpline.

  All increases will either be offset by savings, increased receipts or transfers to or from other votes and will not therefore add to the planned total of pubic expenditure.

  Overall the external financing limit for NHS trusts is increased by £42,190,000 from £588,264,000 to £630,454,000.

  Intensive Care Units
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) intensive care units in London and (b) intensive care beds in total there were in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 30 January 1995J: Information on the number of intensive care units is not available centrally. Information is provided in the table on the average daily number of available designated intenslive therapy beds in London.

  In addition to these services provided in units designated as intensive therapy units, intensive therapy can also be delivered in a variety of hospital departments, such as neonatal intensive care, coronary care units, accident and emergency departments, renal units and high dependency units.

  1989–90: 484

  1990–91: 459

  1991–92: 458

  1992–93: 480

  1993–94: 501

  Note:

  For the years 1989–90 to 1992–93, Ashford hospital intensive care beds were included in Hounslow and Spelthome DHA figures as follows: 1989–90, four beds; 1990–91, four beds, 1991–92 four beds, 1992–93, four beds. From 1993–94 Ashford hospital intensive care beds—two have been included in North West Surrey returns and are therefore no longer included in the London figure.

  Source:

  KHO3 returns.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the EC law which prevents the banning of the export of calves for rearing in veal crates.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the legal opinion that he has
  845
  received relating to the export of veal calves and other live animals for slaughter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has consulted further on the legality under Community law of measures banning the export of calves, or imposing selective restrictions intended to ensure that they are reared in other member states under conditions corresponding to those applied here by virtue of the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2126).

  Consideration has been given to the best case that could be made in favour of such measures. However, the conclusion that emerges from the legal advice available to him is that such measures cannot be justified, for the following reasons:
  there is already in existence a directive on welfare standards for calves which forms part of the Community legislation governing trade in calves and it is advised that the terms of that directive would preclude member states from introducing export restrictions;
  Article 36 of the treaty can in some circumstances justify export restrictions, on the grounds of the protection of health and life of animals, which includes animal welfare. That article, however, is only available to member states where there is no Community legislation governing the particular area. But that is not the case here, given the directive on welfare standards; also it is very probable that measures banning or restricting the export of calves would constitute an unacceptable interference with the operation of the common agricultural policy, as it affects the market for beef and veal;
  a total ban on all calf exports could not in any event be justified under article 36, because it would be deemed to be disproportionate;
  in addition to the grave difficulties of justifying them legally, and the consequent high risk of their being struck down in court, selective restrictions would present severe practical problems of enforcement.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 23 January,Official Report, column 71, what was the age of the cattle exported to (a) France, (b) the Netherlands, (c) Eire and (d) Northern Ireland for immediate slaughter.

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]: I cannot add to my earlier replies as the information is not available. Exports to the other member states were restricted under EC rules to calves under six months of age. Cattle, including calves, to destinations in Northern Ireland would not have been subject to an age restriction.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the policy objectives of Her Majesty's Government for 1995 on the subject of transportation of live animals.

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 26 January 1995]: We shall continue to press for the further detailed Community measures—for example on feeding, watering and rest and on limits on journeys to slaughter—that we consider to be necessary to ensure effective Community-wide safeguards for the welfare of livestock in transit. In the meantime, we shall maintain our existing strict national measures which protect the welfare of livestock, including exported livestock, during transit and which we have recently tightened up. We shall supplement these measures with a code of practice, and will continue to scrutinise all new proposals to export livestock to ensure that only those which meet welfare requirements are allowed to proceed. On the related issue of veal crates on the continent, we shall press, in the Council of Ministers' review of the directive which permits the veal crate, for changes which bring an end
  846
  to this system of production. It is encouraging that the Commission has agreed to my right hon. Friend's request to facilitate this review by bringing forward to this year its review report scheduled for 1997.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he is in a position to ban the import into the United Kingdom of pork and pork products which are not reared in conditions permitted here;

  (2) if he is in a position to ban the import into the United Kingdom of veal and veal products which are not reared in conditions permitted here.

  Mrs. Browning
  It is not apparent that it would be feasible to identify the production methods used for the imported goods mentioned. In any case, I am advised that selective import restrictions of the type proposed would not be compatible with Community law.

  New Zealand Flatworm
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are being taken by his Department to support research into and curb the New Zealand flatworm.

  Mrs. Browning
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is funding a study to review current knowledge of the New Zealand flatworm in the British Isles, to assess its effects. The results of this research are expected this spring, and will provide a basis on which to assess what further action may be appropriate.

  Anglo-European Livestock Exporters Association
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the Anglo-European Livestock Exporters Association.

  Mrs. Browning
  My ministerial colleagues and I have never met representatives of the Anglo-European Livestock Exporters Association. Nevertheless, officials maintain regular contacts with the association.

  Salmon and Sea Trout
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food what initiatives his Department is pursuing to protect and enhance stocks of wild salmon and sea trout; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The National Rivers Authority is responsible, within the policy and legislative framework determined by my right hon. Friends the Minister, and the Secretary of State for Wales, for maintaining, improving and developing salmon and sea trout fisheries in England and Wales. It carries out a range of activities, including habitat restoration, restocking and enforcement of legislation designed to combat illegal fishing. Much of this work is funded by the Government through grant-in-aid. The authority has recently prepared a draft salmon management strategy which considers how salmon stocks might best be managed in the future. In addition, the Government also fund a significant programme of research on wild salmon and sea trout.

  Dredging (Docking Shoal)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current situation as regards dredging off the Docking shoal; whether he has given permission to dredge in this area; and what other areas the National Rivers Authority has applied to dredge.

  Mr. Jack
  Licences for dredging of marine aggregates are issued by the Crown Estate. A Government view on each application is co-ordinated by the Department of the Environment.

  The Ministry will in due course be providing its contribution to the Government view on an application from the NRA to dredge Docking shoal. The NRA has also applied to the Crown Estate for a licence to dredge an area known as Race bank.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health regarding the use and effects of pesticides and any other animal treatments on the animal food chain.

  Mrs. Browning
  My right hon. Friend the Minister and the Secretary of State for Health are among the Ministers responsible for the regulation of pesticides and regularly discuss such matters. An important part of the regulatory process is consideration of effects on the food chain.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to reduce the amount of pesticides and other chemicals being used in agriculture.

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government's policy is that pesticide usage should be the minimum necessary for effective pest control compatible with the protection of human health and the environment. This policy is pursued by a variety of means including a rigorous approvals policy, codes of practice for pesticide users and an extensive research and development programme.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food what plans he has to implement more stringent regulations on the use of chemical treatments.

  Mrs. Browning
  None. Ministers have sufficient powers to ensure the proper protection of health and to safeguard the environment.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what discussions he has had with other countries regarding legislation used in those countries to ban the use of toxins and pesticides;

  (2) what proposals he has for legislation to be introduced in this country which will bring this country into line with other countries which have banned the use of pesticides, toxins and chemicals.

  Mrs. Browning
  The United Kingdom has a well-developed system for regulating pesticides which protects people and the environment while ensuring that those who need them have effective pesticides available. We can and do restrict or ban pesticides where they cannot be used safely. Our system is widely respected abroad and the new Community regime closely resembles it.

  Tenanted Land
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has showing the proportion of agricultural land which was tenanted in England for(a) 1965, (b) 1970, (c) 1975, (d) 1980, (e) 1985, (f) 1990 and (g) the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The proportion of agricultural land which was rented as recorded in the June agricultural and horticultural census is as follows:

  Percentage

  1965

  not collected1

  1970

  48.3

  1975

  47.8

  1980

  43.4

  1985

  40.4

  1990

  37.0

  1994

  35.6

  Note:

  1 World Census of Agriculture (FAO) records 50.9 per cent. in 1960 for England and Wales combined.

  The continuing decline in the proportion of let land is one reason why the main industry organisations all agree that the reforms in our Agricultural Tenancies Bill are badly needed.

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people in Islwyn are covered by the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales; and what percentage this is of the work force in employment.

  Mr. Jack
  There were 31 hired workers on agricultural holdings in the district of Islwyn recorded in the June census of 1993. This represents 0.1 per cent. of the work force in employment in that district.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes are proposed in his Department's cash limits for 1994–95.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class III, vote 4—Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: agricultural, food and fishing services—will be reduced by £10,045,000 from £372,630,000 to £362,585,000. Within this limit, the estimated provision will be reduced by £6,205,000 on environmentally sensitive area grants and by £3 million on coast protection. The remaining reduction, £840,000, reflects a transfer of funds to the Office of Science and Technology to cover the cost of redundancies arising among staff of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council seconded to Horticulture Research International.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department spent during 1994 on recruiting staff to his Department and its executive agencies; and how many staff were recruited.

  Mr. Jack
  In 1994, 411 staff were recruited to the Department and its agencies at a cost of £579,987.

  Sheep Exporters
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the exporters of sheep currently using Brightlingsea have convictions for livestock animal cruelty; and if he will specify the date and nature of the offences.

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 23 January 1995]: Complete information is not available centrally on convictions of exporters and others for offences related to animal welfare.

DEFENCE

  Ex-service Men's Organisations
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he and his colleagues in other Government departments have had with ex-service men's organisations regarding the abolition of compensation for noise-induced deafness.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have been asked to reply.

  Where disablement due to noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss is assessed at 20 per cent. or more, a war pension is paid.

  The Government's proposals to abolish war pension gratuities for noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss causing disablement of less than 20 per cent. were discussed with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions, which includes representatives of ex-service organisations on 3 December 1992. The Central Advisory Committee is the statutory body with which Ministers, by convention, discuss proposals to amend the war pensions scheme.

  The matter has been discussed on several occasions since, including at later meetings of the central advisory committee and of the regional war pensions committees attended by the Minister with special responsibility for war pensions. It has also been raised at meetings he has had with delegations from the Royal British Legion.

  Departmental Funding
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will announce changes to the class 1 cash limits and operating costs limited for 1994–95.

  Mr. Soames
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the spring supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:

  Class I cash limits

  Vote

  Current cash limit

  Change

  Revised cash limit £000

  1

  11,549,651

  -25.675

  11,523,976

  This change decreases the block Defence cash limit by £25,675,000 from £22,761,260,000 to £22,735,585,000. It reflects the net effect of transfers between the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments and a revision to the estimated costs for redundancy.

  The Ministry of Defence operating costs limit will be reduced by £19,181,000 from £17,399,500,000 to £17,380,319,000. This also reflects the net effect of
  850
  transfers between the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments, a revision to the estimated costs for redundancy and an overestimate of receipts.

  Service Career Review
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with Mr. Bett's review of service career and manpower structures and terms and conditions of service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence expects to receive Mr. Bett's report at the end of March. The terms of reference for the review require Mr. Bett to consult widely within MOD and the services. He very much appreciates the response he has received to his request for ideas and information, both in his visits programme and the extensive questionnaires and surveys which have formed an important part of the review. As part of this continuing dialogue, Mr. Bett and his team are now at the stage of testing elements of their ideas with those concerned in my Department and the services. Not all of these ideas will necessarily develop into recommendations, and others may be modified. There is bound to be speculation, some of it inaccurate and ill-founded, about what the report will recommend, but we regard Mr. Bett's continuing dialogue with us as important to the success of the review. Final decisions on Mr. Bett's recommendations will of course be taken by Ministers, in a process of consultation involving the armed forces and others, following receipt of his report.

  Buried Atomic Bombs
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will establish an investigation into the allegations by former Royal Ordnance employee, Harry Southall, that two atomic bombs were buried at the Royal Ordnance site at Pembrey, Dyfed.

  Mr. Soames
  Until its closure in 1964, the former royal ordnance factory Pembrey was primarily engaged in the production of explosives although, in its final years of operation, it acted as a munition breakdown centre. The factory was never associated with our nuclear weapon programme and at no stage in its operations was the factory used for the production, storage or disposal of nuclear weapons.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion and number of non-industrial civil servants in the Departments and agencies for which he has responsibility are registered disabled and disabled as defined by the Cabinet Office "Focus on Ability".

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department monitors its non-industrial staff to gather data on those who have a disability, for which they may or may not be registered. The results from the monitoring show that on 1 July 1994, the Ministry of Defence and its agencies employed 1,096 non-industrial staff who were registered disabled, representing 1.3 per cent. of the total. In addition to this, on 1 October 1994—figures for 1 July are not available–3,050 non-industrial staff, representing 3.7 per cent. of the total, were recorded as having declared some form of disability for which they were not registered.

  Live Animal Research
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for defence what plans he has to carry out an investigation into the use of live animals for MOD experiments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no plans to carry out an investigation into the use of live animals for MOD experiments.

  Animal experiments are a small but essential part of the MOD's research and development programme. Animal experiments are carried out only when careful consideration of alternatives to the use of animals has shown that there is no adequate substitute and where it is judged essential to use animals for this purpose. The experiments carried out fully meet the spirit and letter of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and are subject to unannounced visits by Home Office inspectors.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many animals were used in research by or on behalf of his Department in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Animals used in research include not only those used in animal experiments, but also those used for the provision of tissues, those not used and those used as passive control. The total numbers of animals used in each of the last 10 years is as follows:

  1984: 11,445

  1985: 7,855

  1986: 7,712

  1987: 10,628

  1988: 10,462

  1989: 10,419

  1990: 9,270

  1991: 7,028

  1992: 5,088

  1993: 7,329

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of animals used for the testing of military equipment by or on behalf of his Department are kept alive after the experiment has taken place.

  Mr. Freeman
  No animals are used to improve weapons or ammunition. Experiments involving animals have been used in the development of protective measures against certain weapons and to test procedures relating to submarine crew and aircrew safety. At the completion of experiments, animals are killed humanely in accordance with the project licence granted by the Home Office.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many live animal experiments have been carried out by his Department over each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Freeman
  Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the number of animal experiments reported to the Home Office as required by the legislation in each of the last three years for which figures are available was as follows:

  1991: 6,100

  1992: 4,500

  1993: 6,796

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research has been conducted by or on behalf of his Department into the application of results of military research on animals to draw conclusions about the effects on humans; and if he will publish this research.

  Mr. Freeman
  Animal experiments are carried out only when careful consideration of the use of animals has 852
  shown that there is no adequate substitute and where it is judged essential to use animals for this purpose. In the context of the work at CBDE Porton Down, which accounts for the majority of the animal experiments carried out by the MOD, it is important to recognise that as there is no group suffering from chemical or biological warfare agents in the population at large, the effectiveness of medical counter-measures cannot be evaluated, unlike drugs developed against naturally occurring illness or disease, using human beings. It is consequently necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of medical counter-measures against chemical and biological weapons using the most appropriate animal model for man. This work is published as appropriate in the scientific literature. In addition, studies of the interaction of drugs with animals have been compared with the interaction of the same drugs in man and a common mechanism has been established. Work on submarine and aircrew safety has been successfully applied to humans and the results published.

  Work has also been undertaken to compare the relative mechanical properties of human and animal tissue, and has been presented to scientific conferences and published in the scientific literature. Computer models to predict the response of the human torso to impact and blast injury are also being developed.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has commissioned or undertaken into the effectiveness and necessity of using live animals for testing military equipment.

  Mr. Freeman
  No animals are used to improve weapons or ammunition or to practise surgery. All MOD experimental work with animals is subject to the conditions of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and related legislation. Before any project involving animals is begun, a project licence must be granted by the Home Office as a critical part of the project licence application is a closely argued justification of the proposed use of animals considering the ethical and scientific issues. At each stage, the use of non-animal alternatives has to be considered and the licence is only granted where no alternatives are possible. Alternatives to the use of animals are used whenever possible. Some such methods have been developed and published in the scientific literature.

  In some cases, in vitro methods which do not use living animals have been shown to be scientifically superior.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many experiments by or on behalf of his Department have involved the use of live pigs in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and how many pigs were(a) involved and (b) killed in each year.

  Mr. Freeman
  Under the provisions of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the number of animal experiments reportable concerning live pigs in each of the last five years was:

  1989 : 54

  1990 : 86

  1991 : 102

  1992 : 132

  1993 : 109

  At the end of each experiment, the pig was humanely killed in accordance with the conditions of the project licence issued by the Home Office.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research has been conducted by or on behalf of his Department into the applicability of weapons
  853
  research on unconscious animals to draw conclusions about their effect on conscious humans; and if he will publish this research.

  Mr. Freeman
  No animals are used to improve weapons or ammunition or to practise surgery. Work has been undertaken to compare the relative mechanical properties of human and animal tissue, and has been presented to scientific conferences. Computer models to predict the response of the human torso to impact and blast injury are also being developed.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of animals used for the testing of military equipment by or on behalf of his Department are killed while still under anaesthetic.

  Mr. Freeman
  No animals are used to improve weapons or ammunition or to practise surgery. The total number of experiments involving animals in 1993 that were reportable to the Home Office under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 was 6,796. Around 6.5 per cent. of the animals involved were killed while under anaesthetic. All other animals were put down humanely in accordance with the Act.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many animals experiments by or on behalf of his Department took place in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  All research carried out by the MOD using animals is carried out under the provisions of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The number of animal experiments reportable to the Home Office in each of the last 10 years was as follows:

  1984: 10,941

  1985: 6,611

  1986: 6,400

  1987: 8,300

  1988: 8,148

  1989: 9,129

  1990: 8,146

  1991: 6,100

  1992: 4,500

  1993: 6,796

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many experiments(a) involving animals, (b) leading to the death of an animal and (c) causing injury to an animal were carried out at Porton Down in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham S. Pearson to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 2 February 1995:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many experiments (a) involving animals, (b) leading to the death of an animal and (c) causing injury to an animal were carried out at Porton Down in each of the last five years, and if he will make a statement has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them.

  3. It is an essential but relatively small part of the work of CBDE that a small number of experiments with animals, mainly mice, rats and guinea-pigs are carried out in order to ensure that the protective measures provided to the Armed Forces are effective and are safe.
  854
  No animals are used to practice surgery or in work to improve weapons or ammunition performance. The number of animal experiments reported to the Home Office in each of the last five years was as follows:

  1989: 9,000

  1990: 8,100

  1991: 6,100

  1992: 4,500

  1993: 6,700

  In accordance with the conditions of the Project Licences issued by the Home Office, all animals were humanely killed at the completion of the experiments. The Project Licences currently in effect at CBDE cover mild 7, moderate 14, substantial 4 and unclassified 1.

  4. It should be recognised that the total number of all animal experiments carried out at CBDE in any one year is less than one half of one percent of all the animal experiments conducted in the United Kingdom. Indeed the number of animal experiments at CBDE has dropped over the past decade. However, the number of experiments carried out in any one year will vary according to the MOD programme. It was recognised during and after the Gulf War that there was an increasing potential biological warfare threat and that it is necessary to strengthen the UK's biological defence capability. This has required the use of more animals.

  5. The United Kingdom does not possess chemical or biological weapons and abandoned its capability relating to such weapons in the late 1950s. Consequently, there is absolutely no use of animals to develop or improve chemical or biological weapons. We have to recognise, however, that a number of countries do possess such weapons and it is essential that our Armed Forces are provided with adequate protection against their use and against the use of biological weapons. There is evidence of proliferation around the world in the availability of such weapons and the recent hostilities in the Gulf have demonstrated the reality of that threat which our Armed Forces have to be prepared to face.

  6. Animal experiments are carried out at CBDE Porton Down only when careful consideration of alternatives to the use of animals has shown that there is no adequate substitute and where it is judged essential to use animals for this purpose. It is, important to recognise that there is no population suffering from chemical or biological warfare agents in the population at large and consequently the effectiveness of medical countermeasures cannot be evaluated, as can drugs developed against naturally occurring illness or disease, using human beings. It is consequently necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of medical countermeasures against chemical and biological weapons using an animal model for man.

  7. The experiments carried out at CBDE involving the use of animals fully meet the spirit and letter of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act of 1986. CBDE is a registered place under the Act and all animal experiments and all the staff involved in them are licensed by the Home Office. Unannounced visits are made by Home Office inspectors to satisfy themselves that the requirements of the Act are met.

  8. All work at CBDE is carefully controlled and monitored and is conducted by appropriately qualified personnel to the highest standards. It is vital that the protection provided for our Service personnel against the threat that they may be exposed to chemical or biological weapons should have been developed and tested to ensure safety and efficacy. Our role is to save the lives of the members of the British Armed Forces and this work is of continuing importance to the nation.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the research carried out by or on behalf of his Department using live animals leading to the death or injury of that animal for each of the last five years.
  855
  Mr. Freeman
  The research carried out was designed to:investigate gravitiational effects;
  demonstrate the results of exposure to different pressures of air or oxygen;
  provide effective protective measures for the armed forces against the threat that chemical or biological weapons might be used against them;
  provide effective protective measures against conventional weapons.

  Facsimile Messages
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reports he has received of facsimile messages to and from royal naval establishments being sent to civilian addresses as a result of mis-dialling; and what proposals he has to eliminate the problem.

  Mr. Soames
  Three messages containing management information have been reported as having reached The News, Portsmouth as a consequence of mis-dialling a Plymouth terminal number. The terminal number in question has been changed, users are being advised and reminded to take care that the correct number has been dialled before material is transmitted.

  Sniper Protection Armour
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cabs of logistics vehicles in Bosnia have been fitted with sniper protection armour; and whether any such vehicles so fitted have been detained for any period by any local military or paramilitary forces operating in Bosnia.

  Mr. Soames
  No logistic vehicles in Bosnia have been fitted with protective armour. However, this equipment is held in theatre and vehicles could be so fitted if this was warranted by operational circumstances.

  Emergency Tour Tasks
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names of known or foreseeable emergency tour tasks; what relation the size of units on emergency tour tasks bears to battalion size; and which units are currently on emergency tour tasks and are expected to be in the foreseeable future.

  Mr. Soames
  The list of current operational tour commitments, and the units undertaking them are set out below. Those units at serials 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 are of battalion size—or equivalent in non infantry-arms—those of 14 and 15 are of battalion group size; others are of less than battalion size. In all cases, the minimum manning strength required of the unit to carry out its operational tour commitment is less than that unit's peace establishment. It is not our usual practice to identify those units which are planned to take up operational tour commitments in the future.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (NI) OPERATIONAL TOUR PLOT

  1. Armagh Roulement Battalion

  42 Commando Regiment, Royal Marines

  2. Belfast Roulement Battalion

  1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment

  856
  3.Fermanagh Roulement Battalion

  1st Battalion The Cheshire Regiment

  4. East Tyrone Battalion

  1st Battalion The Green Howards

  5. Girdwood Roulement Battalion

  40 Regiment, Royal Artillery

  6. Drumadd Roulement Battalion

  5 Regiment, Royal Artillery

  7. Prison Guard Force

  The Queen's Royal Hussars

  8. NI Roulement Engineer Squadron

  37 Field Squadron, 35 Engineer Regiment

  9. NI Roulement Engineer Search Troop

  37 Field Squadron, 35 Engineer Regiment

  10. NI Roulement Armoured Personnel Carrier Squadron

  4 General Support Regiment, Royal Logistic Corps

  UNITED NATIONS FORCES IN CYPRUS (UNFICYP) OPERATIONAL

  TOUR PLOT

  11. UNFICYP Roulement Regiment

  The Queen's Royal Lancers. Royal Armoured Corps

  FALKLAND ISLANDS OPERATIONAL TOUR PLOT

  12. Falkland Islands Roulement Infantry Company Group

  2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  13. Falkland Islands Roulement Field Squadron

  53 Field Support Squadron, Royal Logistic Corps

  UNITED NATIONS PROTECTION FORCE INFANTRY OPERATIONAL TOUR PLOT

  14. Britbat 1

  1st Battalion The Royal Highland Fusiliers

  C Squadron Household Cavalry Regiment

  15. Britbat 2

  1st Battalion The Royal Gloucester, Wiltshire

  B Squadron Household Cavalry Regiment

  Bilateral Cost-sharing Agreement

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the nature of the bilateral cost-sharing agreement under which the United Kingdom Government carry out construction work for the United States military at their bases and other property in the United Kingdom; when this agreement was first started; what is the value of the work currently being carried out; and at which United States bases and facilities this work is currently being carried out.

  Mr. Soames
  The confidential exchange of notes between the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the United States relating to the cost-sharing arrangement was signed on 4 April 1973. It is not our practice )o comment on the details of such arrangements. The value of work currently being carried out is a matter for the United States Government. Work is being carried out under the provisions of the above arrangement at the following main locations and their associated sites:

  RAF Alconbury

  RAF Brawdy

  RAF Chicksands

  RAF Croughton

  RAF Daws Hill

  RAF Edzell

  RAF Fairford

  RAF Feltwell

  RAF Hythe

  RAF Lakenheath

  RAF Machrihanish

  Menwith Hill Station

  RAF Mildenhall

  RAF Molesworth

  RAF St. Mawgan

  RAF Upwood

  RAF Welford

  Mr. John Anderson
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what disciplinary action he has initiated against any of his Department's personnel involved in the arrest of Mr. John Anderson.

  Mr. Soames
  None. The Ministry of Defence police investigated the complaint under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority. The investigation concluded that there were no grounds for disciplinary action.

  Haymes Garth
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to announce the finding of the Peat Marwick investigation into expenditure at Haymes Garth; if he will publish the findings, report and recommendations in full; whether disciplinary action is to be taken against any individual; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  As I said in my answer to the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) on 4 July 1994,Official Report, column 85, we will make a full report to the House on the conclusion of the work which has been set in hand to look into expenditure on Haymes Garth and other official service residences.

TRANSPORT

  International Station, Ebbsfleet
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he(a) reached and (b) announced the decision to site the international station at Ebbsfleet in Kent.

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend announced the Government's decision on 31 August, shortly after the choice was finally settled.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on which occasions his Department had meetings's attended by or arranged with(a) Mr. Oliver Colville, (b) Decision Makers and (c) Blue Circle in connection with the channel tunnel link and the location of the international .station.

  Mr. Watts
  The Department has had no meeting with Mr. Colville. Miss Maureen Tomison of Decision Makers was present on one occasion, when the Ebbsfleet promoter group made a presentation to my predecessor. The delegation was led by the hon. Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Dartford (Mr. Dunn); representatives of Dartford borough council, Blue Circle, Union Railways and departmental officials were also present. The Department has had numerous meetings on this subject with Blue Circle.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if the channel tunnel route announced in October 1991 was compatible with the location of the international station at Ebbsfleet, Kent;

  (2) what were the factors that led to the revision in 1993 of the final line of the route for the channel tunnel link as announced by his predecessor in October 1991; and what consideration underlay the alterations to the location and line of the link at its crossing of the River Thames.
  858
  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 1 February 1995]: The route corridor announced in October 1991 offered the opportunity for a station at several locations in north Kent, although not at Ebbsfleet. In his statement of 22 March 1993—announcing that the channel tunnel rail link would run along the Ebbsfleet valley then tunnel under the Thames, to run alongside the London Tilbury and Southend line from north of Purfleet to Barking—the then Secretary of State for Transport made it clear that this route overcame a number of engineering and environmental difficulties associated with the route published in 1991.

  Channel Tunnel (Safety)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if(a) his Department and (b) Channel Tunnel safety authority accepted the view of the inter-governmental commission into the operation of the channel tunnel with regard to fire resistant end barriers and pass doors; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) for what reason the inter-governmental commission into the operation of the channel tunnel objected to the request of Eurotunnel to vary the agreed width of the pass doors on the wagons carrying passengers with their cars from 0.7m to 0.6m; to whom this objection was communicated at Eurotunnel and when; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) on what date Eurotunnel confirmed its acceptance of the requirement that wagons carrying passengers with their cars on the channel tunnel should have 30-minute fire and smoke-resistant end barriers and that both would have pass doors not less than 0.7m wide; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  The CTSA advised the IGC on safety grounds not to accept Eurotunnel's proposed reduction in the width of pass doors. The advice was based on French and British regulations, guidelines and practice for the sizing of emergency exits. The IGC accepted the CTSA's advice and raised a formal objection to the Eurotunnel proposal. This was notified to the joint chief executives of Eurotunnel on 30 April 1990.

  Eurotunnel confirmed its acceptance of the wider pass doors in a letter dated 21 March 1991 to the IGC.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek to end the constraint imposed un the inter-governmental commission into the operation of the channel tunnel that prevents it publicising any documentation used in reaching decisions on approval of safety matters relating to the channel tunnel's operation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  The requirement to maintain the confidentiality of documents passed between the different parties involved in the channel tunnel is set down in the concession agreement. It arose from the proper concern about the need for confidentiality in a commercial operation. However, Eurotunnel has published its safety case, the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority publishes annual reports on its work, and a number of technical reports has been published.

  Transport Police
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what support officers of the British Transport police may given when they are asked by
  859
  members of the public for help in a situation outwith their current jurisdiction as a constable;

  (2) what support officers of the British Transport police may give when they are asked by members of the Home Department forces for supporting action in situations away from the railway.

  Mr. Watts
  None, other than that which any member of the public may render to another or to a Home Department police officer.

  Runway Capacity, South-East
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has considered the report of the working group to consider runway capacity to service the south-east; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government are firmly committed to enabling the development of additional airport capacity where this makes economic, social and environment sense. The economic benefits to business and industry are clear, as are the average of greater opportunities for leisure travel. The quality of airports in the South-East provides the United Kingdom and London with a vital competitive advantage and make the UK a world centre for commerce and tourism.

  The Government wish to ensure that capacity can be made available in response to future demand, but in such as way that recognises and takes reasonable account of the environmental impacts, including the impacts of increased air traffic associated with additional runway capacity.

  The working group on runway capacity to serve the south-east—RUCASTE—considered a number of options of increasing runway capacity at airports in south-east England, taking account of the contribution which regional airports can be expected to make. The group considered the need for and the impacts of the provision of additional runway capacity at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stanstead and Luton. It also noted, but did not examine in detail, the suggestion for a new airport in the Thames estuary. The group's report contains no specific recommendations although it concluded that benefits to passengers would justify a further runway at Heathrow or Gatwick by 2010, or at Stanstead by 2015. This conclusion was based on an assumption about the maximum achievable passenger throughput on the existing runways. The report was published in July 1993 and was followed by a period of public consideration. I am grateful to all the participants in the group for their assistance in producing a thorough and useful report.

  The Government have concluded that RUCATSE's analysis shows a strong case for additional runway capacity in the south-east; but that more work is needed to inform decisions on any proposals which operators may bring forward for that additional capacity.

  Our airports operate on a commercial basis and it is for the operators to bring forward proposals for development, where they see a business case, and take them through the planning processes. In doing so, they need to take account of the overall framework of the Government's airports policy, which indicates the factors that would weigh in Government decisions on such proposals. It has been suggested that the Government should seek to reintroduce traffic distribution rules in order to direct air traffic to use specific airports; the Government have considered this option and concluded that they do not wish to seek to
  860
  influence the pattern of demand for commercial passenger services by the reintroduction of these rules.

  Three important new considerations have emerged since the group reported; these require more work. First, an independent study of runway capacity at Heathrow, sponsored by National Air Traffic Services, BAA plc and the airlines, has produced a report suggesting that there is greater scope for increasing the utilisation of the existing runways at Heathrow than was previously envisaged. Before reaching any decisions, I am asking the CAA, in consultation with BAA and others, to examine further the gains that might be achieved and the environmental impact involved in making better use of the existing infrastructure at Heathrow.

  Secondly, I am clear that BAA should not consider the options studied in RUCATSE for a third runway at Heathrow or for a second runway at Gatwick. However, it has been suggested that there may be better, less environmentally damaging, runway options than those considered by RUCATSE. I am therefore asking BAA to examine whether there might be less damaging options for development, such as a close parallel runway at Gatwick.

  The above is without prejudice to my or the Secretary of State for the Environment's role in decisions on any future planning applications.

  Thirdly, it has become clear that the issue of surface access to airports in the south-east, and particularly the scope for improved public transport links to, and between, the airports need further examination. I note that BAA has initiated a study and I will be commissioning further work on this.

  The Government welcome the growth of regional airports. They recognise the benefits of liberalising air services to and from the regions. They also wish to provide the opportunity for the less busy airports in the south-east to develop. In particular, the Government draw attention to the capacity available at Stansted. The Government sought to accelerate these processes recently by liberalising transatlantic arrangements for regional airports, Luton and Stansted. Even on the most optimistic assumptions, however, regional growth will have a limited! effect on the demand for additional airport capacity in the south-east. The Government also recognise the valuable: contribution that small airfields can play, for example in serving business aviation.

  We will continue to address the global impacts of air travel through work at the international level, to meet the goals of sustainable development; but these impacts are of very limited relevance to decisions on capacity at United Kingdom airports.

  I expect the further work that I have commissioned to take between two and three years.

  Train Accident, Kirkby Stephen
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make a statement about the passenger train collision near Kirkby Stephen on 31 January.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The accident happened at about 18.56 after the 16.23 Carlisle-Leeds train was instructed to return to Carlisle because of flooding. Travelling north, the train ran into a landslide and was derailed into the path of the 17.45 Carlisle-Leeds train which was approaching on the adjacent line.
  861
  British Rail and Railtrack are conducting a joint injury into the accident. In addition, one of HM railway inspectorate's inspectors visited the scene of the accident and is investigating the circumstances.

  HM coroner for the Carlisle area will be holding an inquest into the fatality that occurred, and has indicated that he wishes an inspector from HM railway inspectorate to assist in holding the inquest. The inspector's report under section 8 of the Railway Regulation Act 1871 will be made public.

  Privatisation Programmes
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide estimates for the total amount that has been paid to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. with respect to any work undertaken by them on privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1979 after taking account of inflation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 31 January 1995]: The table lists the sales conducted by my Department in which N. M. Rothschild were appointed and the role to which they were appointed. The fees paid to firms
  862
  appointed within the privatisation programme are commercially confidential.

