Sitting of 8 February 1995

Preamble
The House met at Ten o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  British Coal Land
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
  10.4 am
  Mr. Paddy Tipping: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the sale of British Coal's non-operational land. This is a timely debate because only last month British Coal announced the method and the timetable for the disposal of that land.
  The issues are important for coalfield communities. British Coal is a large landowner; it is sometimes said that after the Church it is the largest landowner in the country. I do not know about that, but I know that the company intends to sell 150,000 acres of non-operational land over the next year or so.
  British Coal's press announcement last month revealed that agricultural and housing land would be sold in regional packages, that announcements would soon be made about the means and the timetable for the disposal of other property and land, and that the land would be sold to the private sector for the best possible price. I understand that British Coal has a timetable in mind for disposing of all the property by March 1996.
  The disposal of that land has enormous consequences for coalfield communities as well as for the taxpayer. Coalfield communities have lived with the dust, dirt and dereliction of coal mining for centuries. They aspire to something better. Coal miners have always wanted better for their sons, and now they want better for their communities. They want new job opportunities and improved social and recreational facilities, a brighter landscape and a cleaner environment.
  However, there is a feeling that the process is being rushed and hurried so much that it may be botched. In coalfield communities there is a strong view that the Government want to see the back of British Coal, to bury it deep and to walk away from the landscape.
  The proposed sale involves several problems, and I shall spell some of them out. The first question to ask is whether the process that British Coal has announced will achieve the best value for money for the taxpayer. The completion date that the company has in mind is March 1996, so in a real sense it is a forced seller. Perhaps under instruction from Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry, British Coal intends to complete the sale by March next year, and that means selling an enormous amount of land.
  For example, the disposal of 110,000 acres of agricultural land will be the biggest sale of the century. Without doubt it will distort the market and diminish the proceeds. Some agricultural land has development potential, but the process of gaining that potential is not complete because the necessary planning permissions are not yet in place. The difference between agricultural value
  262
  and, for example, retail value is enormous. The land may be sold with hope aspiration, with the real price becoming available only when the land is transferred into the private sector.
  Members of Parliament from mining communities and the communities themselves will follow developments closely to see whether the best value for money is obtained. I expect that, as with previous sell-offs, there will be enormous press interest and that if a subsequent buyer makes a lot of cash from a sale there will be controversy.
  The consequences of disposing of agricultural land in that way are already becoming apparent. Commitments were given that 600 tenant farmers would be treated reasonably; the Minister will remember that during the passage of the Coal Industry Act 1994 the issue of tenants was frequently raised. The indication was that their position would—as far as possible—be safeguarded. Recent events have unfortunately suggested that that is not to be. It is essential that realistic negotiations take place with tenants within an acceptable timetable so that they have time to get their financing arrangements into place.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me for interrupting, but there is concurrent Scottish business and this may be my only chance to make the point that what he is saying is desperately important. In West Lothian, a constituent has built up a dog-handling business and works for the police, but all of his premises and facilities look like being sold by the coal board above his head. He has invested his life and work in that property, which is crucial to his business. I am sure that that situation applies in many other cases.
  Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend makes a very strong point, and one of the themes which I expect to emerge from this debate is that the coalfield communities want to benefit economically from the sale of land. They do not want third parties such as insurance companies or pension funds to benefit. They want to see the rewards from their own landscape, and tenant farmers want that too.
  Tenant farmers want the opportunity to buy, and many of them have received a letter from British Coal which tells them that if they want to treat on this land, they must reply by 13 February. That is an indication of the speed of the process, and shows the potential for mishandling it.
  Meaningful discussions must also take place about price, and those must take into account the cost of subsidence and the price of contamination, as a lot of the farmlands are badly affected. There is a strong feeling that British Coal's attitude to the sell-off is, "Take it quickly at our price, or leave it". I seek a commitment from the Minister today that he will return to the matter if difficulties arise between British Coal and the tenants. I hope that he will assure us that the commitment given to tenant farmers will be honoured.
  The second problem of the process lies in the fact that although the 150,000 acres of land has value—I believe that it may be worth up to £200 million—it also has liabilities. It could well be that those liabilities approach £150 million, leaving a net gain of £50 million. The liabilities spring from a number of sources—unrestored tips, Moynihan agreements and the need to rehabilitate former opencast land for agriculture. Contaminated land needs clearing up, which will cost money.

  263
  There may be a temptation for the Treasury to push the liabilities on to the private sector, but I shall point out to the Minister the dangers in doing that. If that were to happen, the private sector would either seek a discount on the price or demand a dowry in cash terms. I expect the price for the regional packages to be dropped during negotiations because of the liabilities, as that happened during the sale of the core business.
  The priorities of the private sector may well be to exploit greenfield sites to avoid tackling the liabilities. There is a possibility that the private sector will seek to put the liabilities into separate companies which, because their asset base will be limited, could well go into receivership. We could be faced with a situation where the public sector pays twice—once by discounting the sale and once by being left with contamination to clear up later.
  Let me put the issue into a Nottinghamshire context. In the Nottinghamshire coalfield, there are nine derelict collieries, associated spoil tips and a series of derelict railway lines connecting them. There is some very valuable British Coal land in Nottinghamshire in which the private sector will be interested; for example, the Babbington colliery site close to the M1, some valuable farming land, and a new golf course at Hucknall which is owned by British Coal.
  Those assets will attract the private sector, but I am not sure that the private sector will be interested in derelict tips and collieries, although I believe that they have challenges and opportunities as well. Many of us in Nottinghamshire want to see Sherwood forest recreated, and there is a plan for a new community forest in the area. A swathe of tree-planting across north Nottinghamshire could create an attractive place in which to live and work. How will that happen? It will not be created by the private sector, but it may be done by transferring the derelict land to the ownership of the local authorities.
  Local authorities have the professionalism, but not the resources, to do the job. I hope that the Minister will look closely at giving local authorities the opportunity to help the landscape in their area. I hope that any land sold to local authorities will not just be waste or derelict land. In Nottinghamshire, we need some good land for car parking and for access.
  My third concern is about the process of getting key regeneration sites going as quickly as possible. I understand that there are about 200 sites which could be put on the market to create new job opportunities. What people in the coalfield communities want is new investment, new jobs and a new future as quickly as possible, but there are problems in regenerating the sites.
  The private sector clearly will be attracted by greenfield sites first. The derelict former colliery sites will require costly infrastructure and the private sector will not be eligible for grants, for example European regional development fund grants or RECHAR grants. We must look closely at those sites where work has begun by British Coal and which have had the benefit of such grants. If those sites are transferred to the private sector, there is a real possibility that those grants will be repayable.
  I want to ask the Minister directly about enterprise zones. He will remember that the President of the Board of Trade announced in 1993 that enterprise zones were
  264
  to create new investment and new jobs in the coalfield communities, and that there was to be a flagship business park in north Nottinghamshire. Where is it? It appears to have sunk on Victoria street. After three years, we are still waiting for the first enterprise zone. Nothing has happened, and the coalfield communities have a right to know what the problems are. Perhaps the Minister will use this opportunity to tell us.
  The lack of action is costing jobs. I know of many firms that want to relocate, but it is clearly to their advantage to go to an enterprise zone. Those firms are waiting for the zone to be created, and we are waiting for the new jobs.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Deane valley—an area of absolutely desperate economic need—is also waiting for such an enterprise zone. My suspicion, which my hon. Friend might share, is that the delay is meant to assist the Government to ensure that outside interests obtain the land and reap the benefit from this so-called advantage, rather than the people who live in the area and who need it.
  Mr. Tipping: I remember the promises to the coalfield communities that new jobs would come. The industry might close, but there would be new opportunities for our people. In the Dearne valley, in Nottinghamshire and across the country, those jobs are still sadly lacking.
  Mr. Jim Lester: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem goes wider than just the coalfield communities? Nottinghamshire, which the hon. Gentleman and I represent, has more problems than just the closure of the coal industry. Military depots have closed, and there are other problems. The Minister has been incredibly helpful in the representations which I have made to him, and he has also made himself available to local councils which have, to varying degrees, made representations to see how best the land in their areas can be developed. I welcome the debate, and also the speech that my neighbour is making. I also feel that there are wider issues which affect more than just the coalfield communities.
  Mr. Tipping: It is important to recognise that, contrary to the national average, unemployment in small pockets of the coalfield continues to go up rather than down. The gap between the affluent areas and the poor areas of dereliction is increasing. That is a recipe for social and economic disaster.
  I have talked about the process of sale. I want to explain how I believe that it should be altered. The timetable of sell-off by March 1996 ought to be relaxed, particularly for agricultural land. An extension of the March 1996 deadline would allow better prices to be obtained and provide more time for consultation. We should consider using public bodies to manage the liabilities. They have the professionalism. They do not have the resources, but they are committed. They are attached to their local communities. They share the desire to get things done.
  Perhaps most important, there should be a package of key regeneration sites. It should not be sold off into the private sector, but meaningful discussions should take place with bodies such as English Partnerships to create new jobs in the area. One of the potential partners is British Coal Enterprise. Perhaps the Minister will say a word or two today to give us some succour on the future of that organisation.

  265
  British Coal still owns 800 houses and tenants live in them. The Minister will remember the enormous outrage in the mid-1980s when British Coal houses were sold at auctions in hotels in London. That was not acceptable then and it is not acceptable now. I seek a commitment that those 800 tenants, who up to now have not taken the opportunity to buy their home from British Coal, will be given another chance to do so. I hope that if sales occur, efforts will be made to bring housing associations and social landlords into the sale process.
  I should also like to mention allotments. It is perhaps a small point, but allotments are vital to local communities. If the Minister wants to cause outrage and provoke a real fight, he should pick on the allotment holders of England. They will be out with their pitchforks and dung to campaign for their case. He should give them a fair chance.
  Will the Minister and British Coal consider closely the matter of waste disposal? At present, British Coal disposes of its own waste on its own colliery sites, to regenerate them and put them back into use. There is a shortage of sites for waste. There must be a real danger that if those sites are sold off into the private sector, it will seek to maximise its gain by extending the planning permission for the site so that it can bring all sorts of waste to the site. Coalfield communities want a better and brighter environment. They have had the pits. They have had the spoil heaps. Now they do not want rubbish dumps.
  British Coal's announcement last month made no mention of the important recreational and social land that it owns. Not only Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation land is involved. Across the coalfields there are huts where brownies, scouts and branches of St. John Ambulance meet. They want to know their future. The press announcement said nothing about such facilities. The Minister and my hon. Friends will remember the promises that were made during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill. Ministers promised that such recreational facilities would be protected. My hon. Friends tabled amendments, but withdrew them on the strength of those assurances.
  Some 215 sites are involved. There are 50 acres of sporting and recreational land just within my constituency. The coalfield communities want to know what is happening to that land. There is a rumour that most of it will go to CISWO on a long leasehold. The story is that some land will go to the National Playing Fields Association. Can the Minister confirm that? Can he confirm that those leases will be transferred at no cost? The facilities are public. Organisations such as CISWO and the National Playing Fields Association, which are publicly funded, ought to receive the leasehold for little.
  To put the whole discussion into context, I want to give a case example. In my community, the former Newstead Colliery village is now called Newstead village. The colliery closed in 1987 and the community decided that it wanted a new future. It changed its name to Newstead village. When the colliery closed, 1,400 jobs were lost locally.
  A partnership led by Gedling borough council has tried to change the social conditions in the area and build an economic base in Newstead village. Some £2 million has been invested, housing has been improved, open space has been reclaimed and a new water supply has been put in. The Robin Hood line has come to the village and a new railway station has been built. Much more has been done.
  266
  British Coal owns a large parcel of land in the centre of the village. It has had planning permission for five years. New housing is needed to bring new life to Newstead.
  We have talked to British Coal about selling the land in partnership with other landholders. I am astonished that British Coal now refuses to sell. It says that it would like to help in the regeneration of Newstead. In a letter to me British Coal said:
  "the reality is that it would not be possible for us to achieve the objectives set by the Government unless we concentrate on the privatisation work."
  The big sell-off and the big packages are causing delay on the ground. They are working against regeneration. The letter concludes:
  "I am sorry I cannot be more helpful as I know that Gedling have been very positive in aiding the regeneration process in their district".
  In May last year, His Royal Highness Prince Charles, as the president of Business in the Community, came to Newstead, liked what he saw and called for more partnership. Is it not a pity that because British Coal has a timetable driven by the desire to bury it and get it out of the way, it cannot create new housing and new jobs in Newstead village? Is it not a shame that the people who are unemployed there cannot build the houses under the training scheme that has already been set up?
  The example of Newstead shows that people do not look to the past. People in coalfield communities want a new future; they want the land to be their land. They were born in this British Coal land that is to be sold; they grew up in it; they walked in it. In Nottinghamshire, it is the landscape of Lawrence. They have put up with dirt and dereliction and now they aspire to something better. Above everything else, they want the sell-off to ensure that they have new jobs, that their recreational facilities are safeguarded and that the environment in their area is lifted.
  The coalfield communities have been betrayed. Promises were made to them. The sale of this land is an opportunity. Let us make sure that they are not betrayed again. This time, let them benefit from their land being sold.
  10.28 am
  Mr. Gary Streeter: The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), who represents a coal mining area, has probably forgotten more about coal mining than I shall ever know; I recognise that. Conservative Members also have great experience of the coal mining industry. The debate is important and touches on issues that range wider than the specific issue of coal mining. I am delighted to make a brief contribution about the proposed sale by British Coal of non-operational and former mining sites.
  A point that needs to be made is that we are discussing a much underrated benefit of privatisation. Privatisation has received a bad press in the past few months—perhaps deservedly—because of massive pay awards to directors of newly privatised companies. We should not, however, lose sight of the fact that, as a concept, privatisation has been enormously successful in terms of its major thrust for efficiency savings, profit and economic regeneration. That is an underrated advantage of privatisation. We need to ask ourselves whether, if British Coal was remaining in Government hands, we would be debating today the

  267
  release of this important land which can help in economic regeneration. I suspect that, sadly, the answer is that we would not.
  Before coming into the House, when I was doing a real job, I spent much of my time advising companies on the purchase of other companies. From time to time, we came across companies, perhaps poorly managed or perhaps in the hands of one family for far too long, that did not even know what they owned. At completion meetings, when one started to delve into the asset register, it was obvious that some organisations did not know what they owned and did not use it properly. I suspect that that may have been the case with some of our nationalised industries. They did not maximise their assets and, in some cases, they did not even know what assets they had. That is fine if one is in Canada or Russia where land is plentiful. However, we live in a small island.
  It is, therefore, important to recognise that we have a responsibility to maximise the use of our land wherever it may be. I believe that the proposals that we are debating today will enable us to make maximum use, for economic regeneration and for the advantage of our citizens, of land that has been in the ownership of British Coal for many generations. We should not lose sight of the fact that this opportunity would not be happening without privatisation.
  This spring, we shall see the marketing of a huge portfolio of land and buildings. As the hon. Member for Sherwood said, 150,000 acres is a substantial amount of land. It is not chicken feed; it is, as my son would say, big cheese. There is housing land, agricultural land, office and commercial land and investment land and property. Some is tenanted and some comes with vacant possession. The land is in many areas where coal mining has been important for many generations. As the hon. Member for Sherwood said, it is important that we give fair terms to those who are currently tenants of the properties. I am all for value for money and for cracking down on public spending, but it is important, where the Government have an involvement, to play fair with people who are already involved in those properties.
  I represent an area where the release of former Ministry of Defence land is a huge issue. It is important that the region benefits from the release of that land into the private sector. I urge the Minister to go the extra mile, where possible, to ensure that local people benefit. It would be a great shame if people coming from London or elsewhere snapped up all the bargains. We must let local people have a fair crack of the whip.
  I hope that the release of land by British Coal will be a model that nationalised industries, privatised industries, Government Departments and next steps agencies can follow. I think especially of British Rail, which is going down a similar route towards privatisation. We know that vast areas of land and buildings currently owned by British Rail could be released into the private sector for the economic benefit of the nation. I have had some dealings with British Rail lawyers. It was pretty obvious to me that they did not know what they owned or what use could be made of it. It is important to maximise the assets of Government Departments and nationalised industries.
  British Coal proposes to sell three categories of property, of which the first is housing. We often hear cries for 100,000 houses to be built each year. I repeat the point
  268
  that we are a small island. It behoves all of us to ensure, before we start building 100,000 houses a year—I reject the need for such numbers—to maximise the use of existing houses. Some of the houses that are to be released have tenants, which is an important point. I hope, however, that some of the houses that are currently vacant will be made available to local people to help to resolve the residential housing problems in the areas concerned.
  The second category is agricultural land, some of which is tenanted. I make a plea to my hon. Friend the Minister. We must respect existing tenancies; that is a matter of law. However, we must also bend over backwards to help tenants who wish to acquire the freehold on advantageous terms. It is a happy coincidence that the release of the agricultural land is happening at the same time as the Government are introducing the Agricultural Tenancies Bill which will release enterprise in rural communities and allow far greater flexibility in the use of land. That will bring some of those regions to life.
  There are sometimes hidden nuggets of gold. In the mining industry, one may tend to write off car parks and storage areas as unimportant. None the less, those areas can be released for important rural businesses, such as small factories, which fit nicely into the economic community and which create jobs. These areas are not exploited at the moment. Let the entrepreneurs come forward and make use of the Agricultural Tenancies Bill.
  The third category is the 13,000 acres of land and buildings for commercial, office or investment use. Some 200 sites have a recognised development potential. That will be a great boost to the economy of the regions concerned and a great opportunity for inward investment. My part of the world is keen to have inward investment. One has, however, to make available land and buildings for inward investment. Here is an opportunity for former coal mining areas to attract inward investment which will create jobs for local people.
  The timing is excellent because the economy is now going forward in a way that it has not done for a number of years. We had growth last year of 4 per cent., and we have low inflation, low interest rates, a competitive pound and falling unemployment. We have a great framework within which the land will be released to attract entrepreneurs, to attract inward investment and to create jobs for local people, especially for those who have been made redundant and who are looking for real jobs in which they can have a career.
  After a few difficult years, enterprise is stirring again. People are thinking of setting up businesses again and more small businesses are being created. The release of British Coal land will help small businesses to get started. As the hon. Member for Sherwood said, it is important that small businesses are helped by the release of land because they are the life blood of any economic community. They have the answers to our unemployment problems in their hands. I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to make available special measures for small businesses.
  We have all been concerned about the decline of the coal industry. I represent an area in which there has never been coal mining, yet I speak in the debate without apology because coal mining is in the national psyche of the United Kingdom. It is in our blood, as is fishing. When we debated the future of the coal mining industry a few years ago, there was much concern in my part of the world, as there was in every other part of the country.