  British Airways—1987

  Underwriting sale as secondary underwriters

  British Airports Authority—1987

  Underwriting sale as secondary underwriters

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the severance payments made to special advisers in each of the last five years indicating(a) the amount and (b) the date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 1 February 1995]: The severance payments made to special advisers in the Department of Transport in each of the last five years are as follow

  Year

  £

  1990

  6,654

  December

  1991

  Nil

  1992

  3,197

  1993

  Nil

  1994

  33,180

  August/September—two individuals.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Unemployment
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total number of long-term unemployed at the latest available date.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the latest available figures show that in October 1994 there were 956,475 claimants who had been unemployed for more than one year. That is a fall of 11 per cent. compared with 12 months earlier.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is it not incredible that after 16 years of Conservative government almost 1 million people have been out of work for more than 12 months? Indeed, many of those people have been out of work for more than two years. The number is three times that when the Government came into power. As long-term unemployment is a significant economic indicator, is it not obvious that the measures which the Government have in place are inadequate to meet a terrible problem?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in saying that long-term unemployment—indeed, all unemployment—is a scourge. We wish to see it reduced. However, in the real world we must address the problem with the mechanisms that we believe will bring about that reduction. We believe that the appropriate way to tackle the problem of long-term unemployment is to introduce structural changes into the labour market; in particular, to introduce flexibility and to set up a system which encourages people to take on labour and to create jobs. We must parallel that general thrust and focus our efforts on helping the unemployed to try to gain work. During this financial year it is the target of the employment service to put more than 500,000 long-term unemployed people into work, and it is currently on target to do that.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does an increase in interest rates help the Government to meet their target?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is essential that inflation is kept under control in order to provide the necessary pre-condition for job creation. If, as part of the fight against inflation, it is necessary to put up interest rates by 0.5 per cent. that is a painful but nonetheless necessary step that we must take and have taken.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware of a recent study by Bristol University which shows that most unemployed people in older age groups are in the older industrial districts, which have suffered most as a result of manufacturing decline? Is it a
1582
fact that such individuals are least likely to benefit from the so-called flexibility of employment to which the Minister has drawn attention?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we are aware of the problems to which the noble Baroness refers. However, it is relevant to note that the amount of long-term unemployment in this country is substantially less than the average throughout the European Union. It follows, therefore, that the measures that we are introducing address the problems.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, says that after 16 years of Conservative government the unemployment figure is terrible. Is it true that all Labour governments have ended up with unemployment higher than when they started? Is it also true that the unemployment figure is reducing by approximately 1,000 per day? Furthermore, what are the prospects for my own area of Cleveland, where unemployment has always been high?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is right; no Labour government have ever left office with unemployment at a level lower than when they took office. Unemployment is falling in all sectors right across the country and at a rate of 1,000 per day. The new Samsung developments are to take place in Cleveland, my noble friend's area. It is anticipated that they will directly provide 5,000 new jobs.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the real world of the unhappy unemployed is miserable? Are the Government prepared to consider that unemployment can differ from region to region and that possibly public works can be embarked upon that will be to everyone's advantage and will provide employment? Unemployed people would much prefer to earn wages and salaries rather than collect unemployment benefit.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we realise that unemployment has appalling human consequences. However, we do not believe that indiscriminate public works are the answer to the problem. They will merely postpone and subsequently exacerbate the problem we are trying to tackle.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, will my noble friend hazard a guess as to the rate of unemployment if we joined up to the social chapter, on which the party opposite is so keen?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am not in a position to quantify the increase. However, I can say without equivocation that we believe that the number of unemployed would be substantially higher.
Lord Desai: My Lords, the Minister says that every Labour government have left office with a higher rate of

1583
unemployment than when they started. Will he complement that answer by saying that that is also true of Conservative governments in the post-war period?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord has a greater knowledge than I of some aspects of the achievements of Conservative governments in the post-war period. I am not in a position to dispute his point.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the country in western Europe with probably the most consistent record in this field—Switzerland—has the lowest level of government intervention in its economy and, indeed, probably the lowest level of government in western Europe?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am not in a position to substantiate my noble friend's claim, but I have no doubt that he is right.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a question on the new jobseeker's application form asks, "What is the lowest amount for which you are prepared to work?"? Is that an essential part of the strategy of getting the unemployed back to work and what weight will be given to the answer?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as regards the changes proposed in the Jobseekers Bill, it is intended to focus on getting those out of work back into work. People must be reasonably available for work and an unwillingness to do anything other than that which is the most highly paid does not meet that test.

Turkey: Customs Union Negotiations
3.10 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will insist on the following pre-conditions for negotiations with Turkey concerning a customs union with the European Union:

(i) the release of imprisoned MPs;

(ii) full protection for journalists and active members of political parties against murder;

(iii) the ending of the torture of detainees;

(iv) permission for education and news media in the Kurdish language.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it would not be right to make such preconditions. However, the Turkish Government are well aware of the importance which we and our European partners attach to the improvement in human rights in Turkey. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is raising this issue with his Turkish counterpart today.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to hear what the noble Lord said about the Secretary of State. But do the Government agree that Turkey is in serious breach of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights? Furthermore, it has turned down offers of help from the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe with a view to
1584
improving human rights. Is it not time and most desirable that both the European Union and NATO should use the leverage available to them to secure those improvements?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is right to draw attention to human rights abuses in Turkey, which are of concern to the Government. Whether or not those are in breach of the convention is obviously a matter for the European Commission and the Court of Human Rights.
I understand that the OSCE parliamentary assembly has offered to send a mission to Turkey. We understand that the Turks wish to accept a mission and we support that. As a general proposition, the Government are concerned about the situation in Turkey. With the European Union, NATO and our European friends and allies, we are drawing our anxieties to the attention of the Turkish Government.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Foreign Secretary be taking up in the discussions with the Turks that he is holding today the destruction of more than 1,500 villages in Turkish Kurdistan and the forcible displacement of 2 million people from their homes by the Turkish armed forces in that region? Does not the Minister believe that the human rights commission, which is now beginning its deliberations in Geneva, should be invited to appoint a special rapporteur on Turkey who could investigate the connection between the war of the Turkish state against the Kurdish people and the assassinations, disappearances, unlawful detentions and persecution of every Kurdish activist in the country?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we are aware of the scale of the destruction and the terrorism that has been taking place in south-east Turkey. That is at the core of our anxieties about human rights abuse that is taking place in Turkey. We are anxious to put pressure on the Turkish Government, in particular to encourage those who are in favour of internal constitutional reforms in Turkey, which will bring about the kind of changes which we all desire to see. But as part of that process, we are most anxious to ensure that we do not push matters so far that those who hold those opinions lose their positions of power.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the report on the 1,600 missing persons from Cyprus who were taken by the Turkish military authorities? In the discussions on human rights and the relationship between the EU and Turkey, will my right honourable friend raise that matter in order to secure a definite answer from the Turkish Government about the fate of those missing persons?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is aware of those matters, but I shall have to write to the noble Baroness with a precise answer to her question.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is there not another obstacle to Turkey joining the ranks of, as it were, normal nations which is even more powerful than any that has yet been mentioned; that is, the continued occupation of Northern Cyprus against UN security resolution after resolution and against the opinion of the whole world? That is an occupation which is not recognised by any country.

1585
Should not the rectification of that injustice figure high on any list which is put to the Turkish Government by the Secretary of State?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that that matter is high on the Government's agenda. We are working hard to support the United Nations Secretary General's efforts to bring about a solution to the Cyprus problem. That is one of the matters which will, we hope, be raised today with the Turkish Foreign Minister.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, what are the circumstances in which the Secretary of State is seeing the Turkish Foreign Minister? Secondly, will he be applying his time and arguments specifically to the Kurds and the circumstances in which they are denied both the right to speak and use their own language? That restriction would be absolutely intolerable for a Welshman in the United Kingdom.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is meeting the Turkish Foreign Minister today, together with representatives from the French, Italian and German Governments. They are discussing Turkey's relationship with the West. With regard to the use of the Kurdish language, Turkey's position is contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. While the Turkish Government have not subscribed to that convention we urge them to do so. In turn, that would mean that the matters about which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, complains should come to an end.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what position the Government take on the Turkish Government's recent request for a substantial loan from the Council of Europe to build so-called collective villages for Kurdish refugees whose homes have been destroyed deliberately by the Turkish Army? In the circumstances, would it not be right to reject that cynical request? Will the Minister tell the House whether his right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be discussing that with the Turkish Foreign Minister today?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the request to which the noble Baroness refers has been made relatively recently to the social fund of the Council of Europe. I expect that my right honourable friend will be asking his Turkish counterpart for background information about that proposal so that he can decide on its merits.

Finance Bill: Schedule 17
3.17 p.m.
Lord Eatwell Lord Eatwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider Schedule 17 to the Finance Bill, given that the new proposals contained in that schedule to levy taxation on the non-existent income on interest-free loans will have a considerable impact on the many charities which benefit from such loans
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, as drafted at present that provision could impose a tax
1586
liability on a person who lends money to a charitable trust. I can announce, however, that my right honourable friends will be bringing forward an amendment at Committee stage in another place to take loans to charities outside the new charge.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am most grateful for the Minister's reply. I am glad that he has responded to the pressure which the Labour Party brought to bear in relation to the matter. Will he confirm also that Schedule 17, as currently drafted, would result in a parent who offers an interest-free loan to his children to purchase a house being taxed on the non-existent income? Is that part of the schedule also to be reconsidered?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can confirm that we are making the change announced. It was not as a result of pressure from the noble Lord or from the party opposite. I notice that he had about four attempts to get his Question right with the final draft of the Question appearing on the Order Paper only this morning. The noble Lord is wrong on the point he made. This applies only to loans to trusts and does not apply to a loan that someone makes to another individual, whether interest free or not.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I attempted to help the noble Lord by ensuring that he received counsel's briefing before the Question was tabled. I should have thought that he would have understood it and would therefore discover that Section 660C does indeed apply to loans between persons, such as loans from parents to children.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for the advice I received from counsel, Mr. Robert Venables. I have read and studied it, as have legal advisers in the Treasury. I have the most enormous respect for such an eminent lawyer, but on that point he is wrong, as is the noble Lord.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, many happy returns of the day. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend that he should be congratulated on the extremely sensible answer that he has given, which reflects great credit on the Government's financial administration.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those comments. I shall certainly pass them on to my right honourable friends in the Treasury. I echo also the kind remarks my noble friend made as regards the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it hardly lies in his or the Government's mouth to criticise corrections to Questions that are tabled in the interests of the House as a whole? Would it not be better if the Government paid far closer attention to the accuracy of their replies and the information contained in them?
Lord Henley: My Lords, even Homer nods, as they say. The important thing is that we have got it right, or we intend to get it right by means of an amendment. Just as we got it wrong in making the

1587
error in advance, I was pointing out to the House that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, took three attempts to get his Question right.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the Minister clarify his Answer? It is most important. Did the noble Lord actually say that if any noble Lord—or, indeed, anyone else—lent a sum of money to one of his children at zero interest, no tax would be payable? Can the Minister confirm in simple terms that the answer to the question is: no tax will be payable?
Lord Henley: My Lords, no tax would be payable on notional interest in such a case. Schedule 17 deals with the case of loans, interest free or at a lower rate of interest than the commercial rate, to a trust and not to an individual.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, while we welcome the fact that charities are to be exempt, can the Minister indicate whether the increased tax that is intended in the schedule to the Finance Bill would apply to interest free loans made to organisations which are not charitable?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the measure is not designed to increase tax. Our original thought was that it would probably have more or less no effect whatever; in fact, it might raise a certain amount of tax. It is merely to implement the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to simplify the income tax benefit to settlor rules. For tax purposes, those rules treat the income of trusts and other settlements as the settlors in certain circumstances.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, would the Minister care to check the answer he gave to my noble friend Lord Peston? If the sum of money loaned was a substantial one, would it still not be liable to tax of any kind?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am trying to make clear the fact that the notional interest would not be taxed under the provisions about which we are talking. They purely relate to transfers to trusts; they do not relate to transfers to individuals.
Lord Richard: My Lords, if I may say so, the Minister is being at his most peevish this afternoon in relation to the drafting of my noble friend's Question. Will the noble Lord confirm that the Clerk of the Parliaments has informed the Government that the reason that there were different drafts of the Question was that, unfortunately, the Clerks got it wrong when it was first tabled and it was thereafter put right?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can neither confirm nor deny that.
Lord Richard: Ask your Chief Whip!
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was in no way being peevish; indeed, I believe that I was having a bit of
1588
innocent fun at the expense of the noble Lord opposite. There is no need for the noble Lord to get on his high horse about it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, with respect, I am on my high horse because a little bit of fun is absolutely splendid if the facts upon which it is based are absolutely right. Will the Minister confirm the facts with his noble friend the Chief Whip who, I am told, knows the position, which is indeed as I have stated?
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am most grateful for the good wishes expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. However, will the noble Lord confirm another pernicious aspect of Schedule 17, namely, that settlements on non-existent income made prior to the passage of the legislation into law will attract taxation? In other words, taxation will be levied retrospectively on settlements made prior to the Bill being enacted. Is that not an unfortunate principle?
Lord Henley: My Lords, to suggest that it is retrospective is absolute nonsense. No one setting up a trust is entitled to expect that the income tax treatment of that trust will stay the same throughout its existence. Indeed, the noble Lord can ask any of his colleagues who have been Chancellor of the Exchequer, Chief Secretary, or whatever. They will confirm that that has always been the case.

The Post Office: Competitiveness
3.24 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to provide the Post Office with the necessary level of commercial freedom to meet increasing domestic and international competition.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, commercial freedom and proper constraint over the use of public money are not easily compatible objectives, but we are engaged in widening the opportunities for Post Office Counters and are helping to automate its services.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. Nevertheless, will he agree that the Post Office is now in a somewhat anomalous position of having not only to pay profit tax like everyone else but also to hand over to the Treasury more than what is left in addition? In that situation, how can the Post Office have sufficient funds to invest in order to face up to the competition which everyone agrees it has both domestically and internationally? In that connection, will the Minister indicate what the Government are doing to give further consideration to the points for greater commercial freedom for the Post Office under public ownership as set out on page 15 of the Green Paper which was issued last June?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Post Office has always paid money to the Government. Indeed, the

1589
Post Office has invested £1.7 billion in real terms over the past five years; it has paid Her Majesty's Government £475 million in the past five years; and it made a profit of £98 million before tax in real terms during the same period. Post Office Counters is taking on extra business. For example, it is taking on aspects like travel insurance; people can now pay their gas bills over the counter; it is selling National Lottery tickets; and, indeed, one can even buy fishing licences. However, I agree with the noble Lord in that it is very difficult to get full commercial competitiveness and full commercial investment if one is constrained by being a public company.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, now that his Government's majority is growing daily more secure, does the noble Earl agree that he should advise the President of the Board of Trade to have another go at a proper privatisation and not continue to muck about with halfway houses which are unsatisfactory in every possible way?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Government's majority is totally secure—
Lord Mellish: In this House.
Earl Ferrers: My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is not "mucking about", as the noble Lord put it so gracefully; indeed, he is quite determined. The preferred option is the one which my right honourable friend has always suggested and which he has gone for. However, if Parliament in its wisdom does not think that that is an appropriate result, we have to do the best that we can in the circumstances in which we find ourselves.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does not the Minister perceive that there is something slightly contradictory in the Government's stance? For example, is it not a fact that they have said that it would be unfair to privatise because it would offer advantages to the Post Office over private competitors? But did not that argument occur to them when they wrote off literally billions of pounds when privatising a certain number of other industries? Did they not secure unfair advantages?
Further, as regards the answer that he has just given, does the Minister not realise that encouraging Post Office shops to engage in all those additional trading activities will surely provide some competition with the private sector? Even when it comes to the PFT, does not the Minister see that projects in which the Post Office might be involved would give it the sort of so-called "unfair competition" competitive advantage? Why are the Government immersed in such pure ideology when other governments are enabling their publicly-owned post offices to have precisely those advantages?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I observed the noble Lord sitting on the Front Bench thinking like mad and I wondered what curious supplementary question he was going to ask. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that the reason why the Post Office cannot receive the investment that it requires is due to the fact that
1590
it is still in the public domain. You cannot give to a public company the reward of not being able to go bankrupt but yet all the advantages of competition. That is the reason why we wish to see the Post Office privatised.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, why was it put forward as an option in the Green Paper then?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, curiously enough there were three options and the preferred option was not one of those.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, in reference to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on the competitive edge of the Post Office, is it not a fact that the Post Office has decided not to have any commemorative stamps, sets or first editions to commemorate the end of World War II? Surely that would not only be profitable and, with some market vision, useful to the Post Office, but also the nation would expect it. Can the noble Earl explain that to me?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Viscount would like to put down a Question about stamps, I should be delighted to answer it, but I think it is rather far removed from the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following on the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is the noble Earl aware that Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore and other Far Eastern countries, while retaining postal services under public ownership, have nevertheless enabled them to borrow money externally, to enter into partnerships and to operate commercially? If all those countries can do it, why cannot we find an answer to the problem?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, for the simple reason that the Treasury and the Government cannot be expected to give a commercial operation unlimited backing to prevent it from going bankrupt. That is not fair competition for those who have to compete with it without such security.

Consolidation Bills: Joint Committee
3.31 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, pursuant to Standing Order 49, the following Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:

Airedale, L,

Alexander of Tunis, E,

Dilhome, V,

Gisborough, L,

Hanworth, L,

Haskel, L,

Lloyd of Berwick, L,

Mallalieu, B,

1591

Meston, L,

Steyn, L,

Strabolgi, L,

Wigoder, L.

That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman; and
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 42,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 43 to 84,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 85 to 93,

Schedule 3, Clauses 94 to 96,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 97 to 100,

Schedules 5 and 6,

Clause 101.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environment Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater)My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITIEES in the Chair.]
Clause 58 [Purposes of National Parks]:
[Amendment No. 252A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Cranbrookmoved Amendment No. 252B:
Page 64, line 25, after ("wildlife") insert (", natural features").
The noble Earl said: We move this afternoon into Part III of this Bill dealing with the national parks. My amendment applies to Clause 58 which deals with the purposes of the national parks. As the Committee may know, I am chairman of the statutory nature conservation body for England and therefore the
1592
Committee would expect me to be interested to ensure that that body plays the fullest possible part that it can in future arrangements for the national parks.
In considering the purposes of the national parks under this Bill, the Committee will recall that the report of the National Parks Review Panel—known as the Edwards Report, after its chairman—recommended a redefinition of the first purpose of national parks as,
"to protect, maintain and enhance the scenic beauty, natural systems and the land forms, and the wildlife and cultural heritage of the area".
I have therefore welcomed in these restated purposes, as they appear in the Bill now, the special reference to wildlife. But this is not all that was recommended by the Edwards Committee. Moreover, I feel that reference to wildlife alone, without specific coverage of the geological and physiographical features—that is to say, the natural systems and land forms in Edwards' parlance—may mean that these are not clearly in the minds of some people, particularly those concerned with the future direction of the national parks.
I should remind the Committee that the nature conservation resource of England, in terms of SSSIs, comprises some 71 per cent. biological SSSIs—one could call them wildlife SSSIs—and 21 per cent. concerned with the earth sciences; and one could call them the natural systems and land form SSSIs. About 8 per cent. of our SSSIs are mixed. Overall, about 16 per cent. of the SSSIs lie within national parks, varying from almost 30 per cent. in Dartmoor down to 4 per cent. in the North York Moors at present.
The national parks are therefore very important in terms of the SSSIs that they contain. Some 16 per cent. of the total area of English SSSIs lie within the national parks, with the proportion of earth science SSSIs and biological SSSIs roughly as I have stated. In addition, in the earth sciences, there is a system which is well known and recognised by English Nature, known as the RIGS; that is, the regionally important geological sites. These are non-SSSI land form and natural features sites. In Exmoor there are 69 such sites and in the Lake District there are 81 such sites. I give those areas as two examples. Therefore, it is clear that in the future management of the national parks it will be important that these particular natural features and land forms will have to be considered. The significance of the natural feature resource in these parks is educational, for cultural and aesthetic purposes, and for other purposes which are not covered by the statutory position of SSSIs and therefore will lie clearly within the ambit of the parks and ought to be stated in purposes of the parks.
The kind of management decisions that will be needed are to protect these sites—both the statutory sites and the non-statutory sites—so as not to destroy or damage the natural features which have maintained their integrity and which are irreplaceable. Drumlins might be an example of that. They are the curious land forms that originate as a result of glacial activity. It will also be important, in terms of management, not to obscure features that have been exposed by human activities. Quite a number of these important sites can be in quarries or in pits and other exposures.

1593
It is important in park management that these sites should be enhanced in terms of the first purpose, so as to enable the educational, cultural and aesthetic objectives to be realised. This, again, is a function of park management and is not within the SSSI process. My amendment therefore proposes that the wording in Clause 58(1) (a) should state:
"conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife, natural features and cultural heritage".
I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I support my noble friend Lord Cranbrook very warmly. In some national parks there are, for example, limestone outcrops of great interest where there would be a temptation to indulge in quarrying. We have to be careful that we do not disturb the natural features in such circumstances. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ullswater will be able to give a favourable reply.
Viscount Ullswater: I am grateful to my noble friend for informing the Committee of the background to his amendment. However, I hope to persuade him that it will not be necessary.
The Bill fulfils our central commitment to establish independent authorities for the 10 national parks in England and Wales. It also updates park purposes which will enable the new authorities to take a more integrated approach to the management of their areas. Those measures will enable the national park authorities more effectively to protect the qualities for which the national parks have been designated.
However, the qualities of the parks are comprised of so many elements that to attempt to enshrine them all in legislation could result in an inordinately long list of properties. However, I can assure my noble friend Lord Cranbrook that we regard the characteristic natural features of the parks as an integral part of their natural beauty, for which they have been designated as special areas. I hope that with that assurance my noble friend will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gisborough: I am rather suspicious of the amendment. One has to remember, particularly in relation to quarrying, that not only do people go to look at a national park but people want to work there. I believe that there is an expression that poverty is no better because it comes thatched. There are many aspects such as quarries which need to be opened up in order to bring employment, and that should not be prevented by a total ban.
The Earl of Cranbrook: In answer to the noble Lord who has just spoken, quarrying can proceed very effectively under the right controls, even on special sites.
In terms of the answer given by my noble friend the Minister, the issue is whether there is a clear public understanding that natural features, as I defined them—and I hope that I explained their importance—are included in "natural beauty". They are an important and scientific element of what needs to be managed and enhanced as a nature conservation resource.
1594
I hope that my noble friend will come forward at some stage with a form of words which will separate and clearly identify the natural features as I defined them. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Norriemoved Amendment No. 253:
Page 64, line 28, leave out ("understanding and enjoyment") and insert ("quiet enjoyment and understanding").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 253 I have the full support of the 45 environmental and amenity organisations which make up the Council for National Parks, the national park authorities, the Countryside Commission, the Countryside Council for Wales, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, and many other environmental bodies.
National parks cover 10 per cent. of the land area of England and Wales. As was apparent during the passage of my Private Member's Bill, their value to the nation is recognised across all political parties. They are not and never have been a party political issue. They are part of the national heritage of us all and are therefore worthy of the right legislative package based on the recommendations of the widely respected National Parks Review Panel.
First, I wish to make it clear beyond doubt that Clause 58 and my amendment to it are concerned with the kind of recreation which the national parks have a statutory agreement to promote. My amendment does not set out to give national parks a purpose to ban any particular recreational activity. The debate is about promoting, not banning.
Secondly, I wish to emphasise that both the clause and the amendment are concerned with enjoyment and recreation. They do not impinge upon farming, forestry, quarrying and other land management operations. Having clarified those points I shall explain what my amendment seeks to achieve and why it is necessary.
When the recreational purpose of national parks was originally drafted in 1949 it was intended that the parks would promote quiet pursuits. At that stage no one could envisage the growth in noisy and intrusive motorised recreational activities. No Minister imagined the emergence of the jet ski or the towed inflatable crocodile on to the waters of our parks.
The attitude at the time when the national parks were created is set out in the Dower Report, which stated:
"Those who come to National Parks should be such as to wish to … take their recreation, active or passive, in ways that do not impair the beauty or quietude, nor spoil the enjoyment of them by others".

1595
In 1990 the National Parks Review Panel, whose recommendations enjoy a wide level of support inside and outside Parliament, recommended new legislation to clarify the 1949 wording, which was "to promote public enjoyment". The report said:
"We see National Parks as places for quiet enjoyment. Walking and sightseeing are still the most popular activities, but more organised or active forms of recreation are on the increase. Many activities are to be welcomed, but not all will be consistent with National Park purposes".
In response to the panel's report the Government made a clear commitment to introduce legislation which would:
"refer expressly to quiet enjoyment and understanding".
Clause 58 as presently drafted fails to live up to that promise. The amendment fulfils the promise, no more, no less. The Bill gives the national parks a duty to promote all kinds of enjoyment by the public of the parks' special qualities. It is not sufficiently precise on the type of activities which national parks should promote. Those include opportunities for spiritual refreshment and renewal, activities which do not intrude on the quiet enjoyment of others, and those that depend on muscle power, not motor power.
Clause 59 does not offer a framework for dealing with the incompatibilities between various recreational pursuits. It deals only with the conflict between conservation and recreation and not the conflict between different types of recreation.
By making it clear that national parks should be involved in promoting quiet enjoyment, the amendment sets the correct framework. It would not remove either rights of way or rights of navigation for motorised vehicles and craft. I respect such rights. However, it provides a clear context for management in circumstances where conflict between recreations may arise. Such potential conflicts should, as now, be decided on a case-by-case basis through well-established consultative and accountable procedures such as the use of by-laws, traffic regulation orders or development and management policies where appropriate.
Is "quiet" the appropriate word? It is the word which has been used in the national park context since at least 1945. The question has been asked whether that word can be used in national park legislation because "quiet enjoyment of property" is used in landlord and tenant legislation. I have been given legal advice that it is not at all unusual for phrases or words to have various meanings in the context of different legislation. "Quiet enjoyment" can be given a meaning in this Bill just as the phrase "natural beauty", which at first appears difficult to define, has an acquired meaning in national park and countryside legislation. Indeed, the draftsman has deemed it appropriate to use it in this Bill.
While speaking of definitions, I wish to make it abundantly clear that there is no intention that a statutory purpose to promote quiet enjoyment should adversely affect traditional field sports. That is certainly
1596
not my intention in moving the amendment. I look to the Government to provide a definition of quiet enjoyment which gives that assurance.
Can all those matters be left to the circular guidance? I am advised not. Guidance could not establish such a fundamental principle if it is not set out in the legislation. I suggest that the draft guidance runs into many difficulties in explaining enjoyment of special qualities precisely because the framework provided by the legislation is inadequate. There are, therefore, many problems for guidance on the subject of enjoyment. I believe that my noble friend Lord Addison proposes to address the point.
The intention underlying Amendment No. 253 is to provide an adequate framework. I am sure that the Government are as anxious as I am not to see national parks involved in promoting activities which damage the enjoyment of the majority of the many visitors to the parks as well as potentially damaging the parks themselves. The present drafting leaves open that possibility.
Making it clear that the national parks have a statutory purpose to promote "quiet enjoyment and understanding" will be immensely popular. My postbag supports that. In this way, the special qualities of national parks can be retained for all to enjoy in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I support the noble Lord's Amendment No. 253. As I said at Second Reading, "quiet enjoyment" was a proposal from the Edwards Report, Fit for the future. The noble Lord referred to it. Whatever the Committee may think about the title of the report, nevertheless it was the report of a panel of distinguished members under the chairmanship of Professor Edwards which reported to the Countryside Commission, for forwarding to the Government.
The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, referred to the first purpose. The second purpose included a recommendation that national park authorities should continue to play a role in promoting quiet enjoyment, not merely facilitating it. The Government accepted that recommendation of the Edwards Panel. They stated that they would produce legislation in the course of time to meet it. As the noble Viscount knows, I always like to help the Government. Therefore the amendment is designed to assist the Government to meet their own commitment.
The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, referred to the drafting of the amendment. Since I have been privileged to be a spokesman for the Opposition Front Bench I have always taken the view that it is not the job of the Opposition, or Back Benchers in this Chamber, to draft amendments which could fit into a Bill without criticism. What we seek to establish here is a principle; and I emphasise that it is a principle.
There are several possibilities. The Government could accept the principle. Indeed, they are committed to the principle that national park authorities should be enjoined to promote quiet enjoyment. If the Government, as I hope they will, accept that principle, the noble Viscount may say, "We accept the principle.

1597
We cannot accept the drafting because of complications, but we shall bring back some provision from the Government at the next stage of the Bill".
There is this second possibility. The Government may say, "We do not accept the principle. We have changed our mind and we advise the Committee not to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie". From that derives two further possibilities: first, that the Committee accepts the opinion of the Government, in which case the matter is left where it is until the next stage; or, secondly, that the Committee accepts the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, despite the advice of the Government.
I understand that there is an established principle of jurisprudence in landlord and tenant legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has taken advice. I agree with him that that is not necessarily relevant to the discussion that the Committee is having today. Nevertheless, if the Committee, under my third hypothesis, rejects the advice of government—if it is the advice of government to reject the amendment—and passes it, the situation is then up to the Government. The Committee having given an opinion, all I can say is that, if the Government agree that they will not reverse that opinion in another place, I give the commitment of my party to join with the Government to seek to develop some formula and jurisprudence which are appropriate and which may fit in with the legislation. I have no particular difficulty provided that the principle is accepted.
It is the principle that we discuss today in Committee. I very much hope that Members of the Committee will have listened carefully to the points that the noble Lord put forward. I shall not reiterate them because I agree with them all. I hope that if Members of the Committee have to make up their minds on the point, they will bear in mind that a distinguished panel made that recommendation, that the Government accepted the recommendation and that the Government accepted that they would bring forward legislation to implement the recommendation of the Edwards Panel on quiet enjoyment. I do not care about the wording. Whatever the wording, I should like the Committee to accept the principle and we can talk about the wording afterwards.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: I support the amendment. A spiritual issue is involved. That is why I intervene in the debate. The issue is not spiritual in a narrow sense, but in the fullest sense of humans being both body, mind and spirit. There is need for that wholesomeness to be supported. Many people live in so much quietness that their one desire is to go away on holiday and have noise. There are some who live in noise and cannot do without it. But many people—young people and others—are forced into the noise, bustle and stress of human life at all levels of society, not just in the business world of the City. They long for peace and quiet. Not everyone can disappear to a remote island in the Pacific. My ideal of a holiday is to get away from everyone and not to have to speak to anyone apart from my wife. But that is simply because I deal with people all the time. There are others who want the opposite.
1598
There are increasing numbers of places where one can achieve noise, excitement, loudness and music. But there are not many places left where one can be quiet; and that quietness is a very real need of the human spirit. Whoever we are—we do not have to believe in God—we need that quietness, that aspect of wholesomeness as human beings.
How do we protect those places? We have so many people pouring into national parks; and that is wonderful. Many people go from my diocese. I am thankful to live where I do within easy reach of Snowdonia, the Lake District and, even better, the Peak District—it is undiscovered by southerners, and we do not want southerners to discover it because that will spoil it! There are wonderful places to which we can go, even today, just to be quiet, stand in the midst of it all and drink it in. That part of the human spirit has often been very productive; think of Judeo-Christian history and what happened to Abraham, to Moses, right the way down through history, to people in the quiet. Our Lord Himself kept retreating to the quiet. Those are places of productivity for the human spirit.
I wish to plead for support for the amendment. It is important that we preserve the national parks from those who wish to fill them with noise and banging, and so on. Let us fight for the national parks to be places where the human spirit can be restored and maintained. It was, I believe, the historian George Macaulay Trevelyan who presented the case for national parks in 1938. He said that they should be,
"walking grounds and regions where young and old can enjoy the sight of unspoiled nature … it is not a question of physical exercise only, it is also a question of spiritual exercise and enjoyment. It is a question of spiritual values".
That was the case for the national parks. It is still the case for the national parks and the amendment helps that case to be fulfilled.
4 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: The amendment is extremely seductive, particularly in the way in which it has been supported. However, in practice it would prohibit a wide range of activities in the national parks, some of which are essential and some of which are popular—for example, forestry. It would also probably prohibit clay pigeon shooting, which makes a lot of noise but in a small area.
The other danger about the amendment is that by stopping people making a noise—like the rather unpleasant habits of motorcycling, the riding of trail bikes and model aircraft flying—and not giving them space, they take their own and operate everywhere. Such activities are much better confined to spoiling small areas rather than large ones. The amendment would work towards stopping that and therefore do more harm than good. The law on nuisance already gives adequate redress against excessive noise and therefore the amendment is neither desirable nor necessary; and it could be dangerous.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I had not intended to speak on the amendment because there are others on which I wish to speak later. However, I have been a little provoked by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. I

1599
hardly need to repeat it, but all my life I have lived in and around Snowdonia, which is my main home. I have done so as a matter of choice and was lucky to do so. I am therefore able to speak from both sides in the debate. Having to work in London and Cardiff, as well as other capitals when I can reach them, I am always able to return to Snowdonia, which I value. I value it because of the environment there as well as the culture which the local population has maintained over the centuries.
I can say on behalf of the residents of Snowdonia—and I cannot speak for all the other parts—that we would warmly welcome a commitment to the "quiet enjoyment" set out in the amendment in some form, as suggested by the Opposition. I emphasise that those of us who live and work in the park do so from choice. Activities such as forestry, the driving of tractors by farmers and motorcycles, where necessary, by young farmers, are all natural activities within the environment of the park.
The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, mentioned model aircraft. Good heavens! When I lived outside Dolgellau, I was continually buzzed by the RAF. That is hardly quiet enjoyment. I wish that the Government would look at the activities of the Ministry of Defence in national parks. Only recently in the Caernarfon area on the fringe of the Snowdonia National Park, I was again overflown by the RAF. Clearly they have caught up with me, I cannot disappear anywhere without the RAF dive-bombing me.
It is a serious point that if we are talking about quiet enjoyment of the parks it means the opportunity for people who live and work there to continue their normal lives and open their doors—as we always have done—to other people who share their objectives. However, there are certain objectives that we do not wish to share.
Today the Welsh Office sent out a note on the issue to local authorities, the national parks and the transitional committees in Wales. It states that while the Government accept,
"that there may be places within the national parks where certain activities are inappropriate, the Government does not accept that, as a matter of principle, particular activities should be excluded from the parks".
I believe that certain activities should be excluded from the parks and that the incessant use of the parks for low-flying practice is one such activity. Others like the motorboats, jet-skis and noisy forms of water sports should be excluded from national parks. I have on a number of occasions campaigned to try to achieve that. Therefore, to have "quiet enjoyment" or its equivalent placed in the legislation would strengthen the position of the park authorities, the boards and the authorities in the future and would also be welcomed by the local population within the parks. They wish to carry out their normal economic activity in the quiet and normal way in which we carry out our activities in the national parks.
The Earl of Onslow: There was recently a group of bell-ringers who were accused of making too much noise and were prevented from ringing the bells. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Elton for that point, he has just reminded me that I pinched it from him, but it is too good not to be used.
1600
It is fair to say that we are talking about motorcycles going cross-country through the national parks with a lot of noise, model aeroplanes and high-speed boats. I suspect that none of your Lordships carry out any of those activities. Their attraction is to the young. We must be extremely careful in saying that the young should not have those relatively harmless sports. It is perfectly fair to suggest that they should be rationed, controlled and not allowed everywhere, but we must strike a balance.
If we insert the words "quiet enjoyment", I do not believe that that will enable us to strike a balance. Surely there is a little bit of Lake Bala or Lake Windermere where someone can play on a water-ski without disturbing everyone.
Lord Elis-Thomas: No.
The Earl of Onslow: I believe that there is. Surely there is a small part somewhere where people may be allowed to go cross-country.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Will the noble Lord accept that what he is talking about has nothing at all to do with the amendment? The amendment has nothing to do with forbidding anything.
The Earl of Onslow: I do not accept that at all, because it is exactly what we are talking about: promoting quiet enjoyment. Of course that is right, but what we must not do is to exclude some activities, from bell-ringing to motorcycling, which in a small way should be allowed, provided they do not impinge on others. I plead for tolerance from middle age and old age to youth.
Lord Moran: I support the amendment which has been comprehensively and capably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. The amendment is quite right. Its purpose was defined clearly by the Edwards Committee when it said that:
"Noisy and intrusive recreational activities should be permitted only on sites where they cause no undue annoyance to other park users and no lasting environmental damage to the fabric of the park itself'.
I believe that that is right. The committee defined "noisy and intrusive activities" as,
"motorcycle scrambling, … four-wheel drive vehicles away from highways … trail bikes, powerboats and microlight aircraft".
I am sorry that the Sports Council should have seen fit to oppose the amendment. I take very much the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that young people must be able to pursue these noisy activities, but they should pursue them in the right place. I have long suggested to the Sports Council that, for example, it ought to buy some hills which are not of conservation importance and arrange for motorcycle scrambling to take place there rather than scattered throughout the national parks and other parts of the countryside which are precious, and particularly so at present. That is where they should turn their energies.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I hope that the Government will examine the amendment and if necessary amend the drafting. One point concerns me. I realise that the amendment is not supposed to affect

1601
traditional country sports. I fear, however, that if accepted as it stands, it would be interpreted by some national park authorities as giving them the green light to stop, let us say, hunting and shooting, which undoubtedly make a noise. That would be a great pity. Perhaps the government lawyers and the parliamentary draftsman should be invited to see whether the principle of quiet enjoyment, which is very important, can be preserved while avoiding the risk to traditional country sports.
Lord Milverton: I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. There is a place for the principle behind the amendment. As previous speakers have said, if the Government cannot accept it, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams suggested, I hope that they will say, "Yes, we will look to see how we can improve it." As the right reverend Prelate said, there is an important need for people to have a place where they can go to enjoy quiet, spiritual refreshment and not be disturbed by excessive noise. Whatever some people may say, there are many who appreciate the fact that they can enjoy the beauty of nature and creation and find refreshment, not just physically and mentally, but spiritually too. There is a place for the amendment. I do not believe that we are being unkind to those who want to go roaring about on motorbikes and the like. If anything, often those people need to give a bit of thought to others.
Lord Dubs: I support the amendment and the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. Those of us who enjoy the national parks—I very much enjoy the Lake District—are frequently afflicted by low-flying aircraft which fly beneath us in the valleys. They hunt in pairs and make an incredible amount of noise. I appreciate the enormous skill of the pilots but I have mixed feelings about whether it is admiration of their skill or annoyance at the noise which influences me most. Frankly, after a day of walking on the fells and being "attacked" repeatedly by low-flying aircraft one wishes that they would stop. I appreciate that the pilots have to learn somewhere. I do not suggest that they should be banned from these areas altogether. I wish, however, that the frequency of flights could be moderated. It does not have to happen all day, on week days, day after day. Any noble Lords who walk in the Lake District in August will be aware of what I am talking about. Can the Government reduce the activities of low-flying aircraft? If the amendment is passed, perhaps the Crown will be bound by it.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: I do not think that there is any question that it is desirable—the Committee is agreed that it is desirable—that one should be able to get deep peace and quiet in the national parks. Two questions arise. The first is: should that peace and quiet be available throughout the national parks to the exclusion of any other activity, or should other activities be compressed or restrained within particular areas? I am very much in sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Gisborough said, and also with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Ullswater. I still call him my noble friend in spite of his
1602
self-declared theft of my lines. The second question is whether the amendment as tabled would have the effect that the Committee wishes in achieving either of those aims.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, suggested that we should discount the effects of the drafting. I accept that government are better at drafting than are Members. One must look at the drafting as an indication of what is intended; one must listen to the mover. Both my noble friend Lord Norrie and, in an intervention, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, whose name is to the amendment but who has not yet spoken to it, have emphasised that the amendment would not ban anything. Yet most of the debate has been about banning low-flying aircraft, chain-saws and motor-boats. There is a confusion somewhere; the Committee is discussing something that does not appear on the Marshalled List. Therefore there must be a defect, either in what is described or in the actual effect of the amendment.
I suggest that we need not only to listen to what is intended by the amendment, but also to what could be achieved by it as it stands. It strikes in a paragraph of the Bill and affects what the authorities can promote. It changes the order of the words and it adds the word "quiet", which is so attractive and seductive. Either that involves prohibiting noisy enjoyment or it has no effect. Therefore the answer to my first question is that it is right that noisy activities should, where possible, be restrained within particular areas. The answer to my second question is that the amendment would not have that effect.
Lord Gisborough: I return to the matter of low-flying aircraft. I hope that the Government will not succumb to the argument that they should not fly over national parks. None of us likes the noise caused by low-flying aircraft although I must say that it is quite fun to take part in that activity oneself. It is a shattering noise. But, if we want an efficient air force, we have to accept it. The alternative is to have them fly over populated areas. I wonder how many people would prefer that.
Lord Ackner: I had been anticipating that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would raise this point and would do much better than I could. It seems to me that the amendment will require the definition of what is meant by "quiet" in relation to the word "enjoyment". One achieves nothing by having "quiet" on its own. In fact, one achieves a possible complication because it is a term of art in landlord and tenant work, as it is in vendor and purchaser work. "Quiet enjoyment" is a reference by implication. It is implied in all those relationships that there is an obligation—
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord. I am not sure whether he was here when I supported the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, in his moving the amendment. I addressed myself to the point of the drafting. I accepted that there was a problem with the expression "quiet enjoyment" in the context of landlord and tenant legislation. The point I was making—I hope that the noble and learned Lord was

1603
here and understood it—was that we are asking the Government to accept a principle. The drafting can come later.
Lord Ackner: Indeed, I was here from the very outset of the debate. I would not have dreamt of intervening if that had not been the case. So I both heard and, I believe, understood what the noble Lord said. I made a note of his three points. It is on his first point that I seek to address the Committee; namely, that one should seek to establish the principle. I submit that you do not establish any principle until you define what you mean by "quiet". The landlord and tenant aspect is important because it is a term of art which relates only to physical interference. It has no acoustic connotation at all. There has to be a physical interference. Most students, for obvious reasons, can recollect the case of the landlord who, after letting property, built a staircase, either intentionally or unintentionally, which passed the bedroom window of the tenant. That was held not to be a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment because it did not involve a physical interference. Is the principle to be that there is an obligation to make no noise, or only the noise which would be the subject matter of a successful action in nuisance—in which case one does not need the clause? Or is it to be specific activities—in which case I submit that the specific activities ought to be defined and stated, so that one knows exactly what one is dealing with?
Having listened carefully to the debate, I believe that the principle in question is essentially: Do you prohibit specific activities because their noise, where they destroy quiet, is so intrusive and unacceptable that it should be specified and prescribed?
Lord Renton: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for intervening. He saved me from inflicting upon the Committee a legal opinion on the matter. Perhaps I may just add a postscript to what he said. If in one statute words are used which have previously been used in a statute, those words are considered to have the same meaning as they had in the previous statute, unless the latest statute makes it clear that they have a different meaning.
Therefore, it would be most inappropriate to use the words "quiet enjoyment" without any kind of qualification. One should bear in mind that those words—I hope that my noble friend Lord Ullswater will be able to confirm it—have not been used in any previous legislation with the purpose of protecting the public at large from activities of other members of the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, says, "Don't worry about the words; let's just go for the principle". But we are only at the Committee stage in the first of the two Houses of Parliament which will have to consider with great care this lengthy and detailed Bill. I should have thought that at this Committee stage, leaving aside the detail, and bearing in mind the amazing consensus that there has been so far on both sides of the Chamber, we should let the Government have our views as to the practicalities of the matter.
1604
As I have dared to say that, perhaps I may now make a confession. Some years ago—I must say that it was 30 years ago—I went water skiing on Windermere. I do not know whether it is still allowed. But I enjoyed it very much, just as I have enjoyed water skiing elsewhere. Water skiing does not create the disturbance that some very noisy motor boats do. It does not create anything like the disturbance that some horrible motor cycles do; and, if I may dare add another sort of noise which I think should be put into the minds of the Government (I hope that all Members of the Committee will agree) there are some terrible pop concerts. We cannot stop them being held in some places; but I hope that they will not be held in national parks.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Norrie. I would not dream of tangling with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, other than to say that I thought his description of his problem with the words "quiet enjoyment" was wholly conclusive. I found myself persuaded.
We are faced with the general objective of trying to achieve a regime of what might be called people being able to enjoy peace and quiet in the national parks. But there is a difficulty in finding language to encourage that without making it impossible for other, perfectly legitimate pursuits to be followed in ways that do not intrude unreasonably on the enjoyment of that quiet by others. That is what we are after.
It may be that my noble friend's amendment does not achieve that aim. But certainly I would welcome some indication from my noble friend on the Front Bench that he sympathises with that general objective.
I should like to put to him two specific points. Some Members of the Committee may remember a debate a year or two ago on a proposal to implement an agreement about rights of way that had been reached between, on the one hand, the Ramblers' Association and, on the other side, the NFU and the Country Landowners' Association. There had been a long effort of conciliation between the two, chaired by a Member of another place (I believe that it was Mr. Alan Haselhurst) and an agreement was reached in the end which could be couched in regulations—or it may have been in a Private Member's Bill. I should have looked the matter up and I apologise to the Committee for not having done so.
On that occasion I remember thoroughly supporting the objective and said that the next matter to which I hoped the same process could be applied was finding a reconciliation between people who want to do noisy things in quiet places and those who do not. I particularly mentioned activities such as motorcycles and moto-cross and I may have mentioned micro-lights. When my noble friend comes to reply, I wonder whether he can shed any light on whether there has been any follow-up of what at the time seemed to me and to some other Members of this Chamber to have been a very valuable initiative.
My second point is a practical point. It is a question. A number of Members referred to the disturbance which may be caused in the course of military training.

1605
Reference was made to low-flying aircraft. The military have access to substantial areas of national parks. For some time the Government have had a report, which they commissioned and which was prepared by the United Kingdom Centre for Economic and Environmental Development (UKCEED). The noble Lord, Lord Barber and I are both on the council of that body. If there is an interest to declare, I declare it. I can assure the Committee that it is not financial.
That report was prepared for UKCEED by an extremely able environmentalist, Dr. Susan Owens of Cambridge University. It was an immensely thorough examination of the use of defence lands, particularly in national parks. It seems to me—I may be wrong—that that report has disappeared without trace. I understand that it was delivered to the departments concerned and I wonder whether something of it could possibly be resurrected. Not necessarily this afternoon, but at some stage, perhaps we could have from the Government an indication as to how far they are prepared to respond to the recommendations in that report.
Those seem to me to be practical steps which might be taken to achieve my noble friend's objective of reconciling the different uses. At the heart of it, which is what we want to see—I was enormously impressed by the observations of the right reverend Prelate on this matter—is the spiritual element. There is a spiritual element in all this. People go to the countryside for recreation. What, in fact, does that word "recreation" mean? People go to the countryside to recharge their batteries, as it were, not just physically and mentally but also spiritually. I feel that that is what the Committee is grasping for.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us some comfort and not, as it were, just slam the door on this issue. We are looking for something here. Perhaps we have not defined carefully enough what it is and perhaps those words are not right; but that is what we are after. I hope that my noble friend will be able to help us.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Chorley: We should listen with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said. We are after some sort of lead from the Government that somehow they will incorporate the spirit of the amendment into the legislation. I am sure also that we shall want to take note of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton said.
I put my name to the amendment in my capacity as chairman of the National Trust. After all, many of our members go to the national parks for just what we have been talking about, and the National Trust has huge land holdings in all the national parks. Around 100 million visits are made to the parks every year and it is vital that the legislation makes clear the recreational opportunities that the parks offer. Many visitors go to the parks to sit down and simply enjoy themselves. Three-quarters of the visitors are active and go for walks. The rest follow a wide range of sports on land,
1606
water and even in the air, of which the quietest is now what is called "para-penting"—something I would like to have done in my day.
The Edwards Panel said,
"the prime resource is still the landscape, with enjoyment derived from looking at the splendours of the scenery from the roads, paths and rivers".
What the overwhelming majority of visitors have in common—here I follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon—is that they often come from urban areas to visit the parks for spiritual refreshment, renewal and relaxation. They expect the parks to afford them opportunities for "quiet enjoyment", however we incorporate it into the legislation; after all, that was the original purpose of the designation. Those opportunities would be diminished for the overwhelming majority of visitors if the parks were about promoting opportunities for enjoyment of any kind of activity. It may be that we shall need to define them; I do not know. But we are trying to find a consensus somehow to incorporate the spirit of quietness into the legislation.
Noisy activities are increasing in the parks. Legislation must set up an enduring, logical, statutory framework that will stand the test of time, especially when it comes to changes in recreational technology—"recreational technology" sounds awful—which we cannot foresee today. The Government must take a long view. They must set the parks, with their new authorities, on the course of promoting enjoyment and understanding that will not interfere with the original intentions of those who worked so hard to set them up in the first place. I agree that ministerial guidance is not enough and we must have something in legislation.
Lord Marlesford: National parks have been with us for just under half a century and much has changed in that time. The Edwards Committee identified some of the changes and some of the problems that flowed from them. One of the problems that it identified was the increasing noise. It was to deal with that problem that it made its recommendation which the Government accepted and used in their 1992 response when they undertook to introduce legislation to refer expressly to "quiet enjoyment and understanding".
Of course I accept from the noble and learned Lord and others that the wording of the amendment is inappropriate. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said, those of us who support the intention behind the amendment are in no sense wedded to the wording. But we must have something in the new statute which deals with this new and increasing problem. It is a major problem which, if left unchecked and undealt with, could greatly damage that which the national parks have contributed and should increasingly contribute to the welfare of the people of this country and indeed of visitors from overseas who use the national parks.
All I ask my noble friend the Minister is to say that the Government are sympathetic to the intention; that they will introduce some wording on Report which will be more appropriate to fulfil that intention. It would only

1607
be if such an undertaking did not come from my noble friend that I would feel inclined to try at least to get this inadequate wording into the Bill at the appropriate stage.
Lord Greenway: We have been up in the sky—if one can call low-flying aircraft "up in the sky". We have been above the clouds in my noble and learned friend's discourse on the word "quiet". But perhaps I may bring the Committee back down to sea level. In view of my interest in the Bill to date, it would be strange if I did not say something on behalf of the boating interests, because certain forms of noisy boating have been referred to—though in a lifetime's experience of boating I have yet to come across a "towed inflated crocodile". Perhaps that is a pleasure which awaits me in later life.
It goes without saying that the boating interests—I include all of them, not just the powerboaters—are extremely worried by the amendment. The concept of promoting "quiet enjoyment" appears at first to be uncontroversial. But if it is included in the legislation, there is a fear that it may be interpreted in a way that goes far beyond what was intended. Perhaps I might give the Committee one or two examples.
At the recent Windermere public inquiry, which has already been mentioned, the promoters of the 10 miles an hour speed limit, which was intended to ban water-skiing, powerboat racing and powerboat record attempts, canvassed in the greatest detail and at great length the concept of "quiet enjoyment" as a reason for prohibiting those activities. In fact in the end it was all that was left of their case once they had failed to justify their allegations of wash, noise and conflict due to powerboats. To pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, those activities, by and large, take place in a fairly small area and in the case of Windermere, the national park there is extremely large.
My second example relates to certain bodies that are campaigning to urge the Government that in the context of "quiet enjoyment" all motorised water-based recreational activities are inappropriate in national parks and new activities of that kind should not be allowed; by inference, and as demonstrated at Windermere, existing use should also be terminated. That would effectively remove powered craft from all national parks. There is little doubt that the CNP would then seek to achieve the same clearances from other areas such as the Norfolk Broads, areas of outstanding natural beauty and the heritage coastal areas. Arising out of that, if the activities were to be banned, would be a backlash in relation to jobs. For example, if powerboating was banned in the Windermere area, certain interests estimate that up to 400 local jobs may be lost; and even the national parks council thought that 160 jobs would be lost.
Finally, the term "quiet enjoyment" is capable of redefinition to cover activities and levels of noise that no reasonable person could consider noisy. A recent discussion document by the Countryside Council for Wales states,
"(under some circumstances) dinghy racing"—
I repeat "dinghy racing"—
1608
"will intrude to an unacceptable degree upon wildlife and the quiet enjoyment of the seaside by the public".
If an apparently responsible body such as the CCW is led to characterise dinghy racing as a noisy watersport, virtually every active form of recreation could be similarly described. Those things sound terrific alarm bells among the boating fraternity, and the Government should be extremely cautious when dealing with the amendment. I am firmly opposed to it and I hope that the Government will look at it most carefully.
Noble Lords: Minister!
Viscount Ullswater: I am in the hands of the Committee, as always. It may be proper that I should say a few words at this time. It would not prevent other Members of the Committee from joining in the debate after I sit down.
I can assure my noble friend Lord Norrie and the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Chorley, who spoke to the amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who asked me whether the Government had carefully looked at the words in the Edwards Report, that we looked very carefully at the proposed wording for the second purpose and the arguments put forward in support of it before arriving at the form of words which appears in Clause 58(1) of the Bill.
We indicated in the summary of action proposed in our 1992 policy statement on the future of the national parks that the second national park purpose should refer to "quiet enjoyment". However, the statement also recognised that the parks should provide a wide range of experiences for the visitor and that there are activities which are in conflict with the concept of quiet enjoyment. It also made clear that co-operation is the best means of encouraging sensitive uses of the parks while recognising that those experiences which are unique to them—and which are largely related to the quiet enjoyment of these areas—should be protected and fostered. So, while our policy statement reflected the importance of the term "quiet enjoyment", it also recognised that the issue was not as clear-cut as might at first glance be supposed. Since then, we have also found that there are difficulties in using that specific term, which a number of noble Lords acknowledged when we debated the issue at Second Reading and have identified this afternoon.
I sympathise with those noble Lords who fear that the enjoyment of the parks' special qualities by the many may be put at risk by the recreational pursuits of the few. The Government are also as opposed as any here to intrusions into the parks which may result from the insensitive and inappropriate use of the countryside. However, I am uneasy as to the possible consequences of this amendment. Do those who desire the addition of this adjective do so according to its common English usage? I am far from clear that they do. If they see only a narrow application, how is it to be so limited?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, identified some of the problems of using the word "quiet" without some form of qualification. The riding of motorbikes or driving of vehicles over open country or on footpaths is already illegal. So perhaps the noble Lords desire to ban the riding of motorbikes anywhere in the parks,

1609
including on public roads. Or do they wish it extended to other "noisy" but more traditional sports? Or perhaps agricultural and forestry operations are to be silenced. Of course, the noble Lords who promote the amendment deny such wide-ranging intent, but I share the fear of my noble friend Lord Gisborough and the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, that by their amendment they run the risk of hitting too many inadvertent targets.
My noble friend Lord Elton shares my concern about the alternative view that the effect of the amendment would be to leave the park authorities free to choose to promote "quiet" activities but to do so without detriment to other, by implication "noisy", activities. I am not convinced that that interpretation of the amendment will be shared by all or will be practically useful to the national park authorities.
Nevertheless, I fully understand the wish—I would agree with the intention of my noble friend Lord Norrie—for the second national park purpose to reflect the value of the parks as providing places where we can get away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester that we need spaces in our lives to get away from such hustle and bustle. The Government entirely share that expectation. Our draft circular, which I have placed in the Library of the House and which is available in the Printed Paper Office, emphasises that the special qualities of the parks are to be determined within the context of their natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, with particular emphasis on opportunities for savouring the wide open spaces and the wilderness and the tranquillity which are to be found in the parks, particularly in the more remote or less heavily visited areas.
However, we do not, as a matter of principle, accept that particular recreational activities should be automatically excluded from every part of every park. Many of the people who visit the parks reasonably expect to use the opportunities they offer to undertake a wide range of recreational pursuits. Bowness and Castleton are as much a part of the parks as the wild and remote places that we cherish. In formulating policies, the national park authorities must work towards striking a balance between the legitimate demand to use all the opportunities the parks afford for open-air recreation and those who wish to enjoy only their beauty and tranquillity.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, tried to say that this is a matter of principle. I do not necessarily agree with him that it is a matter of principle. In most instances, it should be possible, by encouraging co-operation and through careful planning and positive management, to accommodate both those who wish to enjoy and appreciate the parks as quiet places and those who wish to use the opportunities they afford for more active pursuits. Nevertheless, we accept that some recreational activities for which a place will be sought in the parks could cause unacceptable damage or disturbance to their natural beauty, wildlife or cultural heritage, which in turn may also affect other people's understanding and enjoyment of their special qualities. For that reason, while we believe that every effort should be made to find a solution through negotiation and mediation—and
1610
perhaps even tolerance, as my noble friend Lord Onslow said—in those exceptional cases where that proves impossible, we now propose to place in statute the principle that the first purpose—of conservation and enhancement of their natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage—must take precedence.
I believe that this approach will prove far more effective than any blanket ban, which will be difficult to enforce and impossible to define. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Norrie: I am very conscious that we have been debating the amendment for more than an hour and I am grateful to the Committee for listening for such a long period of time. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Williams, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Chorley, for their assistance and support. What we are all concerned with is the kind of recreational opportunities which the national parks are there to promote. I stress that the clause and amendment are concerned with recreation and not other activities such as forestry and military training. We put it to the Committee that it would be inviting disaster in days of increasing technological forms of enjoyment to leave open the definition of "enjoyment". The problem exists now and the pressures can only increase. Therefore, it is essential to put "quiet enjoyment" on the face of the Bill and we look to the guidance to expand its implementation.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ullswater for the opportunities which he has given me to discuss this issue with him and for his reply today, but I am not persuaded that the expression "special qualities" indicates sufficiently clearly what type of recreations national parks should have the purpose of promoting. The guidance only aggravates matters by suggesting that any type of recreation should be promoted in popular parts of the parks. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, made clear, it is the principle of quiet enjoyment that we wish to establish with this amendment. I agree wholeheartedly with him. We wish to provide a talisman to guide those involved in promoting enjoyment of the parks.
It is my firm belief, based on sound advice, that "quiet enjoyment" acquires a legal meaning in the context of national parks and the countryside. In the light of support from all sides of the Committee for the amendment—
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend concludes, I wonder whether he will allow me to intervene. I can well understand anyone wanting to establish a principle. However, I would ask him to bear in mind that we will be amending a Bill. Surely it is a bad way to establish a Bill to amend it in such a way, as has been shown by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, to be wrong

1611
in law. If we are going to establish a principle by some innocent amendment, by all means let us do so, but not by one which gives rise to a patent legal difficulty.
Lord Norrie: It is a question of principle. I feel that we have between now and the time when the Bill goes down to another place to get this right. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 253) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 129; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Haskel, L.

Addington, L.

Healey, L.

Addison, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ailesbury, M.

Hollick, L.

Airedale, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hooson, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Avebury, L.

Hunt, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Bath, M.

Jacques, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Birk, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Bridges, L.

Kennet, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kintore, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Chester, Bp.

Mallalieu, B.

Chorley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Marlesford, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mayhew, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

McNair, L.

David, B.

Methuen, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Milverton, L.

Denham, L.

Molloy, L.

Desai, L.

Monkswell, L.

Diamond, L.

Moran, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mulley, L.

Dubs, L.

Munster, E.

Eatwell, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Nelson, E.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Ezra, L.

Norrie, L. [Teller.]

Falkender, B.

Northbourne, L.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Peston, L.

Foot, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rankeillour, L

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rea, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Glasgow, E.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

[Teller.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Grey, E.

Rochester, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hamwee, B.

Russell, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sainsbury, L.

1612

Sandford, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Seear, B.

Tope, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Tordoff, L.

Serota, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Shannon, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Shepherd, L.

Walpole, L.

Stallard, L.

White, B.

Stedman, B.

Wigoder, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Tenby, V.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Ackner, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ailsa, M.

Lawrence, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Leigh, L.

Annaly, L.

Lindsay, E.

Astor, V.

Liverpool, E.

Blaker, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blyth, L.

Lucas, L.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lytton, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Burnham, L.

Chancellor.]

Butterworth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cadman, L.

May, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Carnock, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mills, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Mottistone, L.

Coleridge, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Courtown, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Northesk, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Onslow, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Dement, L.

Peel, E.

Digby, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pike, B.

Elles, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Feversham, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gage, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Geddes, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Goschen, V.

Stewartby, L.

Gray, L.

Strange, B.

Greenway, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harlech, L.

Swansea, L.

Harmsworth, L

Swinfen, L.

Harrowby, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgame, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Howe, E.

Vinson, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vivian, L.

Inchyra, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Wharton, B.

Jenkin of Roiling, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Kimball, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.58 p.m.
Earl Peelmoved Amendment No. 254:
Page 64, line 30, at end insert ("; and
(c) of promoting the economic and social well-being of local communities within those areas.").
The noble Earl said: Although Amendment No. 260 is grouped with this amendment, I am intending to speak only to Amendment No. 254 and not Amendment No. 260 at this stage. I begin by saying how much I welcome in Clause 59 of the Bill the fact that a National Park authority,
"shall have regard to the economic and social well-being of local communities within the National Park".
However, from my experience of having lived and managed land in a park for the past 25 years and taking into account the two purposes of the national parks—that is to say,
"conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage",
and promoting opportunities for public enjoyment—I do not consider that simply to "have regard to" in this matter goes far enough.
I do not think that I am exaggerating when I say that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction and frustration among many people living and working within the national parks who feel that their interests are at times ignored and often sacrificed unnecessarily for other interests. There is a feeling that the local presence is not accepted as being as important as that of the visitors who come to the park and then leave and whose contribution to the very heart and soul of the national parks is comparatively negligible. Those who form part of the national park communities are undoubtedly an essential ingredient of what the parks are all about. I believe that their interests should be treated on a basis that is at least equal to the way in which we treat the interests of those who visit the parks. Having said that, it is right that all interests in the park should adhere to what has become known as the "Sandford principle" —that is, to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of those areas, as specifically mentioned in the Bill. Given the right incentives, who better to do that than those who live and work in those areas?
I am sure that Members of the Committee are aware—although I suspect that many are not—that by far and away the majority of land in the national parks in England and Wales is privately owned. The national parks in this country are not similar to those in the United States. Therefore, it is essential that the local communities who live and work in the parks have confidence in the authority. It is a partnership—and a partnership clearly has to work both ways.
Under the Bill, the park authorities have considerable new powers, including new planning powers and the powers, subject to instruction from the Secretary of State, to produce a structure plan. Those powers are bound to have a considerable bearing on local interests
1614
and economic well-being. It therefore seems essential that the local communities should have every right to be treated equally with those other interests which the park authorities exist to promote.
I know that it is argued that there are other agencies and, indeed, government departments already promoting local interests. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does a lot of work on the farming side through various incentive schemes which undoubtedly help the local farming community. That is in addition to the subsidies which many farmers receive. There is also the Rural Development Commission which is under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth, who has asked me to apologise for the fact that he is not able to be present in Committee today. He has told me that he very much supports the amendment.
I believe that it can be argued equally that there are agencies and government departments promoting the interests of conservation and public enjoyment. On the conservation front, there is English Nature, with its new obligations towards the habitat directive, as well as the existing SSSIs and the grants that are available. There are also the environmentally sensitive areas—the ESAs—which, with MAFF, have done so much to enhance the well-being of local habitats and, indeed, to support the local community and farmers. On the public enjoyment front, there are the Countryside Commission and the tourist boards. Where do we draw the line? To say that one particular aspect of national park duties is promoted by various different agencies and that another is not is simply not the case. They are all supported in different ways.
Of course, it is right to give the public an opportunity to share the beauty of the parks. Of course, it is essential that the beauty of the parks is conserved for everyone. But I believe that the third leg of the stool is equally important—I refer to the well-being and the skills of the local community. I also appreciate that many feel that the resources that are available to the national parks are simply not sufficient to enable them to carry out that duty. But it could also be argued that the money that is available to the national parks does not go very far as regards conservation issues and that other agencies have promoted conservation to a far greater extent than the national parks. So it is not just a simple question of resources. It is a question of attitude of mind as much as anything else. It is a matter of giving the local people confidence that the national parks are looking after their interests as much as other interests. I believe that the national parks must both think local and act local, and I believe that my amendment would achieve that. I beg to move.
Lord Derwent: I have an amendment in this grouping, Amendment No. 255ZB, which does not go as far as the amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel in that it does not seek to add a third purpose for the parks. I have total sympathy with the thinking behind my noble friend's amendment. Indeed, if that amendment is accepted by the Committee, there will be no need for mine, and I would support my noble friend.