  269
  Coal mining is dear to our hearts. But at least there is a silver lining in that cloud because the release of British Coal land will be of economic benefit to those regions.
  I do not agree with the hon. Member for Sherwood about speed. I have had experience of other Departments releasing land into the private sector and I am bound to say that the Ministry of Defence in Plymouth is extremely slow in releasing sites. We have been calling for the release of south yard at Devonport dockyard for years, and it has still not been released.
  British Coal is driving the matter forward and setting the pace, which is important if economic regeneration is to take place.
  Mr. Eric Insley: It might occur to the hon. Gentleman that British Coal sold land throughout the 1970s and 1980s. When Ian MacGregor was chairman of the National Coal Board, he decided that all British Coal property would be sold off. He set an 18-month timetable, but nobody could keep up with it. Tenants could not raise the money to buy, so were excluded from the sales. The hon. Gentleman says that there should be a longer time scale. I doubt it, because British Coal is pushing this forward rather quickly.
  Mr. Streeter: I am glad to hear that British Coal has been selling assets for the past 20 years, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is a substantial package, the like of which we have not seen before. I simply meant that, if we have too long a time scale, nothing will happen. It is important that the matter is driven through.
  I hope that the release of land by British Coal will be a model for other Departments and nationalised industries to follow. It is a hidden benefit of privatisation and is much underrated. I wish it well.
  10.40 am
  Mr. Martin Redmond: I am extremely grateful to be called in this important debate. Unlike the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), I have had a number of pits and tenanted licensee farms in my constituency.
  The first paragraph of a letter that I received from a constituent says:
  "You will no doubt be aware of the controversy caused by the proposed sell off of British Coal's non-operational land. My family have been British Coal tenants and licensees for 50 years, and I would like to think that we have been good custodians of the land in the Dearne Valley, as have other tenants and licensees."
  A problem arises because of certain assumptions that British Coal makes in terms of patches of land in the Dearne valley.
  The British Coal chairman began with a large number of coal mines and employees. The industry has now been devastated, but the chairman continues to enjoy the salary that he had at that time. Will the Minister explain why?
  Farmers are struggling to make a living, given all the problems associated with the agricultural world. British Coal is a publicly owned asset, so it is not for British Coal Enterprise to do as it pleases. The Minister must assume responsibility for ensuring that British Coal acts in a manner that befits the nation. I tabled a written question asking what action the President of the Board of Trade proposed to protect tenant farmers. The Minister replied:
  "The sale of British Coal's property is a matter for the Corporation."
  270
  But it is not when it causes problems for people who have been tenants for many years. I hope that he will instruct British Coal, in its negotiations, not to assume that certain portions of land are up for development. A number of farms on my patch are in the unitary plan but have no purpose other than farming. There are no proposals whatever to allow other developments on them. It is wrong for British Coal to hold a gun at those farmers' heads. I hope that the Minister will assure us, when he replies to the debate, that he will instruct British Coal to sell the land to those farmers who have expressed an interest.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Has the hon. Gentleman encountered the same concerns as I have encountered in Scotland? Tenant farmers are worried that the agents appointed by the board to sell farms may have an interest, after the sale, in factoring for a new purchaser rather than selling to the sitting tenant. As a result, the factor or agent will make more profit in the long term, but it is not in the interests of good farming and certainly not in the interests of the loyal tenants who have been there for many years.
  Mr. Redmond: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but whether there is sleaze in Scotland, I do not know. I speak only for my patch.
  Where we have good agricultural or coal land, it should be left. Many coal sites in south Yorkshire could be developed for housing or industry. One example, which the Minister is most welcome to visit, is the innovative Earth centre, which has been conceived on the old Cadeby pit site and is unique in Britain, and perhaps the world. Steps are now being taken to get it going. So there is potential in south Yorkshire for developments on derelict sites, and grants are available.
  I hope that the Minister will assure us that tenants will be protected, because, under the unitary plan, their land continues to be designated for agriculture.
  10.46 am
  Mr. Michael Clapham: As the Minister is aware, the total land package to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) referred is estimated to be 150,000 acres. It comprises 110,000 acres of agricultural land; about 9,000 acres of land that will go for regeneration; and some 806 houses, 500 lock-up garages and 1,000 allotments valued, it is rumoured, at well over £100 million. Will the Minister clarify that when he replies?
  During the passage of the Coal Industry Bill, we were given to understand that British Coal would pass residual land, together with all other liabilities, to the Coal Authority for administration. Clearly, that has not happened with the land. Why has it been decided that the land will not be administered by the Coal Authority but left to British Coal Properties to dispose of?
  It is extremely important to mining communities that land available for potential industrial redevelopment should be developed in those areas. Had the land been passed to the Coal Authority, that body would have been in a much better position to consider passing the land on, in Scotland and Wales to the enterprise agencies, and in England to English Enterprise. The land could then have been developed with a view to creating jobs in mining

  271
  communities. That has not happened. Will the Minister consider whether some of the 9,000 acres of land of industrial development quality could be passed to agencies and perhaps also to local authorities, so that it could be developed to create jobs in mining communities?
  Mr. Illsley: Does my hon. Friend share my fear that some of the development companies to which Conservative Members have referred, which want to buy British Coal land, will quote for greenfield agricultural sites rather than try to redevelop the old colliery sites which my hon. Friend and I have known throughout our careers in mining?
  Mr. Clapham: My hon. Friend has made an important point. If that happened it would be a tragedy because a great deal of land in the coalfield communities could be regenerated without having to resort to greenfield sites.
  I recently wrote to the Minister for Energy and Industry about 20 acres of woodland in Woolley colliery village. That village, like many others where collieries have been closed, has tended to be forgotten. Shops have closed, as has the community centre, and there is nowhere for people to meet. If that woodland was handed to the community there would be a real possibility of developing it into a nature reserve with nature trails, which would attract schools. It could also be used by social services and the probation services. That could be a viable project to regenerate the village and it would probably attract shops back to it. I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will say whether he would support that project. Given that many old colliery villages outside Yorkshire are close to similar land, would he be prepared to consider community involvement, perhaps in partnership with private interests, to develop it for the community?
  Three welfare issues cause great concern to hon. Members who represent mining communities. First, what will happen to land that has been leased from British Coal by miners' welfare organisations? When we scrutinised the Coal Industry Bill in Committee, we were given to understand that those welfare organisations would be given the opportunity to receive that land or that it would be handed to the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. I hope that the Minister can clarify those arrangements and tell us whether he will ensure that land leased from British Coal by miners' welfare organisations is handed over to the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation.
  I shall not dwell on the 806 houses to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood referred. However, I would expect the Minister to ensure that tenants are given the opportunity to buy those houses and, where they are unable to buy them, that housing associations and local authorities will step into the breach. I hope that he will encourage that, so that the effects of the earlier huge sell-offs by British Coal are not repeated.
  I am also concerned about the future of allotments, but I shall leave that to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), who has a great knowledge of them.
  My final concern relates to the proceeds of the sales. I hope that some of the money will be used to clean up the mining communities, especially pollution caused by mine
  272
  water. That money should be used for major regeneration projects in mining communities. I hope that the Minister will also be able to tell us that some of that money will be used to extend the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme, which the Government introduced in 1974, to make payments to men who have been awarded disablement benefit for chronic bronchitis and emphysema. The Minister will be aware of the great discrimination between people who suffer from those two diseases, which are caused by the same dust. That discrimination is quite illogical and the money would help to alleviate the problem.
  10.54 am
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: This has been a short debate and, in some respects, it has been a rerun of the one that we had in Standing Committee when we considered the Coal Industry Bill. The only difference is that this morning we have heard from a Conservative Member, whereas in Committee no Conservative sought to intervene. I do not think that today's proceedings were greatly enhanced by the speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), which betrayed his ignorance of the subject.
  We are considering the disposal of a sizeable parcel of land—the biggest since the dissolution of the monasteries. I agree with the moving words of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) that many of British Coal's tenant farmers have fulfilled their responsibilities and are entitled to expect not only the right to buy, if appropriate, but the flexibility that will be required to obtain the money to purchase their properties.
  Mr. Bill Etherington: My hon. Friend and I spent many hours in Committee considering the Coal Industry Bill. Does he agree that allotment holders, who have been referred to briefly, have also given great service to the industry, because they are invariably employees or former employees of the coal board? Is it not important that they are given the same security of tenure as tenant farmers because, in many cases, they are not only unemployed but impoverished and if they lost their allotments they would lose a great deal of the quality of their lives?
  Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I had intended to speak about allotments and to give anecdotal evidence of their importance to our former colleague, Mick Welsh, who represented Doncaster, North for many years. He would spend the Easter recess at his allotment. He and I shared an office for 10 years and I used to get day-to-day reports on the condition of the various vegetables that he grew over 12 months.
  I know that a great many miners, with great ingenuity, have devoted much of their leisure time to the development of their allotments. In some respects, they exemplified the old dictum of digging for victory. Many of those former miners are now quite old and those allotments are one of their last interests. It would be extremely unfortunate if they had to sacrifice their lives' work on the altar of commercialism.
  A number of agricultural holdings are up for sale. I made representations to the Minister on behalf of Mr. Scobbie of Shannockhill farm in my constituency, and his

  273
  response was constructive. He should go a little further today and confirm that deals will not be subject to the current tight framework.
  Ms Hilary Armstrong: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that British Coal has more tenant farmers in County Durham than anywhere else. On Monday night, 65 British Coal tenants of the county met and expressed their grave concerns about the sale prices and the means of sale employed by agents. The Minister for Energy and Industry and the chairman of British Coal have made it clear that tenants who have expressed serious interest in purchasing their freehold will be given first choice. Tenants in the county are anxious about what that means, because people who may have been unsure about the terms of sale and who held back from expressing an interest may be excluded. I hope that my hon. Friend will seek assurances from the Minister about those tenants.
  Mr. O'Neill: My hon. Friend made the argument strongly. We all share that anxiety, because we have been approached by people who, in the main, are not wealthy and do not fit into any Euro-profile of agricultural fat cats. They are working tenant farmers, probably employing two or three people, perhaps only their family. They do not have considerable resources. They are taking one of the biggest financial steps in their lives. They wish to be reassured that they can do so in an orderly way, and they wish to be able to make proper financial provision. It would be foolhardy if, in pursuit of a fast buck, agricultural agents were to rush the process and farmers consequently took on financial commitments that they could not meet in the longer term.
  Most hon. Members who represent mining constituencies have one overriding anxiety—unemployment and the under-use of resources locally. We are most disturbed lest a land bank is dispersed in a way that could be careless and open to mistiming, and we want several aspects to be taken into account.
  British Coal Properties has nursed many parcels of land through the planning process, and has obtained money from Europe, from the European regional development fund and the like, through RECHAR, and so on. It has worked with local authorities. Those efforts could be blown to smithereens if the life-blood of public sector Euro-funding were to be cut off because land was transferred to the private sector. That is a worry.
  We are anxious that we, as taxpayers, will not obtain a reasonable return for the money that has been spent on our behalf by the staff of British Coal Properties in nursing properties through the planning process. Properties might be at the stage immediately before the granting of planning permission, and therefore the land might not currently attract the proper value that it would as soon as planning permission was granted. We want an assurance from the Minister that clawback arrangements will be written into any contracts of sale, whereby we, as taxpayers, will be able to benefit from the improvements that we have already helped to fund, and so will provide us with a rich harvest in the future.
  Our worry is that those parcels of land will be bought at an unrealistically low price because no planning permission has been granted, that permission will be quickly and easily obtained as a result of the work that
  274
  has already been done and that money will go into the pockets of developers rather than of those who have undertaken long-term programmes.
  Arguments have been made about housing. Most of the 800 units would not fall into an estate agent's definition of desirable residences because they have already been sold off or are too expensive. We should like local authorities or housing associations to be given priority in improving those houses.
  Other land falls into the category of miscellaneous open spaces. Hon. Friends have already referred to the importance of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation and the National Playing Fields Association being involved in sports and social clubs. Many representations were made from Nottingham, especially in Committee.
  We have discussed allotments, but we need to consider other land that may not be attractive to commercial purchasers—unrestored tips and spoils that have not been properly dealt with but which should be given to people who know how to treat them. In the main, those are public sector authorities or local authorities. If they are to be given that land, they should be given proper financial help to enable them to meet their environmental responsibilities.
  Some land is obviously contaminated and is being used for tipping and so on. Whoever assumes ownership of that land—I imagine that it would be attractive only to local authorities and the public sector in general—should be given proper resources to ensure that the monitoring of that polluted and contaminated land is conducted properly.
  Some land will be dealt with according to the Moynihan guidelines. That undertaking was given by a previous Minister, and we want to ensure that the land will be properly accounted for.
  This sale of land is one of the biggest sales that we have experienced in this country. It covers the agricultural sector, and working farmers who plan to continue their activities for some time need time to tackle their contractual problems.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has identified another small group—elderly farmers who perhaps want only another four or five years on the land before they retire. British Coal Properties and the Government owe a responsibility to those men. They should be treated appropriately and should not be hounded into making a decision. They are a special case, and should be given an extension of the lease to allow them to finish their working lives, to contribute to the agricultural well-being of the country.
  We also want to ensure that tenant farmers, on whose land opencast mining is taking place, are given proper protection and guarantees that the rehabilitation of that land will be carried through with the rigour that was characteristic of the former owner, British Coal. People tend to forget that many of the tenancies were granted on the basis that opencast mining would take place. Opencast mining is being carried out in several places at the moment, but people are worried that, when it is completed, there will not be proper provision to ensure that the rehabilitation is to the standards that British Coal used to set.

  275
  I mentioned industrial development, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) gave examples from his region. Throughout the United Kingdom, there are anxieties about profiteering and about lost opportunities for the public sector to carry on the work that would attract RECHAR and ERDF funding, which would not be open to the private sector.
  We want guarantees about the miscellaneous open spaces that could be swept under the carpet, the sports and social facilities, the allotments and the land that no one wants but which will require care and treatment beyond the responsibilities that the Coal Authority will have when it assumes ownership—no doubt when British Coal Properties and British Coal have washed their hands of it.
  We welcome the opportunity that we have had for a debate this morning. In some respects, such debates are ideally suited to this format, although I wish that there had been more constructive comments from both sides of the House on the issue.
  We are discussing communities that have suffered as a consequence of the run-down of the coal industry—a run-down of which the Government are at the centre, and for which they are largely to blame. We want to ensure that the last stages of disposal of the land are carried out humanely, in a way that will result in the economic regeneration of those communities, which have been scarred by the way in which the Government have run away from their responsibilities to coalfield communities.
  This is the Government's chance. This is the Minister's opportunity, and we wait with interest to hear what he has to say.
  11.8 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Charles Wardle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on obtaining the debate. I agree that it is an important subject, as was obvious from the contributions to the debate. I share the feeling that there is much to discuss in such a short debate. I shall try to answer hon. Members' arguments in my general remarks, but if I do not answer all of them I shall write as soon as possible to hon. Members.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) for his thoughtful contribution. I am aware of the interest of my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) and of the interest of many Opposition Members, who have intervened or made contributions.
  I shall begin by putting the issue of British Coal's remaining property portfolio in the more general context of the privatisation of the coal industry. For several years, it has been the Government's intention that the industry should return to the private sector—after expenditure of taxpayers' money of £20,000 million since 1979, either to cover losses or to help restructure the industry. We believe that in the private sector the industry will best be able to build on British Coal's substantial progress in productivity and efficiency in recent years and to secure its place in the competitive energy market.
  As the House will know, the Government completed the sale of mining businesses last December. That represents a significant achievement in returning one of
  276
  our major industries to the private sector. The sale of British Coal's mining assets has laid firm foundations for the industry's future, but a number of other activities remain in British Coal's ownership for the time being. The residual property portfolio is only one among a number of what one might call the ancillary undertakings of the corporation, and British Coal has been pursuing a policy of disposing of its subsidiary businesses and activities with some success. I could explain what they are, but I shall move on because time is pressing.
  Privatisation—whether of the mining businesses by the Government or of its own undertakings by British Coal—is bringing to an end a period of nearly 50 years in which coal has been a nationalised industry. The history of coal in this country goes back, of course, much further than that. In the course of its long life, the coal industry has acquired property for a variety of purposes, in many different areas across the country.
  The property portfolio is extremely diverse, and hon. Members may find it interesting to take a look at the background of British Coal's current holdings. Some land that the corporation still owns was acquired as the property of the existing colliery companies at the time of nationalisation. Many sites have been acquired by British Coal with a view to possible future operational use. Some of the land is affected by subsidence, contamination or dereliction. Offices and other buildings, farms, woodland and recreational land are just some of the other categories of property that the corporation has built up over the years.
  The portfolio has not been static. Some land, closely associated with continuing mining operations, has already transferred to the successor mining companies as part of the sale. Some land, which is likely to be used for, or in connection with, coal mining operations has been transferred to the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority, of course, is the newly established public sector organisation which, in addition to handling certain historic liabilities such as subsidence, deals with the licensing of future coal mining operations, and it will be able to make its land available for that purpose.
  In addition to those properties that have already been transferred elsewhere, British Coal Properties has, for a number of years and with a good deal of success, pursued commercial sales of land that the corporation has not needed for operational purposes. In each of the past three years, sales have amounted to £30 million. However, even after that exercise, there is a large and diverse portfolio for which British Coal remains responsible. Altogether 7,000 properties remain in British Coal's ownership—making, in total, holdings of almost 150,000 acres. Opposition Members have emphasised the importance of carefully assessing the options for the portfolio's future. That is precisely what British Coal and the Government are doing, in the light of the many factors at work—not least of which is the need to ensure that value for money is obtained when properties are sold.
  Mr. Redmond: Will the Minister make it clear that the value of the land is the current value, not what it might be in future? If it is agricultural land, it must be sold at agricultural prices, not at prices based on the prospect of any possible development plans, and it must be clearly defined as green belt land.
  Mr. Wardle: I hope to make that distinction because as soon as I have dealt with the background I want to turn

  277
  to agricultural land, housing and recreational land—many of the issues that the hon. Member for Sherwood and other Labour Members rightly raised.
  The need for continuing responsible ownership and management is clearly crucial to existing tenants of British Coal Properties who will want to be assured that the change in British Coal's status does not threaten the performance of obligations and duties which they would rightly expect of their landlord. That is equally important where there are liabilities attached to certain categories of land that require continuing management or where restoration and rehabilitation is still in progress. It is also of great importance for local communities where the land in question has development potential. There are many sites with potential for development, and it is important—as a number of Opposition Members have emphasised—that they should be brought back into productive use in the private sector as soon as possible, thus boosting local communities and encouraging businesses in those areas. In addition, British Coal has many properties of recreational value to local communities, on which I should like to say a few words.
  I am in no doubt about the importance that people in coalfield areas attach to land which, over the years, has been leased by British Coal for sport and recreation. We are looking at more than 200 sites in towns and villages throughout England, Scotland and Wales. The issue involves not only miners' welfare schemes—to which the hon. Members for Sherwood and for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) alluded—but a host of other organisations and uses. The uses range from football pitches, cricket pitches, tennis courts and bowling greens, to the scouts, the guides and—as has been mentioned more than once—allotments. That matter is being given careful consideration—the importance of allotments is certainly not lost on me, and it will not be lost on British Coal.
  Mr. Etherington: All that we are asking is that the Minister use his good offices with the coal board to ensure that allotment holders are given first choice of purchase of the facilities and the chance to join together—perhaps with their local district councils—to obtain the land rather than having it sold over their heads to private enterprise, which has, unfortunately, happened in the past.
  Mr. Wardle: I recognise the importance of allotments. We are actively pursuing with British Coal options for the future of allotments. I shall ensure that the remarks made in today's debate are conveyed to the relevant parties—they will already have been noted by British Coal. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about that issue.
  We are committed to preserving the nation's stock of recreational facilities wherever possible and ensuring that they are used. Hon. Members have mentioned the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation and the National Playing Fields Association—conversations continue with both organisations.
  We have made it clear from the outset that we want to deal as sensitively as we can with recreational facilities that are now in the corporation's ownership. It is therefore our objective that land that is currently in active use for sport or recreation in its broadest sense should be retained for those purposes. We are continuing to discuss with British Coal how best to achieve that objective. Those detailed discussions on the possible mechanisms for
  278
  achieving our overall objective have yet to be concluded, but I hope that what I have said clarifies our position on that subject.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister said that we are talking about Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation land, as well as other land, and that consultations were still taking place. He mentioned the land, but I did not hear him say all the land. We would like the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation to remain intact—not just the land and the sports pitches, but all the other welfare facilities and those for the disabled that are administered by CISWO. Will the Minister ensure that he is consulted about all the facilities and organisational aspects of CISWO, not just part of it?
  Mr. Wardle: I am absolutely certain that CISWO will make exactly the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made. I shall not predict the outcome of those discussions, but I have said that talks are continuing with CISWO and with the National Playing Fields Association.
  A further category of property that does not form part of the current packages is that controlled by British Coal Enterprise. That includes managed workshops, light industrial units and office space throughout the coalfield areas. I recognise that those have played an important part in the regeneration of the coalfield districts, and British Coal Enterprise's job creation and regeneration activities have achieved much.
  As the House will be aware, the long-term future of BCE is under review. We and British Coal are continuing to explore the options for the full range of services that it provides, and no final decisions have yet been taken. It is a matter that requires careful thought and deliberation. As Opposition Members have said, it is important to deliberate carefully, and not rush the decisions.
  Mr. Tipping: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Wardle: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, with one eye on the time.
  Mr. Tipping: British Coal Enterprise works in partnership with others. When seeking a partner, one looks for a long-term relationship, and early decisions about the future of British Coal Enterprise must focus on coalfield regeneration.
  Mr. Wardle: It is important to have discussions early in the process. They are taking place now and I believe that sensible decisions will flow from them. I will pick up the pace slightly in view of the time and turn to housing.
  In the light of its new functions, British Coal must make early progress with plans for the disposal of its holdings. Hon. Members will be aware of British Coal's press release of 11 January, which sets out its broad plans, but it might be helpful if I highlight the main points of the corporation's proposals.
  British Coal is to dispose of its residual non-mining properties under three separate portfolios, which I would like to discuss briefly in turn. I hope that it will allow me to address the points that a number of hon. Members have raised this morning.
  Those portfolios consist of housing, agricultural land and what British Coal has termed the commercial and development portfolio, which includes the vast majority of the rest of the corporation's properties. British Coal has announced its intention to sell the agricultural and housing

  279
  portfolios in broadly regional packages. No decisions have yet been taken about the packaging and disposal of the commercial and development land.
  In the past, British Coal has owned huge numbers of houses. Many hon. Members will recall what were virtually "coal board villages". Over a number of years, some 80,000 of them have been sold, in large part as a result of British Coal's policy of selling to sitting tenants. I understand that, in the past, houses where there were full statutory tenants were offered for sale to those tenants, and that only a tiny number of expressions of interest—fewer than 10—remain outstanding. They are being attended to.
  However, significant numbers of houses—up to 800—remain in British Coal's possession. Some of them are in vacant possession, but many are tenanted by miners, ex-miners and their dependants. British Coal intends to offer those houses to the market this spring in a number of regional packages, with a view to completing all the sales within a year.
  It is important that those tenants continue to have the protection of responsible landlords as British Coal approaches the end of its life. I believe that the corporation's proposals to sell off the houses in broadly regional blocks will offer the best guarantee of early transfer to continued responsible management.
  In that context, I welcome the assurances that the corporation has given me that, in assessing bids, it will take every step to satisfy itself that purchasers meet appropriate tests on viability and commitment to the future of the property which they are purchasing. In addition, it will consider carefully the approach adopted by those purchasers in the context of the interest that tenants may have in acquiring their freehold in future.
  Agricultural land has been the subject of many hon. Members' remarks this morning. British Coal has a total of 110,000 acres of agricultural land, 85,000 of which is farmland, including farm buildings. That represents a substantial holding across the nation as a whole, not just in England, and the disposal of such a large portfolio is naturally of great interest to many people throughout the country. Some land is in British Coal's vacant possession, but much of it is occupied by sitting tenants.
  As with its housing portfolio, it is British Coal's intention to offer that portfolio to the market in broadly regional packages. The precise composition of the packages is subject to finalisation in the light of advice from specialist property and agricultural advisers, but I understand that the corporation hopes to offer the first packages for sale this spring and to conclude all sales by the spring of 1996.
  Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister ruling out the right of the tenant farmer to purchase land? If so, will he consider those cases where the tenant farmer may have been given a promise or a half promise that he could purchase land?
  Mr. Wardle: I am coming to precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
  I am aware of the concerns that were raised in many quarters while the corporation was considering the options for the future of that land. It is natural that many existing farming tenants will feel anxious about their position, but I hope that the announcements that have been made will largely remove that anxiety.
  280
  It is worth noting the protection that existing tenants have under statute. Under agricultural holdings legislation, full agricultural tenants have security of tenure, subject to the provisions of that legislation. In some cases, succession provisions apply that allow two further generations to succeed to the tenancy. There is no question of their legal rights under legislation being diminished in any way in the course of the disposal process through a change of landlord.
  I can equally assure hon. Members that the Agricultural Tenancies Bill, which is before the House, does not affect the rights of existing tenants as it will apply only to new tenancies granted after its commencement.
  Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said, there is an understandable desire among some tenants to achieve additional security and independence by purchasing their own freeholds. As one would expect, the Government have sympathy with that view, but it is important to bear in mind the needs of tenants who do not wish to do so, and for whom the overriding priority must be to continue to have responsible landlords who have a long-term interest in the properties they own and who are responsive to the needs of their sitting tenants. I believe that the policy that British Coal is pursuing strikes a satisfactory balance in responding to the needs and wishes of all its existing tenants.
  As hon. Members know, those tenants who have already expressed an interest in purchasing their properties are being offered the opportunity to do so by British Coal. The hon. Members for Sherwood and for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) referred to that point. I know that British Coal has now written to all of those who expressed an interest in purchasing properties seeking confirmation of their position. When tenants confirm that they wish to proceed with the purchase of their property, in the majority of cases British Coal will take forward the process of sale. Of course, management of that process is a matter for British Coal, but I am aware that the corporation is anxious to make progress with the sales, and it is clearly in tenants' interests to assist it wherever possible.
  The corporation's commercial and development portfolio includes a great variety of properties of various types, including sites with potential for early industrial or residential development, freehold offices, leisure properties, non-coal mineral extraction, waste disposal sites and others.
  Some of those properties are still in the process of restoration or rehabilitation and others carry liabilities that may require on-going management. Ensuring that the treatment of those liabilities is not hindered in any way by the disposal process is clearly a key consideration, and one which is borne very much in mind.
  I know that the corporation will have detailed negotiations with prospective purchasers about the sale of those properties. As part of its assessment of the bidders, it will take account of their suitability and it will want to be satisfied that the bidders have sufficient resources to meet the requirements. Local authorities and other bodies have wide-ranging powers to deal with any failure to comply with statutory requirements relating to liabilities, by which any purchasers will of course be bound.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I am sorry that I have not been able to attend for the whole debate. Kiveton

  281
  colliery in my constituency closed just before Christmas. Will British Coal lay down conditions about the development of that site—whether it be by the public or private sector—so that regeneration will be firmly fixed and, on that basis, there will be a clear price for the disposal of the land?
  Mr. Wardle: The appropriate safeguards relating to identified development potential will be part of British Coal's consideration.
  At this stage it is not possible to be more concrete about the proposals for the future of the property in the commercial and development portfolio, but I hope that I have been able to give some clarification about the nature of the corporation's plan on a broad level, and to explain some of the factors which we are currently considering where decisions have not yet been taken.
  Mr. O'Neill: We suggested clawback arrangements because almost excessive profits would be achieved in relation to the original price. Will the Minister give an assurance that the contracts will take proper account of that?
  Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point and I can assure him and the House that the need for clawback arrangements will be considered carefully in all cases.
  In the time available I have not been able to respond to every question. I repeat my assurance that I shall write to hon. Members when I have read the debate and seen which points need specific answers. I carefully noted the views that were expressed and the House has had the opportunity of hearing a careful deliberation about a most important subject.

  Urban Road Congestion
  11.29 am
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: I am pleased to have the opportunity to come to the House today and open a debate on such an important subject as the medical effects of traffic congestion, particularly in urban and semi-urban areas. I understand that, only this morning, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London has been giving evidence to the Environment Select Committee on volatile organic compounds, so the debate has an element of topicality, apart from its long-term importance.
  Equally, we all have constituents—I mean constituents rather than professional lobbying bodies such as Friends of the Earth—who are greatly concerned about the potential effects of car pollutants, vehicle pollutants and urban congestion. Whether that concern comes from a mother who pushes her child in a pram at ground level and worries about the effect of exhaust fumes on her child, whether it is a commuter driving his car at 6 mph and imbibing all the fumes, or whether it is a cyclist or a pedestrian, it is matter of great importance for everyone in Britain.
  There has been a step change in people's priorities in this matter. I understand that in the 1940s and 1950s the principal concerns were hydrocarbons, sulphur and particulates from coal burning, which were mainly the result of industrial processes. The Clean Air Act 1956 substantially improved matters and they have continued to improve.
  The Clean Air Act, however, led to a certain complacency about the effects of urban congestion. In 1979, the Department of Transport wrote to the Clean Air Council as follows:
  "The effects of pollution by motor vehicles can be summarised; there is no evidence that this type of pollution has any adverse effects on health."
  Sixteen years on, we look slightly askance at that proposition, although it is difficult to establish direct causal relationships between urban congestion and pollution, and health effects.
  Generally, the health effects are multi-faceted, as a variety of different atmospheric and allergic conditions have to be taken into account. Although one would not want to say that research is tentative, nevertheless it must always be regarded with caution. However, there is no doubt that for certain groups of the population-people with atopic illnesses such as asthma, eczema and hay fever, smokers, elderly people, children and people with respiratory problems—there is a significant causal relationship between certain pollutants and those conditions.
  I am delighted that the Government have acknowledged that. For instance, the Minister of State, Department of Environment, who has been giving evidence to the Environment Select Committee today, mentioned
  "the growing links between air pollution and health".—[Official Report, 3 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 432.]
  On 14 February 1994, the Under-Secretary of State for Health spoke about the Medical Research Council institute for environment and health and the fact that it regarded as a first priority the health effects of air pollution, particularly air pollution by motor vehicles.
  It is not surprising that that has spawned a variety of expert groups on air pollution and health. I am grateful to the Ashden trust, which last year held a conference and

  283
  managed to bring together many of the documents recently produced on that important subject, which are often difficult to obtain.
  Let me give the House an idea of who is involved. The Advisory Group on the Medical Aspects of Air Pollution Episodes and the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants report to the Department of Health. The Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards and the Quality of Urban Air Review Group advise the Department of the Environment. The Photochemical Oxidants Review Group also advises the Department of the Environment.
  Other bodies are involved, such as the Office of Science and Technology, which produced a report entitled "Breathing in our Cities—Urban Air Pollution and Respiratory Health". In 1991, the Royal Commission on environmental pollution also examined the problem.
  A great deal of private sector and university-oriented research is being carried out. The university of Bristol has done some valuable work, particularly on the effects of benzine on leukaemia and polonium 210 which was featured recently on a Channel 4 programme about radioactivity in children's teeth.
  The university of Birmingham has done an enormous amount of work, especially on the levels of particulates, which are mainly from diesel fumes, and their correlation with the death rate, particularly in asthmatics and elderly people.
  It is small wonder that such eminent groups have produced a massive array of evidence—some of it contradictory. Let me give the House a flavour. "Urban Air Quality in the United Kingdom" was produced in 1993 by the Department of the Environment, which also produced "Air Quality-Meeting the Challenge" last month. "Improving Air Quality" is another such document.
  The Select Committee on Transport examined transport-related air pollution in London only last year, as did the Royal Commission in 1991. There is a plethora of reports. Ploughing through The Lancet and other academic and high-minded reports gives one an idea of the complexity of the problem.
  First, it might be helpful if I mentioned the evidence on congestion. There is no doubt that congestion in Britain is growing. Between 1972 and 1992, the numbers of cars and light vans doubled and the numbers of heavy goods vehicles on our roads rose by half, totalling between 22 million and 23 million vehicles. By the year 2025—the problem will not go away—it is estimated that car use and car numbers may well double again.
  In addition, people not only have more cars, but, on average, they travel further. In 1986, the average mileage per vehicle was about 5,320 miles a year, and by 1991 it was 6,475 miles a year. Of course, that has produced congestion.
  In London, although there is some evidence that congestion may be improving a little faster, as the Secretary of State said last week in his evidence to the Select Committee on Transport, Department of Transport statistics show that in 1977–79, the average speed in the central area at peak time was 12.3 mph. By 1990–94 it was down to 10.2 mph. When one compares that to the speed achieved by a motorised postal van in 1912 of only 7 mph, one wonders how much progress there has been
  284
  in road transport in our urban areas—not just in London but in Birmingham and other areas, such as Kidderminster in my constituency.
  There are flows of 21,000 vehicles a day on the Wolverhampton and Birmingham road. If traffic speed is reduced from 12 mph to 6 mph, fuel consumption increases 50 per cent. There is an exponential growth, the lower the speed. The amount of road works and cabling that one sees in London and major cities shows that such congestion will not lessen. The Government document "Air Quality—Meeting the Challenge" stated:
  "In urban areas, road transport is the principal source of pollution."
  I do not want to inundate the House with statistics, but between 1980 and 1990, 51 per cent. of nitrogen oxides were caused by transport, and they had increased by 72 per cent. Vehicles accounted for 47 per cent. of black smoke, which had increased by 75 per cent. Ninety per cent. of carbon monoxide emissions were caused by transport and they rose by 46 per cent. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is well briefed on volatile organic compounds. Thirty seven per cent. came from vehicles and they rose by 12 per cent. during the same 10-year period. There is evidence of some improvement since 1990, but from relatively high levels. Faced with the expected huge increase in car and heavy goods vehicle ownership over the next 15 years, that remains a matter of concern.
  There is a significant problem not only in determining causality but in accumulating evidence of links between any particular pollutant and health risk. Monitoring is one difficulty. As the Select Committee on Transport reported two years ago, there seems little continuity between central and local authority monitoring. Smoke and sulphur dioxide monitoring is done at 250 sites by 151 authorities, and nitrogen dioxides are monitored by 300 local authorities. Although there is a consultation paper on air quality monitoring networks, enormous work must be done adequately to integrate monitoring in the UK.
  Improvements in vehicle emissions in one respect may worsen them in another. Unleaded petrol was seen as a way of significantly reducing a poison—lead—in the air, and has been successful in cutting the volume of lead from 8,000 tonnes to 2,000 tonnes a year. Unfortunately, greater use of converters has increased benzene emissions, which are themselves a recognised carcinogenic that may lead to leukaemia. Diesel was also regarded as a good way of improving the environment. In 1993, the number of diesel-engined cars in the UK increased from 5 to 20 per cent. That has reduced carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions, but those of carbon particulates—such as PM10, which can enter the lungs—are considerably worse.
  Arguments within the scientific community soon become evident. In 1992, Professor Hallgate, chairman of the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, did not believe that diesel particulates posed a danger to health. By 1994, he was saying:
  "There is convincing evidence of a link between mortality and PM10."
  That is a volte face if ever I saw one, and shows the problems. It is difficult to isolate cause and effect, particularly under different environmental conditions and given varying individual medical conditions.

  285
  The problem is exacerbated by inconsistency in pollutant measurement. There are variations between acceptable levels of ozones, nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide as between the UK, World Health Organisation and European Union. We should consider how standards should be made both more comprehensive and consistent.
  I said that, subject to certain caveats, I would describe the effects on health of 10 principal pollutants emitted by cars and heavy goods vehicles. These conclusions came from a symposium by the Ashden trust last year. Nitrogen dioxide may exacerbate asthma and possibly increase susceptibility to infection. The particulate PM10 is directly related to city mortality rates and is associated with a wide range of respiratory symptoms. Long-term exposure can be associated with increased risk of death from heart or lung disease.
  We all know that carbon monoxide is lethal at high doses, and even at low levels can impair concentration and neuro-behavioural functions. Ozone has been widely publicised. Although it is a secondary pollutant created by the interaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, it irritates the eyes and air passages, and it can significantly sensitise people with allergenic and atopic problems. That is one reason why, in recent years, we have seen a huge increase in the number of asthma referrals by general practitioners.
  Pollution has severe consequences. It is estimated that particulates can cause 10,000 premature deaths a year. The incidence of childhood asthma has doubled since the 1970s. Around 155 children suffering from asthma are taken to hospital every day, and there are 3 million asthma sufferers in the UK. The carcinogenic effects of benzene and lead have been well known for some time but are impossible to quantify accurately.
  It would be wrong to ignore the fact that much progress has been made. Since 1990, pollution caused by cars and traffic congestion has fallen. The introduction of the catalytic converter after 1993—partly due to European Community directive 91/441—has led to an estimated 70 per cent. reduction in hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide. It is slightly disappointing that only 3 million of the UK's 18.9 million cars have catalytic converters fitted. It will be 2010 before the whole fleet is similarly equipped.
  In March 1994, the European Union agreed to improve significantly control of diesel particulates from 1996. That should mean a reduction of about 55 per cent., and a 95 per cent. reduction from 1970 levels when the measures are implemented. It is anticipated that there will be further reductions by the year 2000.
  I have already mentioned the progress made with unleaded petrol which in urban areas has led to a significant reduction in the amount of lead—a deadly poison—in the air. Nevertheless, about 2,000 tonnes a year are still emitted. Some progress has been made and we hope that it will continue.
  I shall conclude by making one or two suggestions about particular courses of action that the Government could be taking to improve the position on car pollutants and thereby, on the best possible evidence, reduce the ill effects on our health caused by congestion. I do not claim to be comprehensive because this is a wide-ranging topic involving traffic management and planning policy but I shall nevertheless put forward one or two ideas.
  286
  I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport last year had a blitz on what he called the "gross polluters". I am not sure that the figures are entirely accurate but the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said that about 85 per cent. of the most noxious pollutants come from those gross polluters. In other words, a very small proportion of vehicles cause the vast majority of the damage. It is therefore worrying that Britain apparently has the second oldest truck fleet in Europe, second only to that of Greece.
  It is also worrying that so much of the pollution, especially in London, is caused by local transport vehicles. Although discussions are taking place with the Department of Transport, it was announced last year that the new Iveco diesel engines in the revamped buses did not meet even the latest European regulations. There was a six-week campaign late last year but I believe that such a campaign should be made permanent.
  We need better co-ordination between the Department of Transport, the Vehicle Inspectorate and local authorities which, through environmental legislation, have increasing responsibility for monitoring and control of pollution. They should be given even more power, not only in London but outside, to stop vehicles that are patently polluting the atmosphere and to remove them from the road. That would have a very great impact, and very quickly, on the gross polluters.
  Urgent consideration, with tax breaks if necessary, should be given to the retro-fitting of exhaust control equipment on the older diesel buses in urban areas. If the diesel engines in buses are causing pollution, especially through particulates and volatile organic compounds, that particular problem needs to be solved urgently.
  Clearly, the Government could be considering a variety of other suggestions and we could be moving a little faster on them. Reformulated gasoline now has about a third of the American market and it is estimated to reduce emissions of benzene—a carcinogenic—by between 15 and 20 per cent., together with emissions of other hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Reformulated gasoline is a little more expensive than normal petrol but perhaps the duty on it could be reduced to make it more attractive to the consumer. As has been proved in America, it would have a significant effect on our pollution problem.
  Some relevant work has been carried out by Johnson Matthey which, when it heard that I had secured this debate, wrote to me—perhaps for not wholly disinterested motives. It mentioned its "continuously regenerating trap" which, it states, can reduce carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and particulates emitted by large diesel vehicles. The company provided me with information about Sweden where there seem to have been significant improvements as a result of its product. The company recently carried out tests on 10 CRT units in Gothenburg. The technical director of Swebus, Leif Magnusson, said that tests had shown massive reductions in emissions: a 98 per cent. reduction in carbon monoxide emissions, a 96 per cent. reduction in the emission of hydrocarbons, and a 92 per cent. reduction in particulates. I urge the Minister to work on that possibility, which could be used to reduce the emissions of the grossest polluters.
  Congestion is a very serious problem. I know that, in his evidence to the Select Committee on Transport last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was a little cagey—understandably—about a forthcoming report

  287
  on road pricing and its implications. The implications may be the opposite to what one expects but the idea needs to be followed up, and planning policy guidance 13 issued by the Department of the Environment on the interrelationship between planning and transport is a good step forward.
  From the evidence that I have, it seems that the advice that the Government are getting through the Departments of Transport, of Health and of the Environment and the Office of Science and Technology should be better co-ordinated. There is a plethora of such evidence coming from all directions. Some of it is contradictory but it still needs to be better co-ordinated. Whether the Environmental Protection Agency would be the ideal body to do that is a matter for debate. However, the Environmental Protection Agency should have a role in ensuring consistency of measuring which, as I said, is not evident among the EU, the World Health Organisation and the United Kingdom.
  Finally, our targets should also be extended. I understand that, at the moment, there are national standards for only about four of the 10 main vehicle pollutants. There are advisory standards but they should be put on a mandatory basis as far as possible, thus showing that the Government are giving a lead, which I am sure that they are in many other respects.
  I have spoken for 25 minutes, which is quite long enough. I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. This is a very important topic to every man, woman and child, especially in urban areas. It will not go away and will not necessarily get better so I urge the Government, as a matter of urgency, to consider some of my recommendations.
  11.57 am
  Mr. Peter Snape: The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) for affording us the opportunity to debate, albeit briefly, this important topic and doubly grateful for the riveting half-hour to which he has just treated us.
  There is no doubt that this subject quite properly exercises the minds of those of us interested in transport matters. I fear that the hon. Gentleman was not quite as critical as he might have been of Government policy because, whatever the Government say about their green credentials—no one could accuse the Secretary of State of being green—they do not show much sign of them when it comes to legislation.
  Over the past 15 years, the Government have been content to increase the permitted size of heavy goods vehicles three times and to increase the maximum speed at which they are permitted to travel once. That has clearly helped to increase the total number of heavy goods vehicles on our roads. We assume that the latest European Community proposals will be accepted. We usually fight a rearguard action but there are now 44-tonne lorries on our roads. If the latest EC proposals are accepted, the millions of pounds of public money being spent on strengthening bridges will have to be justified by a further increase in heavy goods vehicles, especially the heaviest travelling the greatest distances, which will again help to undermine rail freight and transfer even more from rail to roads.
  288
  The hon. Member for Wyre Forest pointed out that much urban pollution is caused by public transport, and rightly drew attention to the pollution caused in this city and others by local bus services. Before the Prime Minister denounces me again, let me declare my interest as a non-executive director of West Midlands Travel, which I believe is currently Britain's third largest bus company.
  I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman, but I must add—especially as the Minister for Transport in London is to reply—that the position is hardly surprising, given the effects of deregulation in major towns and cities. Some of the oldest and most clapped-out vehicles in western Europe are running around for 12 hours a day, bleeding passengers from the more profitable routes and undermining the network services provided by West Midlands Travel and other companies. Obviously that will add to urban pollution.
  What one of the Minister's predecessors described as the benefits of deregulation have yet to spread to London. I am not surprised, but I hope that the Minister will use his undoubted power and influence as a senior member of Her Majesty's Government to try to improve the position in many towns and cities. For instance, he could consider Government assistance for companies such as the one with which I am associated, which would like to introduce buses powered by natural gas. It is not fair to expect reputable companies to tackle urban pollution problems if at the same time they must compete with fly-by-night operators which have been attracted to the business since the enactment of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act last year.
  The Government claim to be more concerned about pollution and the environment nowadays. They say that they have urged local authorities—particularly in the west midlands—to adopt a "package" approach in their annual transport supplementary grant applications, including some public transport schemes. That would undoubtedly help to tackle the problem. In the west midlands, we have made a bid for funds for the Midland Metro—the light rail system, one of whose lines will run through my constituency—the first priority in our annual TSG application. Year after year, having encouraged local authorities to adopt a "package" approach, the Department of Transport has cherry-picked the road schemes of which it approves and provided the full amount needed for their funding; meanwhile, the Midland Metro remains in abeyance for want of public money.
  That does not illustrate any great desire on the part of the Department of Transport to tackle urban pollution. Following the latest bid for funds, the Secretary of State has said that it is up to local authorities to find the cost of the Midland Metro—some £30 million. That is unfair, because local authorities, especially in the west midlands, have managed to find a considerable amount from their own resources to finance schemes that will help to alleviate the problems to which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest referred. They have, for example, spent £28.5 million on the new Jewellery line through Birmingham's jewellery quarter, thus providing a third cross-city railway line with little assistance from the Department of Transport. Yet they are continually denied adequate resources for the Midland Metro and other public transport schemes that would do so much to lessen pollution and congestion in the west midlands.