1615
However, I have some anxieties about Amendment No. 254. The national parks do not have the budgets, the staff or the expertise to enable them to take on the responsibility for,
"promoting the economic and social well-being of local communities".
The responsibility to achieve that lies firmly with central and local government. Being suspicious, I fear that if local councils are encouraged to believe that the responsibility lies with the park authorities, they will tend to ignore their own responsibilities and will pass the buck to the parks, which in turn will have neither the cash nor the resources to do the job.
On the other hand, I think that the parks' obligation as expressed in Clause 59(1), which reads:
"A National Park authority, in pursuing … the purposes … shall have regard to the economic and social well-being of local communities",
is too weak. It means little more than that the park authorities should try, if possible, not to damage the interests of the local communities. I think most park authorities would like to be free to be more helpful than that. That is why I have chosen the word "foster" which implies that the park authorities should try to be helpful to the communities in pursuing their two primary purposes. I too have been approached by the noble Lord, Lord Shuttleworth, who said that in the event of the Committee not accepting the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel, he and the Rural Development Commission would be in favour of what I think is a compromise suggestion.
I accept that the intention behind my amendment is covered in the draft guidance which the Minister has been good enough to have ready for today's debate. Paragraph 9 refers to the parks working with and for their local communities. That is excellent, but at present the Bill does not go as far as the guidance. I think it should.
Lord Elis-Thomas: The two amendments in the group which stand in my name enable us to look further at the opportunity of co-ordinating the various purposes of national parks by adding the purpose of having regard to the social and economic well-being of the local population and placing that as a clear objective, but within the context of sustainable development. The second amendment adds the sustainable development concept to the present wording in the Bill, which refers to having regard to the social and economic well-being.
We have agreed to place upon the environment agency generally the obligation of operating within the terms of sustainable development. Yet, when we look at this section of Part III, there is no reference to that. Many Members of the Committee believe that the concept of sustainable development is not itself a sustainable concept. However, as regards the objectives of national park policy, it is the most appropriate concept that we could find.
It could be argued that the original 1949 legislation always placed contradictory purposes upon the national park authorities and the national park populations in that there was the obligation to conservation and the
1616
obligation to recreation or amenity, and those could be seen to be conflicting. It can be argued—and no doubt it will be argued by the Government—that the placing of a third obligation in the purposes adds to that conflict. But if all the objectives are viewed within the overall framework of a policy of sustainable development it can all hang together; all can become coherent purposes.
If we cannot apply sustainable development as a philosophy and a practice in national parks where can we apply it? I believe that the Government should set out clearly what is the interrelation between the economic objectives and the conservation objectives. That is not clear in the Welsh Office draft letter or in the draft circular for England. I shall not go into the reasons why Wales has a draft letter and England has a draft circular, but that appears to be the case. In my view, the Government should state in the letter and in the circular: "Within national parks, here is the area for us to develop the philosophy and practice of sustainable development".
We have the issues of habitat conservation, the conservation of flora and fauna, landscape conservation and the maintenance of cultural heritage. We also have the need to maintain the stability of the local population by creating and maintaining employment. Without those there is not a sustainable population in agriculture, tourism, forestry, other extractive activities, the service industries, the public sector and administration. There is not a population which can sustain the level of activity required to enable national parks to meet the objectives of conservation and recreation.
For all those reasons, I hope that the Minister will look seriously at introducing the concept on the face of the Bill. Having had one defeat today, I suspect that he will not accede to any of the amendments. However, will he look at the matter again in the context of the draft circular and the draft letter? That is all I ask him to do today. The development agencies operating within the parks—in the case of Snowdonia it is the Development Board for Rural Wales and the WDA—the local authorities operating the various EC leader and other programmes that are part of the present economic support structure within the parks will then be seen to be working together with the park authority with the same objectives.
I know that the Minister will say that Clause 59 places an obligation on the other public agencies to carry out or to have regard to national park functions. However, I should like to see the national parks becoming the lead agencies for promoting sustainable development within their areas. They should bring together the possibilities of environmentally friendly tourism, the need for habitat conservation and the need for that level of economic job creation which maintains the local population.
I shall conclude by citing an example that applies to my former parliamentary constituency. At the soon-to-be decommissioned nuclear power station at Trawsfynydd in the heart of the Snowdonia National Park we have experienced the loss of 600 jobs of people directly employed in the power station. That is a case, if ever there was one, where all the public authorities should be co-operating but within national park objectives. None of us who is concerned about the

1617
long-term economic future of that area would argue for another power station. We would argue for a sustainable longer-term cycle of employment. That can be achieved by ensuring integration between the activities of the park and the economic development agencies.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Vinson: I support the principle behind both amendments. I must declare that for 10 years I was chairman of the Rural Development Commission and I live in a national park. The amendments are important because the day-to-day life of the national park must go on and the national park officers must live, mix and work with the local residents. If the Bill is framed so that the whole emphasis is to give recreation and pleasure to outcomers, and if it does not sufficiently emphasise the livelihoods and importance of those who live within the parks, a tension will be developed between the national park officers and the local village and farm people. The introduction into the Bill of a stronger element—that it is the wish and desire of the national park authority to promote or to foster, which is a good word, the livelihoods of people who live and work in the park—would do immense good. The whole operation of the park administration would work better and good will would be created. Through that will be created the kind of atmosphere that effuses into the area of the park and makes the enjoyment of those who come for whatever purposes doubly so.
I hope that the Government will not dismiss the essential purpose behind the two amendments. I hope that they will consider taking them away and building at least the word "foster" into the aims and purposes of the new national park authority. In that way they will clearly illustrate that they have at heart the good will and livelihoods of those who work there.
Lord Redesdale: I speak mainly in support of Amendment No. 254ZA, in particular in respect of the word "communities". I live within Northumberland National Park, which does not appear to receive many of the benefits of tourism that go to other national parks. However, there appear to be many restrictions on living within the national park.
The communities have a responsibility to uphold the objectives of the national parks and it is important that they should not feel totally constrained by the rules applying to the national parks. It is a little harsh to be seen to be living in a form of rural museum. I support Amendment No. 254ZA in particular because it includes the phrase "sustainable development". It is possible sympathetically to develop economic interests in national parks. However, grants should be available for such activities. Those available to national parks, in particular in Northumbria, are small.
We must look at the economic and social well-being of communities. Living near the Otterburn training area, I have noticed that a large amount of ill will is shown towards the national park. Indeed, it culminated in a petition to remove the national park from the training area because it was considered that it was not interested in the major area of employment. That caused a great deal of hostility towards the national park. Those living
1618
within the national parks believe that they are for the enjoyment of other people, which increases the restraints. I thoroughly support the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: It is interesting that national parks are in areas which nobody previously wanted to develop. They have not been ruined like Surrey, Middlesex or Liverpool. National parks are basically wild places. They are wild because there has been no great possibility of enormous economic development in them.
People say rightly that national parks are special. They can be kept viable only by a combination of grants, subsidies and so on. There are hill grants for farmers and grants for rebuilding the walls on the Crimea Pass. That is quite right. Therefore, we are looking at the need to preserve a great wild garden in England for the benefit of everybody. It seems important that, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, they should not be preserved as museums. We must try to encourage rural crafts—stonemasons and so on—and small businesses in which perhaps only one or two jobs are created. That will cause more traffic problems but surely we want more than mere museums supported by grants from the agricultural community. We must do something. How it is to be done I do not know. I believe that the word "foster" goes some way towards achieving what is needed.
Baroness Nicol: I do not dissent from anything said about the need to keep healthy communities in national parks. I am sure that my noble friends who support some of the amendments share that view. Where I disagree with the amendments is in relation to the attempt to make them part of the purposes of national parks. National parks were designated because of their natural beauty and their potential for outdoor recreation. But the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, suggests that the promotion of social and economic well-being was part of the reason for selecting the areas in the first place. That is not the case.
The purposes are different from the role of the national parks authorities; we shall deal with that in our discussions on Clause 59. All those Members of the Committee who say that they wish to see the development of the economic strength of communities will find an opportunity to achieve that in Clause 59. I feel the same about the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. To try to include sustainable development in the purposes of the national parks will blur the issue and will make their task more difficult.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that changing the words "socio-economic duty" to "foster" is not acceptable. I consider that the Government have got it right on this occasion. It is not the role of national park authorities to double up on the work carried out by other agencies. It would cause resentment and confusion if they tried to do so.
The word "foster" puts the park authorities in the role of lead agencies. That is not their duty. The words "have regard to" reflect accurately the intention that they should work in partnership with others. I strongly support the view of the noble Earl that partnership is an

1619
important word. The national park authorities must, and I am sure will, work in partnership with local communities. For those reasons, I do not support any of the amendments.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I support the amendment. If the social well-being of the local community is not a major plank in the clause, in the end there will be no national parks. I do not agree with the noble Baroness. There will then be no purpose for them at all. I am afraid that we are not getting on very well in relation to this Bill. I hope that my noble friend, even if he does not accept the detail of the amendment, will accept the principle and the importance of the local community.
Baroness Hamwee: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I am troubled not by the sentiments underlying the amendments, with which I agree wholeheartedly, regarding the need to look to matters of sustainable development and the need to look to economic and social matters. I am concerned about the blurring of responsibility which may occur for the best of reasons. As the noble Baroness said, there are other agencies, which include local authorities. I fear that it would make the carrying out of the duties of other agencies more difficult if those authorities were to take over some of their powers.
Lord Norrie: I have a problem as regards accepting Amendments Nos. 254, 260 and 254ZA. Giving the national parks a third purpose was a question which the National Parks Review Panel looked at in detail. It did not gain the panel's support. While recognising,
"the economic and social well-being of the park community is important for the effective conservation and enjoyment of the parks",
it did not conclude that the parks should therefore have a third socio-economic purpose. In their response to the National Parks Review Panel, the Government did not agree either.
Conservation and the promotion of quiet enjoyment are the purposes of designation and I mean by that the reasons why the national parks were set up in the first place. The socio-economic duty is part of the role of national parks authorities. The Bill clearly defines a distinction between the national parks' purposes and the socio-economic duty. I believe that Amendment No. 255A clarifies the fact that that duty should be carried out in ways which are compatible with or further those purposes. I believe the Bill has got it absolutely right. If national parks were designated with a socio-economic purpose, they would no longer be unique and the national parks authorities would be doubling up, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, on the work done by bodies like the Rural Development Commission, the Welsh Development Agency and local authorities. Therefore, the Bill strikes the right relationship between national park purposes and the socio-economic duty.
Lord Renton: My noble friend Lord Norrie knows that I share his enthusiasm for national parks. However, I ask him and other noble Lords to bear in mind that if we wish national parks to be well preserved that will need the co-operation of the people who live in them
1620
and who have to make their living in them. They do not wish their opportunities to be frozen. As several of my noble friends said, there must be encouragement of rural crafts. I go further. There must be encouragement of rural industries, especially those that are ancillary to agriculture, forestry—we cannot prevent sawmills and should not wish to do so—horticulture and packing stations for horticulture, which are increasing. They need not be vast affairs: we must not discourage them.
Fisheries require industrial and ancillary development sometimes but not on a large scale. I would be very much opposed to cement factories or power stations other than hydro-electric power stations coming into national parks. As hydro-electricity develops, and I hope it may develop further, national parks are a natural place for such power stations which are not intrusive. Having said that, I am totally against the use of the words "sustainable development". It is much too wide an expression. I agree with those noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Norrie, who are worried lest sustainable development becomes an excuse for changing our national parks adversely.
I owe an apology to my noble friend Lord Peel. I said that I wanted to support his amendment; in principle, I do. I gather that it is really a probing amendment. The difficulty I have is that it seems to overlap with the terms of new Section 11A which it is proposed to add to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The main aims are set out in that section. In those circumstances, I am not sure that we also need to have them stated earlier in the Bill in the way suggested by my noble friend. However, as I am referring to the re-enacting with the amendment to Section 11 of the 1949 Act, I should say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Derwent in that I believe that his word "foster" would be appropriate.
However, we must be careful with such matters. We do not wish national parks either to lose their character through overdevelopment, whether it is housing, factories or whatever, or to fail in their purpose by depriving local people of the opportunity of living a normal life.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: I should like to express my support for Amendment No. 254 moved by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. I supported the noble Earl previously when we dealt with the matter in the context of the National Parks Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. I feel no less strongly about it now. As has been mentioned, if economic purposes are not relevant to the conduct of national park infrastructure in terms of its socio-economics, it is very unlikely that the necessary new investment will be made or properly channelled.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, referred to the lack of resources available to national parks to take on a further function of the nature proposed. My experience is that there is very little in the way of resources even for things like access provision or the management of areas designated by national park authorities under Section 3 of the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985, both of which affect me as a farmer on Exmoor. We need to reach a point where we have an integrated

1621
approach to recreation, conservation and socio-economics. That is why I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Peel, that we need the third leg of this particular stool, without which the whole thing risks falling over.
Under the Bill's proposals, national park authorities will have extensive new powers. It is possible that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, overlooked the economic importance of the use of planning powers. I see that she is shaking her head, so obviously she has considered the point. However, if one authority has planning powers but it is for another authority that does not have those powers to promote the social and economic well-being, there is a discontinuity between the two functions. My concern is that that does not lead us to an integrated approach.
During the proceedings on the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, with which we dealt last year in this Chamber, I was particularly heartened—as I am sure was the noble Earl, Lord Peel—by the Minister's response. He used words along the lines that, of course, national parks would have to have regard to social and economic well-being. It seems to me that we have before us the opportunity to put such a provision in the Bill. If we are talking about all-purpose national park authorities but one of the essential bits is missing, it seems to me that we shall not achieve what is needed by way of the Bill.
If there is a defect in the amendment moved by the noble Earl it is that of similarity with new Section 11A under Clause 59 of the Bill which refers to the,
"social well-being of local communities within the National Park".
I believe that Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968— I am speaking from memory—refers to the social and economic well-being of rural areas. I am especially concerned that we get back to that concept of areas. I hesitate to speculate, but if we attach too much importance to communities, it may well be in the Exmoor context that the community of Dulverton or Exford is more important than that of Brendon simply because of the number of houses. What about the community of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, at Lillycombe Farm where his agricultural operation is carried out? It employs a number of people, both directly and indirectly.
Finally, I have noted in the past that my own national park authority at Exmoor has stated on the face of its consultation draft local plan that economic progress, economic development and economic responsibilities are not part of its purpose. It then goes on deal with a whole raft of considerations which make it clear that it feels that it is no part of that planning process. I am very worried about that. If the Minister does not accept the amendment moved by the noble Earl, I should like some reassurance from him that such important matters will be taken into account. In the meantime, as I said, I warmly support the amendment.
Lord Marlesford: I basically agree most with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who said that she thought the Government had more or less got the matter right. I believe that economic development and well-being are absolutely crucial to national parks. It is a question of
1622
how they should be achieved. I am not wholly happy that that has always been achieved. Perhaps I may take two broad examples of where it has been very successfully achieved. When the national park officer was Mr. Michael Dower, the Peak District National Park did achieve some remarkably good economical development which was wholly undamaging to the purposes of the park. Moreover, Dartmoor National Park, when under the administration of Mr. Ian Mercer, also worked very well. However, there have been other parks—perhaps including those which my noble friend Lord Peel has experience of—where the latter has not been wholly true.
I do not favour the amendment moved by my noble friend because I believe that it would take away certain abilities. The key of the success in the Peak District and in Dartmoor was the ability of the national park officer, supported and guided by his committee or whatever, to work with the other organisations such as the Rural Development Commission, tourist boards and so on. That is probably the right way to do it. But if I had to choose between the two, I would actually prefer the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Derwent. I believe that the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Peel would go much too far, in that it proposes putting in such a provision as a fundamental leg in the stool for the national parks to depend upon.
Viscount Ullswater: I fully agree with the view expressed by many noble Lords, especially by my noble friends Lord Stanley and Lord Renton, that the well-being of local communities is vital for the continued success of the national parks as living, working landscapes. I believe that that underlies the thrust of Amendments Nos. 254 and 260 (although my noble friend did not speak to the latter) tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel.
The duty that we have introduced in Clause 59 with respect to the economic and social needs of local communities underlines the importance which we attach to the issue. My noble friend is trying to put the provision in as a purpose of the park. However, as I have indicated, we believe that the duty should be in Clause 59. That duty will ensure that the new authorities will have to take into account the economic and social well-being of their local communities as they carry out their functions and duties in pursuit of park purposes. I believe that that is the correct balance between the purposes and the duties of the new authorities in respect of the economic and social well being of local communities.
Further, the new duty will ensure that the park authorities have to be seen to be taáking those responsibilities seriously. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked whether Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968 will apply to national park authorities. I am advised that it does so.
Amendments Nos. 254ZA and 255B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, raise the issue of sustainable development. I do not think there is any question either about the Government's full hearted commitment to sustainable development as the cornerstone of our policies to reconcile the needs of

1623
economic development with those of environmental protection. The sustainable development strategy we published last January set out in detail the Government's plans and programmes to respond to the principles of the Rio Earth Summit. The lengthy debates during the first two day of Committee on the contribution the environment agency is to make to achieving sustainable development reaffirm this commitment. Sustainable development is an important issue not just for the parks but also for the rest of the countryside. The national parks are in a strong position to influence the way in which we care for our countryside and I have no doubt they will continue to be models for the sustainable management of the wider countryside and help to further our understanding and appreciation of the means by which development and conservation can be better balanced.
Lord Renton: Will my noble friend allow me to intervene? I have been trying to follow him. Is he saying that the general policy of sustainable development shall apply also in the national park, or that the national parks are a modification of it?
Viscount Ullswater: I am indicating that, in the way that national parks undertake their duties for their purposes, they will be having regard to sustainable development. It is important, I think, to go back to the first words that I used; that we fully agree that the well-being of the local communities is vital. It is in order to ensure the well-being of local communities that it is important to consider sustainable development.
I understand, of course, the thoughts behind the amendment of my noble friend Lord Derwent, echoed by my noble friend Lord Vinson, but we do not believe that national park authorities should themselves assume the role of promoting economic and social development. Amendment No. 255ZB does not help a great deal in this respect. The Oxford Dictionary defines "to foster"
as,
"to promote the growth or development of".
I appreciate my noble friend's wish to seek a slightly more active role for the new authorities, but there are already agencies, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, which are properly charged with the specific task of promoting economic and social development in rural areas. There is the Rural Development Commission in England. My noble friend Lord Vinson was its distinguished chairman for many years. There is the Welsh Development Agency and the Rural Development Board for Wales. The national park authorities will be expected to work in the closest co-operation with them. This is made clear in the draft circular which we issued on 31st January.
Among these amendments is Amendment No. 254A, in my name, which is of a minor and technical nature. The purpose of this amendment is to secure that the reference to the national park purposes in Section 6(4) (g) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 is construed in accordance with Clause 58(4) of the Bill. I shall move that amendment in due course.
1624
I would therefore ask my noble friend to consider very carefully what I have said, and I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before my noble friend sits down, I hope he can answer a question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who I felt said that, unless this provision was in this particular part of the Bill, the planning authority would not be able to take account of the matters raised by my noble friend. I do not know whether I interpreted the noble Earl right.
Viscount Ullswater: The national park authorities will of course be involved in all forms of strategic planning. They will be one of the authorities which will be taken into account when strategic plans are put forward to my right honourable friend. Therefore they will have devolved upon them many of the duties that other authorities have.
Lord Derwent: Before my noble friend sits down, it would help me greatly in deciding in due course what to do with my amendment if he would tell me what he considers "shall have regard to" means. Two national park officers have told me that they are quite unclear what it means. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and I think the Minister, have said that it means national park authorities have to work closely in co-operation with others. I think that is quite an exaggerated definition of the words "have regard to". While I am not necessarily wedded to the word "foster", one park officer said to me he thought it meant no more than that they should not work against the local communities. As my noble friend has been kind enough to give me one definition from the Oxford Dictionary, it would be helpful to have the definition of the term that is in the Bill.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: That may be rather more difficult. However, the term is used because it is a widely used term in legislation. Therefore it is the proper term to use in legislation. I have indicated that I believe my noble friend's term is wrong because it has the connotation of promotion. I sought to explain that I did not believe that the park authorities should have that duty. I felt there were other authorities —commissions, or whatever they are—who would have that duty. But they would need to keep in mind the concept of the economic and social well-being of the local communities when they are promoting the purposes in Clause 58.
Lord Vinson: Before my noble friend sits down, it may not be possible for him now to clarify the point, but there is real concern that, unless it is built more strongly into this Bill that there should be regard to foster, let us say, sustainable employment within the national parks, then the new national park authorities will effectively block, or could effectively block, all, even modest, forms of sensible development by saying that it is not really their duty and that their overriding consideration, if there is any conflict—as we read later on in the Bill—is to give,
"greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty".

1625
The instructions are so contradictory that we want a clear indication from the Minister—if not now, certainly subsequently at Report stage of the Bill—that they will not (unless the Bill is modified) have the power to block sensible, job enhancing and job sustaining activity.
Viscount Ullswater: I think perhaps the best thing I can do to answer my noble friend is to quote from the draft guidance which has been issued, which states, as regards the national parks:
"The qualities for which they have been designated are as much the product of man's hand as of nature. It is in the interests of the conservation of those qualities that the National Park authorities have a duty to work with and for their local communities".
These will be instructions to the national park authorities. I believe that that encapsulates what we mean by the promotion of the social and economic well-being of the local communities.
Lord Vinson: I am sorry to press this point, but is a local farmer a community? It could be easily argued that he is not and that a community is a local village or a greater habitation. Therefore the park authorities could ignore the very proper and often perfectly correct application that he might make because they say they have a wider remit only to look at communities in the generality and not as regards individuals when it is a matter of farming families.
Viscount Ullswater: I am not sure that I should prolong this conversation with my noble friend but I believe that the farmer that he mentions has just as much of a role to play as regards the quality of the landscape in a national park. It would be important that the national park authorities should understand that.
Earl Peel: I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussions on this amendment. My noble friend Lord Onslow described how the parks were formed and said they were designated because they were wild places unlike, he said, Liverpool. He has obviously never been to the Kop on a Saturday night when Manchester United are playing.
My noble friend Lord Derwent, when speaking to his amendment, was mildly critical of my amendment. He said that his national park officer had said to him that the national parks were concerned about my amendment because they did not have the staff and resources to deal with the socio-economic duties which the amendment would place on them. As I said earlier, it is fair to say that they have not achieved a great deal with the money available to them in relation to conservation. In fact, habitat loss inside the parks has been as great as it has outside the parks. Therefore, I do not accept that particular argument.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, made an interesting and serious point. She said that social well-being was not the reason for the original designation of the parks. The parks were designated principally because of what they are. Who created them? It is the people living and working in the parks, not the national park authorities. That is why I feel so strongly that the people living and working in the parks should be treated on equal terms with visitors. That is fundamental.
1626
My noble friend Lord Norrie said that if socio-economic duties were placed on the parks they would not be unique. I believe that I am right in saying that other authorities do not have a duty to promote conservation and public enjoyment. That illustrates that the national parks are unique because specific duties are placed on national park authorities. I see no reason why placing such an additional duty on them would undermine the principal purposes behind the designation of national parks.
I do not wish to prolong the debate. I believe that there has been sufficient support for the amendment for us to consider the matter again at a later stage, whether that is in the form of an amendment as strong as mine or in the form suggested by my noble friend Lord Derwent. It is for us to get together. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will consider our approach very seriously in view of the undoubted support we have enjoyed from all sides of the Chamber. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 254Z4 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 254A:
Page 64, line 37, after ("6(3)") insert ("and (4) (g)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 255 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Norriemoved Amendment No. 255ZA:
After Clause 58, insert the following new clause:
("Major Development Test
.—(I) Subject to the provisions of this section, major developments shall not be permitted within the National Parks.
(2) Proposals for major developments in National Parks shall be permitted only if, following rigorous public examination, it is demonstrated that they satisfy the following conditions—

(i) that the proposal is absolutely necessary in the national interest, which includes the furtherance of National Park purposes; and

(ii) that the proposal cannot practically be accommodated in an alternative location outside the National Parks.

(3) In determining whether a proposal is absolutely necessary in the national interest full regard shall be had to—

(i) the prospects of meeting the demand which gives rise to the need for the proposal by means other than the proposal; and

(ii) the prospects and means of reducing the demand which gives rise to the need for the proposal.

(4) Any proposal satisfying the conditions set out in subsection (2) above shall only be permitted subject to conditions which mitigate so far as is practicable any adverse environmental effects including a requirement to restore satisfactorily the site, in accordance with a scheme that shall form part of the proposal, when the need for the development ceases.
(5) For the purposes of this section "major development" shall include all development deemed to have potentially significant environmental effects, including such development controlled by the Planning, Highways, Electricity, Land Drainage and Water Acts.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 255ZA seeks to fulfil one of the main recommendations of the National Parks Review Panel by introducing a test for major development proposals in national parks into

1627
legislation. It also seeks to implement through legislation the Government's promise that national park designation confers,
"the highest status of protection as far as landscape and scenic beauty are concerned".
I have already mentioned that national parks include some of our most beautiful landscapes and are immensely popular. The importance of national parks is recognised across all the political parties. They are part of our national heritage and therefore worthy of enduring protection. Development in them must therefore be such that those natural assets can be passed on to future generations without the natural beauty of the landscapes being eroded.
At present the national park clauses in the Bill are concerned with improving the operations and administration of the parks from the inside; but those clauses lack any measures which would protect the parks from the outside.
What is at stake in promoting Amendment No. 255ZA is the protection of our finest countryside from major development pressures. The amendment has the support of all the voluntary sector environmental and amenity organisations with an interest in national parks. It has the support of my noble friend Lord Marlesford, who is chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. The Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales also support the inclusion of a test as crucial to this legislation.
In its 1992 policy on national parks the Government said that,
"there is no need to wait for further legislation to enhance the planning protection to be afforded to National Parks".
At the time that included a test for major development proposals in national parks in planning policy guidance note 7, which makes it clear that major development shall not take place in the parks "save in exceptional circumstances".
Now that an opportunity has arisen, that test must be included in the legislation, because planning policy guidance does not cover all forms of development, including energy and roads; nor does it provide an adequate procedural framework for protecting the parks. The courts have found that planning policy guidance notes have a limited legal effect. There is, therefore, a marked distinction to be drawn between the status of government policies as contained in planning policy guidance notes and the status of law as contained in statute. Experience has shown that planning policy guidance does not deliver the level of protection recommended by the National Parks Review Panel and promised by the Government.
The test set out in Amendment No. 255ZA seeks to implement key principles identified by the National Parks Review Panel. The panel said the test should ensure that,
"before any major development is accepted in a National Park, every avenue for meeting the need outside the Park has been thoroughly explored—or that the need is met in other ways, for example through conservation in the case of water and energy. Proven national need, and lack of alternative sites, must mean just. that".
1628
The amendment seeks to measure the national interest in the need for a major development against the national interest in national parks. It seeks to establish whether the development can be located outside the national parks. It also seeks to establish whether the development is absolutely necessary. It asks whether the need can be met in another way: is there scope for the demand for the product or service to be reduced? Once all other criteria are met it sets a high standard for any development that passes the test.
I see the test set out in the amendment as a much clearer guide to developers, planning authorities and the Secretary of State. It would enable developers to make early strategic decisions about options, thus saving them time and effort. Planning authorities and inspectors would have much clearer criteria by which to judge applications.
The legislation must set out an enduring framework for major development procedure relating to national parks. Sustainable development is a long-term set of objectives, and national park protection must also be taken into consideration in the long term. Legislation is the right place for the test. I believe that the amendment constitutes the right test. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, in his amendment. Again, as I said at Second Reading, we are dealing with matters of principle. The noble Lord and I have had discussions about the drafting of the amendment. There may be some difficulties, which no doubt the Government will clear up if they accept the amendment. However, the principle is correct.
The principle is simple. Planning guidance in the planning policy guidance notes which we receive from time to time from the Department of the Environment is not adequate to protect the national parks from major developments of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, referred. PPGs can be altered at ministerial whim. There is no provision in parliamentary procedure, other than putting down Unstarred Questions or Motions to resolve in this Chamber, which allow us to debate fully planning policy guidance issued by the Department of the Environment to the planning authorities in England and Wales. I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, that in the case of national parks—it is quite special—we cannot rely on policy planning guidance issued from time to time, and amended by Ministers from time to time, to protect the parks from major developments. I believe that the Government should accept the principle enshrined in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
Having said that, I again reiterate that I am not entirely convinced that, as drafted, the amendment could be placed in the Bill. However, I am sure that the Committee will recognise the force of the argument that I and the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, put forward at Second Reading, and the argument that the noble Lord put forward when moving the amendment.
I can only rely on the Government's good sense. I very much hope that they will look at the amendment with good sense and accept the principle. I hope that at Report stage they may return with a provision which

1629
will satisfy us all and meet the requirements of the noble Lord and of the organisations he cited which have supported him.
6 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: It is widely accepted that the provisions in the Bill form part of a movement that is spreading throughout the world, which should be supported. To a certain extent such provisions should work in concert.
The recently published report of the World Conservation Union, Parks for Life, addressed the question of major development, a subject which the amendment tackles. Signatories to the Caracas declaration, which included the UK, asserted that,
"the world community must adopt new and equitable styles of development, based on the care and sustainable use of the environment, and the safeguarding of global life-supporting systems".
Parks for Life also stated that it was vital that protected areas, including national parks, should be subject to protection by national legislation. It called for planning laws to be established which,
"ensure that the requirements of protected areas management are taken into account in all development planning procedures".
That point reinforces the argument that the place for the major development test is in primary legislation and not in planning policy guidance.
The World Conservation Union Action Plan for Protected Areas in Europe details the kind of test that should be applied, and that includes the assessment of need and alternative, as put forward by the amendment. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Chorley: This is the second amendment to which I have put my name. In some ways I believe that it is more important than the previous amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and others, with which we were successful.
The Government's position, oft repeated, is that in the national parks,
"major development should not take place save in exceptional circumstances and that any such proposals should be subject to most rigorous examination".
That is fine. However, when the Edwards Panel looked into whether that objective was being achieved, it concluded that it was not. The Edwards Report recommended putting the test into primary legislation. However, that policy objective is not being achieved through the planning policy guidance system. If the Committee will bear with me, I wish to cite a few examples. There are many examples of planning policy guidance failure in the national parks. What we need, therefore, is primary legislation and a clear process to establish whether the criteria would be fulfilled.
In the case of developers, there are several major developments currently proposed for national parks where the argument applies. The proposal to extend Swinden Quarry in the Yorkshire Dales, already a most damaging eyesore, is for the extraction of a low-grade mineral for which there is no proven national need and with many alternative sources of supply outside national parks. The public inquiry starts in May.
1630
There are two proposals for major energy developments which fall outside planning policy guidance. Northern Electric is soon to submit its application for a major pylon development across the North York Moors to supply Whitby. As I understand it, there has been no rigorous publication of alternatives. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, about Trawsfynydd nuclear power station. I am told that it has been proposed that it should be used as a nuclear waste repository without a planning application or the drawing up of an environmental statement which would include the case for need and an alternative. A more cost effective and constructive procedure set out in primary legislation would benefit strategic planning in all those cases.
There is the case, also in Wales, of the Welsh Office's proposals regarding the A.5 road at the point where it enters the same national park, the Padog bends. Those will be familiar to some noble Lords. I shall not go into all the aspects of the matter, but if ever there were a major development which appears on the face of it to be unnecessary it must be that.
Then there are decisions which have already been made which have not led to the highest status of landscape protection being afforded to national parks through the planning policy guidance system. On Dartmoor, the national park authority approved lifting special conditions at Meldon Quarry which restricted production to nationally necessary rail ballast. Now it can produce aggregates for which many alternatives exist. The Secretary of State did not call the permission in. The Peak District National Park Authority gave permission to extend Goddards Quarry last year. The output is aggregates used mainly for road building. Again, the permission was not called in.
A clear test set out in primary legislation, with clear criteria, would strengthen the effective delivery of the Government's intention to afford national parks the highest level of protection.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I support my noble friend Lord Chorley and the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. The amendment goes to the very heart of planning procedures as they apply to national parks. I wish to draw attention to the importance of the latter part of the new clause which defines major developments. I referred earlier to the case of the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station. When the station was proposed and built—it was the only inland nuclear power station of that magnox generation in the United Kingdom—few people objected on environmental grounds. Yet, clearly, to anyone who cares about the objectives of national parks legislation, such a development should never have taken place. Similar hydroelectric developments and reservoir developments could be pointed to in other national parks as well as Snowdonia.
Smaller scale developments such as a number of proposals for hydroelectric developments which would interfere with the flow of rivers and with the fish habitat have been proposed. I wish to thank in particular the National Rivers Authority for its activity in that area in ensuring in its surveys that river flows will be protected.

1631
It is important in this context that we turn to road development. Clearly, if there is to be an about turn in government policy on road development, then surely it should occur immediately so far as concerns national parks. My noble friend has already referred to the case of the A.5. The Welsh Office has already taken some action in re-signing and seeking to divert major traffic along the A.55. It is crucial that there should be no extension or widening of the A.5 except where there are severe, dangerous bends at which limited engineering works might be justified for safety reasons. Beyond that there should be no further development.
What is important about the clause is that it enables the major development test to be placed upon all developments within the national parks. It will enable the environmental statements that are produced for planning inquiries dealing with major developments to use the test, wherever the issues are considered. It will enable the test to stand up as an objective criterion against which any major development can be measured. That surely is what national parks are all about. If we have created a specialist, protected piece of landscape, environment and community, we need to ensure that it follows that, with the national value—"national" in this context meaning both Welsh national and English national—national parks can be interfered with only if such interference is absolutely necessary in the national interest. Therefore, if we are to take our own legislation and designation seriously, the whole Committee should support the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: It seems odd. We have just spoken at considerable length and with much feeling about this. The Government do not like the idea of fostering small and reasonable economic development in the national parks, the small businesses in ones and twos. They are not prepared—
Viscount Ullswater: If I gave that impression, it was the wrong impression. What I said was that there was a difference between the role of the National Parks Authority to promote and other agencies which are tasked to promote such developments.
The Earl of Onslow: I am sorry if I received the wrong impression, and of course I accept what my noble friend says. But that does not detract from my second point. Large-scale development in national parks should practically at all costs be resisted.
I accept that there are occasions—I quote the Okehampton bypass as one—where there is a major difficulty. The Committee may remember that the Okehampton bypass went through the top end of the Dartmoor National Park. It raised hackles considerably in your Lordships' House. The argument was that for it to pass through the part of the national park planned would do less environmental harm than if it went through the rather nice piece of countryside on the other side which was extremely beautiful. There was a terrible dilemma basically between three pieces of environmental damage: first, going through a national park, secondly, ruining the countryside and, thirdly, doing nothing and ruining Okehampton. It was a terrible
1632
problem for the Government, who eventually decided, in my view rightly, to take part of the national park. I know that others did not feel that that was right.
It seems to me that unless there are careful rules, we should not have any major development in the national parks. I was reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that if one looks across the Roman Road to Aber, there is a terrible and ghastly line of pylons on the wonderful skyline below Cader Idris and Carnedd Llewelyn. They should never have been put there and somehow that kind of thing must be avoided.
Lord Elton: I had not intended to intervene, but I was the Minister who wound up the debate on whether the Okehampton bypass should go through the national park. All kinds of recollections have been stirred by my noble friend. The first is that the road was invisible from almost the whole of the national park. As he rightly said, it would have been widely visible on the other side of Okehampton.
However, here we have a case where, as my noble friend said, Parliament kept a close eye on development under provisions which are already on the statute book. It came to what I believe we are agreed was the right conclusion.
The proposal here is that the provisions should be changed. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said and his list of decisions which had not been called in. I shall read that with interest tomorrow in Hansard. As I recall the provisions on the statute book, with a national park it is already necessary to consider the national interest and whether it can be accommodated outside the national park. There is already a requirement to consider future demand and whether it can be met by other means. I do not recall there being a requirement for a search for a means of reducing the demand. That is new. There is a requirement, where there is a temporary activity, for consideration of restoration in the application.
I regard subsection (5) as the most delphic and interesting. It concerns the interaction between what is proposed in this provision and what exists in other legislation such as the planning, highways, electricity, land drainage and water Acts. There we would need detailed guidance as to the extent to which this provision would take precedence over those provisions.
I share all the anxieties of everyone who has spoken about major developments in the national parks. I am anxious to know whether this change in the legislation is necessary or right to achieve what Members of the Committee want.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Moran: I strongly support those Members of the Committee who spoke in favour of the amendment, which is of crucial importance. In essence, major developments in national parks should not only be looked at very carefully indeed but allowed only in exceptional circumstances where there is a national need and no alternative.

1633
I noticed that the Edwards Panel pointed out that the Government's White Paper on the environment, This Common Inheritance, stated:
"Major industrial or commercial development will not normally be permitted in national parks; only where there are proven national needs and a lack of alternative sites can any exception be justified".
That is absolutely right and it seems to be in accordance with the whole drift of the amendment. The Edwards Panel also identified the areas that were of concern, such as mining and quarrying, trunk roads (which have been mentioned) nuclear generation, pumped storage schemes, transmission lines, hydro-electric projects, wind farms, reservoirs and the leisure developments such as holiday villages, marinas and conference centres which it considered were inappropriate in national parks. This is a very important amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it.
The Earl of Lytton: I relate very much to all that has been said by previous speakers. My only concern is with subsection (5) which states that,
"'major development' shall include all development deemed to have potentially significant environmental effects".
As I read that, it could apply to absolutely anything. An extension on a house could have significant environmental effects, as well as power stations, wind farms and other building works. So it is not just a question of defining what the term "all development" is, when all speakers have mentioned not "all development" but certain specific types of development.
Secondly, we need to address the matter of what is or is not significant in any given instance. That has already been alluded to. In our previous day's discussion in Committee I mentioned on an earlier amendment the matter of reciprocity. When national parks were designated for the undoubted value of the landscape and for nature conservation purposes, they were designated by putting a red line on the plan which included a job lot of all kinds of things that were satisfactory, as well as, I dare say, quite a few that were unsatisfactory. The unsatisfactory ones may nevertheless have been legitimate businesses of long standing which were entitled to the anticipation of organic growth over time, as with other activities. I cannot accept that if planning has to take into account what is new—for instance a fresh proposal on a greenfield site—then, by the same token, it must also take into account what is there already, what is pre-existing, what is a legitimate use. That follows on from the amendment moved earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. There must be reciprocity of consideration on both sides of the equation.
I draw the attention of the Committee to another factor; namely, that development in town and country planning terms includes not only construction and engineering works but also material changes of use. So when Members of the Committee refer to conference centres, I wonder whether they are including changes of use within the curtilage of existing buildings or whether they are talking about new construction on greenfield sites. There is a fundamental difference between the two. As someone who has close links with a national park, I thoroughly endorse the concept of protecting the area from intrusive developments, but I fear that the amendment goes much too far. It goes well beyond the
1634
questions of drafting to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred. The amendment is fundamental in the degree to which it sweeps up an awful lot of small fry which should not be part and parcel of an amendment dealing with major development.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I wonder if my noble friend can make absolutely clear in his reply the extent to which the amendment would produce a substantial change to the law as it stands. I wish also to put a question to my noble friend Lord Norrie who moved the amendment. It may be a rather nitpicking point, but I wonder what exactly is meant by,
"the demand which gives rise to the need".
Would it be different if it were put the other way round—namely, "the need which gives rise to the demand"—or, better still, would it not be better to leave out either "need" or "demand" and just include one of them? It seems to me that it would mean the same.
Baroness Lockwood: I support the amendment. In doing so, it is important to point out that we need to take a long-term view about the pressures from major developments in the national parks. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, gave several references to issues that have arisen where the policy of the national parks has not been completely upheld in the past. From my own experience I can certainly underline what the noble Lord said in respect of the Swinden quarry in the Yorkshire Dales, which is not only an eyesore now but, if considerably extended, will be an even greater eyesore and nuisance to the local community in the future—not only to the community in the immediate vicinity but to the community in the park where the lorries transporting the extracts go by at regular intervals.
The same could be said about another development which took place recently in the Yorkshire Dales where permission was given to open up a new quarry not subjected to the kind of test outlined in the amendment. So there is continual development within the national parks. It is important that we take the long-term view.
The National Parks Review Panel stated that it is likely that pressures for major development will continue and may intensify. I believe that too. Therefore we need the rigour included in the proposed test to prevent such an intensification. The test sets out clearly what issues will prevent or permit continued development in the national parks.
Lord Marlesford: The principle behind the amendment of my noble friend Lord Norrie is of very great importance. I support it strongly. None of us is wedded to the words of his amendment, or even to the phrases in it. But those of us who support it believe that it is crucial. The Bill is a very considerable step forward in terms of the internal management and protection of parks. But it does almost nothing to defend parks from arguably much greater and more serious external threats. As so many Members of the Committee have spoken in this debate, I shall make just one point. I believe that the national parks are such a precious asset that they deserve special and different protection. Although it is not a complete analogy, there is some similarity with the special protection which Parliament has given to

1635
property owned by the National Trust in allowing it to be declared inalienable. The parks are so important that we would be failing very much if we did not take special measures at this crucial moment of opportunity to protect them from major development in the future.
Earl Peel: I too support the amendment in principle. I would have thought that the conditions for permitting such a development, which would have to be shown, would give the park authorities every opportunity of rejecting it. The other point that has been made relates to the question of major development. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to subsection (5) and the catch-all phrase therein. I believe that it is too wide. I find that quite worrying. At the end of the day, I am not sure how a "major development" can be determined. Clearly, there are words here that need to be looked at very carefully. But in principle I am certain that if we are to have national parks, developments of the sort that gave rise to this amendment must be resisted.
Viscount Ullswater: The Government's policy is that major development should not take place in national parks, save in exceptional circumstances. Because of the serious impact that major developments may have on the natural beauty of the parks, applications must be subject to the most rigorous examination including a demonstration that they are in the public interest. Those words are a paraphrase of an extract from PPG7.
We will continue firmly to uphold the test expressed in planning policy guidance note 7. I have to tell my noble friend Lord Norrie that we have an objection in principle to putting this and other important planning policies in statute. We consider that it would be both unnecessary and undesirable. I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that this is perhaps a matter of principle.
Clause 63 of the Bill makes a national park authority the sole local planning authority for the area of the park for all purposes, including mineral planning. The new national park authorities will acquire both structure and local plan functions, including waste plan functions, for the area of their parks. As such, the national park authorities will play a full part in all levels of the planning system, and the policies which apply to the parks will be relevant to all those levels.
As well as those national policies which apply to all planning authorities and the specific policies which apply to the national parks, regional planning guidance provides the necessary framework for the preparation of structure plans. That is produced by the Secretary of State only after widespread public consultation and the eliciting of advice from local planning authorities, which will of course include the national park authorities.
The Government's planning policies are material considerations which local planning authorities must take into account in preparing their development plans. The statutory plan preparation procedures provide full opportunities for the involvement of statutory agencies like the Countryside Commission; for public
1636
consultation; and, if necessary, for intervention by the Secretary of State. By virtue of Section 54(A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, planning applications must be decided in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
As a statement of the Government's national planning policy, PPG7 will also be a material consideration when deciding planning applications. Local planning authorities are therefore expected to have regard to planning policy guidance notes in the exercise of all their planning functions.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, quoted a number of areas which he said were subject to consideration by local planning authorities. I reiterate that they have before them the guidance of PPG7 and the local structure plan. They should take their decisions—
6.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but does he agree with my point that the policy planning guidance notes from the Department of the Environment are changeable from time to time? They are not set in concrete. They are not even discussed in Parliament. Is it not the case that, whether or not they are subject to PPG7, the PPG7 can change?
Viscount Ullswater: I was going to come on to that point and would agree with the noble Lord. Let me go on to explain why I think it right that planning policy guidance should be non-statutory in that sense. I was indicating to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that the local planning authority had to have the words of PPG7 ringing in their ears when they made those decisions. In addition, the Secretary of State will have regard to them when dealing with planning appeals and called-in cases.
The noble Lord also expressed his concern about major developments which are controlled not under town and country planning legislation but under other legislation, such as the Electricity Acts. Those responsible for taking such decisions—including the President of the Board of Trade in the case of development to which consent is given under electricity Acts—are well aware of the tests for major development in national parks and take government policy on these matters fully into account when considering any proposals.
Amendment No. 255ZA in the name of my noble friend Lord Norrie, and the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Chorley, is therefore unnecessary because the system of setting out the Government's planning policies in planning policy guidance notes works well and is underpinned by strong and effective legislation.
Furthermore, Amendment No. 255ZA is undesirable, because legislation on national park planning would devalue "non-statutory" planning policies set out in guidance notes. Take green belts for example, which are a cornerstone of planning in this country. Should we have a statutory planning policy for national parks but not for green belts?

1637
Where would the process stop? Putting selected planning policies on a statutory basis and keeping them up to date would consume a great deal of parliamentary time. Even the modest changes that we recently introduced to strengthen green belt policy could be accomplished only through legislation.
What would statutory planning policies achieve? This comes back to what my noble friend Lord Peyton said. What would they achieve if they were put on the face of the statute book? Planning decisions involve judgment. Putting a planning test in statute does not make it any less likely that some people may disagree with the judgment reached in a particular case. For the reasons that I have outlined, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Williams, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Chorley, for their support and indeed for the intervention of my noble friend Lord Peyton. I agree wholeheartedly that national parks face an uncertain future without a test for major development proposals included in legislation. The test in legislation will be more robust than planning policy guidance and provide more comprehensive coverage. The examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, bear witness to how necessary that test is.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ullswater for his reply. However, it is vital to give a clear signal across all sectors of the planning system that national parks are special places and indeed are some of the critical natural assets that the Government's sustainable development strategy identifies.
I have made clear that setting out the tests by which major development proposals will be judged in planning policy guidance is simply not sufficient to guarantee the long-term protection of the parks. Because of the level of support for this amendment, for which I am grateful, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
6.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 255ZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 91.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Addington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Addison, V.

[Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Bath, M.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harrowby, E.

Blackstone, B.

Healey, L.

Chorley, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Craigavon, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

David, B.

Judd, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kintore, E.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Falkland, V.

Liverpool, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Lockwood, B.

Feversham, L.

Longford, E.

Foot, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

1638

Mar and Kellie, E.

Redesdale, L.

Marlesford, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

McNair, L.

Rochester, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Milverton, L.

Rodney, L.

Monkswell, L.

Seear, B.

Moran, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Mountevans, L.

Stedman, B.

Munster, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Nathan, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Nelson, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Nicol, B.

White, B.

Norrie, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Crosby, B.

Ogmore, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Onslow, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Lawrence, L.

Astor, V.

Leigh,L.

Blatch, B.

Lindsay, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas, L.

Cadman, L.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lytton, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Carnock, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Colwyn, L.

Melville, V.

Courtown, E.

Mersey, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mills, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mottistone, L.

Derwent, L.

Murton of Lindifarne, L.

Digby, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northesk, E.

Elles, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Elton, L.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Geddes, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rennell, L.

Goschen, V.

Renton, L.

Granard, E.

Seccombe, B.

Greenway, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Halsbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hardinge, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Harlech, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Stewartby, L.

Henley, L.

Strange, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hooper, B.

Sudeley, L.

Howe, E.

Teviot, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Torrington, V.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Vinson, L.

Kingsland, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.42 p.m.
Clause 59 [Duty of certain bodies and persons to have regard to the purposes for which National Parks are designated]:
Lord Derwenthad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 255ZB:
Page 65, line 21, leave out ("have regard to") and insert ("foster").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 255ZB, which seeks to make the national park authorities foster,
"the economic and social well-being of local communities".
I am grateful to those Members of the Committee who supported this compromise amendment. I am disappointed that the Minister did not feel able to support me, but we may not be so far apart. I am seeking to include in the Bill what is already in the guidance; that is, that the parks should work for all and with the local communities. I shall therefore return to the matter at Report stage having sought to find acceptable compromise wording in the meantime.
(Amendment No. 255ZB not moved.]
Viscount Addisonmoved Amendment No. 255A:
Page 65, line 23, at end insert ("in ways that are compatible with, or which further, the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section 5 of this Act.").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 255A, I declare an interest as vice-president of the Council for National Parks. The amendment seeks to clarify the socio-economic duty of national park authorities so that it is carried out in ways that are compatible with or further the national park purposes. The amendment follows the wording recommended by the National Parks Review Panel which was concerned that its socio-economic duty was fulfilled,
"in such a way that the environmental quality of the Park is sustained and, where possible, enhanced".
The amendment is, in shorthand, to make sure that development in the national parks is sustainable.
As presently drafted my feeling is that the clause contains an ambiguity and the amendment is intended to remove any trace of doubt about the relationship between the national park purposes and that duty. It says that a national park authority, in pursuing the purposes of conservation and recreation, shall have regard to the social and economic well-being of the park communities.
There is anxiety that that could mean, for instance, that in designating a local nature reserve the park authority must have regard to the local communities' social and economic interests. I hope that that is not the intention. Instead, my hope is that the Government intend Clause 59 to echo the National Parks Review Panel's view that,
"while the local economy is fundamental to the future of the parks, support for the economic activity should be seen as a means of achieving national park purposes rather than an end in itself".
The panel attributed a supportive role to the national park authorities, helping bodies whose work already is to foster the social and economic interests of local
1640
communities. Those bodies include the Rural Development Commission, the Welsh Development Agency and local authorities. I therefore seek clarification to remove any ambiguity from Clause 59. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I rise to support the amendment, to which I added my name. The national park purposes, redefined in the legislation, are the reasons for designating national parks in the first place. As I said on an earlier amendment, there is a difference between the reasons for designation and the role of the national park authorities. Clause 59 is a helpful clarification of the roles of the authorities, but I share the anxiety of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, that it is not as precise as the National Parks Review Panel intended.
The panel said that giving the national park authorities a role in support of the appropriate agencies, which already have a socio-economic mission, would,
"provide a unique opportunity to bring together the aspirations of the local communities with the pursuance of park purposes, and to minimise the conflict between them".
I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, is in favour of that wording. The kind of work the panel identified for the national park authorities was supporting the creation and maintenance of suitable employment opportunities, particularly where those opportunities contributed to the park purposes. It also said that the authorities could do more to assist the local authorities and others to provide low-cost homes for residents on low incomes—I saw a useful example of that in the North Yorks park, which did an excellent job in that regard—principally by the use of their planning powers. We have already seen other examples in addition to those in the North Yorks park. Therefore clarification of the role of the authorities as set out in Clause 59 is necessary.
Viscount Ullswater: As I informed the Committee during our discussion on Amendments Nos. 254, 254ZA, 254A, 255ZB, 255ZB and 260, we believe that the well-being of local communities is vital for the continued success of the national parks as living, working landscapes. The duty which we introduced in Clause 59 with respect to the economic and social needs of local communities underlines the importance which we attach to that issue. That duty will ensure that the new authorities take into account the economic and social well-being of their local communities as they carry out their functions and duties in pursuit of park purposes.
The establishment and functions of national park authorities will have effect for the purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas and promoting the understanding and enjoyment of their special qualities by the public. It will not be possible for the national park authorities to set aside those purposes as they consider the wellbeing of their local communities. Therefore, I would ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Addison: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for her support. It is most

1641
important that the kind of development that takes place in the national parks is seen to be sustainable. The national parks cover 10 per cent. of the land area of England and Wales and provide a unique opportunity to act as test beds for environmentally friendly practices, enabling them to make an essential contribution to sustainable development. That is in the interests of the park communities, as it will sustain their vitality for future generations and it will protect the parks for the nation.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Ullswater for his reply. He has most helpfully clarified the Government's intention that the socio-economic duty should be carried out in such a way that it is compatible with or furthers the national park purposes.
Lord Vinson: The words "sustainable" and "sustainability" concern me in one context. The noble Viscount has made an appropriate reference to the fact that it is everyone's wish to sustain communities. But at the end of the day one sustains communities by sustaining their jobs. The words "help sustain employment", if written into the amendment, would give heart to the expression that those promoting the Bill really do want to have some concern for communities. As it stands, this could be yet another mechanism for tightening the screw on any form of employment activity that went for planning permission.
Lord Elton: I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily. However, I do not see the word "sustainable" in the amendment and I am slightly mystified by the last exchange. It seems to me that the words in the amendment are almost tautological in view of what is on the face of the Bill already and are merely saying, if one reads the Bill as it would then be, that an authority,
"in pursuing in relation to the National Park the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section 5 … shall have regard to the economic and social well-being of local communities within the National Park in ways that are compatible with, or which further, the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section 5".
In other words, when it is doing something, it must do it. I think it is enough to say it once, is it not?
Viscount Addison: I thank noble Lords for their interventions. I was trying to point out that the duties were a cornerstone recommendation of the National Parks Review Panel and support the case that a third socio-economic purpose for national parks is not what was intended. I am concerned to see the legislation quite clear on this point. We may need to return to it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 255B not moved.]
Lord Norriemoved Amendment No. 256:
Page 65, line 26, leave out ("have regard to") and insert ("further").
The noble Lord said: I made it clear at Second Reading that the subsection of Clause 59 which gives the duty to all public bodies in relation to national park purposes was to be welcomed. The fact that this duty covers all public bodies, with the wide definition given in the same clause, is certainly a step forward. The
1642
National Parks Review Panel, however, recommended that the duty should be to "further" national park purposes rather than simply to "have regard to" the purposes.
The Government had said that they were considering this legislation. I quote from the Government's 1992 policy statement on national parks:
"To place a duty on all government departments to further, as far as reasonably practicable, national park purposes in carrying out their functions in the parks".
Yet what has emerged is somewhat weaker than that. The National Parks Review Panel report concluded that a duty of this nature was necessary because experience showed that sectoral policies within government had sometimes,
"worked against the purposes of national parks".
They have rarely worked positively to help to achieve those purposes. A duty to further the purposes would provide a positive incentive to public bodies. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I regret to have to say that I consider that there is evidence that government departments do not feel bound by the implication of the national park designation. The amendment would provide the incentive needed to ensure that national interest in national parks was given the consideration that government policy promises when other national interests are being weighed in the balance. A duty to "have regard to" was not what Edwards recommended and does not go far enough in giving the clear signal required. I support the amendment.
Viscount Addison: I support the amendment. The Government stated in their response to the National Parks Review Panel in 1992 that they afforded national parks the highest status of landscape protection. Therefore, it would seem consistent jf a duty were placed on all public bodies to further the national park purposes so far as their activities affect the park. The national park clauses in the Bill make it clear that the national park purposes are of overriding importance in the operation of the parks. It would therefore be consistent in the context of the Bill as well as with government policy on national parks that furthering the national park purposes should be an integral consideration in the activities of public bodies. That will enhance the level of protection afforded to national parks and ensure that the national responsibility for them is taken seriously by all public bodies.
Lord Wise: Section 2 of the Countryside Act 1968 already gives a duty to Ministers, government departments and public bodies to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside. However, as has been stated, the National Parks Review Panel was quite clear that this obligation was not strong enough to enable all public bodies to pursue the national park purposes wherever they have power to do so.
It is possible that my noble friend the Minister is concerned that not all government departments would be able to further national park purposes because of the inherent conflict of their activities with the purposes.

1643
But the panel recognised that the duty would need to be interpreted with due regard to the primary objectives of the department concerned. However, the panel was confident that reconciliation could be achieved in some ways. For instance, if government departments were to have a duty to further national park purposes, that would influence at an early stage the environmental assessment process when considering options for a major project—a road or other development. This might encourage the consideration of traffic management schemes or water or energy conservation as alternatives to major new construction projects in national parks. The duty to further would also provide a positive incentive to public bodies to engage in environmentally friendly practices in a national park. That would enhance the role of national parks as test beds for environmentally sustainable practices which would have relevance to the wider countryside. Surely national parks are a national responsibility. I consider a duty on all public bodies to further national park purposes is both desirable and achievable. Therefore, I strongly support my noble friend's amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: The Bill introduces a new duty on public bodies which will require them to take into account national park purposes where their actions may affect the parks. In coming to decisions, we shall expect them to demonstrate that they have done so. What divides the Government from my noble friends is whether the words should be "have regard to" or "further". But this is a new duty placed on public bodies. I understand the importance which is placed upon national park purposes and the wish among some noble Lords that they should override any other activity which may have to take place in the parks. Nevertheless, I do not believe that Amendment No. 256 introduced by my noble friend Lord Norrie could be applied in practice. There are agencies which are required to undertake activities in the parks in order to provide services to park communities such as the supply of electricity or clean water.
The administration of a modern state is subject to many pressures, and decisions very frequently involve finding the best balance among differing, and sometimes downright conflicting, interests. Against that background, we consider that a duty to have regard to national park purposes is appropriate to the kind of balancing exercise which is so often needed. Indeed, the law requires that a wide range of decisions are taken having regard to all material considerations affecting them. Facilities such as new roads, housing and schools may be needed from time to time in or near national parks, as anywhere else, and real difficulties could arise if the authorities concerned were to be required to further the park purposes when taking decisions respecting them. We shall of course expect public bodies making relevant decisions to demonstrate that in coming to those decisions they have taken park purposes properly into account. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norrie: It is clear that achieving the most positive attitude towards the national parks purposes
1644
from public bodies is vitally important. I believe that a duty to further that would provide the incentive. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Ullswater for his reply. I appreciate that there may be many difficulties in applying that duty across all the categories of public bodies. But I am confident that a formula can be worked out at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage begins again at eight o'clock exactly.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Civil Evidence (Family Mediation) Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
7 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this Private Member's Bill is to ensure that, with a few necessary exceptions, information as to what occurs during family mediation cannot subsequently be brought as evidence in civil cases in a court of law. The Bill originated with the Scottish Law Commission. It applies to Scotland only. South of the Border your Lordships may know that case law giving a large measure of protection to mediation is already in place.
I now turn to the background to the Bill. Noble Lords are well aware that in this country increasing numbers of couples decide to split up and have somehow to settle the arrangements for their financial affairs, their house, their possessions and, above all, their children. In Scotland in 1993 there were no less than 12,700 divorces involving nearly 10,000 children, with 2,000 or more under five years of age. Fifty per cent. of those children lose touch completely with one parent after two or three years. There would have been others, of course, besides those who separated without divorcing or indeed without ever having been married at all.
Whatever one's views of this trend, it is only too clear that for the couples concerned splitting up can be extremely painful, traumatic and often a bitter process: for the children it causes very special problems and anguish. It is also frequently extremely costly in court time and in lawyers' fees.
Through the years it has emerged that divorcing or separating couples can be greatly helped in coming to mutually acceptable arrangements if they, and possibly their children, can meet in a neutral place with an impartial third person who has the knowledge and skills to provide information to assist in looking at the practical options and, if possible, getting at least some agreement.
During the past decade a network of affiliated local voluntary organisations has developed family mediation services across Scotland. They work under the umbrella body known as Family Mediation Scotland which,

1645
among other functions, sets standards and trains and accredits people to act as mediators. Funding comes from the Scottish Office, from some local authorities, from a variety of trusts and from other sources.
Mediation is used increasingly. Last year 3,644 families contacted Family Mediation Scotland and the organisation hopes to move to a situation where services are available to all who require them. In addition, the Law Society of Scotland has its own separate system for training and accrediting solicitor mediators.
Family mediation is not a formal part of the legal system, but it is now widely recognised as an extremely useful tool. To make use of it is mainly voluntary. Couples may be put in touch with the service through a citizens advice bureau, their solicitor, a social worker, a general practitioner or perhaps a friend, or they may simply make contact themselves. The process usually involves some two or three sessions of two hours' duration each.
Since the introduction five years ago of a new rule of court, if parties are still in dispute when their case comes to the sheriff court, the sheriff can insist that they go to mediation for an information session. Should they then decide that mediation is what they want, they go ahead with it: if it is not, the case is simply returned to court. In the Court of Session the judge must obtain both parties' consent before referring them to the mediation service.
Here we come to the need for this Bill and how it came about. For family mediation to be effective those participating must be able to talk frankly and without fear that what they say may later be used in evidence against them. At the present time, while mediators regard the information revealed to them as confidential, it is not clear in Scots law that they or their clients can subsequently refuse to disclose such information were they requested to do so in court. Mediators have been cited to appear on a number of occasions, but so far the matter has not in fact been put to the test.
In 1990, because of the increasing importance of mediation and of the awkward dubiety in the law, Family Mediation Scotland asked the Scottish Law Commission to look at the problem. The commission did so. In 1991 it published Discussion Paper No. 92, entitled Confidentiality in Family Mediation. That was followed in 1992 by its report No. 136 entitled Report of Evidence: Protection of Family Mediation. That report took the view that to await adequate clarification through Scots case law might take some time. The matter was urgent and legislation was the preferable route. A suggested draft Bill was appended to the report.
In early 1994 Family Mediation Scotland invited me to carry the Bill forward. The Scottish Courts Administration Department and the Scottish Office have been asked to have a look at and give drafting help on the Bill. As a result, the original draft has been re-ordered and the Bill's scope slightly widened to match the developing nature of mediation as now practised in Scotland. I am most grateful for that assistance, and hope that when my noble and learned friend the Minister replies he may be able to confirm that the Government are now willing to give the Bill their full support.
1646
Turning to the Bill—I hope that noble Lords will forgive my non-lawyer's powers of explanation—your Lordships will see that Clause 1 is the key clause. Subsection (1) provides that, with the exceptions which are defined in Clause 2, no information as to what occurs in family mediation is admissible in civil court proceedings.
Subsection (2) defines what is the family mediation to which the Bill applies. It does that by setting out the various categories of people who mediate, and the qualifications required of the person who conducts the mediation. The first category of those who mediate is defined at paragraph (a) as "two or more individuals" who are considering matters relating to a child in whom they have an interest. The following paragraphs cover spouses or former spouses, parties to a purported marriage, co-habitants or former co-habitants, as they consider matters arising from their splitting up. Paragraph (e) makes provision for the Secretary of State to add to those categories by regulation should the need arise.
Subsection (2) ends by defining the person who conducts the mediation as,
"a person accredited … to an organisation … approved … by the Lord President of the Court of Session".
Subsection (3) relates to the granting of that approval. Subsections (4), (5) and (6) clarify the terms used earlier in the clause.
Clause 2(1) sets out the exceptions to the general rule of inadmissibility. The need for paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) is self-evident. In, say, a divorce case, the court and the solicitors concerned will need to know whether there has been an agreement during mediation and, if there is an agreement, what it is. Likewise, when the content of an agreement is challenged in court, it will probably be necessary to discuss the various points which are the subject of the challenge. If the participants other than the mediator agree that information can be brought before the court, clearly it should be admissible and it would be inappropriate if the mediator could block such a wish. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) allow for those various circumstances.
Paragraph (d) continues the exceptions by listing the civil proceedings at which family mediation information would be admissible. Sub-paragraphs (i) to (iv) relate to proceedings concerning children where the children's interests could clearly be damaged if mediation information was not forthcoming. Sub-paragraph (v) concerns proceedings alleging violence by a participant during mediation. Should one of the parties wish to sue, clearly evidence would be required. Sub-paragraph (vi) is there in case the mediator is sued or wishes to sue—an unlikely circumstance, but possible.
Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 2 establish who are to be regarded as participants for the purpose of the clause. Following the recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission, the participants can include the child where matters concerning that child are the subject of mediation and, provided he or she has sufficient understanding of the issues, that child can be under 16, which is the age of legal capacity.

1647
Subsection (4) gives flexibility to add to the list of persons to be regarded as participants by means of regulations. Again, that is only prudent in order to take account of future requirements.
Clause 3 contains the short title, provides for the negative resolution procedure and limits the Bill to Scotland. Subsection (3) states that the Bill comes into force two months after it becomes an Act and that it shall apply only to court proceedings commencing on or after that date.
I have a question to ask my noble and learned friend the Minister. I believe that Family Mediation Scotland has given him notice of this. Family Mediation Scotland is concerned that, where long drawn out civil proceedings have begun some time before the Bill takes effect but, for whatever reason, mediation relating to those proceedings takes place after the Bill's commencement date and then the proceedings continue, that mediation will not be protected. Would it perhaps be better if it was the first mediation after the commencement that was protected rather than the first proceedings? I should be most grateful if my noble and learned friend could give me and the House a view on that point.
I have heard from the Scottish Law Commission that it is happy with the general thrust of the Bill, although it may wish to pursue one or two points in Committee. The lawyer mediators have written only today with one or two of their concerns which I shall look at with those who advise me. It may be necessary to deal with those in Committee. I look forward very much to hearing what subsequent speakers have to say and particularly to the Government's comments. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Carnegy of Lour.)
7.16 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, on introducing this useful Bill. I should declare an interest. I am a step-parent of 21 years standing. I am also a one-time supervisor of matrimonial supervision orders.
The Bill seeks to establish in Scots law the concept that whatever is said during the difficult discussions within professionally conducted family mediation should not be admissible as evidence, and rather that the court should be informed of the decisions achieved or, indeed, not achieved.
A decade ago it was recognised that there was a need for a properly constituted mediation service to enable parents to explore the possibilities and resolve the difficulties that they were facing in planning for the upbringing of their children within the context of their failed relationship—be it a marriage, co-habitation or other style of relationship. It is the result of changing social trends that the traditional remedy of "She will live in the family home and bring up the kids and he will live elsewhere, pay maintenance and have access" is no longer the only expectation which is valid. Changes in
1648
the expectations of both men and women with regard to family roles presents us with more difficulties in family breakdown and in planning for the aftermath. In fact, it will be an aftermath, unless there is a serious effort made to reconcile the differences of expectation about how the children will be cared for and by whom. To put it in a nutshell, social workers often have to say to warring ex-partners, "You may no longer be married, but you are parents forever".
Any idea that there can be winners and losers in such decisions is unhelpful in the extreme. I suggest that unless there is a mutually acceptable and workable series of agreements made and implemented, the child—indeed, the whole family—will be the loser. That is especially true if the parents split up when the children are very young. They will then have to be active but separated parents for very many years ahead. The child will generally suffer socially and economically if the parenting is not sorted out mutually.
Similarly, there are decisions to be made about access to the children for grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins. That is not to mention access to children for incoming step-parents and new step-relations. The latter arrangements seem to be very tricky.
I wish also to establish the fact that parents who cannot agree about their children's future life in separation put the court in a difficult position when seeking a judicial solution to their family organisation. They will not achieve the best arrangement for their family's future because they will not jointly own the decision and the plan behind it. It will be a life of living with imposed court judgments rather than mutually agreed decisions.
The provision of family meditation is already supplying a better solution to those problems. A trained mediator will try to enable the parents to address all the issues, leaving none put off because it is too difficult. The provision of family mediation is thinly scattered over the nine regions and three islands councils of Scotland on a voluntary-sector basis. As we move to 32 unitary authorities—and I shall not propose that we have 32 family mediation services—the proven activity should remain in the voluntary sector and be funded properly to enable a more geographically comprehensive service to be achieved soon.
I suspect that the list of exceptions in Clause 2 will come into force quite often. Social work departments, voluntary agencies and adoption agencies are likely to be part of the family breakdown scenario, especially as other problems such as truancy, vandalism and poor relationships may be rearing their heads within the malfunctioning family set-up. Parents entering family mediation and its inadmissible evidence zone will need to understand the possibilities of exception. That is relevant in particular to parents who do not achieve mutual arrangements and then pursue vindictive campaigns against each other.
In conclusion, it is in the best interests of the children that whatever is said in the undoubtedly raw, fraught and no-holds-barred mediation sessions, it should not be used in court in evidence. It is far more important that the court be informed about the decisions reached by the

1649
parents than that the court has to make the decisions for them. I believe that the Bill will improve the chances of a better outcome for families which are separating.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I apologise for not having my name on the printed list. However, as my noble friend and neighbour will know, at this time in the week it is normal that, except when there are important measures such as that introduced tonight, some of us living in the far reaches of Angus head north. I apologise to my noble friend and to your Lordships for intervening but I make no apology for attempting to give my noble friend some assistance in this important and complicated Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, drew attention to Clause 2(d) (iii) (vi). It is important that in proceedings of this kind one should take care to shield the children. Naturally, the proceedings will be somewhat delicate but, where children are concerned, the measures spelt out by my noble friend—and supported by the noble Earl, who has expertise in this area—are of great importance.
I have no personal evidence of family mediation because the doors of marriage, let alone divorce and the activities set out in the Bill, have not yet opened to me. I hope that your Lordships will forgive my intervention but I believe that the Bill is important and that it will be of considerable assistance to the people of Scotland. I support it.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, was of interest. He underlined the fact that this is an important Bill for families in Scotland. Without being pompous, perhaps I may say that this is a sad Bill because it is necessary to control the communings between parents, partners and children in the breakdown of marriages throughout Scotland. Some people are lucky and their marriages are sustained and for one reason or another some people are unlucky in that their marriage falls apart, but the victims of all these marriage processes, whether they succeed or fail, are the children. I hope that the Bill is welcomed on all sides of the House as being the best that we can achieve by legislation to exercise a civilising influence over what are usually acrimonious proceedings.
Unfortunately, the Bill does not face up to the problem of representation of the child. That may be a matter for debate at a later stage. It refers to the child being old enough to understand what is happening. However, those of us who have worked in divorce courts—and I am sure that the Minister has been involved in many divorce cases in the Court of Session in Edinburgh—know that, although in one sense children may understand what is happening, they cannot agree to it. They are the innocent victims of the traumatic failure of the relationship between their parents.
I congratulate the noble Baroness on introducing the Bill. No one in your Lordships' House would reject it as being unnecessary in trying to guide the relationship between husbands and wives. Clause 1 deals with who
1650
is to be a mediator. A mediator must be accredited by the Lord President of the Court of Session, because the ultimate decision as to what happens to a marriage, the children and the payments that will be made on their behalf will be regulated by the courts. It is proper that there should be a regulating officer, and at present he is the Lord President of the Court of Session.
As a result of representations made to me, I understand the inference to be that the lawyers will grab the goodies, so to speak. Of course, that will not happen. The Law Society of Scotland does not envisage only lawyers being mediators. There is a great wealth of experience throughout the country. There are many retired people—for instance, doctors, psychologists and so forth—who I am sure will have a great input into the process.
The problem with Clause 2 is difficult because it deals with written and oral agreements. I am sure that the noble Baroness has received representations about the weakness of the wording of the clause. In allowing an oral agreement to be founded upon merely opens the door to another argy-bargy about who said what during the mediation proceedings. Perhaps oral agreements should be omitted and the only agreement that can be founded upon arising out of mediation proceedings should be a written agreement. It should be a written agreement to which the parties agree in the presence of the mediator, which is included in another clause of the Bill, or after taking legal advice.
Several questions arise now which may arise also in Committee. The most important is the question of funding. I know that the Minister is recognised as a caring Minister. Through his influence within the Scottish Office he has helped many voluntary organisations. But, as the rate of breakdown of marriages increases, there will be a commensurate increase in the work of the mediator. Therefore, I wonder where the funding is to come from.
We are facing a reorganisation of local government in Scotland and we know that there is the economy of scale in areas like Strathclyde, Lothian and Grampian. But once there is a breakdown into the smaller areas in Scotland, the question will arise as to where the funding will come from if the Scottish Office reaches its budget limit and says, "There is no more. It is up to the local authorities to fund it". That is one matter which concerns me.
The second matter is the legal aid implications. Is a partner, husband or wife who goes before the mediator to be granted legal aid in order to be represented by a lawyer? If so, on what basis? I know that at present that perhaps impinges on the concept of voluntary work being done by mediators. That is all right up to a point but we may reach the stage at which the voluntary sector cannot cope with that work. We shall have to look at the question of whether legal aid will be available. I do not expect the noble and learned Lord to answer immediately but in due course perhaps he will given an indication as to whether the legal aid scheme will cover mediation as envisaged by the Bill.
I return to what is perhaps the most important matter. In many ways, the parent does not matter. As the noble Baroness said, the most important person is the child.