  289
  Let me now turn to a more parochial topic, and appeal to the Minister to note what is happening on the ground—regardless of what he or his Back Benchers may say about their desire to alleviate the problem of pollution and congestion in urban areas. I have mentioned our failure to secure cash for the Midland Metro; one organisation in the west midlands, however, need not worry about cash. I refer to the Black Country development corporation. If road builders are appointed to a quasi-public body and millions of pounds of public money are chucked at them, obviously they will build roads—and that is what the Black Country development corporation has done and is doing, like other development corporations throughout the country. The building of roads, of course, helps to create the very congestion and pollution of which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest complains, and which the Minister will presumably deplore in a sympathetic manner very shortly.
  In my constituency—thanks to public money—the Black Country development corporation, despite obvious public transport needs, is currently building the black country route and spine road. The road runs through West Bromwich, and will cause enormous pollution and congestion there. It will also virtually split the town in half because of the road works and the congestion that will unquestionably result once the route has been completed. It will join junction 1 of the M5 with junction 10 of the M6. No one needs to be a great map reader to work out that the best way to avoid all the congestion currently afflicting the junction of the M5 and M6 is to take the alternative route—the spine road and the black country route. West Bromwich will suffer from massive congestion and pollution. Concern has already been expressed to the local authority and to me, but the development corporation, predictably, has ignored it.
  There are schools along the route, including Cronehills primary school in my constituency. The headmistress has already told me of her fears about existing lead levels in the bodies of pupils; already—especially on Friday afternoons and during the evening rush hour—there is considerable congestion outside the school. Heaven knows what it will be like when the route is completed, but we can make a guess when we see the congestion on the midland links with the M5 and M6.
  The Government could take steps to tackle the problem, if only they were serious; but of course they are not. Whatever lip service they pay to the problems of congestion and pollution, they adopt policies year after year—whether inadvertently or not—which add to those problems. This country almost worships the heavy goods vehicle, for example: there are very few restrictions on their use.
  Our planning policies appear to be designed to encourage major companies such as John Lewis and McDonalds—I take those two at random—to deal with as many lorry deliveries as possible every day. They regard keeping stock on their premises as uneconomic, arid the community must pay for their attitude. Day after day, heavy goods vehicles can be seen on the high streets with their indicator lights flashing, making deliveries to stores such as those that I have mentioned. They are by no means the only guilty parties, however. We must tackle the over-use of HGVs: we must apply restrictions, especially in our towns and cities.
  290
  I hope that the Minister will give us some hope, particularly in regard to the development of pollution-free public transport vehicles. There is no doubt that over-reliance on motor vehicles in general and HGVs in particular is the cause of many of the problems that we are debating, and—unless there is a dramatic change in Government policy—will be the cause of exactly the same problems, and debates on them, for many years.
  12.8 pm
  Mr. Piers Merchant: There is undoubtedly great and growing concern about the impact on health of pollution from road vehicles. I am particularly aware of that, as I represent an urban constituency in the London area. Although my constituency is in an outer London borough, it is noticeable that the increase in traffic, and the perception of pollution, have been even greater in outer London than in inner London.
  Last summer and summer before, there was published evidence of sudden episodes of high pollution levels, and especially of ozone in the atmosphere in the Bromley area. There followed a good deal of public concern about the impact on asthma, particularly in children. So I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) on bringing the debate to the House. I also congratulate the Government on the action that they have already taken, although the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) gave it limited acknowledgement. In fact, only on 19 January, the Department of Transport announced a series of measures to improve considerably the monitoring of pollutants and to take practical and reasonable steps to deal with the problem that they create. I also pay tribute to the London borough of Bromley, which has taken a lead in setting up monitoring facilities and working with other London boroughs to draw attention to pollutants and keep more accurate statistics.
  We are debating a complex subject and I shall refer briefly to four areas which are of particular importance. It is important that research is conducted to obtain accurate data on which to make decisions. One has to separate myth from reality, since it is easy to panic or pursue unproductive methods of research, perhaps because one perceives problems where there is none or one fails to see problems where they are severe.
  I emphasise the need to improve collection of data on all pollutants. The Government initiative announced a couple of weeks ago makes great strides in that direction, although it is a little late. It is a pity that the figures were not collected earlier.
  Bromley has played an important part in setting up the London Air Quality Network. Indeed, a monitoring station just outside my constituency permanently monitors the level of nitrogen oxides, ozone and carbon dioxide and feeds the statistics into an overall databank, and one of five passive diffusion tubes, which are especially effective in collecting information about benzene, a particular risk to health, is at Royston school in my constituency.
  There are plans to extend that monitoring further, but the process is already yielding valuable results. On 6 June 1993, for example, the ozone level in Bromley reached the Department of the Environment's "poor" level of 110 parts per billion, to which the sixth report of the Select Committee on Transport, entitled "Transport-Related Air Pollution in London" referred. That information was not

  291
  previously known and forms a good basis on which to assess where action needs to be taken to improve or do away with the problem.
  More research is also needed on the health implications. At present, much research is uncertain and based on supposition about a correlation between figures which may appear to match but do not provide direct evidence of links. Much research is needed to establish whether there are clear links or chance correlations of statistics. The data available on carcinogens are far more clear, as they have been researched a great deal more, but limited research has so far been conducted into the impact of other by-products of urban congestion. Indeed, some by-products have not been fully charted. It is noticeable that in science, especially in chemistry, a solution may appear to have been found and is discovered later to produce an equally bad by-product that was not anticipated, as I shall illustrate.
  The most fundamental and important area of research is technical innovation. The means by which engines may run more cleanly and alternative means of propulsion may be introduced must, ultimately, be the key; the answer to which the statistics on health and pollution draw attention. Oxygenates are added to fuel to prevent knocking. Lead was the most famous oxygenate but is rightly out of favour because of the risk that it poses to health.
  The next chemical which was added to petrol in greater amounts, although it was always present, was benzene. However, benzene is a well-established carcinogen, for which there is no safe level. Yet, super-premium unleaded petrol is estimated to contain 16 per cent. more aromatics than ordinary four-star petrol. Action should be taken to ban the use of super-premium unleaded petrol as it clearly poses a potentially severe health risk. An upper aromatic level should be imposed on all forms of fuel and a greater emphasis placed on the use of catalytic converters capable of removing some of the most dangerous pollutants from combustion products.
  Other additives such as ethanol—alcohol—are used almost entirely to fuel cars, and, no doubt, for other purposes, in Brazil. That was once thought to be a clean fuel, but it has since been demonstrated that it produces dangerous by-products, so more work needs to be done.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East have already referred to diesel fuel. Diesel was once thought to be clean, but that too has unfortunate by-products, especially particulates. One has only to go near the long line of taxis queueing at Victoria station, their engines running even though they are stationary, pumping out vast quantities of black exhaust fumes, to feel the pollutant effect. At the least it is highly discomfiting; at the worst it must pose considerable risks, especially to people who suffer from asthmatic or bronchial-related diseases, which are more noticeable in the summer.
  Action should be taken to cut unnecessary queueing by diesel vehicles—buses as well as taxis—as is clearly the case at Victoria, and to encourage engines to be turned off when the vehicle is stationary. There is no reason why there should not be a limit on the number of taxis queueing at Victoria station and why engines should not be allowed to run when taxis are stationary. The problem at Victoria is severe, but an example only of the problem present elsewhere.
  292
  There is no point in monitoring or establishing standards unless they are adequately enforced. Enforcement should be checked and action taken if checks reveal that pollution is above the acceptable level. Stricter MOT tests, higher standards and better indicators should be introduced. I favour, for example, the use of constant monitoring devices in vehicles so that the driver would be aware if something were to go wrong with the anti-pollution controls. I favour the use of pre-heated catalytic converters which overcome emissions from cold engines. Specifically, I would like greater random roadside monitoring and would be keen to give local authorities new powers of enforcement via a fixed-penalty system. It would be self-financing, give extra authority to local councils and enable them to concentrate on the greatest problems.
  It is important that we approach the problem from a scientific point of view. Despite all the concerns, we should not act purely on an understandable emotive reaction, but in a measured manner to tackle effectively the problems identified by scientific evidence. We need realistic, practical and sensible solutions. The Government are on course, but I encourage them to continue taking action so that we may deliver to people, especially the long-suffering dwellers of our urban areas, the clean air that is rightfully theirs.
  12.18 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I agree with almost every word that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) said, which perhaps should worry both of us—but on a subject such as this there is much cross-party agreement. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will respond to some of the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked.
  It is not much of an exaggeration to say that the air quality in London is disgusting. Some people believe that it is best to chew the air in this capital city before breathing it. I am fortunate enough to travel to many other European cities, so I can make comparisons. I know that that is anecdotal evidence, but the witnesses are my own lungs and if they tell me that I can breathe more easily in Paris or in New York I must believe them: it is a fact. I know that there are cities such as Tokyo and Manila in which the air quality is even more disgusting, but surely we are trying to measure ourselves not against the worst cases in the world but against some of the better examples.
  To continue my odyssey for a moment, I have just returned from a visit to Antarctica, where the air quality was magic—absolutely wonderful. It throws the issues into stark contrast when one can make such comparisons. It seems funny that down in the Antarctic people are worried about the hole in the ozone layer whereas in London we are worried about the ozone at ground level. It is a pity that we cannot get the ozone to go up where it belongs and where it will be useful, instead of damaging us on the ground.
  One can feel the pollution in London. I can tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am an exceedingly clean person. [Laughter.] It is true; you could eat your food off my body, Mr. Deputy Speaker—although I hasten to add that that is not an invitation. Judging by the look on your face, it would not be an invitation that you would take up were I to extend it to you. When one takes off one's shirt at night, knowing that one has bathed and showered and

  293
  everything, yet the dirt is still ingrained on the collar, one can see what the quality of the air is like in London. When we lick our lips and can feel how dirty they are—and when we have to get the dirt off our faces when we take our make-up off at night—we realise how bad the air is here.
  Pollution in London has changed over the years. I am old enough to remember the pea-souper fogs of the 1950s, and so is my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). I remember those fogs well, and I must remember to ask the Prime Minister about those days, because we are both Brixton boys, although my behaviour in Brixton was somewhat more exemplary than his. We used to wait until the road was dug up, take out the tarry blocks and put them in the grate to burn. The amount of filth coming out of the chimneys made the smogs unbelievable; the 1952 smog was responsible for killing about 4,000 people.
  Then Parliament took action and passed the Clean Air Act 1956. Authorities such as the London county council could take a strategic overview, test air quality and enforce the regulations, and the air quality in London improved dramatically.
  Now there is a new threat, which hon. Members have already identified—the photochemical smog created by vehicle emissions. There has been an enormous increase in the incidence of asthma. At my advice surgery in Newham many parents tell me about their asthmatic kids. That may be anecdotal evidence, but it is none the less powerful. We know what is happening, and it is estimated that about 1 million Londoners are at risk of suffering from asthma. Something must be done.
  In my area of the east end we live between main roads. Newham occupies three strips of land along the Al 1 and the A13, and the air quality there is appalling. When people go from there into the centre of London, where the air quality is equally bad, they realise how much of their time they are spending in a potentially lethal atmosphere.
  I do not believe that the Government are doing enough. There is not enough co-ordination between the Department of Health, the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment in monitoring the health effects of poor air quality and in taking the necessary action to reduce emissions.
  Clearly congestion and the growth of motor traffic have created many of the problems. In other cities I have also noticed that in places such as New York there are air quality reports every day. We are not given that information in London. Why not? The Minister looks as if he does not agree with me, and it is true that we are told occasionally, but only occasionally. I believe that the Minister himself suggested on the radio that we al 1 stay at home on one particular day, because the air quality in central London was so bad.
  I get the feeling that we are not being told either because not enough is known about the air quality, or because the Government know how bad it is but do not want to tell Londoners in case they are panicked into thinking that if they go out on the streets they will all drop dead. Perhaps the Minister will check on the availability of the information, but we certainly do not have the regular checks that we hear on local radio stations in the United States and other countries.
  Hon. Members have already mentioned what happened at certain times in 1992, 1993 and 1994, when there were great upsurges of emergency referrals to hospitals of
  294
  people with asthmatic, bronchitic and other respiratory problems caused by poor air quality. We know all about that. One has only to go out into Parliament square, especially in summer when the build-up of photochemical smog is combined with a total lack of air movement, to know how bad the atmosphere is. Visitors to London continually complain about that, and we cannot continue to ignore it.
  Because the local authorities in London did not feel that the Government were doing enough, the Association of London Authorities, the London Boroughs Association and the South East Institute of Public Health formed the London Air Quality Network. That was good to see, and as a result we are now getting a far better picture of the overall quality of the air. The monitoring stations that the Government maintain are not enough, and they are also in the wrong places. Now, because of the initiative of London local authorities, both Conservative and Labour, we are getting a better picture of air quality—and it worries us. What co-operation do the Department of Transport and other Departments extend to the London Air Quality Network, which is doing such excellent work?
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East has already said what causes some of the problems. There are the clapped-out buses and the filthy taxis, for a start. There is simply not enough investment in new London buses, and we can all see the filthy buses driving around. In my day at the Greater London council when it was responsible for transport we would not have allowed buses to go around polluting the atmosphere of London. We had much higher levels of engine maintenance, and clearly those are required now, yet they are not being practised.
  We need a coherent strategy for transport in London. In the United Kingdom we have one of the highest mileages per car and one of the lowest levels of rail freight. That is the problem. There are too many vehicles on the roads, especially heavy vehicles carrying goods around London.
  Mr. Martin Redmond: When my hon. Friend talks about congestion on the roads causing health problems, is he aware of the number of heavy goods vehicles that come in from the continent with a tremendous number of defects? Roughly 20 per cent. of those vehicles come from the continent with defects that are hazardous to health. Because of the congestion, is that not likely to result in more pollution-related deaths?
  Mr. Banks: Yes. A test carried out in London last September or October showed that up to 20 per cent. of vehicles could not satisfy the MOT test emissions standard. There are already too many heavy vehicles on our roads because of the lack of a coherent policy for getting freight off the roads and on to the railways. All those heavy vehicles should be stopped at the port of entry and tested before they are allowed on our roads. When the Minister replies, will he tell us whether that already happens?
  The hon. Member for Beckenham talked about local authorities having more power. There is a Bill now before the House of Lords which would enable local authority officers to test vehicles and, if they did not satisfy the MOT test standard for emissions, to refuse to allow them to continue their journey. Some people say that that would cause a civil liberties problem, but I do not agree. I am more concerned about my liberty to breathe decent clean

  295
  air. If a vehicle were not up to standard I would not simply say, "Don't drive it." I would take it down to the crusher and give it back to the driver in a small neat cube. That is one way of dealing with the problem, although I doubt that it will appeal either to the Opposition Front Bench or to the Government. I hope that the Minister does not give us his usual highly competent emollient. One knows that he is the most proficient bullshitter that the Government have, but on this occasion we want action.
  12.29 pm
  Ms Joan Walley: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) on choosing an important subject for debate. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, and I remember going to see the society about seven years ago to urge it to take a stance on lead-free petrol. I was told that it thought that the scientific evidence was such that it was not necessary to do anything about increasing the use of lead-free petrol. We must think of the sea-change that has occurred since then, and we need to ensure also a sea-change in how we deal with health problems in urban areas.
  The hon. Member for Wyre Forest said that this is a complex subject. It is no coincidence that, as we speak, a symposium is taking place, organised by the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene, on the sustainability of a healthy environment. We cannot have enough debate about the health implications of traffic and all the many problems that have been debated this morning. We need a debate in the media and at the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. We must heighten public awareness, and have debates among academics and scientists.
  We must make sure that research is carried out, not just on pollutants but on the long-term effects of that cocktail of pollutants. We must find out what we shall be leaving for future generations. We need to have a debate with community and environmental health practitioners, and at local council level, community level and—above all—Government level. We do not just need the Government to debate—we need Government action.
  We need a common agenda, and we heard a hint of that in the speeches from hon. Members this morning. We must be able to look at what goes on in the Transport, Environment and Health Departments, and also the Treasury. We must discover how to deal with the environmental problems which many of us are increasingly concerned about.
  We have heard about smog, but the growing realisation of the problem is similar to that which occurred with regard to water in the last century, when it was realised that the health problems could not just be ignored and that something had to be done about them. We cannot get away from the fact that the air that we breathe in urban and congested areas—unlike the air in Antarctica—is harming us. It is not just mothers fearful for their children who are concerned, and we should not just be worried about the increasing incidence of asthma.
  Simple as it may sound, we do not have a choice about the air we breathe, either in London or in other congested parts of the country. The air is polluted, but we might not know that it is polluted. As my hon. Friend the Member
  296
  for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, we have neither the right to know nor the access to the information. We cannot escape the ill-effects of our air.
  Those of us who are not affected by asthma or other respiratory problems may think that we have escaped the most damaging effects of pollution, a significant amount of which comes from transport. If we are not affected by it, our families are. We have heard about the rising incidence of asthma, and there is also a rising incidence of physical injury from a disproportionate number of serious accidents in towns arising from urban congestion. There are psychological problems caused by the way in which main roads have split communities and made people afraid to walk the streets freely.
  The long-term damage is catching up with us, and with our children. That is why the Rio conference and all the reports which have come out since—the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, a similar report on transport and others—have been crucial. The Rio conference defined sustainable development as the ability to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. We must concentrate on that definition.
  In the short time that the Minister has to reply to the debate, I hope that he will tell us what the Department is doing in respect of agenda 21, and what progress is being made towards the notion of a common agenda. Will he comment on the fact that health and environmental issues are still the concerns of separate agencies?
  The Opposition and the Government differ on the Government's document on air quality, "Meeting the Challenge". We have heard congratulations from Conservative Members on the progress that the Government are making, but we do not feel that the document goes far enough. It certainly sets out policies for air quality management, but it still does not have transport policies integrated into environmental, health and Treasury strategies. That is a challenge that we all face.
  Let us look briefly at the Government's record on transport. It is accepted that the Government's transport policy must go hand in hand with the roads programme. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) described the way in which development corporations are building roads, and how the extra traffic generated by those roads overflows on to local roads. It then becomes impossible to curb the growth in traffic. We must deal in the long term with the growth in traffic, as forecasts suggest that it is set to double by 2020. We must look at the effect of that on local roads.
  We have heard a lot this morning about catalytic convertors, and they give us breathing space by helping in the short term. But if the current rate of traffic growth continues, we will not get the advantage from catalytic convertors in terms of air quality because they will simply be unable to keep pace.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) spoke about the enforcement of vehicle emission regulations and about cleaner cars. That may help in the short term, and we have heard about similar controls on buses and HGVs. New technology in that area has been developed by Johnson Matthey. We support that new technology, but it must be allowed to develop. Each of the improvements to air quality mentioned will not keep pace with the increase in traffic. Voluntary action and guidance—which the Government promised in a

  297
  statement released last month—is simply not enough. We need researchers, planners and transport operators to devise ways of reducing the need to travel.
  It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us—we know of his Department's close collaboration with the Department of the Environment—what specific advice he is giving in respect of the planning policy guidance note 13, which will be crucial in respect of air quality management. We must find alternatives to the many short journeys that are made in urban areas.
  Children and the elderly in our urban streets fall into high-risk categories, whether from respiratory illness or from injury from accidents. Statistics might show that our motorways are relatively safe, but we need drastic speed restrictions in urban areas, traffic calming and a transport supplementary grant which would give more than voluntary guidance.
  There are many concerns—there is not enough time for me to go into them now—about the impact of traffic on urban areas. I shall just summarise them. We must look at the way in which children go to school. In 1970, about 80 per cent. of seven and eight-year-olds travelled to school on their own. By 1990, that figure had fallen to 9 per cent. What can we do to make our streets safer, so that children can walk to school without feeling threatened by pollution, accidents or other dangers?
  Then there is the issue of cycling. I am sure that the Minister will tell us what is being done in London to improve facilities for cycling. We need traffic calming and traffic restraint measures. We cannot have just the occasional speed hump. Traffic calming must be similar to that which exists on the continent, where in some areas 90 per cent. of urban streets are properly calmed. We must examine the matter in the long term and draw up a programme to concentrate on these issues.
  We certainly need tighter enforcement of emission regulations. I remind the hon. Member for Wyre Forest that, whatever the Minister might say in his reply today, there is concern about the 20 per cent. cuts in the enforcement budget. The hon. Gentleman talked about pollutants. He did not say that the Government had been remiss in failing to ensure that adequate research was carried out. Average exhaust emissions contain up to 400 different chemicals. We do not know the effects of the cocktail or what effect those pollutants will have in the long term.
  We have heard concern expressed about the high levels of air pollution in London. They were graphically described by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West. It is thanks to the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities that air pollution has been highlighted so effectively. The Government say that they are serious in their intentions to tackle air quality. Does that mean categorically that when the Lords consider the Environment Bill tomorrow the Government will support the amendments to require the development of an air quality strategy to set United Kingdom standards? Will the Government welcome that legislative opportunity, for which they say that they have been waiting, to do what they said that they would do in their recent environment and transport White Paper "Meeting the Challenge"?
  Unless the Government enact legislation to set clear national and local targets to improve air quality and recognise the need to provide resources to meet those targets in local authorities' standard spending
  298
  assessments, how else can the work be done? Local authorities must be given a statutory duty to manage air quality.
  There are many other detailed issues which I do not have time to go into. They included mass transit vehicles, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East referred. All those issues must be dealt with urgently. Time is running out not only in today's debate but in tackling the health implications of environmental policy. I urge the Minister to give due regard to the important points that have been made during the debate.
  12.41 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs). He not only initiated an important debate but did so extraordinarily well and made some telling points. He had an advantage over several Opposition Members who spoke in that he knew what the subject of the debate was, having devised it and spoken about it. I hope that I will not break the habit of a lifetime by attempting to answer the debate and ignoring some of the more peripheral points made by Opposition Members.
  My hon. Friend referred to the proliferation of bodies involved in air quality. I understand his anxiety, which was shared by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). It is inevitable that such an issue is of interest to a great many Government Departments, local authorities, intergovernmental bodies and others. I see a virtue in that. I see no virtue in duplication or unnecessary fragmentation, but I see great virtue in many Government Departments feeling a sense of ownership of the issue of health and air quality and the elimination of unnecessary transport and offensive practices in industry or transport. That is one advantage of such an issue, which, as my hon. Friend suggested, spans many departmental interests.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) for the consistent high quality of his speech. I have had the pleasure of listening to my hon. Friend on several occasions in the House. He does a superb job on behalf of his constituents in Bromley, not least on this occasion. He touched on all the relevant issues, to which I hope to be able to respond in the time available to me.
  I cannot reply to my hon. Friends' points before I mention the speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen seated comfortably and smilingly together on the Back Bench opposite. They are a veritable Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Their humour will ever mask an absence of content. Their sceptical approach to argument is such as to amuse, if not greatly to inform. The expertise of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) needs no endorsement from me. He knows that I have a bus working group examining the improvement of quality bus services, particularly in urban areas. He makes a valuable point. I want to see that work proceed.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East gave the House a misleading impression about the status of Midland Metro. He knows, as I do, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the other day that he was prepared to advance to the west midlands between £95 million and £105 million of taxpayers' money. That means that this year the west midlands, far from being starved or any of the other words that the hon. Gentleman used, will be the recipient of more taxpayers' money in its local settlement than any other region. The local health

  299
  authority will have to find some money. The entire assembled local authorities of the west midlands will have to find £30 million over four years. If they cannot do that, I wonder how seriously they want the project. That is the challenge that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State advanced to them. I hope that they will take it on board.
  Mr. Snape: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Norris: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) left me very few minutes to deal with the debate. I am astonished that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, who purports to speak from the Front Bench on transport issues, condemned the work of the Black Country development corporation. They dismissed with a sweep of their hand its work in improving the infrastructure of the black country. To them it is all about simply creating pollution and congestion. That is an extraordinary proposition. I wonder whether they have discussed the matter with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) or—which is perhaps more relevant—with all their hon. Friends who beat a regular path to my door and that of my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads, asking for road schemes in their constituencies.
  There is a great law in politics. We are all against road building in general and in favour of the road scheme in our constituency. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East should talk to his hon. Friends who represent St. Helens, Barnsley, Rotherham and Sheffield, all of whom have talked to me in recent days on precisely that theme. It is extraordinary that a party that represents itself as responsible and even—however fantastic it may sound—as an alternative Government, has such a primitive attitude towards industry and industrial development as that displayed by those two Opposition Members today.
  I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. I have no interest in his personal body habits. I will say no more on that subject. I envy him his Antarctic trip. I am sorry that I was not able to join him. He must not follow the advice of Nye Bevan, who said that he would never allow the facts to get in the way of a good argument. The hon. Gentleman spoke about air quality in London. Let me make it clear that London has available twice daily on Ceefax, and has had since October 1990, and on a free telephone number—0800 556677—a forecast for the next 24 hours on oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide, ozone and benzene.
  We are proud of our air quality bulletin system. We are the only country in Europe to provide information on the latter two pollutants on an hourly basis. They are both carcinogenic volatile organic compounds. So let us hear none of the nonsense that suggests that we have a deficit in our willingness to publish information. It is precisely because we are so open in our publication of information that we have stimulated such a helpful and constructive debate, in which my hon. Friends distinguished themselves.
  I shall deal now with the standard setting for the pollutants that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest mentioned. In the air quality statement on 19 January, the Secretary of State for the Environment announced the national strategic plan to be established for
  300
  the maintenance and improvement of air quality. Within that, there will be improvement targets for the nine main atmospheric pollutants, selected on the criteria of prevalence and harm. For each, the Government will identify a base standard to which it will be the aim of policy progressively to move and on the basis of which policy targets will be set. There will also be an alarm threshold which, if reached, will stimulate immediate remedial action. It will be the Government's objective that the targets that they are minded to adopt are achieved everywhere in the United Kingdom by 2005. The Government's programme for setting standards and targets will be speeded up, with the advisory work of the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards—EPAQS—targeted for completion by summer 1996.
  I shall now deal with the specific questions about health and urban road congestion. The forms of air pollution that are of most concern here are short-term episodes in which there is a high concentration of pollutants and prolonged exposure to raised levels of pollutants. Clearly, traffic is immensely important in all this, as I think we understand. The Department of Health has two expert committees on the subject: the Advisory Group on the Medical Aspects of Air Pollution Episodes and the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants—COMEAP—which was set up in 1992 to advise the Government on the effects on health of air pollutants in both outdoor and indoor air. There are two sub-groups of COMEAP, one dealing with asthma and air pollution, and the other dealing with particles.
  In terms of illness groups, I shall deal first with cancer. Some individual air pollutants are either known or probable human carcinogens, as many speakers have pointed out. Diesel exhaust and petrol exhaust are probable human carcinogens. It is, however, important to remember that tobacco smoking is still the main cause of lung cancer as far as we can determine.
  On average, levels of benzene may be slightly higher in unleaded petrol than in leaded. However, an EC directive limits benzene content in both to less than 5 per cent. The risks from either are, in medical terms, very small. Most benzene is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said, a product of combustion rather than of the fuel itself. Virtually all the benzene in petrol is burnt in the engine. Only trace quantities occur in exhaust gases; catalytic converters remove three quarters of these trace quantities.
  The views of the Department of Health committee on carcinogenicity and of COMEAP were taken into account in the recommendation of the joint Department of the Environment and Department of Health Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards for an air quality standard for benzene. As benzene is a genotoxic carcinogen, the expert panel accepted that no absolutely safe level of exposure could be defined, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said. However, at the concentrations occurring in ambient air, there is only an exceedingly small risk to health in the United Kingdom.
  EPAQS recommended the establishment of a five parts per billion standard as a running annual mean with a reduction in due course to a target of one part per billion. The results of current monitoring show that mean benzene concentrations in outdoor air are generally at or below the 5 ppb level. Annual mean benzene concentrations at the kerbsides of busy roads can be higher, but kerbside levels provide only a small contribution to total annual exposure.

  301
  The projected decrease in benzene emissions from motor traffic by 2000 will, however, reduce substantially urban background concentrations of benzene. The overall effect of policies now in place or agreed means that by 2000, the possibility of occasions when the 5 ppb standard is exceeded should be virtually eliminated. We will monitor progress and look at what further measures may be necessary.
  There is some evidence that exposure to very high concentrations of smoke from diesel engines may contribute to lung cancer in certain occupational groups, but it is unlikely that ordinary street exposure would have an effect as the concentrations are far lower. Diesel emissions account for many of the particles present in urban air. The Quality of Urban Air Review Group advised in late 1993 that diesel emissions are more damaging to health than petrol emissions, although in terms of fuel economy and emissions of other pollutants, such as carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, diesels perform rather better than petrol engines.
  The debate over petrol versus diesel as an environmentally friendly fuel is immensely complex. We still do not have absolutely conclusive evidence on this, so we neither recommend nor discourage the purchase and use of diesel cars. In the Budget, the rate of diesel fuel duty was brought into line with that of unleaded petrol. Nevertheless, the problem has been referred to the COMEAP sub-group looking at the effects of particles on health.
  Particulates are particles suspended in the air, which may be inhaled as we breathe. It is the fine particles, defined as the PM10 particles—that is, particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 microns—that are important here. They are formed during the combustion process and they may be released in exhaust emissions. In urban areas, motor vehicles are the main source of particulates, with diesel vehicles being responsible for most of the particles measured as black smoke. The Department of Health has asked for definitive advice from COMEAP on the effects of particulates on health and we await its views.
  Like the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, I saw the other day the demonstration of the continuously regenerating trap—CRT—device which was launched by Johnson Matthey. It is, indeed, an exciting development which offers the prospect of a fitment for about £3,000 to £4,000 of a device that has a spectacular effect in visible terms and, I am advised, in overall terms. Clearly, it opens up to us the prospect of even tighter standards for public service vehicles.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and I have a keen interest in London. I accept the point that it is often perceived to be buses and taxis that are the major cause of concern. It is also understood by those who are concerned about these matters that buses produce about 300 passenger miles per gallon whereas motor cars produce about 20 passenger miles per gallon. On the basis of pollution per passenger mile, buses are still an effective form of public transport and are environmentally very friendly. It is clear, however, that more can be done if the technical means are available. The CRT device offers that prospect. We also have in London the metered smoke test for taxis which, I hope, will bring about an improvement. We need to look at that matter, which gives rise to a great deal of public concern.
  302
  I shall now deal with the respiratory disease of asthma. It is certainly possible that increasing traffic emissions are a contributory factor in asthma, but there is little firm evidence to back up the idea that emissions are the cause of asthma. Diet, smoking in pregnancy, passive smoking, house dust mites and other indoor air pollutants are all known to have effects. I ask for some caution before people jump to too many conclusions on this issue.
  The number of people with asthma does not appear to be any greater in urban areas than in rural parts. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West mentioned the problem of asthma. I too, not many miles away from him, see a similar problem in my constituency surgery. However, I believe that one would find that even hon. Members who represent very rural areas come across this phenomenon. Interestingly enough, asthma is also increasing in countries such as New Zealand, Sweden and even Fiji which have not had a significant rise in levels of pollution. I am told that there are definable increases in asthma where there are clearly not significant rises in levels of pollution. It may simply be that there is no single cause of asthma, but a combination of genetic and environmental causes, of which vehicle emissions are one.
  In deciding whether asthmatics are especially sensitive to air pollution, it is important to distinguish between factors that may induce asthma in previously healthy people and those that may trigger an attack in a susceptible individual. Medical and scientific research in that subject is regularly reviewed and new evidence is referred to the expert committees of the Department of Health and, in particular, to the asthma and air pollution sub-group of COMEAP.
  Sadly, there is not time to go into the other points made in the debate. It was, indeed, a good debate on a serious issue. I am happy either to talk to or to write to hon. Members on both sides who wish to pursue some of these complex issues with me at length.
  An agreed principle of traffic management in our cities must be to seek a modal shift and reduce the most polluting form of individual transport, which is deemed to be the private car. I caution that, although the Royal Commission was long on the problem, the solutions that it proposed have found remarkably few committed adherents on either side of the House or from any party. If society is serious about the matter, it has some tough decisions to make, which will affect how individuals regulate their personal lives. Traffic calming, charging people to go into cities or banning private non-residential parking are all serious measures.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It is now time for the debate on the Foyle Fisheries Commission.

  Foyle Fisheries Commission
  1 pm
  Mr. William Ross: The House will be well aware that I am not an enthusiast of this new method of conducting the business of the House, as I have long believed that the procedures that have evolved over centuries probably have more to commend them than was generally recognised. As matters develop, we shall see that we were not wise to make this change. Nevertheless, it provides an extra opportunity for Back Benchers to raise matters of concern, and this matter has concerned me for a long time.
  The House will be aware that over the past year or two, and with increasing frequency of late, we have heard much praise for the Foyle Fisheries Commission in relation to its role as a cross-border body with executive powers. The impression promoted is that the organisation is universally applauded as an example of willing co-operation created in an atmosphere of good will to improve the important salmon and sea trout fishery of the River Foyle catchment area and that it has been a wonderful success.
  I regret that I sought only a half-hour debate on this matter. I further regret that I must begin it by giving a thumb-nail sketch of the history of the salmon fishery of the Foyle, as that will take up some of the time available.
  There is clear evidence that the salmon fisheries of the Foyle and the Bann have always been viewed as valuable fisheries. Statements are on record to show that, even many centuries ago, salmon were traded far beyond the shores of Ireland.
  The House will be aware that what is now County Londonderry was created by King James I of England and VI of Scotland when he was engaged in the plantation of Ulster in the 17th century. What is not so well known is that the new county of Londonderry then formed, with the old county of Coleraine as its geographical base, was defined by listing the "ballyboes", now called "townlands", and allocating them to the various London livery companies, which had to plant English and Scottish settlers and build towns in their portions. I shall not detain the House with details, save one, which is that the salmon fisheries of the Bann and the Foyle were one of the items specifically included.
  Of even greater significance is the fact that, to protect the salmon fishery rights granted in the charter that set up the county, the county boundaries included the waters of Lough Foyle up to the high water mark on the Donegal side up to the town of Liffer, now called Lifford. That is a way of saying "the tidal limit" of the lough and river estuary. The fact that the waters of Lough Foyle—a sea lough—are specifically included within the county of Londonderry is unique within the British Isles.
  All Irish counties are an English creation. I could go back further and say that they are a Norman creation. Throughout Ireland, and so long as the whole island was under the Crown, no one raised any objection to the county boundary including the waters of Lough Foyle. The question of that boundary assumed importance only when the 26 counties forming the Republic of Ireland broke away from the United Kingdom in 1920. The Irish Republic has consistently laid claim to Lough Foyle, or to at least part of it. The United Kingdom, having a real
  304
  need to control those waters to gain access to Londonderry port, has so far refused to surrender to that demand.
  The demands of the Republic were brought sharply to the attention of the United Kingdom when the IRA sank two coal boats at the mouth of the lough in the 1980s. I could say more about that but I shall desist. The Minister might like to investigate that matter and tell us who paid the compensation for those boats.
  After the Republic came into being, some persons in the Republic objected to the Hon. The Irish Society owning the salmon fishery and many ugly scenes ensued as those people began wholesale poaching of the salmon fishery. The owner then decided to seek the protection of its interests in the courts on both sides of the border, but it soon became clear that the courts in the Republic were prepared to adopt a critical attitude towards the society's royal charters, on which its claim was founded. The former secretary of the Foyle Fisheries Commission wrote that
  "The Society discovered that the Irish Free State courts refused to convict in Foyle Fisheries cases brought before them on the grounds that as questions of title were involved, the cases did not come within their jurisdiction. One District Justice in County Donegal was even reported as declaring that the Society had no fishing rights in that area."
  Given the costs involved in proceeding with a title action, the society contented itself with such protection as could be provided by bailiffs and water keepers. That kept illegal netting within reasonable bounds until the outbreak of war in 1939. The price of salmon immediately rocketed. It was said at the time that one throw of a net could bring in a catch worth £100, which was a considerable sum in 1939–40. By 1947, the river had hundreds of illegal nets, to the point where 60 per cent. of the fishery was under the control of lawbreakers and poachers.
  The poachers, however, claimed that they were legally entitled to fish under licences issued by the Molville Board of Conservators in the Irish Republic. I remind the House that, before the island was divided into two states, one board of conservators covered the entire Foyle fisheries area. In 1948, the Dublin High Court declared that the "branch stream", which is the portion of river between an island and the Donegal side of the River Foyle, upstream of Londonderry, was a public fishery. The result of that decision was that the salmon had no protection whatever from the Donegal-based netsmen.
  In the light of that, the Stormont Ministry of Agriculture—not Dublin—decided to make a serious effort to save that valuable resource and approached Dublin to see whether a solution could be found. The solution arrived at was the Foyle Fisheries Commission, set up in Bills passed through the legislatures in Belfast and Dublin early in 1952. By that time, more than 600 nets, mainly illegal, were operating in the estuary and all the illegal nets appeared to be operated by persons resident in Donegal.
  Interestingly, some of the provisions necessary for the Northern Ireland Foyle fisheries legislation were beyond the competence of the Northern Ireland Parliament and an enabling Bill had to be passed through this House—the Northern Ireland (Foyle Fisheries) Bill—the Second Reading of which was held on 3 December 1951.

  305
  Given those facts, it is clear that the Foyle Fisheries Commission was not the consequence of good will by the Government of the Irish Republic but rather the consequence of that Government's refusal to recognise the validity of the royal charters that created county Londonderry. The outcome of that was the lawlessness that erupted on that border river estuary and lough. Indeed, even to this day the Republic steadfastly refuses to accept the boundary of Londonderry, despite accepting the boundary of every other county in Ireland and all the borders that form the counties of Northern Ireland. I wonder what the outcome of this miserable episode would have been if the United Kingdom Government had insisted on the County Londonderry-Donegal boundary, as defined in the charter, instead of not even mentioning it. It was not mentioned in any of the debates that took place in either the Northern Ireland Parliament or in the House at the time. Perhaps the Minister might spend a profitable hour reading those debates. In fact, it would not even take an hour, because those debates were very short and, unfortunately, no one took much interest in them.
  The commission consists of four civil servants and a secretary—two of the civil servants are from each jurisdiction. The advisory body is, frankly, dominated by commercial netting interests. The balance of advantage of the commercial exploitation of salmon is significantly in favour of the Republic. The House should remember that the salmon fishery is reputed to be the richest in Europe. The balance in favour of the Republic is evident from the statistics, which show that, in 1994, 138 net licences were issued to people resident in County Donegal and only 32 to people living in Northern Ireland. For statistical purposes, the catch of all the nets is split equally between the Republic and Northern Ireland—that is nonsense, because that gives a false impression as to who reaps the benefit.
  On the other hand, most of the rod fishery is in Northern Ireland, as the facts demonstrate. In the Republic, salmon rivers total 49 miles in length, draining 195 square miles. That represents the River Finn system, made up of the Rivers Finn and the Reelan. That system is of interest for a further reason because it is the only one that carries a run of spring salmon in the whole Foyle system. That is quite remarkable and no one can explain it.
  The spring fish that run the Finn are not, of course, subject to netting pressure because they are already in the river before the nets start to operate. That means that in Northern Ireland, where there are 440 miles of river, draining 1,118 square miles, it is the stock that runs into those rivers in June, July and August that provides the bulk of the commercial catch. No one in government circles seems too anxious to discuss that. The figures show that the interests of the Republic and Northern Ireland in the fishery are different. The Republic's main interest is in commercial netting and the benefits from that. The interests of Northern Ireland are mainly in local recreational angling, of a high standard, and the possible exploitation of that angling for tourism. The latter will prove rather more difficult than some people imagine because of the question of angling rights on the various rivers and streams, many of which are owned by the Irish Society to this day and leased.
  When the reports of the commission are examined, it is clear that the illegal fishing, which was the root cause of the creation of the commission, did not disappear at once. I do not speak of the normal up-river, small-scale
  306
  poaching, which plagues all salmon rivers to some extent, but of the large-scale netting operations in the estuary and, to some extent in the lough. I have only glanced through some of the commission's reports, but they reveal that, in 1976, many poachers were operating in the Carrigans area in Donegal, to the extent that there was a complete breakdown in law and order.
  In 1980, the Carrigans-Lifford area was the source of most of the problems; in 1985, two members of the commission's staff needed hospital treatment after being attacked by masked men in the Lifford area. In 1986, the majority of the problems once again arose in the Strabane-Lifford area. By 1990, the poachers were using CB radio. In 1991, a substantial number of unlawful fishing incidents were recorded. I hope that the House takes note that the problems were Donegal based and all occurred in the same area that gave rise to the problem in the first place—around the branch fishery area on the Donegal side.
  I have also looked at the reported legal net catches from 1963 to 1992 and averaged them over five-year periods. The averages show that, in 1963–67, an average of 120,585 fish were caught; in 1968–72, an average of 99,250 fish were caught; in 1973–77, an average of 54,587 fish were caught; in 1978–82, an average of 45,815 fish were caught; in 1983–87, an average of 43,628 fish were caught and in 1987–92, the last year for which I have a report, 46,072 fish were caught. In other words, in the past 20 years, the legal catch has been consistently much less than half of what it was in the period immediately before that. The illegal catch is, of course, unknown and therefore the effect of the total catch on stocks is impossible to determine. I will not explore the problems that that raises for the organisation of the fishery and for deciding how much we can take out of it.
  I did not seek the debate to condemn totally the commission's efforts; rather, I have tried to make clear the simple fact that it was created because the Irish Republic behaved abominably from 1920 to 1952. The commission was a mend-and-make-do exercise, which has had a measure of success in constraining poachers. Furthermore, the commission is composed of four civil servants and a secretary—it is not in any sense democratic. Anglers have always complained that their opinions have carried little weight in the decisions taken by the commission. The advisory body has simply been held in derision by the vast majority of anglers in Northern Ireland. That is not surprising, as Mr. Hadoke, a former secretary of the commission, describes it as follows in his brief history of the salmon fisheries of the Foyle:
  "The Council is elected every three years in accordance with the current regulations and comprises representatives of riparian owners, anglers and netsmen. The Council being purely an advisory body does not directly influence the activities of the Commission but it serves the purpose of permitting the users of the fisheries to give their opinions on matters connected with the Fishery."
  In other contexts we have described that as an opportunity for the locals to let off steam.
  Those who have praised that cross-border executive body as an excellent example of what can be accomplished seem to have scant understanding of its origins and how it is structured and controlled. Far from being a model for a cross-border institution, it is a first-rate example of what we should not create. It is a warning to all those who are unwise enough to believe that the Irish Republic acted out of concern for the welfare of the fishery rather than through an attempt to gain a