1651
What is missing from the Bill is the provision of representation for the child. I note that the noble Baroness shakes her head but I have read the Bill and have seen what is in it. For a child to be involved in conflict between two partners or parents is, not to put too fine a point on it, a hellish experience. I do not apologise for using that expression. It is a hellish experience. Those of us who have worked in the divorce courts have seen children torn between parent and parent. They may understand what is happening but what will be the nature of the consent of a child who is torn between two parents? Understanding is all very well; consent is a different concept altogether.
It may be that in Committee we should move amendments to make it mandatory for a child involved in mediation proceedings to be represented at those proceedings so that the child's interests are preserved properly. We must ensure that the child is not left on the sidelines while the parents battle it out and reach an agreement which suits them but which may very well not suit the child at the end of the day.
The noble Baroness has introduced a valuable Bill. On this side of the House, we see the Bill as a welcome addition to the armoury to be used for civilising inter-personal relationships in Scotland.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lady Carnegy on introducing the Bill before your Lordships this evening. At the outset I am pleased to be able to indicate on behalf of the Government their agreement that the Bill should proceed unopposed through this House. We accept the principle of the Bill and subject only to any amendments of a minor or technical nature which may prove necessary or which may occur to your Lordships we hope that it will reach the statute book in early course.
I am grateful also to the two noble Lords on the Opposition Front Benches for the warm welcome which they have accorded the Bill. It is undoubtedly an important measure. I repeat the compliment which my noble friend Lady Carnegy extended to Family Mediation (Scotland) for the keen interest it has taken in this matter and the skilful and professional fashion in which it has advanced the argument for the Bill.
My noble friend has put forward such a lucid and concise explanation of the background to the Bill that I need not rehearse that. As she rightly indicates, the Bill implements a report of the Scottish Law Commission. It was asked, on reference, to consider whether a rule of law might be introduced to prevent evidence of mediation being available in subsequent court proceedings, thereby preserving the confidentiality of those proceedings.
In considering that, the Law Commission took the view that there would need to be a provision for identifying those mediators whose activities would be protected. That is why the Bill provides for approval of mediation organisations by the Lord President of the Court of Session. In turn, those mediators will have their mediation protected by the inadmissibility rule.
1652
The approval of mediation organisations by the Lord President of the Court of Session is appropriate. He has responsibility for regulating matters pertaining to procedures in the courts in Scotland and his approval of mediation organisations is provided in the Bill for the purpose of providing that the evidence of mediators will not generally be admissible. I should make clear that the approval of a mediation organisation by the Lord President does not confer any other form of approbation or recommendation. In practical terms the Bill will enable the Lord President to approve organisations which are concerned with family mediation. It will then be for such organisations to ensure that their individual family mediators are properly accredited to the organisation so that their mediation activities can obtain the protection granted by the Bill. That relatively light level of control is in keeping with the limited scope of the provisions of the Bill.
The Bill makes clear that, in general, what takes place during mediation will not be admissible as evidence in subsequent civil proceedings. Thus all the participants in the mediation process will be able to speak in confidence, knowing that what they say cannot be used against them.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, asked a number of questions about the extension of legal aid and the representation of children. At the core of mediation is the idea that a large number of matters in the unfortunate circumstances which the noble Lord vividly described, where one wishes to try to seek a resolution, can be dealt with without resort to the formality of the law or the formality of representation which may be appropriate within the court room. One hopes that by preserving that confidentiality, there will be an opportunity to excuse children from the ordeal of having their affairs taken openly through the courts, which may be extremely disturbing for them.
I should perhaps emphasise that this Bill, which applies to Scotland only, is not intended nor has it the effect of extending mediation into any new areas. Nor does it require mediation to take place other than in the situations where it might take place now. I recognise that there will always be situations where mediation is not suitable, and I wish to make clear that the Bill in no way seeks to create any obligation on people to seek mediation. It should not be seen as any indicator as to what my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Chancellor may wish to propose in relation to rules of evidence or accreditation procedures in England and Wales.
A few detailed points were put forward in the course of the debate. Perhaps I may deal briefly with two of them. Before doing so, I should say that my noble friend Lady Carnegy had the kindness to indicate to me prior to the debate that she had some anxieties about Clause 2(2) (b) and what is the definition of a child in terms of being a participant. If we are to have a Committee stage, I recognise that that is a point we shall have to consider.
I turn now to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar. I recognise that proof of an oral agreement may be more difficult; nevertheless the Scottish Law Commission recommended that we should allow for that to be an exception to the inadmissibility

1653
rule. I understand that it may be a little untidy in certain circumstances, but I believe that it is an important part of Clause 2 and that it should remain so. However, the noble Lord may wish to return to the matter if we have a Report stage.
The principal point upon which my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour invited me to give a direct response concerned the provision relating to commencement, which is to be found in Clause 3(3). Put shortly, the question is whether the Bill's provisions should protect mediation which takes place after the legislation comes into force. I can confirm that I received a letter from Family Mediation (Scotland) on that very point to which I replied yesterday. I understand that my noble friend may not yet have had the opportunity of reading that reply. I hope that it will answer her concerns. The suggestion made by Family Mediation (Scotland) may not, in fact, achieve the desired result. However, it will be for the organisation and for my noble friend to consider whether an amendment should be proposed.
In our considered view, the Bill as it stands gives adequate protection, albeit that there may be a slight risk that mediation commenced before the Bill is enforced may not be protected in civil proceedings which have already commenced by the time the legislation comes into force. However, I should like to tell my noble friend that I am open to persuasion on that issue. In this particular instance, I believe that the answer might be to ensure that the Bill's provisions apply where proof—that is, the trial in court —has not yet taken place at the date of the legislation coming into force. However, before the next stage of the Bill's proceedings, doubtless my noble friend and those who advise her will wish to reflect further on that aspect.
With those few words I conclude by saying again that I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour for introducing the Bill. I invite the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he say whether he will consider looking at the question of the status of the child within European law and under the European Convention of Human Rights before the next stage of the Bill's proceedings? As I see it, the child is really neglected in the legislation. I shall not take the matter further at this point, but I hope that the Minister, with the resources at his disposal, will be able to provide an answer as to whether the Bill (where the parents of the child determine what is going to happen to the child) is in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any risk of that. However, there is a Bill beginning its passage in the other place—namely, the Children (Scotland) Bill—which may take some time. If this Bill completes all its stages through both Houses of Parliament, it may then be necessary to ensure that there is appropriate cross-referencing between this measure and the one being considered in another place.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have a question for my noble and learned friend the Minister.
1654
Am I right in understanding—it is impertinent of me to suggest it, bearing in mind the great knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay—that where the child is mentioned in the Bill that will also include the representative of the child? Is that correct? I believe I understood from one source or another that reference to the child means the child or his representative.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it is important to understand what is to be determined for the limited exceptions in Clause 2. In other words, what needs to be determined is whether or not the child has given his or her agreement. The provision to which my noble friend needs to have regard is subsection (3) which would indicate:
"Notwithstanding anything in the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991"
a child under that age,
"shall have legal capacity to agree that information should be admitted",
provided that it is clear that the child is,
"capable of understanding the nature and significance of the matters to which the information relates".
I can certainly think of many circumstances where such a child, if such an agreement was required, would have had to have the advantage of legal advice.
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am enormously grateful to everyone who has spoken in the debate. First, I must say that I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend for saying for the first time that the Government are willing to support the Bill through its various stages in Parliament. That is, indeed, good news and is most helpful. Likewise, it is very good news to receive support for the Bill as a whole from the Benches opposite. I am greatly encouraged by that and I am sure that Family Mediation Scotland will be similarly encouraged.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, made a most interesting short speech with, if I may say so, all his professional knowledge. He said that he has a little personal knowledge as well, but his professional knowledge came through very clearly. The noble Earl gave us very interesting, detailed examples of the need for family mediation which brought the Bill to life in a very illuminating way.
The noble Earl made the point that participants will need to be aware of the exceptions to the inadmissibility rule before they start mediating. I am sure that that must be a very important rule for mediators. I am very grateful to the noble Earl for making that point. The noble Earl made an additional point which he is very well placed to make because he lives in Clackmannanshire. He said that the reorganisation of local government in Scotland would probably mean considerable reorganisation of Family Mediation Scotland and its affiliated services. I believe that the organisation is well aware of that fact. I do not quite know how those concerned will make it work, but it is good that the noble Earl made the point because it is most relevant to the Bill.

1655
My noble friend Lord Lye11 gave me his usual enthusiastic encouragement. I am sure that he is right to say that the Bill is important not only to the people in Angus but also throughout Scotland. I am most grateful to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, made a number of points, some of which, as he knows, it would be very much easier for a lawyer to understand; indeed, my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench answered some of them. I shall read the Hansard report of what the noble Lord said with great care. It was extremely interesting. I shall understand some of it better when I have discussed the matter with my advisers.
The concern of the solicitor-lawyers who have written to me, and to whom the noble Lord has doubtless spoken, about whether the agreements contained in the Bill should be only written agreements is a matter that I shall discuss with him. I have not as yet had a chance to do so. I shall also discuss it with Family Mediation Scotland and with the Law Society. They are interesting points but I rather think that they have already been thought of and that there are arguments which may come to light of which I am not yet aware.
The question of funding is an interesting one. At present, lawyer-mediators are paid. I believe that the noble Lord indicated the difference in that Family Mediation Scotland mediators are mostly voluntary. Lawyer-mediators can be quite expensive. Indeed, as I understand it, they are paid quite a large sum per hour. Doubtless that is a matter which will arise in the context of the Bill once it becomes law, as I hope it will. Obviously it is not possible at the moment for my noble and learned friend to answer such questions. It is interesting to read the Green Paper that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has issued, which is now under discussion, and see what he is saying about that. I take it that in Scotland we shall not necessarily do the same thing, but the arguments are certainly applicable to both sides of the Border.
The question of the child, the child's representative and the relationship to the children's Bill which is now in another place are matters we shall follow with interest. However, it is good to know that the Bill can be brought into line with the children's Bill at later stages of that Bill so that if the legislative circumstances change, that will not be a problem. There is plenty of time for that. We have the whole parliamentary year to do it.
My noble and learned friend filled in some additional interesting background from the point of view of the Government with all the facilities at his disposal. I shall read that with much interest. His reply on the commencement date interested me. His letter has not yet reached Family Mediation Scotland either. Therefore, I think I can be forgiven for not having really examined what he told me about a little earlier verbally. I shall again read that with care and discuss it with my advisers.
I am extremely grateful to everyone who has joined in this debate. I think it bodes well for the future of the Bill. I hope my own contribution will not confuse anyone who understands the law better than I do. I am
1656
trying hard to grasp not only the legal points but also the social points. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, made some social points with which I heartily agree. I would not say that the parents do not matter. I think that that is an unfortunate thing to say because everyone matters. We must not think so much about children—we have to think a lot about children at the moment—that we forget the parents. Quite a lot of mediation will not be about children: it will be about other things to do with the break-up of a marriage. That is of importance to everyone. I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken. I hope the Bill will have a fair passage in Committee and beyond.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.53 to 8 p.m.]

Environment Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 59.
Viscount Addisonmoved Amendment No. 257:
Page 65, line 27, leave out ("if it appears that there is a") and insert ("where the relevant National Park Authority deems there to be an irreconcilable").
The noble Viscount said: Subsection (2) of Clause 59 is intended to implement what is known as the "Sandford principle". The Sandford Report of 1974 stated that where there is irreconcilable conflict between the two national park purposes of conservation and recreation the former should be given priority over the latter. In 1991 the National Parks Review Panel endorsed that recommendation, saying that it should be reflected in legislation.
As drafted, subsection 59(2) is not sufficiently precise to fulfil the recommendations of the Sandford and Edwards Reports. The amendment attempts to address two of the drafting problems.
The clause as drafted states that if it appears that there is a conflict between the two purposes conservation shall be given greater weight. That is too vague and begs the question, if it appears to whom? Therefore, the first part of the amendment attempts to clarify the position by giving the role of arbiter to the national park authority as the most appropriate executive body.
The clause also omits the concept of irreconcilability. That appears to be a fundamental change of policy from the current position and is not what Sandford or Edwards intended.
Much concern was expressed at Second Reading that every incentive should be given to explore all means of reconciling conflict before having to invoke the principle. That could be through careful planning of recreational facilities and providing adequate resources for management, as Edwards recommended. The amendment therefore includes the idea of irreconcilable conflict to ensure that this is a last resort which does not replace reconciliation by other means first.

1657
Government guidance is likely to include some clarification of what is intended in the clause. However, including in the guidance the concept of reconciliation through management would not be consistent with the clause as drafted. The present drafting of the clause changes the balance of policy and there is a danger that one test could exist in primary legislation and another in the guidance. Therefore, the legislation must include the idea of irreconcilability to provide the right policy context for the guidance. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: While I fully understand the principles behind the amendment, I believe that, as it is drafted, it would undermine what has become known as the "Sandford principle" —namely that conservation should take precedence when there is a conflict.
What concerns me particularly is the fact that when there is doubt about the interests of conservation being undermined it must be right that we should adopt the precautionary approach. If the amendment were accepted I believe that that would be lost, because the judgment would lie solely with the park authorities. That is too subjective.
I also question how a decision could be challenged. I can foresee a situation, for example, where English Nature may see conflict between visitor pressure and its duties to ensure the well-being of special areas of conservation under the new EU habitats directive. It is possible that the parks could come forward with a formula which they believe would reconcile the problem and could proceed with it. If that happened, the parks could be in direct conflict not only with the statutory obligations imposed upon English Nature but also with the obligations of the Government themselves under the habitats directive. Therefore, I believe that other interests and bodies should have a say. The decision should not rest solely with the parks as arbitrators in the matter, because too much is at stake.
I believe that what the Government have set out in the Bill is sufficient and right. For those reasons, I am worried by the amendment.
Lord Greenway: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 258, in my name, which is grouped with the noble Viscount's amendment.
As we all know, the "Sandford principle" has been accepted as a reasonable approach to the management of national parks and equivalent areas. It has been generally accepted by the recreational interests since it becomes relevant only when there is an acute conflict.
As the noble Viscount who moved the initial amendment said, subsection (2) appears in many ways to take the "Sandford principle" several stages further than the committee could ever have thought necessary or desirable. It provides that, if it appears that there is a conflict between the national park purposes, the authority shall attach primacy to the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty. In other words, the Bill does not require the authority to seek to resolve conflict, however minor; it simply requires the authority to rule in favour of the first purpose at the first allegation of any conflict.
1658
I believe that that is a distortion of the purposes for which the national parks exist. I urge that consideration be given to modifying the clause. I do not mind how that is done—whether it is through acceptance of my amendment, the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount or that of the noble Lord, Lord Howell. However, I believe that we should require that the relevant authorities first seek all reasonable means of reconciling conflict, as I believe was clearly intended by the Sandford Committee, before being required to judge in favour of the first purpose. I support the amendment.
Baroness Nicol: I may have misunderstood the thrust of the noble Earl's objection to the amendment, but it seemed to me that he said the opposite of what he should have said.
As presently drafted, the clause seems to imply that the best solution in a honeypot situation would be to ban visitors from sensitive areas. However, our amendment—Amendment No. 257—suggests that that would not be in the best interests of the people who want to visit the parks. We would soon lose the support of the public if we did that. It seems to me, therefore, that it is important that the clause makes it quite clear that any conflict which is to be dealt with must be irreconcilable. The words:
"if it appears that there is a conflict",
are much too vague. That is why we suggest that the clause should be strengthened.
In the case of honeypot sites there are many options for resolving conflicts. The national park authorities are experts in that. They know exactly what they are doing and have had plenty of experience. The amendment provides a two-phased system of protection. I support the amendment.
Lord Norrie: Because 100 million visits are made to national parks every year it is inevitable that some of the recreational activities which go on in the parks may damage the fabric of the parks themselves. Whereas the earlier amendment to introduce the idea of quiet enjoyment into national park purposes attempted to address the problem where one enjoyment comes into conflict with another, this clause addresses the problem where recreation itself comes into conflict with conservation.
Clarification in the clause that greater weight should be given to conservation where the conflict is "irreconcilable" is most important. National park authorities, as the practitioners on the ground, are most experienced in trying to resolve various forms of conflict and must be enabled to explore every route before resorting to invoking the principle that conservation has greater weight. For example, in the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park, outdoor activity centres, the National Trust and the National Park Authority have signed up to an "outdoor charter" to pre-empt the conflicts occurring. Problems potentially include disturbance to birds from climbing, soil erosion from mountain biking, and so on. It is that kind of management approach involving the various interest groups in national parks that ensures a better level of co-operation and, in the long run, provides the greatest potential for protecting the park. That is precisely the

1659
kind of management approach that the draft guidance issued by the Government recommends as part of the exhaustive means of reconciling conflict to be used before applying that principle. The draft guidance also states that the Sandford principle has been policy for over 20 years—that has already been stated—and is now, to quote the guidance, "enshrined" in Clause 59 of the Bill.
However, it is clear from the other speakers, including my noble friend Lord Addison and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that the Sandford principle is not enshrined in Clause 59. The guidance does not follow on logically from Clause 59 as drafted. Amendment No. 257 would fulfil the intention that Clause 59 was equivalent to the Sandford principle and the guidance would therefore follow on consistently from Clause 59, amended in this way.
Earl Peel: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I am very much in favour of applying the Sandford principle. What concerns me about the amendment is that the national park authority would be judge and jury. It is essential that other interested parties should be allowed to voice their opinion. If that were the case, then the national parks would not be put in such a position. They would have to consult more if there were conflict between conservation interests and, say, visitor pressure. If it is left entirely to the parks, then a great deal of expertise will be by-passed which could be detrimental to the conservation wellbeing of the national parks. That is simply the point that I sought to make.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It is clear that there is a problem which has to be addressed. My noble friend Lord Howell is not able to move his amendments this evening. For the convenience of the Committee, perhaps I may make it clear that I speak to Amendments Nos. 257, 257A, 258 and 258ZZA. My noble friend Lord Howell is not able to attend partly because he attended the 80th birthday dinner of Sir Stanley Matthews last night; and although it is not necessarily cause and effect, he is not able to be with us this evening.
There is a difficulty which the amendment addresses. I hope that the Government will take account of the difficulty. My noble friend's amendments attempt to resolve the difficulty. I am not fully in support of Amendment No. 258ZZA; nevertheless, he wished me at least to speak to it and to apologise to the Committee that he was unable to be here; so that is what I do.
If there is a conflict between purposes, clearly there has to be some mechanism by which it is resolved. That is the purpose of the amendment. I look forward to hearing what the noble Viscount will say.
8.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: I understand the problem that the amendments seek to address in their various ways. I have considerable sympathy with the intention underlying them. It has been our long-standing policy to accept the Sandford principle that in those rare cases where there are irreconcilable conflicts between the first
1660
and second national park purposes the first purpose takes priority. We now propose that that should be enshrined in legislation.
It is, however, also my firm view that every opportunity should be taken for negotiation and mediation before the Sandford principle is applied. As the draft circular makes clear, we expect the number of instances where the principle bites to be kept to a minimum and that all reasonable steps will be taken to reconcile the different viewpoints. We believe that careful planning and positive management, as my noble friend Lord Addison said, can often facilitate greater use of the parks, which respects their special qualities and which reduces the potential conflicts. Nevertheless, we accept that the parks' twin purposes may occasionally come into conflict despite every effort being made to reconcile them. In those exceptional cases where reconciliation proves impossible, the conservation of the parks' special qualities must take precedence. This principle, now enshrined in Section 59 has been policy for over 20 years, and we believe that it continues to stand the parks in good stead. We expect this principle to apply to all those relevant authorities who may need to consider park purposes in their activities.
I do not believe the amendments will help this process, although I understand and sympathise with the intention that they do so. In particular, I fear they may encourage very lengthy and long drawn out discussions so that the relevant bodies can, if they should be required to do so, "prove" that negotiations have truly broken down and reached a point where the different viewpoints can never be reconciled.
Having said that, I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Addison: The clause as printed changes the Sandford principle and therefore the need remains for more precision as to what is meant. Instead of "irreconcilable" perhaps I may suggest the words "conflict that cannot be reconciled through management".
However, in view of my noble friend's helpful comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 257A not moved.]
Lord Greenwayhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 258:
Page 65, line 28, leave out ("a") and insert ("an irreconcilable").
The noble Lord said: I go along with what the noble Viscount said. Perhaps we can consider the issue again. However, I believe that the clause as drafted leaves something to be desired.
[Amendment No. 258 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 258ZZA not moved.]
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 258ZA:
Page 66, line 9, after second ("council") insert ("district council").

1661
The noble Viscount said: This is of a minor and technical nature. The purpose of the amendment is to add a reference to district councils in Wales in order to complete the definition of local authority in relation to Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 258ZB:
Page 66, line 13, after ("Park") insert ("reconstituted").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 258ZB, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 258B to 258F, 262A, 362A, 362B, 366A, 366B, 397A, 397B, 399E, 399F and 403A. The amendments are all of a minor and technical nature. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 258E and 258F is to delete the references to the 1949 Act national park purposes elsewhere in legislation and insert the revised park purposes provided for in Clause 58 of the Bill.
Another group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 362A, 362B, 366A and 366B, ensures that the term "National Park authority" in legislation covers both the existing and the new national park authorities to be established under Clause 60. Amendments Nos. 258B, 258C and 258D make clear the fact that the appointment of a local authority appointed member of a national park authority may be terminated in order to maintain the political balance of the appointing authority in accordance with Sections 15 to 17 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
Amendment No. 262A is a point of clarification which makes explicit that the Broads Authority is the relevant authority as respects land within the Broads for the purposes of Section 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Amendments Nos. 258ZB, 397A, 397B, 399E, 399F and 403A are miscellaneous and deal with various matters such as insertions and repeals which were inadvertently omitted from the Bill when it was first printed. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I wish to declare my complete support for all the amendments and also to take advantage of the opportunity to ask the Minister when he proposes, or whether the Government propose, to allow for further amendment on the conversion from shadow boards to shadow national park authorities in Wales without a change of legal status. The Minister is aware that we are in a different situation in Wales. Under other legislation the existing structure for local government is already in place. I should like an assurance at some stage of the Bill that the intention is that an amendment will be proposed to the Bill to allow the conversion to take place without a change of legal status and to allow preparatory work in respect of the establishment of the boards to count as if it were carried out in preparation for the national park authorities themselves.
Viscount Ullswater: I am advised that an amendment will be produced at Report stage.
1662
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 [Establishment of National Park authorities]:
Lord Williams of Elvelmoved Amendment No. 258ZC:
Page 67, line 12, at end insert:
("() In respect of any area with special characteristics similar but not identical to those set out in section 5(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Secretary of State may, on the advice of the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council of Wales, and with the agreement of every local authority for that area and of any other persons appearing with him to be interested, by Order establish a special authority, to which the provisions of this Part and Schedules 7 to 10 to this Act shall apply with such variations as may be agreed by those authorities.").
The noble Lord said: I recognise that the text of the amendment may be defective. In the fourth line the word "and" should probably read "or". I am not speaking particularly to the text of the amendment but to it in principle, and the amendment is probing rather than definitive.
The Committee will be aware that there are certain areas of England and Wales, not least the New Forest, which do not easily fall into national parks under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act by definition. All kinds of problems are involved and my amendment is an attempt to offer the Government an opportunity to extend the legislation on national parks in a fairly interesting way; that is, in the sense that if the New Forest cannot become a national park for various reasons, then there is a possibility through the mechanism in my amendment that the New Forest and other areas might be designated by the appropriate mechanism described in the amendment as something similar to a national park without the problems involved in being a national park. For example, in the New Forest that has caused a great many problems, as it has with the Broads in Norfolk. As I understand it, we have not yet found a way round the problems of how to designate an area like the New Forest as a national park. The amendment is an attempt—I accept that it is only an attempt—to try to offer the Government a way of doing that. I hope that the noble Viscount will take it in that spirit and give the amendment a favourable wind. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: I support the amendment and am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for providing an opportunity for us to air the issue. It was most disappointing when, after a wide consultation in which there was overwhelming support for national park equivalent status for the New Forest, the Government did not fulfil their commitments. Affording the area such status would bring many benefits, including national funding for the conservation and enjoyment of the forest.
The National Parks Review Panel favoured enabling the future designation of new members of the national park family where areas were considered as possessing the qualities and characteristics which made them worthy of designation. The Government's 1990 White Paper, This Common Inheritance, stated that they would consider,

1663
"designating new national parks in suitable areas where landscape conservation and recreation opportunities can be combined, either under the 1949 Act, or by creating further tailor-made bodies like the Broads Authority".
The amendment would enable the Government to fulfil that commitment.
Baroness Nicol: The National Parks Review Panel put forward a strong case for giving the New Forest equivalent national park status. I believe it realised that the forest could not fit into the normal pattern of national parks. However, I remind the Committee that the Broads Authority, which had its own tailor-made Act to make it into roughly an equivalent to a national park, has been very successful in protecting the Broads, while promoting enjoyment, including navigation rights.
The New Forest would also require a tailor-made body because it has very complicated management arrangements. I hope that the Government will not be put off by that. It was disappointing that when they published their plan for the New Forest last year no mention was made of giving it the status which I believe is necessary. I remind the Committee that so far as I am aware there is no national park in southern England at all except in Devon.
Viscount Ullswater: I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. There is already a procedure set out in legislation for designating areas which meet the criteria for special status and protection and putting in place the necessary administrative arrangements for the management of those areas.
I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is trying to do in his amendment by having a mechanism to approve areas or set aside areas which would not be designated as national parks. A procedure exists which has resulted in 10 per cent. of the area of England and Wales being designated as national parks with special administrative arrangements to ensure their care and protection. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 sets out the procedures to be followed for designating those areas. It gives responsibility to the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales for preparing orders designating areas as national parks which are then put to the Secretary of State for confirmation. Before placing an order before the Secretary of State, the Countryside Commission or the Countryside Council for Wales carries out an extensive consultation exercise through which the views of all the local authorities with land in the area proposed for designation are sought, as well as the views of any other persons and organisations which have an interest. Confirmation by the Secretary of State brings with it the appropriate administrative arrangements which we are discussing today.
As far as the New Forest is concerned, our policy statement issued in July 1994 made it clear that the New Forest should be subject to the same planning policies as the national parks. We took the view that it was not necessary to give statutory status to the New Forest Committee, as adequate mechanisms were in place for the management of the area.
1664
I am not persuaded of the benefits of Amendment 258ZC, nor indeed do I think it would be workable, since it would require the agreement of everybody who had an interest in the matter before the procedures for an order establishing an authority could be put in train. Even for the national parks, which we all agree are special areas, that might be a little difficult.
With reference to the final words of the proposed new provision, I cannot forbear to point out that they sit ill with the noble Lord's express concern about Henry VIII clauses appearing elsewhere in the Bill. Variations of an Act by means of formal agreement—
8.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Will the noble Viscount now say specifically why the Government do not intend to designate the New Forest as a national park? I understood (and I believe that my understanding is right) that the Government have all sorts of reasons—which the noble Viscount tried, slightly ineffectually, to explain—why it cannot be a national park. All the instruments are in place, but the noble Viscount says that my amendment is irrelevant. If the procedures are in place, will the Government now designate the New Forest as a national park—and if not, why not?
Viscount Ullswater: I have indicated what is the Government's view about the New Forest. I also indicated the arrangements that are available for the Countryside Commission to recommend other areas for new national parks. We consider that to be sufficient for the purpose, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am very disappointed by the noble Viscount's reply. I always understood that there was some arcane reason why the New Forest should not be designated as a national park. Now the noble Viscount tells me that there is no reason at all, and that it is simply a question of going through the normal procedures. Why then have the Government not met their commitment to designate the New Forest as a national park? If there is a procedural problem, then my amendment is in order and is relevant. There may well be other cases like this. If the noble Viscount is saying that my amendment is superfluous and unnecessary because the procedures are already there, then I put my question again to the noble Viscount: why do the Government not designate the New Forest as a national park?
Viscount Ullswater: At the risk of boring the Committee, I shall repeat what I said. Our policy statement issued in July 1994 made it clear that the New Forest should be subject to the same planning policies as the national parks. We took the view that it was not necessary to give statutory status to the New Forest Committee as adequate mechanisms were in place for the management of the area.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I see that I shall not get any further with this point. We shall have to return to it at a later stage. I do not understand the noble Viscount's argument. Either the New Forest is to be a national park or it is not to be a national park. We will certainly look

1665
at what the noble Viscount has said, for what it is worth, and perhaps return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 60 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Committee will be aware that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of this House has reported on this Bill. In paragraph 9 on page 2 of that report, the committee draws attention to Clauses 60 and 63, and indeed to Clause 70. We are dealing here with Clause 60. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee remarks:
"The House may, however"—
having considered the powers under Clause 60—
"wish to consider whether the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate in these cases because the scope of the power is not clearly defined in the bill or explained in the memorandum".
Perhaps I should explain to the Committee that the memorandum was that which was produced by the Department of the Environment to that committee. My purpose in putting down notice of my intention to oppose the Motion that Clause 60 stand part is simply to elicit from the Government their response to that committee's report.
Viscount Ullswater: The establishment of independent national park authorities was the principal recommendation of the National Parks Review Panel, and one which we accepted wholeheartedly in our 1992 policy statement on the future of the national parks. When, in the last Session, my noble friend Lord Norrie introduced his Bill to establish independent national park authorities, it received overwhelming support from both sides of this House. Independent status will have a number of advantages for the national park authorities, including a greater clarity of vision and self-confidence, a higher profile, freedom to manage their own affairs and a more undivided commitment to national park objectives.
We consider that to enable the Secretary of State to provide for the establishment of national park authorities by order is the most practicable, if not the only practicable, way of proceeding. It is unlikely that all the national park authorities for the existing national parks will be established at exactly the same time. The timing is likely to be influenced by the timing of any changes in the local government structure affecting any park under Part II of the Local Government Act 1994 or under the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.
The circumstances of each park, and of its existing planning board or committee, will need individual consideration to identify the provisions required in connection with the winding up of the existing body. Thus we believe that, in order to facilitate a smooth transition from existing to new authorities, powers to make incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision are essential.
The provisions in Clause 60 will have effect only within or for the purposes of national parks, and are very narrowly prescribed. The powers which Clause 70 provides for the making of orders under Clause 60, may
1666
only be used for incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional purposes in connection with the primary power being used. That limitation is reiterated in the case of subsection (4) of Clause 70, which enables the making of Henry VIII provisions, as the committee pointed out in relation to the National Parks Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Norrie in the last Session.
"Supplemental" is used in the sense indicated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate when the House considered the committee's comments on what was originally Clause 52 of the Local Government (Wales) Bill (debated on 28th February 1994 and reported at cols. 892 to 895). That is to say, the powers contained in Clause 52 could be used only for matters arising in consequence of local government reorganisation or, in this instance, primarily the establishment of national park authorities under Clause 60 and the winding up of the existing boards and committees.
As has also been pointed out, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments will be able to exercise its usual jurisdiction to question vires, on that or any other point. I therefore ask that the noble Lord withdraw his opposition to this clause.
Lord Williams of Elvel: If Clause 60, as reported on by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee is defective in parliamentary terms, in the sense that the House may wish to consider whether the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate in these cases because the scope of the power is not clearly defined in the Bill nor explained in the memorandum—and I believe that that is the case—would the Government accept that the affirmative procedure on orders under Clause 60 is the correct one? If the Government say, "Well, designation of national parks is subject to negative procedure", why—with reference to our previous debate—do not they simply issue an order now saying that the New Forest is a national park?
Viscount Ullswater: I tried to explain that Clause 70, which talks about Clause 60 (in Parts II and III) is only a very narrow definition for the supplemental provisions. I was trying to argue that in our opinion they were suitable for the negative procedure.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Lord Annaly Lord Annaly moved Amendment No. 258ZD:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause:
("Exclusion for defence use
Land within any National Park which forms part of a Ministry of Defence landholding and is used for training for the defence of the realm shall not form part of the area of a National Park for the purposes of this or any other enactment.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I speak both as a former soldier and a long-standing visitor to national parks. My noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth, who put his name to the amendment, regrets that he is unable to be present tonight to speak in support of the amendment.
The MoD land holdings collectively represent 3 per cent. of the total acreage of national parks and in only three out of the nine national parks where the MoD

1667
owns land for training is the acreage of any significant proportion: that is in Northumberland, where it is 22 per cent.; Dartmoor, where it is 15 per cent.; and the Pembrokeshire coast, where it is 5 per cent.
In the past three years the situation has arisen in which the highly vocal and influential environmental lobby has intensified its questioning of the Army's primary right to train on MoD land, particularly in Northumberland, where the military training area at Otterburn was established in 1911, some 40-odd years before national parks were created. The national park authorities, which are deeply involved with the environmentalists, gave evidence to the Commons Select Committee in March last year. They said that they were strongly opposed to any "intensification" of military training within national parks, even though they acknowledged that the Army's needs were increasing because of the withdrawal of units from Germany under Options for Change. The national park authorities praised the MoD for its:
"commendable record in protecting and enhancing the nature conservancy value of their training areas, some of which are now of national importance".
But at the same time they recorded that they looked forward to the eventual removal of military training, which they regarded as "incompatible" with the objects and purposes of national parks.
Those statements, which were repeated in the Northumberland National Park's formal plans published in March 1994, aroused concern in the local community, whose economy benefits by £6 million a year from the Army's presence. After three generations of living and working in harmony with the military, whose activities are compatible with upland farming, local people were further incensed at reports that the park authority was to oppose developments to enable the Army to fire its new general purpose field gun, the AS90, on the Otterburn ranges, which are among the most important in the United Kingdom.
Against that background, I believe that if the amendment is not agreed, the national park authority may deny the Army its primary right to train on MoD land. I know that the Committee is well aware, in these uncertain times and this era of sophisticated and technical weaponry, that it is essential that our much reduced Army is properly trained and has the use of appropriate training areas.
My noble friend Lord Vivian, who is unable to be present to speak in support owing to a prior engagement, believes that such areas are essential to the Army today. He strongly supports the amendment. The hardening of attitude and relations between Russia and the West—Russia has over 2 million armed men—and the Fundamentalist Movement covering the whole of southern Europe in a crescent shape signify very real threats to the United Kingdom, if not now then perhaps one day in the future.
Given the opportunity through a Bill to sort out anomalies and conflicts between national park authorities and defence interests, it makes no sense to re-tie the knot that places the Army's real estate within the jurisdiction of a body which says that its purposes
1668
are incompatible with those of military training and which uses its terms of reference under DoE policies to support its case. Freeing the MoD to work instead with accountable elected bodies over planning matters would leave national park authorities collectively with 97 per cent. of the total area that they presently supervise and without major conflicts of interest.
Some of the best conserved areas are those which have been used for military training. The public would continue to have the maximum possible access within the bounds of safety.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. He has a very serious case to make. But we wish to get on. With the greatest respect, I wonder whether he could perhaps cut down his remarks.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: There are some of us who want to hear the noble Lord.
Lord Annaly: I have about five more lines to utter, if I am allowed the time to say them. No good reason exists why the military training areas such as Otterburn, with their excellent record for conservation and maximum possible public access, should not continue to afford enjoyment to the public without national park designation placed upon them. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Vinson: I rise to support this amendment. I hope that I shall not be too verbose or take up more time than others on the opposite side may have taken up hitherto this evening. It is a probing amendment. It is designed to bring out some of the inherent and inevitable conflicts of interest that have arisen and that will continue to arise between those who wish to see no activity at all other than recreation in the national parks and those who, I believe more realistically, accept that these huge land areas, while being properly earmarked for recreation, also must have other important purposes.
One of the reasons why parts of those areas are so beautiful is that they have been largely undisturbed due to the fact that they belong to the Ministry of Defence. The national parks in this country are different from any overseas. Because of our limited land mass, of necessity our remoter areas have to serve at least two purposes. That raises a paradox. Those Army training grounds to which the public on many occasions has full access amount to only some 3 per cent. of the existing national parks. Yet the Committee will be aware of the virulent campaign mounted by a number of organisations to have the Army removed from them altogether. One wonders whether those who take this attitude ever stop to consider that their potential enjoyment of these areas has only been made possible by the ability of these islands to defend themselves in the past.
Interestingly enough, the presence of the Army is indeed welcomed by the vast majority of those who live and work in the park. The Committee will know of the rally for the national parks led by Mr. Chris Bonnington which, complete with television cameras, stormed the Otterburn ranges to demonstrate that the Army should go. Not surprisingly, in response virtually all the small