  307
  measure of control over what was and still is a United Kingdom asset. It was in its genesis, and in its method of control, a tiny forerunner of what is currently being attempted over a far wider area.
  I could say much about the way in which the commission has tried to fulfil its duties in regard to salmon and sea trout. The whole question of other freshwater coarse fish, the eels and the shellfish in the lough could be discussed. The recent changes to the commission could also be considered, but they are not the issues to which I wanted to draw the House's attention today.
  On this occasion, I simply wanted to explode the nonsense of using the commission as a model for cross-border executive bodies, for it is the worst possible example.
  1.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): I congratulate the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) on his success in the ballot and on his choice of subject. I doubt whether he has another peer in the House for knowledge of fisheries, in particular salmon fisheries in the Province of Northern Ireland.
  The Foyle Fisheries Commission has been in existence since 1952. It was established by corresponding Acts passed by the Northern Ireland Parliament and the Republic of Ireland. Under the terms of the legislation, the commission has responsibility for the management of the fishing rights in Lough Foyle and the tidal waters of the Rivers Foyle and Faughan. It also has responsibility for conservation, protection and improvement of salmon and inland fisheries throughout the rivers of the Foyle catchment and the adjacent sea area from Malin head in County Donegal to Downhill in County Londonderry.
  I would contend that, since its inception, the Foyle Fisheries Commission has had a history of considerable achievement. It has provided a commonsense, lasting solution to the protection and management of salmon stocks in a major cross-border catchment. It has operated effectively and has gained acceptance throughout its area of responsibility.
  The commission has achieved good runs of salmon into the rivers in recent years and unprecedented levels in the past two seasons. As the hon. Member for Londonderry, East said, it has achieved considerable success against poachers. I refer especially to statistics from 1993, when 640 nets were seized and forfeited, 55 boats were seized and forfeited and 207 successful prosecutions were brought. Recently, a new high-speed patrol vessel was commissioned. It is under construction, and it is hoped that that will be available for the 1995 season.
  My noble Friend Baroness Denton of Wakefield wrote to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East on 27 January 1995 about the powers of the Foyle Fisheries Commission and the benefits that have accrued to Northern Ireland as a result of its operations. For the information of the House, I shall outline those powers and refer to some of the benefits.
  The commission has powers to make subordinate legislation to regulate management, conservation, protection and improvement of the fisheries of the Foyle area. Subordinate legislation made by the commission
  308
  requires the approval of, first, the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland and, secondly, the Minister for the Marine in the Republic of Ireland. In consequence, it cannot introduce measures that are unacceptable to the responsible Minister in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.
  The commission also has power to enforce the provisions of the Foyle Fisheries Acts and the subordinate legislation made under them. In exercise of those powers, the commission may take legal proceedings against a person through the courts of the jurisdiction in which he resides, irrespective of where in the Foyle area an offence is committed.
  As for the benefits accruing to Northern Ireland, the commission was established against a background whereby it was impossible to secure proper protection and management of the salmon stocks in the Foyle system, due to jurisdictional considerations.
  Those problems were not confined to Lough Foyle or the open sea, where there was no agreement on the international boundary line. They extended to enforcement problems associated with detecting and making people amenable to the law for fishery offences in those significant areas of river that form part of the international boundary.
  Mr. William Ross: That is the very matter that has always been in contention: that, under the charters creating the county of Londonderry, it was up to the high-water mark on the Donegal side to the town of Lifford. Has the Minister forgotten that? When the coal boats were sunk at the mouth of the Foyle, the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, permitted the Donegal authorities to salvage them.
  Mr. Moss: I confess to being ignorant of the fact that those boats were sunk at the mouth of the Foyle, but no doubt I shall be apprised of that situation fairly soon, if not in the next half hour or so.
  I was referring not simply to where the boundary goes in the lough, but to the River Foyle on the way between Londonderry and Strabane, where the international boundary goes down the centre of the river. It was impossible to police fishing, because one could nip to the other side of the river, stick one's rod in and avoid being accused of taking the wrong fish.
  Mr. Ross: I have taken the precaution of reading the charter, which is the key and which is at issue in international law between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. It is the charter that sets up the county of Londonderry.
  Mr. Moss: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but there has been dispute, as he acknowledged, about the international boundary since the 1920s. He has also argued that it was for the people who established the border at that time to reach a proper accommodation. I do not know whether they forgot to include the boundary out to sea in the lough; all I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that history tells us that there has been dispute about that lough for the past 70-odd years, and at least the Foyle Fisheries Commission has brought about some sense and some organisation to salmon stocks in that lough and in the rivers that flow into it.
  Mr. David Trimble: I thank the Minister for giving way, but he may not be familiar

  309
  with all the constitutional background. It was the legislation of the House which, in 1920, defined Northern Ireland as being the "parliamentary counties of Londonderry", and the charter defines those parliamentary boundaries. Therefore, as a Member of the House and a Minister responsible for that region, it is his job to vindicate it—not the job of some people in other times. It is his job today to vindicate the boundary as extending to cover, within Londonderry, the whole of the river and the whole of the estuary.
  Will he take account of the main burden of my hon. Friend's speech—that the operation of the charter has favoured netsmen in Donegal rather than the people for whom he should have a responsibility?
  Mr. Moss: I shall discuss the hon. Gentleman's second argument in a moment. In answer to his first argument, it seems to me that those people who, in the 1920s, determined the international boundary between the two states either forgot or ignored the boundary out to sea in the lough. I do not know what happened in 1920, but there has been dispute about that boundary and that border ever since. The Foyle Fisheries Commission has brought some semblance of order to an extremely difficult position.
  The benefits accruing to Northern Ireland extend to not only enforcement problems but measurement of salmon stocks in the estuary and the river system. Due to the geography of the Foyle system—as the hon. Member for Londonderry, East said—Northern Ireland derives a disproportionate share of the benefits arising from angling exploitation of salmon stocks, as most of the rivers in the Foyle system lie in the Province. Fish-counting stations on the River Mourne and the River Faughan, located upstream of all commercial nets, recorded 27,000 salmon migrating up those rivers in 1994. Allowance is made for fish entering the River Roe, in which I know that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East has a specific interest. In the past, he has invited me to participate in that interest. Whether he will extend the invitation after today I do not know, but he has an interest in the River Roe.
  If one adds all those rivers together, one obtains a measure of an angling resource made available to the Province, which has been a result of the operations of the Foyle Fisheries Commission.
  310
  I answer to the second argument of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), it is true that 138 of 170 commercial fishing licences issued by the commission in 1994 were issued to fishermen resident in County Donegal. I have inquired into that, because it would appear that there is a striking imbalance in the number of licences issued, but although there is an upper limit on licences—obviously, some control must be exercised—people from the Province of Northern Ireland do not apply for licences at anything like the same rate. There must be a difference of culture and tradition.
  Although the commercial catch in 1994 was 38,854 salmon, the number of salmon entering the rivers in the system would have at least equalled, and probably exceeded, that number when allowance is made for the rivers on which counting facilities are not available.
  My noble Friend Baroness Denton recently announced the restructuring of the Foyle Fisheries Commission and a significant extension of its functions.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East mentioned the KPMG report and local representation on the commission. He alluded to the advisory council, which has been in existence for some time and which was established by legislation. That is being broadened and strengthened as a result of the report, and an executive committee is to be established in the advisory council to enable it to play a much more meaningful role in the direction of the commission. The executive committee will regularly meet commissioners to discuss the main strategy issues relating to the conservation and development of fisheries in the Foyle area. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see the establishment of that executive committee as a strong move in the direction of local representation.
  In her announcement, my noble Friend talked about the committee's remit, which is currently limited to salmon and freshwater fishery matters. Subject to the introduction of the necessary legislative amendments, it will in future have responsibility for a much wider range of functions, particularly in Lough Foyle. They will include the licensing and regulation of shellfish exploitation and marine agriculture, and the regulation of sea fisheries in the lough.
  Lough Foyle has considerable potential for shellfish production, and the development of that potential has been hampered by the jurisdictional uncertainties over the lough. As with salmon, placing responsibility for shellfish and marine—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Time is up.

  Robin Hood Railway Line
  1.30 pm
  Mr. John Heppell: I shall start by giving a brief explanation of the Robin Hood line. I recognise that the Minister will know the details, but other hon. Members may not.
  The Robin Hood railway line is being constructed in three stages. It was instigated by Nottinghamshire county council with the assistance of the district councils along the route of the line. The plan is to provide a regular rail service from Nottingham city, through Ashfield and Mansfield and, finally, to link in with the existing railway in Worksop. It will serve a corridor that takes in about 750,000 people in an area of the country which everyone would agree has been one of the worst hit by colliery closures.
  The line serves an area of high unemployment and it will assist in the region's economic regeneration. It will relieve congestion, both along its corridor and in the city of Nottingham. It will reduce accidents on the roads and move people from road to rail—from car to public transport—in a positive way. It will do so not by road pricing or the regulation of cars, but because people will recognise that it is the best form of transport for that route. In social, economic, health and environmental terms, it is a winner.
  Stage 1 of the line, which was opened in 1993, is already a success. Before that, market research had suggested that patronage of the line would increase steadily—and double—over a five-year period. As often happens, the market researchers were proved wrong. In the first year of the line's opening, its patronage was double the expected figure. The five-year figure was achieved within one year, and the patronage has been maintained despite problems such as the signalmen's dispute, which interfered with the operation of the line.
  Just this week, the patronage figures reported to the executive group dealing with the line show that there is now a weekly average of 10,000 trips. One does not need to be an expert on transport, an accountant or a statistician to recognise just what impact that will have on the county of Nottinghamshire and the city of Nottingham. Those who use the service are travelling safely and arriving at their destination quicker. Those who do not use the service are finding less traffic on their routes and less difficulty with parking. Those in the city of Nottingham are experiencing the benefits of fewer cars and less pollution.
  Stage 2 of the line was commenced under an agreement between Nottinghamshire county council and Regional Railways Central in March 1994. In April 1994 the British Railways Board was split into two companies by the Government, and the problems began. I have instigated today's debate to highlight the problems for the future developments of the Robin Hood railway that have been caused by extra costs, both capital and revenue, which are all outside the county council's control. A large proportion of the problems has arisen because of rail privatisation.
  To stress the urgency of the problem I shall quote from a report of this Monday, 6 February, of the Robin Hood line executive group sub-committee. Paragraph 9 states:
  "Railtrack have informally indicated that a guarantee of additional funding to meet the capital cost shortfall of up to £2.6 million will be required from the county by April/May. Without such a
  312
  guarantee, they say they would have to halt works because of the financial implications of their contractual commitments with the BR infrastructure units engaged on Stage 2 track and signalling."
  If the money cannot be guaranteed, the work on the line will stop.
  I want to thank the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), who is now Minister of State for Defence Procurement and the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), the Minister for Transport in London, who have taken a personal interest in the line. I hope that by the end of today's debate, when I have heard his reply, I shall be able to thank the Minister for Transport in London even more.
  Today's debate is not about privatisation—we had that last night. I do not agree with privatisation and my opposition to it is recognised, as is the Labour party's opposition to it. I do not want to criticise Government officials—I have nothing but praise for the officials at the Department of Transport, who have had many helpful and positive meetings with the county council, Railtrack and the regional director of the new regional integrated offices, and who still express support for the scheme in principle. They recognise that the position has changed dramatically in a way that could not have been foreseen and are exploring possible mechanisms for applying for extra funding for stage 2.
  However, I have some worries about some of the correspondence. First, the correspondence seems to suggest that there is no acceptance that some of the extra costs have been caused by privatisation. The suggestions have come not from officials, but from leading politicians. Secondly, even if there is a recognition of the reasons for the extra costs, the Government may not respond positively because Nottinghamshire is not a passenger transport authority and does not have a passenger transport executive. Thirdly, there are difficulties with funding for stage 3 and other transport initiatives identified in the Greater Nottingham rail development strategy, such as the Greater Nottingham light rapid transit system—a unique partnership between Nottinghamshire county council, Nottingham city council and the private sector.
  Mr. Howard Jackson thought that it might be worth while lobbying the Chancellor of the Exchequer as he was his local Member of Parliament. I need quote no more than the first two sentences of the letter that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote in reply to Mr. Jackson. It states:
  "Dear Mr. Jackson,
  Thank you very much for your recent letter about the mounting costs of the Robin Hood Line. I do not accept that these costs are in any way related to the privatisation policy."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer goes on to ask questions about how much the scheme is costing council tax payers and whether the council is wasting money on silly schemes—it is that sort of letter.
  It does not surprise me that the Chancellor should wish to dismiss the idea of the extra costs of privatisation. When we discussed the Railways Bill in Committee, the Government, the Chancellor and some of the Ministers promised that privatisation would result in savings, but that does not seem to be so. Capital costs are increasing by £2.6 million and everyone accepts that the budget has exceeded the sum anticipated. British Rail and Railtrack have some questions to answer on the total sum. The figures produced by Eurolog, a leading consultant on the

  313
  subject which has conducted a risk analysis of the project for the project manager employed by Railtrack's major projects division—not by the county council—leave one in no doubt. They showed the biggest extra cost. I have the report entitled "Robin Hood Line, Stage 2, Project Manager's Report to Nottinghamshire County Council " in front of me. It points out that more than £1 million—one third of the total capital costs—of the extra cost results from the privatisation and reorganisation of British Rail.
  That increase is not peculiar to the Robin Hood line project. The report includes a general analysis of cost increases in BR projects. The Robin Hood line, with a 15 per cent. increase in cost, is doing quite well. Eurolog's general analysis suggests that the cost of most projects has increased by 25 per cent. Appendix B of the report spells out those costs: the cost of maintaining organisation headquarters increased by 5 per cent.; finance, warranty, risk and profit increased by 7 per cent.; and staff fixed overhead costs increased by 10 per cent. Most significant costs were caused by privatisation—by accountancy changes, contractual arrangements and new profit margins.
  That is not just Eurolog's view. I have received a letter from Robert Horton, who I believe is still in charge of Railtrack, in which he says:
  "I must stress that these charges are as a result of Railtrack being separated from British Rail following the implementation of the Railways Act 1993.
  I think that spells it out very clearly. He continues:
  "While this results in some increases in our management charges because of the more complex arrangements, the vast majority of increases arise directly from the increased prices from our suppliers who remain part of British Rail".
  I am not interested if the Minister chooses to claim that those costs are not related to privatisation. For the purposes of this debate, I merely wish to identify the costs that have resulted, not from the development of the scheme, but from changes in Government policy. I am quite happy for the Minister to call them something else. He may say, for example, that there is a new accountancy regime and that the money will be recycled. However, he must accept that the costs have not resulted from the project development.
  The problem has an added dimension because revenue costs, as well as capital costs, will increase. In a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the director of planning and economic development says that the increase in costs can be attributed to privatisation. He goes on to say:
  "With regard to operating costs, under the 'old regime' it would have cost the County Council £125,000 per annum including cover to hire a 2 car Class 150 train from Regional Railways Central. This was a commercial charge including depreciation and interest charges. We are now informed by the Train Operating Company that the latest indicative leasing charge received from the Rolling Stock Companies … for a 2. car Class 150 train is £256,000 per annum including cover."
  That is an increase of more than 100 per cent. in leasing charges. As the county council was told by the then Minister for Public Transport and the present Minister of State for Defence Procurement, the right hon. Member for Kettering, that it could not purchase the trains but had to lease them, it has no choice but to meet that increase. Railtrack has also informed the council that access charges will increase substantially due to the change in charging principles, profit margins and increases passed on by BR.
  314
  I do not care what the Minister calls those increases. However, they are significant increases for the Robin Hood line project which the council cannot be expected to bear alone. That brings me to my point about Government responsibility for the extra charges.
  I refer the Under-Secretary of State, who is in the Chamber, to his letter of 23 December to Nottinghamshire county council. The second paragraph on page 2 states:
  "You also suggest that Nottinghamshire should be treated on the same basis as the Passenger Transport Authorities when it comes to funding of any cost increases brought about by privatisation. There is, however, an important difference. The PTAs and PTEs have statutory responsibilities in relation to the provision of rail services, and it was only reasonable that they should receive compensation for the increased cost of discharging these responsibilities."
  In other words, passenger transport authority areas will receive compensation, but Nottinghamshire will receive nothing because it is not a PTA. That response would be fair enough if it were not for the fact that that aspect of privatisation was brought to the attention of the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Kettering, during the passage of the Railways Bill.
  A letter sent to me by the head of strategic planning and transport prompted me to raise that issue. He said:
  "One key issue (agreed by all commentators) is the lack of any shire county recognition in the Bill. This seems deliberate because there is a difference to PTEs/PTAs. Admittedly the PTEs have a statutory role in providing rail support for their areas … but even when the subsidy agreements end and are replaced by the new regime, the Bill still gives PTEs a 'planning' and consultative role … which they think is inadequate. This omission specifically in relation to Nottinghamshire is worrying, particularly since Nottinghamshire is the biggest urban area outside the Metropolitans; indeed the County Council's initiatives on Rail and LRT puts the County in the 'big league'."
  I will be brief because I want the Minister to have an opportunity to reply to those points. In response to that letter, the Minister made some very reassuring noises in Committee. I must admit that I was fairly reassured and I thought that the Minister had made some sort of commitment to examine the situation after the Bill became law. However, when I read what the Minister said in an attempt to nail down a commitment, I found that he did not say that at all.
  In a letter to the leader of Nottinghamshire county council, the Minister said:
  "The fact that Shire Counties are not given the same powers as the PTEs in the Railways Bill should in no way be taken as an indication that the Government is not mindful of the valuable role that the Shires play in promoting public transport in their areas. We are keen to preserve local authorities' powers to support local rail services. Indeed, for the first time we are making clear in legislation the status of local authorities and PTEs as 'competent authorities' under EC legislation for the purpose of paying PSO grants."
  I found the Minister's answer to the letter very reassuring, however, it now seems to be far from the reality of the situation.
  I am worried not just about the Robin Hood line; I am also concerned about future transport initiatives. I can see my county and my city being disadvantaged by the fact that the area is not a PTA and I would be happy if the Minister would make it a PTA. In light of local government reorganisation, I am concerned about how future initiatives like the Robin Hood line will advance. How will stage 3 of the Robin Hood line go forward? How will the Greater Nottingham light rapid transit system develop?

  315
  I am concerned about the other services being developed as part of the Greater Nottingham area rail development strategy, such as the Nottingham to Ilkeston line, the Nottingham to Bingham, the Nottingham to Sandiacre and the Nottingham to Gedling services. All of those developing local services will be disadvantaged because the rules work against Nottinghamshire but not against PTAs.
  1.48 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) on having secured this debate on the Robin Hood railway line. He has always been assiduously interested in railway matters. I had the dubious pleasure of spending several months of my life in Committee considering the Railways Bill, and that pleasure was added to by the presence of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Mr. Hill), whom I am happy to see in his place, and for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), who I know is interested in this line.
  Let me say on a very sad note that I did not have the opportunity yesterday to extend my personal sympathy to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), who has suffered a grievous personal loss. I know that he would have been here, and I welcome the opportunity to express my personal sympathy. I note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport was able to do so yesterday on his own behalf.
  I am interested in and supportive of the general concept of railway improvements such as those to the Robin Hood railway line. One could call it a de-Beeching process, and I have been heartened by the extent to which much of my work is concerned not with closure orders, but with proposals for the opening of lines up and down the country. In London, we have the East London line, which, in effect, will bring back into use a piece of line that exists all but for track and trains; fortunately, the main infrastructure is complete. We have a good example of that in today's debate.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Nottingham, East will not mind me saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), and others of my hon. Friends representing Nottinghamshire have lobbied me assiduously about the line. I pay tribute to all the local representatives of all parties who played a part in raising its profile.
  I might, of course, be tempted to make a mild political point were I not conscious of where I am standing. If I were to make that mildly political point, it might be to point out that the town of Mansfield—which has a population of more than 100,000—lost its passenger railway in 1964. That was the result of a study instigated by the previous Conservative Government and implemented by the then Labour Government. For the next 30 years, Governments of both persuasions—but notably Labour Governments—did absolutely nothing to bring back into use the line of which the hon. Member for Nottingham, East speaks so supportively and persuasively. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that a Conservative Government have provided resources
  316
  to bring the railway back to life. I know that the hon. Gentleman, with his customary fairness, will wish to acknowledge that and I am happy to put it on record.
  Mr. Heppell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Norris: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I do not allow him to intervene.
  We all agree entirely that the Robin Hood railway line is a valuable addition to the rail network. Let us look briefly at the success so far. Stage 1 opened in May 1993 between Nottingham and Hucknall and Newstead. The Bulwell station opened in May 1994. I was pleased that the Department contributed some £367,000 in supplementary credit approvals for that purpose.
  Construction of stage 2 is now well under way, but problems on site have meant that the work is now running several months behind. We all agree that the engineering task was considerable. The total line from Nottingham to Mansfield is 19 miles.
  While I do not wish to detract from the achievements, stage 1 was the easy part; it involved bringing an existing line up to passenger standard, when it had formerly been used only for freight traffic. There is no line at all between Newstead and Kirkby in Ashfield and the engineers have had a task not dissimilar to that of the great railway builders of the past age. Rather than constructing a tunnel, they have had to clear the old Kingsway tunnel of the colliery shale which had been deposited there. It was quite a challenging engineering task.
  Unforeseen ground conditions at the portal to the tunnel meant delay to the bulk earth works and that was later exacerbated by the prolonged rains last November. Working on a railway line is, of course, not the same as building a road. There is a limited number of accesses to rail link sites, which makes it difficult to increase activity dramatically to make up time.
  I should say something about our commitment so far to the reopening of the line. It is fair and square in line with our policy for traffic decongestion and encouraging a shift away from the private car towards public transport. The hon. Member for Streatham will know that I am signed up to that policy, as he is. We share a great deal in this area. It means buses as well as trains and light rail schemes where they represent value for money.
  The public response to stage 1 of the Robin Hood line has been encouraging and, with park-and-ride facilities at the new Sutton Parkway station, there is further encouragement for people to leave their cars behind, either at home or at the station.
  We are currently providing £6.5 million towards stage 2, £2.55 million of which is in the form of a section 56 grant. Such grants are available only for projects of exceptional merit for reasons of size, or, in this case, of a cross-boundary nature, where it is right to spread the costs beyond one local authority. That grant is justified primarily in terms of benefits to non-users—in other words, the traffic congestion benefits—and on the ground that the costs associated with those benefits cannot be met directly from revenue.
  The hon. Gentleman has highlighted a number of difficulties affecting the scheme. The first involves capital costs. Nottinghamshire county council notified us that the cost of the full scheme has now risen from £16.6 million to £19.1 million.