1669
farmers in the area and their families turned out to support the purpose of the training ground. Mr. Bonnington's demonstration was a complete fiasco and wholly counterproductive for the purposes that he was trying to promote. The presence of the Army is not universally unpopular and indeed its purposes are well understood.
All that begs the wider issue as to whether in future the national parks authority should effectively dictate the nation's defence training policy. This is the heart of the issue. The judgment of the proposed new national parks authority will inevitably be subjective. To date its attitude has clearly demonstrated that it is unhappy living with the Army.
The amendment puts forward a simple solution that would be to remove the Army's training grounds from the area of the proposed national parks so that sensible, strategic decisions on training would be left in the hands of the people at the Ministry of Defence, who are the best qualified to take them. Incidentally, it also overcomes the problem of "quiet enjoyment" and the worries that that gives rise to.
The Army must train somewhere and withdrawal from German training grounds inevitably means that it must concentrate greater activity at home. The campaign mounted by the Council for the National Parks, whose ethos and philosophy will largely drive the thinking of the new national parks authority, illustrates that that potential authority may not be the most suitable body for taking balanced decisions in this matter. Currently the anticipated composition of the authority is heavily weighted with pressure groups and underweighted in respect of those who live and work in the national parks and those who apparently have the wider national interests at heart—people who concede that both necessary defence training and recreation must and should share a common interest in the land use of our national parks on this small island. Therefore, either the composition of the new controlling authority should reflect that point or the training areas used for the defence of the realm should be regarded as outwith the curtilage of the national parks.
I might add that I live in a Northumberland national park area. I chose to go there because of the quiet enjoyment and because I was fortunate enough to be able to choose to lift up mine eyes to the hills from whence cometh our strength. For all the nuisance and noise that the Army training produces in the area, I recognise that Britain's defence requirements are paramount. We should bear that in mind the whole time we are considering this issue.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I was tempted to make a short speech. After his intervention I was tempted to imitate Gladstone and go on to his lengths. However, I shall spare the Committee that torture.
I intervene only to say that five or six years ago I was then chairman of the commons and open spaces society, which has since sacked me because it did not agree with much of what I said. However, I was invited to Salisbury Plain by General Kitson to see the area where the Army trains. It was fascinating. Basically, it was the
1670
only bit of Salisbury Plain left which was real tumuli, with mixed old grasses—really like the old heathland. The rest was barley and wheat, sucking in EC agricultural subsidies. It is perfectly reasonable therefore to state that the Army has been extremely good in looking after the fauna and flora of its ranges and training areas.
Since the collapse of communism the world is probably a more dangerous place than it was before. It would be extremely irresponsible not to allow our soldiers and marines to have a proper place to train; that is, a proper and well-guarded place to train. I believe that we can trust them, as in the past, to look after the landscape and the flora and fauna of their training grounds satisfactorily.
Lord Redesdale: Behind the amendment is growing controversy over the Otterburn training area. I must declare an interest. I am a landowner next to the training area. Perhaps I can recount how the training area came into the hands of the Army in the first place. My great-grandfather sold it to the Army after a day of shooting with Churchill. The day was so poor that he turned to Churchill and said, "Well, if it is this bad we might as well turn it into an artillery range". That is what happened: it has been an artillery range ever since.
However, I must speak against the amendment. The arguments put forward would make sense if the Army were about to occupy the land. It has been there for 40 years. I do not believe that it has ever felt constrained by the fact that the area is national park. It would be ridiculous, considering that the aim of the Bill is to put high protection on the land, to remove it from one of the most beautiful areas of Northumberland. However, I should like to speak about the Otterburn training area.
I trained both on the Otterburn training area and in the Brecon Beacons in my capacity as an officer in the TA. I have almost frozen to death in both places. They are beautiful locations and the Army has played a wonderful role in their conservation. However, the present state of agitation is due to the new artillery system, the AS90. I believe that we should carry on training and using those weapons systems. However, I am slightly concerned, having received a Written Answer from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, which informs me in quite bland terms that people outside the national parks will be exposed to impulse noise of no more than 130 decibels. Considering a pneumatic drill puts out only 90 decibels I felt that that was rather harsh.
There is a great deal of anxiety about the AS90. It is an issue that will come back. One of the great strengths of the national park is that it can question what the Army is doing. To put in the new artillery system the Army will have to build a large number of roads in one of the most unspoilt areas of Northumberland. It is unspoilt because the Army used it in the first place. I do not believe that that should be justification to allow it to put in any roads it likes. It must go through the normal channels. The area is a national park. I believe that the Army and the national park can cohabit very happily indeed.

1671
Going back to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, if I were a cynical person I would say that there was a degree of —to use rather unparliamentary language—"stirring". When the AS90 is about to come into the training area of Northumberland, suddenly there is a mood among the local population that the national park is trying to remove the Army from the military area. That is not the case. The national park is trying to limit the effect the Army will have on the training area.
Lord Vinson: Is the noble Lord aware that a campaign was mounted to remove the Army from the Northumberland national park? That is my essential point, along with the noble Lord, Lord Annaly. My second point is that at the end of the day the best judges of the defence requirements of this country are not those who are likely to compose the new national parks authority but those in the Ministry of Defence who are there for that appropriate purpose.
Lord Redesdale: I agree with the noble Lord. The national parks put forward the view that military use of the training area was incompatible with national parks. That does not mean that they want to remove the Army from the training area. That is not their aim.
The military are only landholders. They hold the national park as a training area. If they reach the point where they no longer need it, it can be returned to the national park and used for other uses. There is no reason to suggest that because the Army do necessary work and the national parks are the only areas for training they should not be subject to the same planning laws as other landowners who live within the national park. I reject the amendment. However, I think that the argument over the AS90 will be with us for some time.
9 p.m.
Lord Lyell: In view of the quite justified indignation of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I rise to speak in one of my only interventions on the Bill. I support strongly what was said by my noble friends Lord Annaly and Lord Vinson. Your Lordships will be appreciative of the fact that the Ministry of Defence takes a fairly harsh line with its employees in looking after all the training areas. I have some experience of the training areas, though not the Pembrokeshire one. I spent a month on Dartmoor doing what your Lordships may feel was crazy—desert training when there was three times the normal rainfall. That was 36 years ago. However, even then we were under considerable pressure not to make more mess than was necessary. We took great care of the roads. I know that that already happens in both the Redesdale and the Otterburn training areas.
As to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on the AS90, I do not believe that that gun will be fired from 200 yards each side of the A.68 main road and the habitations along that road. I shall be interested to hear
1672
from my noble friend the objections to the training and other issues which I believe are met by both the MoD and by the views of the national parks.
Lord Redesdale: One of the proposed training areas is within a quarter of a mile of the A.68 and of habitations.
Baroness Nicol: We should remember that much of the land owned or occupied by the Ministry of Defence was secured long before national parks were designated. It was included within national park boundaries in the full knowledge that it was being used for military training. The national park areas were chosen because they were tracts of country which possessed natural beauty and because they afforded opportunities for open-air recreation regardless of ownership or use. Is the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, trying to suggest that something has changed in that?
I hope that this amendment will be rejected. For the many reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, about planning and so on, I believe that there are better ways of finding a solution than by taking this land out of the national parks. I have not looked at the maps with this in mind but if these tracts of land were to be taken out of national parks the integrity of the whole area would be destroyed so far as management is concerned. I am sure that there is a much better way of proceeding. There have been conflicts before over such matters. I am sure that this one, too, can be resolved.
Lord Vinson: Perhaps I may expand on the point I made earlier. This is a teasing amendment as much as anything. If the national park and its chairman and principal officers are not prepared to make some gesture that they will continue to live happily with the Army, which most of us would believe they should, we put forward the suggestion that the only way out of this dilemma is to remove the areas occupied by the Army from the national parks. That is the last thing that any of us wants to see but it is put forward to try to get some gesture of good will from those who speak for the new national park authorities. We hope that they will work closely with the Army and recognise that this country has real defence necessities.
Lord Norrie: I find myself in a rather precarious position because I served as an officer in the same regiment as the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, so I can understand his sentiments and those of the noble Lord, Lord Vinson. However, tonight I am wearing a different hat. I have to oppose the amendment which suggests that military training should be taken out of the national parks. The Government are committed to affording national parks the highest status of landscape protection. They are not selective in that commitment. The commitment relates to the land in all national parks, whatever the land use. The integrity of national parks has been given the highest importance ever since the parks were first designated. As has already been said, the Ministry of Defence owns or leases land in many of the national parks. In the Dartmoor, Northumberland and Pembrokeshire coast parks it owns or leases 16 per cent. of the total area. The removal from those parks of land which is used for military training would seriously

1673
erode their natural beauty, integrity and the opportunities that they offer for enjoyment by the public.
The Ministry of Defence prides itself on its conservation record and it views itself as a good custodian of the national heritage that is contained within the boundaries of the national parks. It works closely with the park authorities to try to strike a balance between the national interest in national parks and the national interest in the defence of the realm. It has signed a declaration of commitment to national parks. In view of the Government's commitments to national parks, the drafting of the amendment seems to be completely against their intentions.
Lord Marlesford: I was relieved when my noble friend Lord Vinson told us that we need not take his proposal too seriously. This is really the kind of debate that one would expect after the third glass of port after dinner. The only serious point one should make is that it is perfectly reasonable for the Ministry of Defence to have to justify its continued use or extended use of the national parks as and when it requires to do so, just as it has to justify its use of public money to the Treasury. It is a perfectly healthy and sensible debate which has come to a serious and sensible conclusion. I do not doubt that there will be relatively happy co-existence between the two for many years to come. I doubt whether UDI is really the answer.
Viscount Ullswater: I know that concern has been expressed regarding military training in national parks. However, I believe that we are in danger of exaggerating both the scale of the issue and the degree to which it cannot be reconciled.
Military use of national parks accounts for only some 3 per cent. of the parks' total area of more than 3 million acres. Furthermore, as my noble friend Lord Vinson said, the facilities for military training provided by the parks are vital for our defence needs. Those cannot be dispensed with and could not easily be replicated elsewhere, which is the tone of what my noble friend Lord Norrie indicated. In any case, defence uses are an important contributor to the economy of some of the parks. In addition, MoD's record on conservation is good and public access is encouraged wherever possible, as I believe my noble friend Lord Onslow told the Committee.
I do not wish to comment on the military use of Otterburn in the Northumberland National Park. No formal proposals have yet been put forward and the MoD will in any event follow the planning procedures in putting forward its proposals. Furthermore, I reassure my noble friends Lord Annaly and Lord Vinson that the national park authorities have shown a pragmatic acceptance of the reality of the continuing military presence and the need to reconcile national security with the conservation of the parks' environment. In particular, they have pursued both nationally and individually the goal of improved dialogue and better liaison with the Ministry of Defence. I point to MoD's 1987 Declaration of Commitment to the national parks and the longstanding and active local liaison arrangements on Dartmoor in that respect.
1674
I recognise that the defence estate must on occasions lie uneasily within the national parks. However, I do not accept that any conflicts produced are either so severe or so irreconcilable as to warrant the approach proposed by my noble friend's amendment. Therefore, I ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Annaly: I thank my noble friends Lord Vinson and Lord Onslow for their support and everyone else who has made a contribution to this short debate. It has aired the subject. I am not going to press the amendment. There is concern but if, as my noble friend Lord Marlesford said, people are sensible and see that there are two points of view, that is to be welcomed. There is some relevance to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel which we shall come to shortly as regards what comprises the national parks authorities and local representation thereon. Provided that happens I see that there will be some sense on the national parks authorities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 [National Park authorities]:
[Amendment No. 258A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Derwentmoved Amendment No. 258AA:
Page 138, line 37, at end insert:
(" () Principal councils shall have regard to the desirability of appointing to the National Park Authority councillors representing wards within the Park").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 258EA and 258EB which are also in my name. They are all concerned with trying to overcome what I call the "democratic deficit" which will exist because the national park authorities will not be directly elected by the voters who live in the park. There is no perfect way of doing that, but I believe that between them these three amendments will do much to make residents, of which I am one, feel that they have a real chance to influence a body which is going to affect their daily lives.
Difficulties arise because it is in practice going to be very difficult to ensure that the local authority members on the park authority represent the interests of people living in the park. Many of the councils which will be appointing members have the bulk of their population, and therefore the majority of their councillors, in areas outside the park. Even where that is not so, the need to take account of political balance may mean that councillors have to be appointed to the park authority who have very little interest in the concerns of the inhabitants. By way of demonstration of the problem which already exists, I understand that in Northumberland at present only one member of the present park authority lives within the 400 square miles of the park.
My Amendment No. 258AA recognises that for purely mathematical and practical reasons it would not be possible to insist that local authority members must represent wards within the park. I recognise that Paragraph 20 of the draft guidance specifically encourages the appointment of councillors who live in or represent wards in the park. However, it seems to me

1675
that this is not a provision which governments will wish to vary from time to time and therefore it should be on the face of the Bill.
My Amendment No. 258EA recognises the fact that many councillors who do represent wards in the park will not be on the park authority. When park authorities are, as at present, nominally committees of county councils, it is quite easy for the full council to be informed. But now that park authorities are to be independent bodies it may be desirable to impose on them a duty to give an account of their stewardship to the principal councils. I do not have in mind that they should compile a special report. Under Paragraph 26 of the Minister's draft guidance they will already be preparing an annual report to the Secretary of State which can and should be made available to all members of the relevant councils. What I believe is required is a mechanism for formal discussion of this report with the principal councils.
My Amendment No. 258EB, which is the most important of the three, seeks to give a role on the face of the Bill to parish councils in England and community councils in Wales. I am not sure of the position in Wales, but in England the parish councils in most cases will be the only elected bodies whose areas lie wholly within national park boundaries and therefore the only people whose first priority will be the people who live, work and own land in the park. The matter is dealt with in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the draft guidance and I am grateful to the Minister for going a long way to meet the concerns expressed by your Lordships during the debates on the Norrie Bill.
However, parish councils appear in the guidance only as one of a list of bodies to be consulted. I think that that gets the emphasis wrong. I repeat that parish councils are the only democratically elected bodies lying wholly within the parks. They are part of democratic local government and there should be a formal mechanism for consulting them. They are therefore in a different category from the other bodies that have been mentioned.
The reason for wanting the amendment is that at present there is no mention of parish councils or community councils in the Bill as drafted. I believe that if ministerial guidance is to be effective, it should be tied to something in the Bill. Government policy is in favour of an enhanced role for parish councils and community councils in local government. That is what I hope to see in national parks.
I hope that the Minister will recognise the anxieties of park residents that they will have no adequate way of making their voices heard and feel able to accept all these amendments. All the ground covered is already in the guidance, but as these are not objectives that will vary from time to time and as it is not, therefore, desirable for the guidance to be amended from time to time, I feel that they should be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Feversham: I am grateful for the fact that these amendments have been tabled because they give us a
1676
chance to examine matters of detail which are not at present in the Bill but which it is intended should be dealt with by ministerial directives. As has been said, we have the comfort of the draft directions which were circulated by the department earlier this week. However, I start from the premise that there is far too much legislative detail resolved by ministerial directive—a view which I suspect is widely shared in this House and in another place by all who are not members of the Executive.
I agree in principle with Amendment No. 258AA. There may be a difficulty, however, in that where something is desirable and where,
"Principal councils shall have regard to the desirability",
it may be better for that to be left to ministerial directive. Amendments Nos. 258EA and 258EB, on the other hand, actually legislate, stating that national parks "shall" do this or that. If this or that "shall" be done, in my view that ought to be incorporated in the Bill.
I have no quarrel with Amendment No. 258EA, but I propose to concentrate my support on Amendment No. 258EB. I shall make no bones about it. Parish councillors feel, have felt for some time and will, I have little doubt, go on feeling that they ought to have a seat at the table of their national park committee. The argument against that has always been that the parish councils in any given national park would never agree on a single representative to promote their multitudinous views. That is Premier Division claptrap. Parish councils find such representatives for all kinds of regional bodies without any difficulty whatsoever.
That battle was fought and lost last year during the passage of the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. I should add that we did not fight very hard owing not only to the fragility of Private Member's legislation and our great love for the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and his dog Nat, but also to the fact that we have even greater love for our national parks and an overriding desire to rescue them from that mess of potage otherwise known as "local government reorganisation". What was gained then, however, was a recognition by the Government and all involved that something should be done to improve the lines of communication between local councils and the national parks. There seems to be a consensus on that. Why not incorporate it into the Bill?
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: We on these Benches are sympathetic to the amendments because they involve a greater degree of democracy. Clause 59 lays a duty on the councils to pay attention to the national parks and their objectives. That is absolutely right, but there is room as a result for a reciprocal arrangement whereby the national park should have considerable care for local democracy and should have as much leeway as possible under the national objectives. For that reason we would definitely support Amendments Nos. 258EA and 258EB. I am not certain that Amendment No. 258AA is quite right, but its sentiments are absolutely right. I hope that the Government will see their way to meet those particular points.
Viscount Ullswater: I am aware that there is considerable interest in the manner in which local

1677
authorities appoint members to the national park authorities, which is reflected in Amendment No. 258AA, moved by my noble friend Lord Derwent. There is a great deal of concern that the local authorities should appoint members who are in touch with the people who live and work in the parks and not include among their appointees those who may live some distance away or who appear to have little interest in park affairs—although they will, of course, represent charge payers contributing to the parks' costs.
I also am firmly of the view that it is in the best interests of local people that local authorities appoint members to the new authorities who represent wards in the parks. However, there may be appointments for which such a requirement would prove impossible. The relevant member may not wish to serve. There may be other members of the local authority with relevant experience. And there are the political balance provisions to be observed, which we believe is a general principle that should govern all local authority appointments.
Therefore, we have included guidance on the matter in the draft circular, which emphasises the importance that we attach to local authorities appointing as their members people who live in the parks or those who represent wards which lie wholly or partly in the parks. Therefore, we have gone a long way towards satisfying the purpose of the amendment.
Amendment No. 258EA would require the national parks to give annual accounts of their stewardship of the parks to the principal councils in the parks. However, under Schedule 7, paragraph 15 of the Bill, the national park authorities will be required to produce reports, as are all local authorities, under Section 230 of the Local Government Act 1972. That Act allows the Secretary of State to determine the frequency of their reports and, as our draft circular makes clear, these reports will be annual.
Regular and comprehensive reports are important as a basis for the continuing dialogue between the national park authorities and their local communities. They are also a means by which the national park authority can publicise its achievements. The national park authorities will be required to produce annual reports of their stewardship of the parks in which they will be expected to include consideration of matters which are of interest to their constituent local authorities, parish councils and other bodies operating within the park.
Amendment No. 258EB emphasises the importance of parish and community councils in the parks. We attach special importance to giving parish councils the fullest opportunity to comment on and contribute to park policies. We also recognise the importance of ensuring that the views of local people and communities in the parks are heard. As we have stated in our draft circular, the national park authorities will be expected to make formal arrangements, where they do not already exist, to ensure that local people, including local voluntary groups and recognised user interests of the parks, have a proper and regular opportunity to make known their views. As the draft circular makes clear, we attach
1678
special importance to giving parish councils the fullest opportunity to comment on and contribute to park policies.
I hope that my reply reassures and meets the concerns of my noble friend and I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Derwent: I am grateful to the Minister for some of the comments that he made because we are in agreement with each other. Perhaps he will answer the question that I asked on Amendment No. 258EB. My problem is that parish councils are not mentioned in this part of the Bill, nor are community councils. A reference to them in the Bill would greatly strengthen the permanence of the guidance. It was only when I tried to amend the Bill that I discovered that I had to insert a new clause because parish councils did not appear.
I shall not press the matter at this hour of night. However, perhaps between now and the Report stage the Minister will consider whether there is any objection—indeed, any great advantage—in putting on the face of the Bill a provision in similar terms to Amendment No. 258EB to which the guidance can refer.
Viscount Ullswater: I shall look carefully at what my noble friend said and has now repeated. I give no guarantee that I shall return with any form of amendment but I should like to make certain that what I believe to be the proper way of dealing with the matter—namely, by using the draft guidance—is the best way forward. However, I shall look carefully at what my noble friend said.
Lord Derwent: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 258B:
Page 138, line 40, after second ("authority") insert ("(a)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 258C:
Page 138, line 42, at end insert ("but
(b) his appointment may, before any such cessation, be terminated for the purposes of, and in accordance with, sections 15 to 17 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 258D:
Page 138, line 43, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(5) (a)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): Amendment No. 258DA is an amendment to Schedule 7 and not to Clause 7, as stated on the Marshalled List.
The Earl of Cranbrookmoved Amendment No. 258DA:
Page 139, line 10, after ("Commission") insert ("and the Nature Conservancy Council for England").
The noble Earl said: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman of Committees for making that point, which I had been going to make. This grouping brings together amendments which have a common

1679
theme but which nevertheless are separate, in so far as one amends the schedule and the others amend Clause 62.
We are legislating for the national parks of the future. During the course of our debates today I have been struck by how much the pressure and the sentiments in relation to national parks have been driven by considerations of the national parks of the present. I have been struck by how much my noble friend Lord Norrie and those speaking for the Council of National Parks consider that recreation, access and landscape are the prime purposes of parks.
Those matters are extremely important and have been so, but we are now considering legislation and rules that will govern our parks in the future. As we agreed at the beginning of our discussions today in Committee, they will have as their primary purpose the conservation of natural beauty, which my noble friend has assured me includes also natural landscape and land form elements, and wildlife. Therefore, we are legislating for the governance of national parks in which those matters are of equal and paramount importance alongside the traditional values for which national parks have been so important. That is the sentiment behind this set of amendments.
It seems to me extremely important indeed that those who form the national park authorities and those who are appointed to them by the Secretary of State should include among them those who have genuine experience of nature conservation.
Members of the Committee will recall that at the beginning of the past calendar year, the Secretary of State for the Environment required the Nature Conservancy Council for England, English Nature and the Countryside Commission to look at the possibility of merger. One of the products of that inquiry was to make it clear that there are serious differences in the terms of reference, the remit and the approach which English Nature and the Countryside Commission take; and that really the areas of their expertise and the undoubted skill of their staff, commissioners or council members differ quite considerably. That was the conclusion of the merger inquiry.
It is clear that the two bodies have different competences. So far as concerns statutory bodies, the competence for nature conservation, which will be of paramount importance in the national parks of the future, abides with the statutory nature conservation body, whereas the competence and the skills for other issues—such as landscape preservation and access—lie with the Countryside Commission. They are equals in their skills but they are separate. Those skills are not necessarily shared either by the staff or by council or commission members.
The Secretary of State has urged us to work more closely together, and, indeed, we shall do so. However, close working is best achieved by equal working; in other words, by parity and not by subservience. Therefore, it seems to me to be sensible to suggest that when the Secretary of State considers his list of appointees he should be obliged to consult both the
1680
statutory nature conservation body as well as the statutory landscape and access body. In effect, that is what my first amendment proposes.
I am aware that we have the capacity and opportunity to put names forward. However, I have inquired and discovered, as far as I can ascertain, that never has the Nature Conservancy Council or English Nature been consulted on nominations to park authorities. I believe that it would be sensible to ensure that such consultation takes place. Nominations should be sought from the two bodies on an equal basis where the skills and expertise are so separate. That is the point of my first amendment.
My second pair of amendments arises from the same basic point: 140,000 hectares of national park land is SSSI and, as I said earlier this afternoon, 16 per cent. of national park surface is SSSI. In addition, there are very many regionally important geological sites, as I also emphasised earlier, and many other important sites of nature conservation. Given the new primary purpose for the parks, there is no doubt that skills and expertise in management of that national nature conservation resource will be tremendously important in preparing plans for the management of the park. Therefore, my second amendments effectively suggest that, when such plans are prepared, English Nature should have a statutory position alongside the Countryside Commission as a consultee.
The situation in Wales is different because it has a combined body. Where national parks are concerned, the Countryside Council for Wales will be able to give that combined advice and expertise, drawing on the combined skills of the staff. One of the great successes of the Countryside Council for Wales has been the fact that it has managed to integrate nature conservation with landscape conservation, access and other issues throughout the organisation in a skilful and appropriate manner. Indeed, the council shares the skills and the staff share the skills.
When we come to consider the English situation, it is clear to me that English Nature and the Countryside Commission together equal the Countryside Council for Wales. Therefore, in order to ensure that the English national parks receive expertise of the same quality as the Welsh ones will receive in both those cases I believe that my amendments are appropriate. As I said, they deal with two different aspects but that is what links them together. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Chorley: I rise to express my support for the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. I do so because in the National Trust we work very closely with all the organisations set out in the schedule under discussion. However, we also work very closely with English Nature. We are most conscious of the increasing importance of nature conservation in the management of national parks; for example, in matters to do with habitat restoration and so on. In the National Trust we did not want to encourage not merging the Countryside Commission and English Nature, so it seems to me that the proper pari passu treatment now is to draw English Nature into the consultative process,

1681
as has been so ably expressed by the noble Earl. I hope that the Government will treat this amendment with sympathy.
Earl Peel: I, too, wish to support my noble friend. It strikes me that this is a sensible and helpful amendment. I am sure that the Government will argue about where one draws the line as regards consultees. However, as my noble friend so eloquently said, we are talking about one of the main advisers to the Government on conservation purposes and, as he has quite rightly said, that is a primary purpose within this Bill as regards the national park authorities. The experience of English Nature within SSSIs is quite clear. Its obligations as regards the European habitat designations —for example, SPAs, SACs and so on—are such that it will be an integral part of the whole national park scene. I think to eliminate it from the consultee process would be a retrograde step. I hope that my noble friend will take seriously what my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has suggested.
Viscount Ullswater: The national park authorities will be expected to work in particularly close co-operation with the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales. These bodies have an association with the parks as the successor bodies to the National Parks Commission which goes back to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. They were given statutory duties in respect of the national park boundary designation and variation procedures set out in the 1949 Act which are unchanged by this Bill.
Amendment No. 258DA moved by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook deals with the Secretary of State's appointments to the new authorities. The Secretary of State's members on the national park authorities are appointed to represent the wider national interests for which the parks are designated. We appreciate that there is a great deal of interest in the Secretary of State's appointments to the new authorities and we seek and encourage nominations from a wide range of organisations with an interest in the parks. English Nature is, of course, one of those bodies from which we would welcome nominations. We will take active steps to ensure that it is invited to do so.
There is no evidence that the Secretary of State's interests are not well served by the advice the Countryside Commission offers, nor is there any evidence that nature conservation interests are not well represented among his appointees. Some 30 per cent. of the current appointees to the English national park boards and committees have nature conservation interests.
The practical difficulties of two organisations seeking information about the potential candidates for appointment and the burden that that could place on the nominees have also to be taken into consideration. English Nature and the Countryside Commission are themselves developing closer links and partnerships. Perhaps my noble friend's aspirations could best be met through this arrangement, whereby the Countryside Commission would feel free to consult English Nature where it felt that there was an advantage in doing so.
1682
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook also expressed his firm view that English Nature should also be given special recognition with respect to the management plans of the new authorities. However, the particular skills and expertise which English Nature brings to the parks is already formally recognised. In October 1993, the national park authorities, the Broads Authority, English Nature and the two countryside agencies signed an agreement which specifically recognised the importance of the very close working arrangements between the park authorities and English Nature. This applies not only to the preparation and revision of management plans but also to every aspect of the parks' work which has implications for wildlife.
I also would like to draw my noble friend's attention to the draft circular, and more particularly to paragraph 13 of that draft circular. I have no doubt that there will continue to be close working when the new authorities replace the existing boards and committees and so I do not believe there is anything to be gained by the proposed amendment.
The national park authorities will, I am sure, take seriously their responsibilities to consult widely and seek the views of interested agencies and organisations. They will build on the foundations which the existing national park boards and committees have laid in this respect. They will no doubt pay particular attention to their consultation arrangements in the light of the revised national park purposes. I do not believe that my noble friend's amendment is needed to ensure that the new authorities will exercise their responsibilities properly.
I hope that that reassures my noble friend and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: With respect, I felt that it was symptomatic that my noble friend the Minister also harked back to 1949 and the perfectly satisfactory arrangements which have worked hitherto. He referred to the agreement. It is not a statutory agreement but it is one which has been negotiated. It illustrates the way in which English Nature likes to work. We have negotiated similar agreements with a number of bodies such as the National Trust, the Forestry Commission and so on. They are a very useful way of working. However, they do not give me the same confidence as would the statutory emplacement of English Nature within the Bill in the way I have requested.
I shall take the matter away with some regret and have another look at it. I may write to the Minister again and try to persuade him that what I propose will achieve the objectives. He says that he has no doubts. I too have no doubts. However, I would have greater reassurance if there were statutory backing to achieve the same objectives for which the Minister has declared his own aspirations. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

1683
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61 [General purposes and powers]:
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 258E:
Page 67, line 19 leave out from first ("of") to end of line 20 and insert ("conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, and promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment by the public of the special qualities, of National Parks).").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 258ZB. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 62 [National Park Management Plans]:
[Amendments Nos. 258EX to 258EZ not moved.]
Clause 62 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 258EA and 258EB not moved.]
Clauses 63 and 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Planning authority functions under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981]:
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 258F:
Page 73, line 26, leave out ("61(1) of the Environment Act 1995."") and insert ("5(1) of the 1949 Act (purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, and promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment by the public of the special qualities, of National Parks)."").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 258ZB. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 259:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause:
("Maps
.—(1) Each National Park Authority shall include in its definitive map as required by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as amended, information distinguishing as accessible or otherwise particular features represented in that map.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the Secretary of State may, after such consultation as he sees fit, by regulations prescribe—

(a) as features, the accessibility or otherwise of which shall be recorded in a definitive map, particular rights of way and facilities or structures making provision for particular purposes;

(b) characteristics the presence of which in relation to such features shall be deemed to render those features accessible to people in spite of any motor or sensory disability;

(c) the colour in which any features so deemed to be accessible shall be recorded in the definitive map.

(3) Each National Park Authority shall make available all information recorded for the time being in its definitive map in the form prescribed under subsection (2) above to the Ordnance Survey for publication and shall provide that information also to the Copyright Libraries.").
The noble Baroness said: I was encouraged to table the amendment because it seemed to me that at a time when the Government were introducing both the
1684
Environment Bill and the Disability Discrimination Bill in the same Session a new clause such as the one I suggest was unlikely to provoke outright opposition from the Government and they might even be encouraged to accept the principle behind it.
The purpose of the amendment is to secure that Ordnance Survey maps derived from the statutory definitive maps of the national parks will in future show as accessible or otherwise features which will be important to visitors to the parks who have either motor or sensory disabilities.
If acceptable to the Government, my proposed new clause would allow access to the heritage of our national parks by an enlarged population of several million people. The Office of Population, Census and Surveys suggest that some 6.2 million adults in the United Kingdom have material disabilities. All those people, and more, could have better access if the information they require is presented in the form of a single series of Ordnance Survey maps for any customer—the able bodied and the disabled alike.
I understand that there is at present a legal requirement on national park authorities and committees to prepare and keep under revision the definitive maps of their areas showing, in particular, the rights of way within their boundaries. Thus, my suggestion would not require any new expenditure on the provision of access but merely a record of the extent of access already provided.
The amendment would extend the knowledge of that provision and widen considerably the field of its potential users—those 6.2 million adults to whom I referred. In return, they would represent recruits to the market for services within the national parks. The provision of access and the necessary publicity about it could reap a return in economic as well as in social terms.
There would be little or no cost to Ordnance Survey in providing material to a widened market for its leisure series, and it would not require any new series. For over two centuries Ordnance Survey has developed the language of cartographic symbols and how to apply them. My proposal would involve no change in that area. Acceptance of the principle underlying the amendment would continue and enlarge the theme of access to the countryside. It would also continue the theme of integration of able-bodied and disabled persons in society—something with which I have had active involvement for many years through my association with PHAB, and TRIPSCOPE, which provides all necessary information for the disabled on travel throughout the United Kingdom and abroad. I believe that what I suggest would bring a positive economic return both to the Ordnance Survey and to local trade.
I envisage the consultations referred to in subsection (2) of my amendment as being about successive stages in a positive process of delivering something newly beneficial to people with disabilities and implying at the same time a corresponding extension of potential markets.
The DoE, I am sure, would have the good sense to consult at national and at local level with organisations representing disabled persons, while the national parks

1685
would consult local and locally represented organisations with like interests. The All-Party Disablement Group and RADAR could be consulted, but the clause does not limit those whom the Secretary of State might involve in discussions.
After consultations, the regulations to be made would relate to the national parks' definitive maps identifying the physical features of the environment including rights of way, facilities and structures. The regulations would also specify in relation to each category so identified physical characteristics, the presence of which is to be regarded as providing accessibility—such facilities as reserved parking spaces, telephones with handsets and dials at wheelchair height, or equipped for users of hearing aids, counters at information centres on a level with wheelchair users, graphic explanations at viewpoints at a height which people can see from a wheelchair, and descriptions of visible features that might be available on tape or cast in Braille.
The final subsection of my amendment is in relation to the derivation of the OS maps from the national parks authorities' definitive maps where the regulations would specify a distinctive colour in which the existing conventional symbols for such features are printed where they are so identified as being accessible.
I know that the Minister will give careful consideration to the points I have raised. It is only a probing amendment at this stage. I accept that the noble Viscount may have to tell me that my drafting is defective. However, I hope that he will be willing to accept the thinking behind the proposed clause and that perhaps during the passage of the Bill he will consult with me and others concerned as to how best to achieve the purpose of the clause. If, after all that, the noble Viscount sees fit to bring forward an amendment of his own, I should be only too happy. I beg to move
Viscount Ullswater: Responsibility for producing definitive maps rests with the highway authorities, including those maps which encompass the national parks. The purpose of the maps and statements is to record the public rights found to exist and any legal limitations or conditions which affect public use of the way. This may include features such as stiles and gates but it will not include surfacing, for example. Authorities have duties under other legislation to keep rights of way free from obstruction and appropriately maintained. While it is important that information on access for disabled people should be readily available—the national park authorities will be ideally placed to provide such advice—it is not appropriate in the context of the definitive map and statement. I am confident, however, that the national park authorities will be keen to develop policies which enable all people to appreciate the special qualities of their areas.
The noble Baroness spoke about the Ordnance Survey and the importance of showing on its maps information which helps disabled people to enjoy the countryside. Ordnance Survey decides which information it is appropriate to show on its popular maps, which are the 1:50,000 scale Landranger and the 1:25,000 scale Pathfinder maps. Decisions are made on a case-by-case basis with the overall benefit to Ordnance Survey's
1686
customers and the readability of maps the main criteria for inclusion. The noble Baroness will understand that there are limits to what may be shown on small-scale, general purpose maps if those maps are to remain readable.
Additional information is held by Ordnance Survey in its national topographic database. In principle this could incorporate information about access to the countryside for the disabled if this were available from a comprehensive and reliable source and users could obtain print-outs from the database tailored to meet their specific purposes in the form of large-scale maps.
I think I have indicated that this is not the most appropriate approach for the purpose which the noble Baroness quite rightly has in mind for people with disabilities. I hope that after what I have said she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Stedman: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount. He has given me far more information than I had previously. I was encouraged to put down the amendment because of the leisure maps produced by the Ordnance Survey which contain a tremendous amount of information. It seems to me that they could easily be adapted to show where certain things are available for the disabled.
I am grateful to the Minister for the care he has taken in his reply. I shall read what he said and perhaps consult as to how we can achieve what I seek in some other way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Miscellaneous statutory functions of authorities]:
Lord Derwentmoved Amendment No. 259A:
Page 150, line 41, at beginning insert:
("Public rights of way
.—(1) In a National Park for which a National Park authority is the local planning authority, the authority shall be the highway authority for any public right of way for which the Minister is not the highway authority; and references in the Highways Act 1980 to highway authorities shall be construed accordingly.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above, "public rights of way" means any highway which is a right of way to which Part III of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 applies (as defined in section 66 of that Act) or which is a way shown as a road used as a public path in a definitive map and statement prepared under that Part of that Act.
(3) Section 42 of the Highways Act 1980 (power of district councils to maintain certain highways) shall not apply to any highway for which a National Park authority is, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above, the highway authority.").
The noble Lord said: In addressing Amendment No. 259A in my name and the names of my noble friends Lord Addison and Lord Wise and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 259B and 259C. These are substantive amendments. I apologise that they are taken so late at night and I say right from the start that they are supported by the Association of National Parks, the Council for National Parks, the Country Landowners' Association, the Ramblers Association, the Countryside Commission, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Association of County Councils.

1687
The purpose of my amendments is to transfer responsibilities for management of rights of way, mapping of rights of way and traffic regulation orders—which perhaps I may refer to as TROs—within the parks to national park authorities. In the case of TROs, for reasons that I shall come to later, these powers would duplicate those of existing traffic authorities.
At the outset, I want to make clear what the amendments do not do. They do not in any way seek to change the rights of way network or argue for more or less access. They are solely concerned with mapping and management. They do not affect trunk roads, for which the Secretary of State is the highways authority. In using the term "public rights of way" it is also intended to exclude metalled roads, which are the proper concern of existing highway authorities.
Next, I stress that Amendment No. 259A does not represent anything very revolutionary. It merely reflects what I always understood to be government policy. The National Parks Review Panel recommended that,
"All National Park Authorities should have the full range of powers … to keep the definition maps under review, to make orders altering … rights of way, and to maintain the rights of way network".
In their response to Professor Edwards' report, the Government laid stress on their view that the national parks should be responsible for running the rights of way network. This amendment would achieve that.
My proposal merely recognises that there are certain parts of the highways network where it is logical for the parks to be responsible. Effectively they would become the highways authorities for those roads, paths and lanes which most laymen refer to as the public rights of way network, although in law they are highways.
I should like to deal next with some of the objections that might be raised. The first might be that it would be confusing to have different highway authorities operating in a particular area. That is not so. Section 42 of the Highways Act specifically acknowledges that there are circumstances where different highway authorities would be permissible. That section provides that district councils have a right to take over maintenance of footpaths, bridleways and urban roads; if they do so, they in effect become the highway authority. Incidentally, subsection (3) of this amendment would prevent district councils exercising these powers in respect of footpaths and bridleways in the park if rights of way management is given to national park authorities.
Secondly, it might be said that in practice everything has worked very well until now and that it would be wrong further to overburden an already long Bill. I accept that in practice many highway authorities have delegated the management of rights of way to park committees. The trouble is that others have not and have declined to do so. For example, in the North Yorkshire National Park, North Yorkshire County Council has delegated its powers. Cleveland has not. In all, there are four national parks where similar problems arise. That means that at an arbitrary and invisible point on the map, maintenance of a footpath suddenly shifts from the park to a county council. That cannot be right. Furthermore, in most national parks the work on the
1688
definitive map, which was referred to in relation to the last amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has not been transferred to national park authorities at all.
I must stress that in the Bill it is firmly laid down that it is one of the two purposes of the national park authorities to promote enjoyment of the national parks. It is hard to see how the park authorities can fulfil that purpose if they do not have responsibility for or control of the rights of way network in their areas.
Finally, it might be argued that instead of this amendment it would be adequate for the Secretary of State to direct all highway authorities to delegate to national park authorities their powers under agency agreements. As I have already mentioned, many do. But this is unsatisfactory. First, I am not clear that the Secretary of State has powers to give such a direction. Secondly, it is unsatisfactory to leave a residual democratic responsibility with a delegating authority. It must be better to grant powers to national park authorities as of right rather than to insist that powers be delegated to them by someone else who remains responsible to the voters.
The time for a change is now. It would not be efficient to have the new national park authorities try to negotiate new schemes of delegation for rights of way powers with the new local authorities being set up under local government reorganisation. In any case, as I said, such authorities have no obligation to delegate anyway. If these amendments are passed, such negotiations would no longer be necessary.
I should like to turn to Amendments Nos. 259B and 259C. In a sense they are consequential, but they are both important in their own right. Amendment No. 259B lays firmly on the park authority both the responsibility and the authority to complete the mapping of the rights of way network in its area. Subsection (2)—this provision is obviously desirable—enables the park authority to prepare a single modified map and statement for the whole of a park. At present, each highway authority is responsible for its own area of the park and the work is being carried out in a piecemeal fashion. It is clearly preferable that one body should survey a park as a whole.
Furthermore, I stress that experience on the ground shows that it is much more efficient to have one body responsible for both the mapping and the practical work. Park officers tell me that real difficulties arise when, before a park can carry out physical work, they have constantly to refer to a county council, which may be slow in responding, to sort out problems about the definitive map.
Amendment No. 259C would give a national park authority the same power to restrict the use of footpaths, bridleways or by-ways open to all traffic that is currently enjoyed by all highway authorities. It would have such powers only in respect of the rights of way for which it was responsible.
At present, when a park authority wishes to start procedures for a TRO to be imposed—for example, to stop the use by motorised traffic of unsuitable lanes or by-ways—in practice it has to persuade the county council or other highway authority to initiate action. It

1689
is not surprising that county surveyors, who have other priorities, need considerable persuasion to undertake the work involved. After all, it is not the primary purpose of the county surveyor to promote enjoyment of a national park.
It is relevant to say to the Minister quite seriously that on many occasions when Ministers have been asked to take action to control the use by, say, four-wheel drive vehicles, of by-ways which are suitable only for pedestrians or horses, they have consistently (and correctly) replied that highway authorities already have sufficient powers through the mechanism of imposing TROs. Indeed, they have deplored—I have heard them do it—the reluctance of highway authorities to use those powers. The problem in a national park has been that the bodies with the powers have not been particularly interested, whereas the park authorities, who fully understand the need to protect the enjoyment of the park, have not had the powers to do anything about it. Amendment No. 259C would rectify that situation.
In short, the amendments put clearly into the remit of the national park authorities the responsibility for three activities: to survey and record what the rights of way network consists of; to maintain and manage the network; and to take the responsibility for initiating limitations on the use of the network through the Traffic Regulations Order procedures. I believe that on the grounds of logic, timeliness and efficiency, the Bill is the right place to introduce these amendments. I hope that they will commend themselves both to the Minister and to the Committee.
I understand that departments other than the Minister's are involved in these matters and that he may not be in a position to agree with them tonight. However, after having listened to the debate this evening, perhaps he could take them away for further consultation in Whitehall, with the intention of coming back to the subject at Report stage. That might be for the convenience of Members. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Viscount Addison: I speak in support of Amendments Nos. 259A, 259B and 259C. Every year, 1 million visits are made to the national parks and many of those visitors enjoy the parks by using the rights of way network—walking, cycling and horse riding are the most popular activities in the parks, and all make use of the rights of way.
As my noble friend Lord Derwent so ably pointed out, national parks are designated for the promotion of public enjoyment. It is therefore logical and consistent that the national park authorities, which have few statutory responsibilities, should have responsibility for rights of way as the National Parks Review Panel recommended. In making that recommendation the panel was not arguing for a major change to the present pattern of routes; rather it argued for an effective accessible network.
In recommending that national park authorities be given responsibility for rights of way matters, the panel said that the authorities, with their ranger and warden services, are much better placed to deal with problems of path-routeing and maintenance than are the highway
1690
authorities. It recommended that the authorities should be responsible for the definitive map, as Amendment No. 259B sets out.
Giving responsibility for different parts of the rights of way network to the most appropriate body is not without precedent, as my noble friend Lord Derwent pointed out. Clearly, transferring responsibility from one authority to another will also involve transferring the necessary resources. But that is not an increased cost and the simple matter of transfer should not present problems for the Government. In short, giving the new national park authorities responsibility for rights of way is logical and will remove a tier of unnecessary bureaucracy.
The Earl of Onslow: Earlier in the evening we had a debate on "quiet enjoyment", on which the Committee accepted an amendment against the advice of my noble friend Lord Ullswater. What struck me forcefully listening to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Derwent was the lack of interest shown by local authority and county surveyors, or other people who make the requisite traffic orders, in stopping cross-country motorcycles or four-wheel drives, which are not only the great disturbers of the peace of footpaths, but are also worse than horses in churning them up.
If we are keen to go down the "quiet enjoyment" route, which we obviously are, this seems to me to be an eminently sensible way of reinforcing it. Furthermore, it is inconceivable that we should pass into law an Act which allows the regulation of a footpath to stop halfway up a mountain because of some obscure county boundary and a difference in traffic authority. It must be logical to do what my noble friend suggests, and I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Wise: The rights of way network in the national parks is, as the National Parks Review Panel argued,
"the most important single recreational resource".
The network totals over 12,000 miles in the 10 original national parks plus the Broads. Thus it is necessary that, because of its scale and importance, the rights of way network has the most effective administration possible, and the amendments of my noble friend Lord Derwent seek to ensure that that happens in the way the panel recommended.
One of the central management challenges in the national parks is maintaining the rights of way network as visitor pressure increases, particularly on the more popular routes, including some of the long distance trails. That task takes up a large proportion of the resources of the national park authorities, which are best placed to address that challenge. It is therefore surprising that four national park authorities—the Brecon Beacons, the Peak District, the North Yorkshire Moors and Snowdonia—do not have the full range of responsibilities for public rights of way over all or parts of their areas.
The amendments seek to provide a consistent legislative logic across all the national parks, providing users of the rights of way network and others with an

1691
interest in it with a more direct means of contact and a better level of accountability once the national park authorities are freestanding.
Where national park authorities have had responsibility, they have demonstrated their fitness for the task and some now have more than two decades of experience of successfully managing rights of way. It is now time, especially in the light of local government reorganisation in England and Wales, to give all national park authorities responsibility for rights of way, as these amendments provide.
The level of support for the amendments embraces a wide spectrum of organisations. My noble friend Lord Derwent listed many of them. The Country Landowners' Association briefing states:
"The effectiveness of using national park resources to do this job has already been demonstrated".
There must be confidence that the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport will now co-operate closely to implement this most logical set of amendments.
Lord Renton: My noble friend Lord Derwent is right in what he suggests in Amendments Nos. 259B and 259C. However, I have some doubt as to whether Amendment No. 259A is really necessary. In paragraph 11 of the ninth schedule we find that the previous law under the Highways Act 1980,
"shall have effect as if references … to a local authority or council included references to a National Park authority and as if the relevant Park were the authority's area".
I may be wrong about that, but that is how it seems to read.
Lord Derwent: I myself queried that. These powers do not govern either the mapping or the maintenance and management of the paths. They deal only with such matters as stopping them up and so on.
Lord Renton: I am much obliged to my noble friend. That brings me onto my next point, on which I speak with some experience. Under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, before any footpath or other right of way could be acknowledged in law as a right of way for the public, there had to be a judicial inquiry in front of the Quarter Sessions. Those proceedings were highly controversial. I never heard such hard swearing between old people of the same generation as one would find sometimes in those cases. There would be one old man who said that he had always been allowed to go there and pick blackberries or gather bird-nests. Another old man would say that he had tried to do so but had always been turned away. One generally found that there was some personal reason for the antagonism between the old people. The court sometimes had a very difficult decision to take. I speak from experience because I was retained by one of the East Anglian county councils in such cases under that Act. Has my noble friend Lord Ullswater any information on whether many cases are still likely to arise within the national parks in which the public right of way was disputed. If there are such cases, we must be quite sure that there will remain, after the Bill is
1692
passed into law, the opportunity for the people, old or young, to express their views on whether there is or is not a traditional right of way.
Having said all that, it is important that the various matters to which my noble friend Lord Derwent referred, once it is established that there is a right of way, should be carefully defined as a responsibility of the national park authority for each national park. Therefore, whether or not these amendments are vital, we deserve to have some clarification from my noble friend.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: I would like very strongly and briefly to support the amendments of my noble friend Lord Derwent. It is absolutely crucial that the national parks should have the role referred to. It should be an integral part of the reform in order to allow them in their new form to do their job properly, particularly as regards general access and enjoyment of the parks—whether or not "quiet enjoyment" is concerned. I believe that if the Bill were to become an Act without that provision it would be very defective and a great opportunity would have been missed. I hope that my noble friend will support it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in particular Amendment No. 259C. As I have explained on a previous occasion to the Committee, I have some experience of common land and the problems associated with enforcing rights of way on it. I believe that it is the same problem which exists as regards national parks.
I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford and Lord Derwent, that the national park authority should have authority. Nevertheless, there needs to be a clear definition of what is a footpath and what is a bridleway. In Amendment No. 259C there is reference to the road traffic regulations. In my experience bridleways are ways on which a horse can be ridden and not a motor-powered vehicle driven. I shall be grateful for the comments of the noble Viscount on this point. It is all very well to say that a bridleway which passes my house in Wales is only a bridleway and cannot be used by motor cars, motor cycles or four-wheeled vehicles but only by horses or horse-drawn vehicles. But it is very difficult to put that obligation on a national park authority when the definition of the bridleway is not observed by other local authorities.
I support these amendments, but I see certain difficulties in enforcing the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has raised in Amendment No. 259C as regards road traffic regulations on rights of way.
Viscount Ullswater: Perhaps I may deal at the outset with the question of my noble friend Lord Renton. He asked me whether there were any cases in national parks where public rights of way are disputed. Without notice I cannot answer my noble friend. I shall write to him and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.
I recognise the support that my noble friend Lord Derwent has secured for the amendments. I have every sympathy with what he is trying to achieve. In our policy statement Fit for the Future we recognise the

1693
importance of the rights of way network to national parks as elements in securing the promotion of the parks' enjoyment. It is acknowledged that visitors to the parks will expect properly maintained and signposted footpaths and bridleways as a touchstone of park authorities' commitment to their objectives. To achieve that we have also indicated that where highway authorities have not delegated rights of way management responsibilities to national park authorities we would invite them to do so. That remains our policy, and as part of the process for establishing the new authorities we shall be writing to each relevant highway authority asking it to consider positively its relationship to the new—
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to intervene at this stage, but the Minister mentioned the policy statement Fit for the Future. I take it that that is a different statement from the Edwards Panel statement which is also entitled Fit for the Future. Am I correct?
Viscount Ullswater: I believe that I am talking about the same statement.
To achieve this, we also indicated that, where highway authorities had not delegated rights of way management responsibilities to national park authorities, we would invite them to do so. That remains our policy, and as part of the process for establishing the new authorities, we shall be writing to each relevant highway authority asking it to consider positively its relationship to the new national park authorities and to enter into agency agreements to delegate rights of way work where that has not already been done. Those agreements will enable the national park authorities to continue to protect and promote recreational rights of way in a way which can be tailored to meet particular circumstances of the park.
We have, however, no plans for the time being to redistribute statutory responsibilities for the rights of way network to national park authorities, nor do we have any plans to give them the same powers as a traffic authority. Also, we do not consider it appropriate to amend the provisions regarding the preparation of definitive maps on a piecemeal basis.
Our reasons are that we believe the integrity of the highway network and its management should be maintained and that this should be through the mechanism of a common highway authority. The management of traffic at all levels needs to be considered comprehensively. Highway authorities and national park authorities will need to work together in close co-operation to ensure that this is so. We believe that this will be better achieved through the current institutional arrangements.
We recognise that there could be advantage in having more explicit traffic management policies, prepared by the highway authorities after close consultation with the national park authorities. Existing provisions, such as traffic regulation orders, offer considerable scope for imaginative schemes.
Noble Lords, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who has indicated the problems, will be aware that the boundary between those highways marked on the definitive map as byways and a range of unclassified
1694
county roads without metalled surfaces is hazy. Furthermore, that boundary varies between areas and is subject to changes from time to time. Separate responsibilities between highway authorities and national park authorities may create confusion. Having said that, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: What happens if, when he has sent the invitation marked RSVP to the local authority, the local authority regrets very much that it is unable to attend the dinner party? What happens then?
Viscount Ullswater: I am afraid that I did not get the gist of my noble friend's remarks.
The Earl of Onslow: My noble friend said that he would invite local authorities to enter into traffic management agreements. If, seeing RSVP on the bottom of the invitation, they regret that they are unable to attend and do not co-operate, what happens then?
Viscount Ullswater: The whole point was that we would expect them to co-operate. We would ask them to do so. But we do not feel it right to take a power to make them do so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not quite understand what the Minister is getting at. If a national park authority is to be a planning authority and if it is to be, in a sense, the authority that looks after the environment in its own area of the national park, it must surely have the same powers as a traffic authority to keep open the byways and bridleways. It must also have the power—it should have the power—to establish within its own park the relevant bridleways, byways and footpaths; otherwise it cannot protect the environment—
Lord Renton: I wonder whether I may suggest what I hope is a constructive way out of this. Surely a highway authority which has the responsibility for maintaining road surfaces and road signs should, even within a national park, continue to have that responsibility. I should have thought that the same would apply to highway authorities which are responsible for minor roads.
As regards rights of way such as bridlepaths and footpaths, is it not sensible that the national park authority, which is responsible for ensuring the preservation of all the other land within the national park, should have that responsibility? In other words, there would be a division of the public responsibilities involved.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has made an interesting and serious point with which I agree. Certainly, the national park authority must have responsibility for establishing what are the county roads, the bridleways, the rights of way and so forth. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right in saying that the national park authority should not have the responsibility for maintaining an asphalted road, a county road or whatever it might be.
I speak from experience in Wales. As regards many of the Welsh national parks, we do not know where the bridleways are. I do not live in a national park but I can

1695
tell the Committee that the bridleway which passes my house is not on the ordnance survey. However, old records show that there is a bridleway. I believe that the same is true in the Brecon Beacons national park.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that it need not necessarily be the national park authority which has the duty of maintaining such roads. However, the authority must have an obligation and a duty to establish exactly within its area what are the bridleways and paths in order that we can be certain about it.
Lord Derwent: I am advised that the roads about which we are speaking exclude metalled roads of the kind referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Williams, and trunk roads. The Minister said that he recognised my success in drumming up support. Most of the organisations I listed earlier took the initiative in telephoning me to say that they had noticed that I had tabled the amendment and wished me to know that I had their full support. I draw attention to the fact that the list included the Association of Local Councils, which would be giving up the role, in addition to the national park officers, the Association of National Parks and so forth, which will be taking on the role.
All speakers have supported my position. Prior to the debate I went to some trouble to try to find an organisation connected with the issue which was not in favour. I wanted to hear the arguments against. The first voice that I have heard speak against the proposal is that of my noble friend the Minister. It is 10.28 p.m.; it would not be appropriate to divide the Committee tonight. However, I hope that the Minister will recognise that the support of a wide range of organisations outside the Committee, plus the heavy support I have received in the Committee, suggests that if on Report he is unable to return to the House having given further consideration to the matter—and I have taken his answer to mean no—it is almost inevitable that we shall have to test the opinion of the House.
The Minister talks about asking the authorities to delegate powers. But that is precisely what the Government have been doing since the Edwards Report. The fact is that many of them have simply refused to do so. There is no reason whatever to believe that another ministerial circular will encourage the authorities to change their minds. I hope that the Minister will at least throw out a crumb of comfort, indicating that without commitment he will take the matter away to his department and think again before the Report stage.
10.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, which he indicated he would do because of the lateness of the hour, I should like to tell him and the Committee that I recognise the feeling in the House and I have listened to what has been said. Therefore, without commitment, I should like to go away and think again about this issue. Perhaps between now and Report, my noble friend and I could discuss the matter to see whether there is a way forward.
Lord Derwent: I am grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
1696
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 259B to 260 not moved.]
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clauses 67 to 69 agreed to.
Lord Elis-Thomasmoved Amendment No. 260A:
Before Clause 70, insert the following new clause:
("Management of National Parks and other sites
The functions of the control and management of each National Park authority, set out in section 61 above, or those of National Nature Reserves or Sites of Special Scientific Interest designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, shall be carried out in each case wholly by the relevant conservation agency, namely the National Park authority, or English Nature, Scottish National Heritage, or the Countryside Council for Wales, except where specific management agreements have been or will be negotiated with owners or occupiers of such designated areas under section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 or under section 132 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the proposed new clause is to ensure the continued effective management of national parks, national nature reserves and SSSIs by the relevant conservation agencies or authorities in the public sector except where there are specific negotiated agreements with owners or occupiers.
The reason for tabling the amendment will be well known to Members of the Committee and to all of us who are concerned within the environment movement generally about the proposals, which have received substantial press coverage—and I refer to them as proposals—that certain nature reserves and conservation activities might have been transferred from the current Management to other forms of management at the behest of the right honourable John Redwood, the Secretary of State for Wales.
I shall not speak at any length on this because I shall give the Minister the opportunity to put the Government's side of the case, and I look forward with interest to hearing that. It seems to me that an interesting scenario has emerged whereby the present Secretary of State for Wales has revived proposals which were floated by a previous Secretary of State for the Environment, the late Lord Ridley, and that those proposals were then put upon—and I say it in those terms—the Countryside Council for Wales. The way in which those proposals were pursued was to curtail severely the public expenditure allocation of that council for the next financial year. The cut of £3.7 million in the budget of the council has been referred to already in this Chamber both at Question Time and also in our earlier debates on the Environment Bill.
Nothing has been said to me from the government Front Bench in this Chamber or, so far as I have seen from the record, in the other place to put our minds at rest. Indeed, it was not the intention of the Secretary of State, as it was reported in the press the weekend before last, to pursue objectives which would have transferred the management of those valuable sites from the public to the private sector, or at least to other forms of management which might have included forms of contractorisation.

1697
I am well aware that the Secretary of State appeared at a press conference on 31st January. I quote from a Hysbysiad l'r Wasg, Y Swyddfa Gymreig, and because of the hour, I quote the English version. It states:
""I want everyone to be clear about my objectives and my priorities,' said Mr. Redwood. '1 have no plans for privatising nature reserves, nor any wish to halt the valuable work of the Countryside Council for Wales'".
The press release continues:
"I want it to concentrate on improving the management of protected areas".
What does the Secretary of State mean by talking about the improved management "of protected areas"? Many of us who have lived, walked and loved such areas for a quarter of a century regard them as being extremely well managed by the national park authorities, by the owners and by the lessors of those sites. Indeed, that applies also to the scientific expertise of the Countryside Council and its predecessor authority the Nature Conservancy Council in Wales, which, as I have said before, was effectively directed by a colleague of mine who is now in the private sector, Dr. Tom Pritchard. In that connection, I declare an interest as someone who is a director of a private environmental consultancy who would perhaps benefit were the Secretary of State to carry out his proposal.
Therefore, I am speaking in favour of the principle and, in a sense, against my own interest in saying that those valuable sites should be maintained in perpetuity within public sector management and control. It is possible that there are ways in which the public sector management of those sites can be made more effective as the Secretary of State implies, but it is important for us to know how that would happen. In other words, whether it would mean transfers of functions between existing conservation bodies, between park authorities and other public sector bodies; or, indeed, whether it might involve the further activity of the National Trust, the North Wales Wildlife Trust or of any such bodies. It must not mean that those sites are transferred out of public control and management. In my view, that could only be detrimental.
As we have already heard in this Chamber this evening, the Countryside Council is highly regarded both in Wales and internationally within the conservation field because of the way that it has managed to integrate the activities of conservation and countryside management. The key to that lies in being able to call upon the public sector management skills—the scientific skills, the wardenship skills, and the access-control skills. All of them are available in that organisation. In the way that it is able to oversee the management of such sites, it has made a unique contribution to conservation policies.
Therefore, I hope that we shall receive reassurances from the Government Bench this evening and that, if necessary, the Department of the Environment will convey the message from this Chamber to the Secretary of State for Wales. I know that the Government may say that it is quite right for Wales to have different policies
1698
if it so desires. Of course, we all believe that; but the policies in Wales must not be worse than the policies in England. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas has raised a most important point. Perhaps I may declare my own interest, yet again, as President of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales. I believe that we need a clear answer from the Government on the matters raised by the noble Lord. It is said in the Welsh press that the Secretary of State for Wales is about to dismember the Countryside Council for Wales. It is said that there is a serious personality conflict between the Secretary of State and the chairman of that body; and it is said that, certainly, the budget for CCW has been reduced. Moreover, I believe that I am right to mention what the Secretary of State for Wales said; namely, that many of the things that the Countryside Council for Wales does at present could be done in the private sector.
We need a clear statement from the Government. I suggest that the Government should make a clear statement this evening on exactly what are the Government's intentions over CCW; and, indeed, on the other matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, referred.
Viscount Ullswater: I am afraid to say that when I read the amendment I had to scratch my head quite hard in an attempt to understand what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve. The functions and duties of the national park authorities are clearly set out in Clause 61. We do not think that the noble Lord's amendment adds to it in any way. As I read it, the effect of the amendment—and I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said—would be to place a duty on the nature conservation bodies, as mentioned in the wording, to manage land within national nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest not subject to a specific management agreement under Section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968. This would be contrary to the voluntary principle which underpins all government policy for the conservation of wildlife habitat, which is based on co-operation of the landowners and reflects government policy not to extend bureaucracy unnecessarily. Provisions for voluntary management agreements are in place. There are long stops, including compulsory purchase to protect nationally and internationally important sites, but the voluntary principle is the keystone to holding up the Government's habitat conservation policies.
From the press, certainly, I understand that the intentions of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales were misrepresented. Within the overall requirements to maintain the management of nature reserves and SSSIs, it may be possible for a greater number to be managed by elected local authorities, as I believe many are already. I understand that the noble Lord is concerned about the deterioration of some of these sites, but I believe that this measure would be a very bureaucratic way of addressing that concern. As I said, it is very much

1699
against the voluntary principle which I sought to press upon the noble Lord. In that case I hope he will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful for the partial reassurance that we have had from the Government this evening. I would, however, request that the Minister look again at my remarks and those of the official spokesman for the Labour Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on this matter, because there has been concern that there were proposals to transfer activity away from the Countryside Council, possibly to the private sector, and that this would involve the transfer of the management of specific sites. The voluntary principle is certainly one which I approve as part of the conservation activity. What I do not approve of is a commercial principle in this whole area. If the Minister is telling us this evening that it is not the intention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales to transfer any conservation sites within Wales to any form of commercial management, that would be a satisfactory reassurance.
I am not entirely reassured by the proposal about transfer to local authorities for the simple reason that we are at the moment in the middle of a local government reorganisation. It may well be that local authorities may be able to take on additional responsibilities at some date, but no function currently carried out or site supervised or any activity grant aided by the Countryside Council for Wales should be handed over to any other body, public or private, unless that organisation is able to carry out the work more effectively; or to manage it more effectively, or is able to take on the responsibility and has sufficient staff to do so. It seems to me that that is not the case now with local authorities.
We have just been debating the position of access through bridleways and footpaths, and the network of access—precisely an issue where local authorities in many areas have not been able to carry out their responsibilities. As vice-president of the Ramblers in Wales I am well aware of the deficiencies in that whole area. How can we possibly think, and how can the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales think, that a transfer of conservation, and habitat conservation particularly, at this moment to other bodies, particularly local authorities, can be more effective? I believe there is a real danger that the Countryside Council for Wales may not be able to carry out its statutory duties in habitat conservation under European and UK legislation if the cuts proposed by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales are implemented. I ask him to send the message to his colleagues, as strongly as possible, that that must not happen.
We shall want to return to the issue at a later stage of the Bill. However, on the basis of the partial assurances we have received this evening and the messages we are trying to send from this Chamber to the other department concerned, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
1700
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Clause 70 [Powers to make orders]:
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 261:
Page 75, line 12, leave out from ("instrument") to end of line 13 and insert ("and no order contained in any such instrument shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment was put down following the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I shall move the amendment, but only in order to ask the Minister to confirm that the answer that he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, during the debate on the Motion that Clause 60 should stand part of the Bill also applies to Clause 63, which was also the subject of the committee's comments.
The Minister spoke of the powers meaning "incidental, supplemental" and other provisions. Clause 70(3) states that the powers will "include" powers to make such provisions. It seemed to me as I listened to the Minister that he may not have taken account of the word "include", which suggests to me that there are other powers in addition to those which are listed. I shall understand if the Minister finds it difficult to respond to that particular point at this hour. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: I can understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in the light of the report of the Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated powers, which advised that this Chamber may wish to consider whether the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate in relation to the powers under Clauses 60 and 63. I hope that I can satisfy the Committee that those clauses are inherently sufficiently restrictive to make the negative procedure acceptable. I shall do so by reference to points which enabled the committee to conclude when it considered the same provisions in the National Parks Bill, introduced by my noble friend Lord Norrie, that,
"as the Bill's provisions will have effect only within or for the purposes of National Parks, and are very narrowly prescribed, it is not unreasonable for those powers to be subject to the negative resolution procedure".
We consider that to enable the Secretary of State to provide for the establishment of national park authorities by order is the most practicable way of proceeding, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. It is unlikely that all the national park authorities will be established at the same time. Therefore, as the timing may differ the circumstances of each park will need individual consideration to identify the provisions required in connection with the winding up of the existing body. Thus, we believe that in order to facilitate a smooth transition from the existing authorities to new authorities, powers to make incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provisions are essential.
The provisions in Clauses 60 and 63 will have effect only within or for the purposes of national parks and are very narrowly prescribed. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be aware that we accepted the positive resolution procedure under Amendment No. 241A, but

1701
the situation under Clause 70 is quite different from that under the new Section 78H of the Environmental Protection Act. That new section gives the Secretary of State the power to increase by order the maximum level of fine payable under subsection (1) of that section, and we have accepted that that should be subject to the positive resolution procedure. However, the purpose of Clause 70 is quite different. It provides for those incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional purposes to be used only in connection with the primary power.
I believe that most of the words that I said regarding Clause 60 apply equally here. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will allow Clause 70 to stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: I accept that. I am not sure whether the Minister wishes to deal with the question that I raised on the term "include". With regard to the hour of the night—it is now 10 minutes to 11—I shall be happy to take up the matter after today's Committee stage.
Viscount Ullswater: I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
1702
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 262 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clauses 71 to 73 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Minor and consequential amendments relating to National Parks]:
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 262A:
Page 157, line 40, leave out from ("inserted") to end of line 41 and insert (""(and, as respects land within the Broads, any reference in this section to the relevant authority is accordingly a reference to the Broads Authority)."").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 74 agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at seven minutes before eleven o'clock.

  RUNWAY CAPACITY IN THE SOUTH EAST
  RUNWAY CAPACITY IN THE SOUTH EAST
  EUSTON/FORT WILLIAM: SLEEPER AND MOTORAIL SERVICES
  EUSTON/FORT WILLIAM: SLEEPER AND MOTORAIL SERVICES
  THE RIDGEWAY
  THE RIDGEWAY
  FLUORIDATION
  FLUORIDATION
  HOME SECRETARY: ADVERSE JUDGMENTS
  HOME SECRETARY: ADVERSE JUDGMENTS
  MoD CHURCHES AND CHAPELS: REDUNDANCY
  MoD CHURCHES AND CHAPELS: REDUNDANCY
  SERVICE CAREER AND MANPOWER STRUCTURES: REVIEW
  SERVICE CAREER AND MANPOWER STRUCTURES: REVIEW
  ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE, GREENWICH
  ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE, GREENWICH
  GREATER MANCHESTER POLICE AUTHORITY: BUDGET
  GREATER MANCHESTER POLICE AUTHORITY: BUDGET
  PACKAGING WASTE
  PACKAGING WASTE
  CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
  CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
  NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITIES, WALES
  NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITIES, WALES
  SCIENCE BUDGET
  SCIENCE BUDGET