  317
  I should explain that the construction of stage 2 is being managed by Railtrack's major project division under the guidance of Railtrack's midland zone, which is the sponsor, and that the value of the work is around £9 million. The civil engineering contract for the rail link, but not covering the track work and signalling, is the responsibility of Nottinghamshire county council and its own contractors on site.
  It is the work on the rail link that has caused slippage to the project for the reasons that I have already explained. That has affected Railtrack's own costs and a contingency has been allowed within the £2.5 million increase for an extension of the signalling installation work within the present contract end date. That, in turn, means extra supervision and project management costs.
  Despite what the hon. Gentleman said about spiralling costs, I think that he understands that they are not solely, or even mainly, the result of railway privatisation. Clearly, there are costs associated with the restructuring of the railways, but they are very much outweighed by previously poor estimating, some changes to the scope of the project and contingencies.
  Over the past months Railtrack has attempted to regularise the position, establishing proper contractual relationships so that each party knows the amount being charged for the work carried out. They have moved, as far as possible, to a position of fixed-price contracts, where possible by competitive tender, given time scales and other constraints. The objective has been to give the county council as much confidence as possible over the anticipated final cost of the project.
  My Department is in close touch with the county on the project and my wish to see stage 3 through to a successful conclusion is undiminished. In many ways it is the key element to the entire scheme.
  We acknowledge that there is a funding gap and we have asked the county council to submit further information so that we can consider all the implications. I hope that, with continued co-operation, it will be possible to deal with the current difficulties.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to increases in operational costs because of rolling stock leasing and track access charges. We have already accepted—I made this point to the county council—that the changes could affect the financial performance of the new service. I told the council that if the effect proved significant, it should be brought out in the further documentation that we have requested, and we would then reconsider the funding position and the split between grant and borrowings.
  In regard to track access charges, I understand that the five-year operating agreement with BR to expire on 31 March 1998 was deliberately intended to give a degree of
  318
  shielding from full charges during the initial period. My Department was not a party to that agreement, but it is one that the county council and the British Railways Board, and subsequently Railtrack, negotiated. Future infrastructure charges will be subject to the scrutiny of the Rail Regulator.
  Stage 3 would take rail services to Worksop. Funding for local authority transport capital investment is made available through transport policies and programme. On the basis of TPP bids, a decision is taken on resource allocation and we normally make an announcement in mid-December.
  In that context, we now have in place the package approach. Packages are essentially about a coherent local transport strategy for the area concerned. Nottinghamshire has done well in that respect. I pay tribute to that and £1.6 million has been allocated to the Greater Nottinghamshire area package for 1995–96.
  Nottinghamshire included stage 3 in its TPP bid on the basis that work could commence in late 1996. It might be argued, therefore, that any bid for funding was premature at this stage. We have told Nottinghamshire county council that we are not able to fund stage 3 this year as a value for money case has yet to demonstrated, but it is open to the county to make a bid in its next TPP for resources in 1996–97. Incidentally, those bids are expected by 31 July each year.
  We would like the county council to carry out some more work on the scheme appraisal, which currently shows a significant shortfall not covered by the decongestion benefits. Although we will be happy to work with the county council over the coming months, and stage 3 is relevant, we must concentrate on completing stage 2 satisfactorily in the next few months.
  I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about differ-ent treatment between passenger transport authorities and his own authority. He was right to quote from my letter to him of 23 December. As I stated in that communication, PTAs and PTEs have statutory responsibilities as against those of transport and highway authorities, which have in this sense discretionary responsibilities. It would be unreasonable to place too much reliance on that as an argu-ment for dealing in a fundamentally different way with infrastructure that ultimately will serve the same markets and people doing the same things. I indicated that I am pre-pared to examine that aspect but I do not want to set hard and fast rules now, except to say that it is clearly of import-ance to a scheme of this sort.
  I share many of the aspirations of hon. Members representing constituencies in the area in question, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has found time to join me on the Front Bench as an indication of his own concern. I will certainly look at the matter again.

  Yorkshire Water (Textile Industry)
  2 pm
  Mr. Graham Riddick: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise an issue of great concern to a number of firms in my constituency and throughout Yorkshire—the reception charge that Yorkshire Water intends to introduce for receiving trade effluent and sewage. Coming as it does on top of existing high charges, it will hit the textile industry—particularly dyers and finishers. Other industry sectors will be similarly affected. Dickinsons Dairy of Holmfirth, well-known producers of yoghurts and creams, also faces a large increase in charges.
  My constituency contains a significant number of textile companies, many of which have written to me. I can do no better than quote a letter from Mr. S. H. Gledhill, joint managing director of James Dyson Ltd. in Linthwaite near Huddersfield:
  "As a small company employing 50 people, following a management buy-out in 1989, we have improved our performance through the recession with the co-operation of our work force and a vigorous sales campaign. Over this period we have received swingeing increases from Yorkshire Water, well in excess of published inflation figures. We have, of course, introduced tighter control of effluent and also made capital investments to meet the National Rivers Authority and EC legislative requirements. Maintaining business in highly competitive times is extremely difficult and only so much can be absorbed through improved efficiency … Our current annual bill is around £36,000 and after three years this will be increased to £96,000, a rise of 150 per cent. Because the proposed increases are so high, businesses are likely to be affected detrimentally when trying to pass them on to their customers. As you are no doubt aware, retailers are very resistant to paying any increases at all at the present time."
  Companies affected by the new charge will receive no new or additional service. It is based simply on the volume of effluent discharged into the sewer. Yorkshire Water justifies the new charge on the grounds that it is getting industry to pay a proper share of waste treatment costs and that domestic customers are currently subsidising industrial customers.
  Yorkshire Water and Ofwat have failed totally to provide facts or figures to substantiate those claims. Out of the blue and without consultation, Yorkshire Water wrote to trade customers last November saying that the new reception charge would be 15p per cubic metre in 1995–96, rising to 33p the following year and 50p in 1997–98. Yorkshire Water, no doubt in response to the furore that it created, told local companies this week that the charge will be 10.1p per cubic metre the first year and phased in over five years. We have made some progress, but the cost in the first year alone will range from £5,000 for a small firm to £60,000 for a local firm, Brooke Dyeing.
  Once the full charge is introduced, the additional cost will range from £18,000 to a massive £245,000 for Brooke Dyeing. That successful textiles company employs 300 people at four sites within a five-mile radius of Meltham. Finding an extra £245,000 is a tall order for Brooke Dyeing, as it is for any company.
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new reception charge, which is being implemented without consultation, comes on top of millions of pounds of investment in effluent plants by the
  320
  Yorkshire textile industry over the past two or three years, to conform with the regulations that my hon. Friend mentioned?
  Mr. Riddick: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Yorkshire Water has moved the goal posts and created difficulties for companies. My hon. Friend emphasises the action taken by local firms.
  The consequence of absorbing Yorkshire Water's increased charges could be a reduction in employment at the firms affected and in the money available for investment. I find extraordinary the arrogant manner in which Yorkshire Water simply informed its customers of the new charge and that Ofwat appears to have been perfectly happy to go along with it without properly scrutinising Yorkshire Water's proposals.
  One of my constituents told me, "If I treated my customers the way Yorkshire Water treated us, I would lose their business." Yorkshire Water may have felt able to behave that way because it has a monopoly—but that is why the Government introduced the existing regulation system. Ofwat exists to ensure that water companies do not abuse their monopolies.
  Yorkshire Water claims that 12 per cent. of sewage comes from traders but that they contribute only 1 per cent. to the costs of the sewerage system. The Yorkshire branch of Ofwat says that only a small number of industrial customers account for 40 per cent. of Yorkshire Water's sewage but are not paying 40 per cent. of the cost of disposal. No evidence has been forthcoming from Yorkshire Water or Ofwat to justify those claims, which are not entirely consistent.
  Local industrialists stress that they entirely accept the "polluter pays" principle but are not prepared to tolerate a massive hike in trade effluent charges without full and proper justification—and that has not been forthcoming. Industry believes that it pays its fair share. It appears that Ofwat almost connived with Yorkshire Water in the way that the reception charge was introduced. In a letter to me dated 20 December 1994, Yorkshire Water's director of water services stated that the proposals were discussed with the Director General of Water Services, who
  "'does not approve them' but satisfies himself that any undue discrimination element has been removed."
  However, on 22 December, the chairman of Ofwat's customer services committee wrote to me, saying that he had asked Yorkshire Water to attend the committee's next meeting
  "to explain the reasons for its change in charging policy."
  He added that he awaited a clear statement from the company on the rationale for its rebalancing exercise. Does the Yorkshire branch of Ofwat not know what its head office is doing?
  To be fair, I received a letter this morning from Eric Wilson, who heads the Yorkshire branch of Ofwat and is clearly concerned.
  Mrs. Peacock: It is a bit late for that.
  Mr. Riddick: Exactly as my hon. Friend says. I thought that the regulator's purpose was to ensure that water companies behave properly and reasonably. If that was the case with Yorkshire Water, Ofwat should have acted to ensure that the industry was properly consulted and had time to adjust to the new charges, and that all the information on which the new charge was based was made available. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm

  321
  that Ofwat has a responsibility to ensure that water companies behave reasonably towards industrial customers? Is he in a position to tell us why Ofwat did not ensure that Yorkshire Water consulted widely on the new charge?
  Mr. John Gunnell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his account of the difficulties faced by companies in his constituency, and of what appear to be the inadequate responses of the regulator, suggests some fundamental weaknesses in the way in which Yorkshire Water, as a monopoly provider in the area, has been set up and the powers of the regulator? Will he be demanding the evidence which I agree is necessary to prove that domestic consumers are footing the bill and that, as he suggested, many companies are getting off lightly? Does he believe that the figures should be made public by the regulator?
  Mr. Riddick: I have made it clear that I think that Ofwat has fallen short in this instance. It clearly has a responsibility to ensure that Yorkshire Water does not exploit its monopoly position. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
  Sir Donald Thompson: Yorkshire Water has a monopoly only in Yorkshire. Yorkshire textile manufacturers could move their businesses to Scotland where they would find skilled and able people and where Scottish Water does not impose an effluent charge. Scotland wants to attract the textile industry. My hon. Friend has secured this debate because Yorkshire cloth is world renowned. It is the benchmark by which all other cloth is measured—there is nothing to compare it with. In one sense, therefore, Yorkshire Water does not have a monopoly. It will simply drive careful business men to other parts of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Riddick: My hon. Friend makes a telling point although, fortunately, Yorkshire has many other assets to make it an attractive place for investment. However, I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point.
  In the textile industry, orders are often booked up to 12 months in advance. The industry heard only last November of the new charge to be introduced from April this year and therefore had only six months in which to prepare itself for a wholly unexpected additional cost.
  Local companies have been faced with significant increases in trade effluent charges in recent years. The charges for the current year—1994–95—went up by 11.1 per cent., well above the rate of inflation. That was because, in March 1993, Yorkshire Water informed the industry:
  "Tariff adjustments are being made to ensure that our different customer groups contribute their fair share towards the cost of each service. This re-balancing is taking place over a three year period."
  The industry suddenly finds itself being subjected to another rebalancing exercise and one has to ask what went wrong with the previous one. My information is that, once Yorkshire Water's reception charge has been fully implemented, its effluent discharge charges will be either the highest or second highest in the country.
  The Confederation of British Wool Textiles said that, because the reception charge is based on volume, the incentive for the industry to reduce pollutant concentration will be destroyed. In support of the claim that industrial dischargers are not paying their way, Yorkshire Water says that domestic effluent is easier to
  322
  treat than industrial effluent. Yet the confederation has pointed out that Yorkshire Water's own figures disprove that. They show that the average chemical oxygen demand for domestic and industrial effluent is 965 mg per litre whereas dyehouses only effluent is in the range 400 to 700 mg per litre.
  The head of Yorkshire Water's trade effluent section admitted at a meeting of the CBWT that Yorkshire Water needs trade effluent to dilute domestic effluent which tends to be more solid. I do not want to offend the sensibilities of any hon. Member by going into more detail, but it is an important point. These are the type of issues that Yorkshire Water should have discussed with its customers. Ofwat should also have ensured that they were debated properly before the new reception charge was imposed.
  Most people accept that large treatment plants operate more efficiently than small plants and that individual companies do not have the financial resources or the space to install their own effluent treatment plants. The CBWT made the point that it would have been in everyone's interest if Yorkshire Water had tried to work with the industry to establish a few large treatment works rather than the present number of smaller units. This has not happened because Yorkshire Water, apparently with the green light from Ofwat, has not consulted the industry properly.
  I have a suggestion to make. When we privatised British Telecom and British Gas it was felt that it would be very difficult to introduce competition in those two industries because it was not possible to duplicate the infrastructure that was already physically in place. However, since privatisation, we have achieved just that and the new Gas Bill takes that process much further. Has my hon. Friend's Department considered the possibility of introducing more competition in the sewerage industry? If not, perhaps it should do so.
  I suppose that the textile industry in Yorkshire should be grateful for small mercies. As I said, companies have now been informed that the reception charge to be introduced from 1 April is to be 10.1p per cubic metre, not 15p as originally notified. Yorkshire Water has also now said that the reception charge is to be phased in over five years rather than three. That will make the new charge slightly easier for companies to cope with, but it is still a massive additional cost for them to bear. Yorkshire Water has refused to tell companies whether the final charge will remain at the originally proposed 50p per cubic metre.
  I believe that Yorkshire Water and Ofwat should re-examine the trade effluent reception charge. Is it really necessary? Let us have all the facts and figures out in the open so that companies can judge for themselves. If they are indeed not making their proper contribution, local companies will not be able to argue against the proposed new charge although they would still argue, justifiably, that the charge be phased in over a longer period.
  Of course, I am well aware of the need to keep charges to domestic users as low as possible. I do not believe, however, that Yorkshire Water's recent treatment of local companies which, after all, create many jobs for our constituents, can be justified. I therefore hope that, as a result of this debate and the representations made by many people and many local companies, the proposed reception charge will be reviewed and postponed and introduced only if and when it has been justified.
  2.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) for having raised this matter and for having done it so delicately. I thought for a moment that it was going to be diverted into other pipelines. The central issue is the effect of the impending charge, or change in the charge, by Yorkshire Water and its method of charging for the handling of trade effluent. I shall deal succinctly with a few points, trying to miss some of the more scientific ones and, shall we say, the diagnosis of the differences in density between types of sewage. We can leave those for my hon. Friend to take to the meetings, which I am sure will take place.
  My hon. Friend asked directly whether I could confirm that Ofwat has a responsibility to ensure that water companies behave reasonably to industrial customers. I can confirm that but feel that it needs a little expansion. The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) briefly mentioned Ofwat's responsibilities. Ofwat has a duty to ensure that the interests of every customer, domestic and commercial, are protected in respect of the fixing and recovery of charges and other terms on which all the services are provided.
  As my hon. Friend is obviously well aware, Yorkshire Water—unlike all other water companies—currently has a system of standing charges for trade effluent. It now proposes to return to a system more related to the "polluter pays" system that it used until the mid-1980s. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that that will ultimately prove more equitable, and it is along the same lines as the arrangements used by all other water companies, some of which also have textile manufacturers in their areas—competitors, in other words. From the point of view of Ofwat—and ultimately, I am sure, from the House's point of view—that approach must be fairer to all other trade and domestic users in Yorkshire, and to textile industry competitors elsewhere in the country.
  As ever, the impact of the changes on traders will not be uniform. I understand that approximately 30 per cent. of trade customers may well gain from them, while 40 per cent. will face increases of perhaps 50 per cent. over five years. Regrettably, 9 per cent. of traders will face an increase of more than £10,000—at 1994–95 prices—over the same period. That means that the majority of traders will either gain from the changes, or face an increase of no more than £500.
  As my hon. Friend will know, the main gainers will be the domestic customers who are currently effectively supporting the textile industry. As predicted, while those who have been hit by the proposed charges—and some have been hit quite hard—are protesting loudly, the gainers are conspicuous by their silence.
  Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend telling us that specific reductions will be made in the bills of Yorkshire Water's domestic customers?
  Sir Paul Beresford: I do not think that my hon. Friend is as naive as that. Surely she appreciates that it is a case of relative or proportional costs. I detect by her smile that she does.
  324
  As I was saying, the gainers have been conspicuous by their silence, but I suppose that that can be put down to human nature. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, however, the biggest difficulty for the industry has been the lack of sufficient warning before the announcement. It is in that connection particularly that I side with my hon. Friend and others who have spoken, and it is in that connection that my hon. Friend seeks some action by Ofwat.
  Ofwat has, in fact, already intervened in compliance with its duty to the water industry's customers. As my hon. Friend pointed out, in seeking explanations from Yorkshire Water, Ofwat has succeeded in persuading it to phase the introduction of the reception charge over five years rather than the three originally proposed. Furthermore, the prospect of today's debate stimulated Yorkshire Water to act: the company has written to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who is responsible for water, saying that it will take account of the industry's problems and consider the possibility of phasing in the reception charge over a number of years. It would appear, therefore, that while Ofwat has prised open the door, my hon. Friend and others have now enabled traders to approach Yorkshire Water directly through that door.
  My hon. Friend asked whether additional competition could be introduced. I can reassure him that we are keen to introduce more competition in the water industry where appropriate, and a number of measures in the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992 will facilitate that. We are continuing to consider possible ways of increasing scope for competition. It must be sensible to take advantage of every opportunity to promote fair competition, which will benefit all customers, whether domestic or commercial. If hon. Members feel that they have a contribution to make after the dust resulting from this small issue has settled, I shall be delighted to receive suitable suggestions. I emphasise the word "suitable".
  One of the advantages of the "polluter pays" approach on one hand and protests over costs on the other is that the combination sharpens attitudes to conservation and efficiency on both sides of the discussion. Today's debate has, I believe, contributed to persuading Yorkshire Water of the need for improved efficiency; and a progressively fairer allocation of costs may persuade some of the larger textile industries in particular to consider recycling, or at least to examine ways of reducing usage. I was interested by the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson)—who has now disappeared—but I fear that the idea that major industries will up sticks and move to Scotland may be pie in the sky.
  My hon. Friend has used the debate to concentrate our minds constructively on resolving the issue. I believe that that will eventually lead to a fairer system, and encourage efficiency and conservation. Like the rest of the country, we are rightly moving towards a "user pays" system: as I have said, Yorkshire Water has used that system in the past, and it is currently employed by all other water companies.
  We must accept that the extent and abruptness of the rise in charges has come as a commercial shock to some traders, especially in the textile industry. The attack launched by my hon. Friend has opened the door, and ensured an improved response from Yorkshire

  325
  Water. I encourage him to continue his campaign of persuasion, and in particular to campaign for more competition in the present system. It is a difficult task; such competition must he reasonable and must reflect the mixed needs of domestic and trade users of sewerage and water supplies.
  Ofwat has taken appropriate action, both in persuading Yorkshire Water to lengthen the phasing-in period and in persuading it that its current arrangements are unfair to the majority of users. Today's debate has inspired action from Yorkshire Water and forced it to listen further; I hope that that trend will continue.
  Mr. Riddick: I find it rather surprising that Yorkshire Water's announcement came out of the blue, and that apparently there was no proper consultation between the company and Ofwat in the preceding
  326
  months. If there had been, surely Ofwat would have told the company that it must talk to the industry about the charge. Can my hon. Friend shed any light on the discussions that took place before November?
  Sir Paul Beresford: I cannot do so directly, but I look forward to my hon. Friend's report of discussions with the Office of Water Services and Yorkshire Water. The introduction of more competition means that, of course, new systems will have to be commercially sensitive. Today's debate and some of the cross reactions and words—made with some justification—will warn water companies to ensure that they think twice before charging too promptly into action.
  It being twenty-eight minutes past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Martyn Jones to ask Question 1—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not here. My goodness, what a bad start—I call Mr. Gunnell to ask Question 2.
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Invest in Britain Bureau
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total Government funding for the Invest in Britain Bureau for (a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95; and how much of that sum in each year was made available in total to the regional development organisations.
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The totals for my Department's programme expenditure on inward investment in those three years are £7.8 million, £8.8 million and £10.6 million respectively. Those include grants to regional development organisations of £5 million, £6 million and £7.2 million.
    Mr. Gunnell: In setting the 1995–96 budgets, will the President of the Board of Trade recognise the excellent partnership between the Invest in Britain Bureau and the regional development organisations? Does he agree that investment successes, such as the recent attraction of a Korean company to north Yorkshire, are due to companies seeing themselves as entering the European Union and that pandering to the sceptics is potentially damaging to our continued inward investment success?
    Mr. Heseltine: The House should have no doubt at all that the remarkable success in attracting inward investment into the United Kingdom is due to the UK being seen as the most effective place to trade, invest and manufacture in the European Union and the Government are determined to keep it that way. That is why we are so opposed to the Labour party policy of introducing the social chapter.
    Mrs. Peacock: I welcome the figures given by my right hon. Friend on the Invest in Britain Bureau. Does he have figures for investment by British companies in British industry? Is he aware that in my part of west Yorkshire, millions of pounds have been invested in manufacturing, new jobs and new technology since 1983?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures could be easily provided and are in the public domain. The latest forecast by the Confederation of British Industry showed growing intentions to invest further, which is much to be welcomed. There has also been very widespread investment by British companies overseas.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the President of the Board of Trade clarify whether the figures that he mentioned include any contribution to the Welsh Development Agency in view of the work that that agency does? If his figures did not include any such contribution, is he confident that the WDA is receiving adequate resources for its important
    328
    work, which is of general benefit not only to Wales but to the UK despite cuts in its budget and the fact that it now has to fund its activities by selling off its assets?
    Mr. Heseltine: Everyone is aware of the remarkable success of the WDA under this Government and the inward investment that it has attracted. The Invest in Britain Bureau acts as an umbrella organisation across the entire United Kingdom. Although the regional development organisations are specifically located in England, there is an interplay between the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, for Scotland and for Wales and myself: put the whole lot together and we are attracting a far and away more advantageous share of inward investment than any of the other European Union members.

    Gas Care Services
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ensure that British Gas will continue to maintain its free gas care services for the elderly, disabled and blind.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will meet the Gas Regulator to discuss the future of services to gas customers who have disabilities.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Charles Wardle): British Gas has made it clear that it will not cut the services that it offers to the elderly or disabled, and that it will not introduce charges for such services. The forthcoming Gas Bill will provide that all suppliers make special services available to those groups of customers.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a 15 per cent. cut in the price of gas in real terms since privatisation, even after allowing for the recent increase in VAT, and that customers have therefore had an extremely good deal from British Gas? In those circumstances, the interests of those in society who are less able to look after themselves—the old, the disabled and the blind—should be fully protected. Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that those interests are fully protected both now and, above all, under the new Gas Bill? When the industry is deregulated such services will come under further pressure.
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right about the fall in gas prices; he will also know that the standing charge has fallen by 28 per cent. in real terms since privatisation. British Gas is not cutting special services. It was made clear in the consultation document last May that all suppliers of gas would have to offer such special services, and that obligation will be written into the Bill which will be published shortly.
    Mr. Jones: Why can the Minister not guarantee that British Gas will continue to offer the sort of free service currently available to the blind and disabled? We have heard rumours that under the new regime the company will charge blind people up to £25 for the privilege of having their meters read. Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no additional charges for disabled or blind people?
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman should not listen to such rumours or stir such mischief. He knows that British

    329
    Gas provides the special services to about 1 million customers, at a cost of about £30 million, and that the company has no intention of charging for them.
    Mr. James Hill: My hon. Friend will be aware that the gas companies are very capable of helping in the regions, especially in connection with the arts, culture, the support of orchestras, and so on. Clearly there is much good will in the British Gas corporation, but will my hon. Friend ask it again to dispense with the myth that heavy penalties may fall on the elderly, the disabled and the blind?
    Mr. Wardle: I am happy to confirm yet again that there will be no such penalties. It is also worth adding that safety remains of paramount importance to British Gas. The company has recently spent more than £1,000 million on replacing pipelines in the interests of safety, and routinely spends £100 million a year on safety checks and measures.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: But Michael Alexander, the director of public gas supply, has said that he cannot guarantee the special services unless there is a level playing field. Paragraph 6.11 of the Minister's discussion document says that obligations to elderly and disabled gas customers are a matter for debate; the document also says that it may be unnecessary to retain prescribed levels of service. If the Minister thinks that he can pretend otherwise, he is a nitwit.
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman is in more than usually excited and excitable form. I hope that he will bear in mind what the consultation document says—that a condition of the licence that gas suppliers will need before they can supply domestic consumers is that they must offer such special services. So who is the nitwit?

    Small Firms
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of new businesses started up in 1994 were small firms employing 20 people or fewer.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): Almost all the 450,000 businesses started up in 1994 had fewer than 20 employees.
    Mr. Rathbone: My hon. Friend's answer illustrates the Government's success in helping small businesses to start up. Can he give an indication of the numbers employed in those firms and what benefit those firms had in establishing themselves from our membership of the European Union?
    Mr. Taylor: Last year was the first for about four years in which there was a net increase in the number of firms, with a rise of about 24,000. That suggests that we have a strengthening economy, which is one of the best factors for encouraging small businesses to perform. Membership of the EU is also important in terms of widening the home market. The Department of Trade and Industry continues to give considerable attention and support to small companies, particularly those involved in high technology. We have launched and adapted the Smart and Spur schemes, which are targeted at smaller companies bringing forward new ideas and technology.
    Mr. Bell: The Minister could have said more about small firms, but he did not have the opportunity. We lost
    330
    55,000 small firms in 1993, and one in three small firms goes to the wall every three years. Is there not still a finance gap which means that small firms are not getting long-term finance, a skills gap which means they are not getting the core skills, and a government gap because there is no proper statutory definition of a small firm? Will the Minister promise the House and the small business community that we shall have that definition?
    Mr. Taylor: I am not sure that small firms are particularly interested in statutory definitions—they are interested in success. The hon. Gentleman's own definition shows that two out of three firms do survive, and it is important to remember that starting up a business is a risk. The Government must get the economic climate right, and that is what we are doing. We must also target innovative schemes, providing support through business links and special loan facilities where the normal banking arrangements perhaps cannot function, and we must encourage companies to tackle the new high-tech challenges with entrepreneurial spirit. I think that the Government have a good record, and the hon. Gentleman might reconsider the tone of his question.
    Mr. Harris: The economy of west Cornwall is absolutely dependent on small firms. While I welcome and agree with what my hon. Friend said, does he recognise that many small firms are coming under increased pressure as a result of the current revaluation? Will he have discussions with the Department of the Environment and with the Inland Revenue, which carried out the revaluations, and look at the basis of them? I can assure my hon. Friend that they are imposing a tremendous burden on small firms, despite the transitional relief that the Government have introduced.
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has taken that into account. The Government realise that revaluations can be difficult, and therefore transitional arrangements were brought in. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government office for the south-west is alive to the difficulties faced by companies in that region and has targeted particular help to them. Some of that help has been targeted through European Union structural funds. I believe that those schemes are now bearing fruit. Any company in the south-west that is concerned about the schemes should contact the Government director, who will provide further information.

    Takeover Bids
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many successful takeover bids have been notified to him in the last five years; and what information he has on the number of takeovers in Germany during the same period.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): There is no requirement for takeover bids to be notified and we keep no records of successful bids. Over the last five years, around 1,000 mergers qualified for investigation under the Fair Trading Act 1973, while more than 7,000 mergers were notified to the German competition authorities.
    Mr. Wareing: I believe that there are more than 40 contested takeover bids per year in Britain, compared with fewer than 40 in a decade in Germany. Is not the

    331
    ease with which takeovers can take place in this country a basic reason for the short-termism and the lack of investment in British industry? What are the Government's proposals to deal with this? For example, they could restrict the voting rights of shareholders or—more importantly, so far as I am concerned—they could set up supervisory boards on which workers could have a say. What happened to the Dorrell inquiry set up by the Government?
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman's perception of the distinction between the German and British systems is incorrect. Under German rules, all takeovers must be notified. In Britain, some 2 per cent. of qualifying mergers which are considered by the competition authorities result either in the bid being blocked or in undertakings being required, compared with only 0.5 per cent. of those examined in Germany.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the features of a free market is that the Government do their level best to keep out of the natural coming together and breaking apart of businesses unless a monopoly is being created? The Opposition should be exposed: they believe that the Government should be involved in every one of the mechanisms, thus distorting the market.
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right that the mere fact that a bid may be hostile is not a reason to refer it. The Government's view is that competition is the primary factor that should be the subject of examination. Of course, where necessary, the public interest also has to be considered by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Dr. Moonie: Is the Minister aware of growing anxiety in the medical research community about the takeover of Wellcome by Glaxo? Has he sought any assurances from Sir Richard Sykes about the level of research in both companies following any proposed merger? What advice will the Department give to the European Union when the bid is submitted to it for reference?
    Mr. Evans: I shall not pre-empt the outcome of the issue, which may be considered by the appropriate competition authorities. I am sure that in those circumstances the hon. Gentleman will make his representations clearly. The Government have a record that is second to none on support for the medical research community.
    Mr. Batiste: Will my hon. Friend confirm that many of Britain's most successful companies today are the result of takeovers and bids in the past? Does he agree that that is an integral part of the dynamism of a successful market economy? Does not the original question to my hon. Friend demonstrate how little the Labour party understands about market economics?
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right. Furthermore, from the responses that I have given, my hon. Friend will have noted how wide of the mark the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) was.

    East London
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to provide assistance to the London borough of Redbridge and include it in initiatives to help the regeneration of east London.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Partnerships in the London borough of Redbridge will be eligible to compete again this year for support for new projects in the second round of the single regeneration budget.
    Mr. Gapes: Does the Minister know where the London borough of Redbridge is? From his answer, it appears that he has no idea. Is he aware that all the surrounding boroughs in east London are included either in the initiatives by the President of the Board of Trade for the east Thames corridor or in the Lea valley programmes? My borough of Redbridge has received not a penny from single regeneration budget projects. Is it not about time the Minister recognised that in my constituency one in seven males are unemployed and 11.2 per cent. of the population are unemployed compared with the national average of 8.5 per cent.? Why do we not get support in Redbridge when we need it?
    Mr. Wardle: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes, I do know where it is, but I wonder whether he does, and also whether he realises that the London borough of Redbridge submitted five outline bids for the first round of the single regeneration budget but chose not to put any of them in as final bids.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Thames gateway provides tremendous opportunities for Redbridge and other boroughs north of the Thames and for boroughs such as mine in Bexley, south of the Thames? Does he agree that co-operation and enthusiasm from the Opposition as well as from business men and Government is needed to get the project off the ground?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that he agrees that it is a pity that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) did not sing the praises of the London East training and enterprise council and its schemes, which provide help to Redbridge through a local office which also covers Waltham Forest. The hon. Gentleman should also, perhaps, have talked about the merits of the London business link network, which is developing as it should.

    Regional Electricity Companies
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice his Department has given the Office of Electricity Regulation on mergers and acquisitions of regional electricity companies.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: None.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank the Minister for that curt and short reply. Does he agree that the recent bid for Northern Electric highlights the weakness of the Government's position in terms of seeking to foster regional electricity companies that are responsive to local need and intent on fostering a regional identity? If he accepts that, how does he intend to ensure continued ministerial and

    333
    parliamentary control over electricity policy? Will he refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as a number of his hon. Friends are urging him to do?
    Mr. Evans: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will give careful consideration to all aspects of the specific case raised by the hon. Gentleman before announcing his decision in due course. I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that when the Director General of Fair Trading gives his advice to the President of the Board of Trade, he takes account of all relevant factors including any views that may be forthcoming from the Director General of Electricity Supply.
    Mr. Brooke: Before we become immersed in a series of possibly irrelevant issues, does my hon. Friend agree that if the bidder for Northern Electric was within the European Union the only consideration to which the bid would be subject would be competition? If a British bidder is involved, would it not be sensible for the same conditions to apply here?
    Mr. Evans: My right hon. Friend will understand that the decision will be taken in accordance with the statute and with the practice followed by the President of the Board of Trade in relation to all such matters. My right hon. Friend will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage.
    Mr. Beggs: What assessment has been made of the likely impact of the acquisitions and mergers of regional electricity companies on the ultimate price that industrial users of electricity have to pay? Does the Minister agree that highly priced electricity is most likely to damage our existing industries and that it threatens our ability to attract inward investment?
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one factor to be taken into account by the President of the Board of Trade in the case in question will be the views of the Director General of Electricity Supply. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the regulator is given specific powers in this area.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not wish to draw my hon. Friend further, but does he accept that many Conservative Members hope that this particular bid will be referred to the commission?
    Mr. Evans: I note the views expressed in those measured tones by my hon. Friend. I assure him that all views expressed in relation to this matter will be given appropriate and detailed consideration.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Is the Minister clear that the powers of the regulator will be sufficient to safeguard consumers' interests if a succesful bid takes place, whether for Northern Electric or for any other regional electricity company? Is he satisfied that sufficiently effective and transparent accounting procedures will be put in place to ensure that any new owner of a regional electricity company will not be able to drain finance out of it for other purposes? Is his Department now satisfied that there is no question of insider dealing being involved in the Trafalgar House bid for Northern Electric?
    Mr. Evans: I do not wish to pre-empt the decision to be made by the President of the Board of Trade on this. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the powers
    334
    given to the regulator. Those powers were given by the Government to protect the interests of consumers and the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to recall that.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that if regional electricity companies were immune from takeover they would have less incentive to become more efficient? Will he confirm that Trafalgar House has said that if it acquires Northern Electric consumers will receive a 30 quid bonus? Should we not consider the consumers rather than the esoteric views put forward by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)?
    Mr. Evans: I am well aware of the views expressed by my hon. Friend, which are among a range of views expressed to the President of the Board of Trade on this. My hon. Friend will understand, however, why I shall not comment further on whether those views will ultimately prevail.

    Coal Privatisation
    Mr. Hood: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken or intends to take to protect local authorities from the effects of coal privatisation in relation to opencast mining sites; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: The regulatory regime established by the Coal Industry Act 1994 affords substantial protection to third parties, including local authorities.
    Mr. Hood: The Minister will know that the Dalquhandy opencast site in the Clydesdale constituency is the largest in Europe and that the cost of restoration will be at least £15 million. Having had a ministerial meeting with representatives of the council, he is also aware that the Government refuse to acknowledge that the Coal Industry Act 1994 transfers liability for that restoration directly from the Government to the local authority without consulting the local authority during the process of the Act or the restructuring agreement negotiated with the new co-owners. Will the Minister, first, answer the eight questions that he promised to answer when we met on 12 January and, secondly, even at this late stage underwrite the terrific cost, which could not be borne by the local authority? That cost would bang up the local authority and devastate the local community.
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of questions in correspondence and at a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I assure him that those matters are being dealt with. The Coal Industry Act 1994 gives the Department of Trade and Industry powers to ensure full continuity from British Coal to the successor companies, which have the same rights and obligations as British Coal. Planning consent and the enforcement of planning conditions remain matters for the planning authorities. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's concern about the ability to meet obligations for opencast sites, the Department checked carefully the financial status of the successor companies as part of the bid process.
    Mr. Dover: Does my hon. Friend agree that, far from seeking protection, many local authorities welcome privatisation and particularly the selling off of

    335
    non-operational land such as Ellerbeck, an opencast mine near Chorley, which will enable the environment to be improved?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will be aware of this morning's debate, which dealt with precisely those subjects and in which some of the points that he has just raised were made.
    Mr. O'Neill: The Minister has yet to give concrete assurances. Companies which have acquired mining rights in the UK—Budge and, in Scotland, Mining (Scotland) Ltd.—are narrowly based companies which do not have great resources. As they have been given massive responsibilities for opencasting, there must be some arrangement whereby local authorities are protected. The Minister has not yet come forward with such an arrangement. It is one thing to sweep the matter aside in the privatisation process and hand it over to the Coal Authority, but as the Coal Authority has no teeth and little inclination, local authorities will have to pick up the tab if anything goes wrong. Does the Minister accept that he has a lot of work to do, and quickly?
    Mr. Wardle: The Act makes the operators' obligations clear. The key point is that all purchasers of British Coal's mines were subjected to a thorough scrutiny of financial viability. The new Coal Authority is required to check the financial strength of companies to which it envisages issuing licences in exactly the same fashion.

    Steel Subsidies
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made concerning EU member states employing subsidies in steel production; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: The Government have made their opposition to continued subsidies to steel producers very clear both to the Commission and to other member states. We have done this at Council meetings and in correspondence. Our lobbying will continue.
    Mr. Jones: Does the Minister agree that the strip mills of Llanwern, Port Talbot and the sister plant at Shotton in my constituency are performing magnificently in producing the required products? What will happen, however, when the current excellent trading conditions for steel end? What will he do at the heart of Europe to ensure that member states cease cheating by employing subsidies against the best interests of British steel and British plant? So far, it seems to the Opposition that the Government are unable and unwilling to act.
    Mr. Taylor: There is an inconsistency in the hon. Gentleman's question: the credit he has paid to the current production and capabilities of the steel mills in Wales compares with the policies of the Labour Government in the 1970s, when those mills performed extremely badly. I have already told the hon. Gentleman that Ministers are taking up problems with steel subsidies in the rest of the European Coal and Steel Community at every opportunity. Yesterday, in Brussels, I met Commissioner van Miert and raised that very issue with him. An important balance must be obtained. We will do no good, however, just by screaming from the sidelines. We must ensure that we have an overall package to persuade other member countries that they should reduce their subsidies
    336
    so that long-term competition in the industry, as shown by the excellent performance of British steel, will prevail. That will be achieved only through argument.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend agree that the extreme difficulty that Her Majesty's Government have already encountered in trying to persuade our European Union partners not to subsidise steel illegally would be made even more difficult if we went into a federal Europe as advocated by the Labour party, where we would have no chance of success?
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend has particular views on the subject of Europe. As a Department of Trade and Industry Minister, my interest is in looking after British manufacturing. British manufacturers would find it impossible to compete in world markets if they did not perform strongly in their own home market—the European Union of 370 million people. Without strong institutions in the European Union, we would never be able to ensure that competition policies were properly put in place in other countries as they are in this one.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the issue not go to the heart of Tory troubles on Europe? We have Ministers making different statements by the hour on their attitudes towards Europe, while the Prime Minister is a Euro-sceptic on a Monday, Wednesday and Friday and pro-European on a Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. What we need is action rather than words; yet when we need tough action in Europe, we throw away our ability to wield that influence in defence of our national industries because of the barbed messages that come out of the Government every hour and every day of the week.
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should pay more attention to the excellent work of Under-Secretaries of State, who are fighting for Britain day after day in the Councils of Europe. There I was yesterday, face to face with Commissioner van Miert, saying that we want a strong Commission to enforce competition policy throughout the European Union. That is the consistent line that we take and I enjoy doing just that. I am delighted to say that a Belgian socialist has an acute understanding of why it is essential to have competition policy throughout the Union. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman compared notes with Commissioner van Miert, he might understand the subject better himself.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the subsidies currently given to the European nationalised steel industries are a disgrace, as are the subsidies paid to state monopolies in telecommunications? Does my hon. Friend further agree that those state monopolies in other European countries are gaining some support from the thought that even the Leader of the Opposition cannot remove clause IV from the socialist constitution on the basis that the Opposition still believe that one must subsidise industries to make them efficient?
    Mr. Taylor: I shall leave the problem of clause IV to the private grief of the Labour party. In the European Union, it is important to attempt to achieve common rules and regulations. One can do that only with strong Community institutions—with a strong Commission making proposals about competition policy that are enforced and then backed up by the European Court. I remind the House that, if it were not for the European Court of Justice, it would not have been possible for us

    337
    to challenge the subsidy to Air France—as we are doing—and if it were not for a strong Commission, we would not have achieved the British Airways flights into Orly against the opposition of Air France. The European Union works for Britain when we enforce the rules, and that means working with the institutions.
    Mr. Hardy: The Minister will recall that, 14 months ago, the Government proclaimed it a great triumph when the Council of Ministers said that it would carefully monitor that unfair trade. However, is the Minister aware that his recent written answer to me suggests that the Government have remarkably little knowledge of the results of the work of the monitors? When will the Government monitor the monitors to ensure that we can find out whether those practices are continuing or being stopped?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may wish us to monitor the monitors monitoring monitors. I simply want some action. We shall get action if we try to persuade other member countries of the long-term need to work towards non-subsidised industries. If the hon. Gentleman pays attention to the detail, he will realise that, in many cases, we have managed to persuade other countries, against internal political opposition, to transform the basis of the way in which they treat industries such as the steel industry. It is not an overnight success. All nations are confronted by domestic pressures, with industries that are declining. Nevertheless, the success of British steel is a sign of what could happen throughout the European Union, and domestic success is the best way for us to argue our case.

    Manufacturing
    Mr. Orme: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of future prospects for manufacturing in the north-west region.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: In the competitive international market, a wide range of north-west manufacturing companies continue to win major orders. The latest economic survey by the north-west chambers of commerce provides evidence that the manufacturing and the service sectors in the region are experiencing good levels of business and are showing confidence about their prospects for 1995.
    Mr. Orme: Is the Minister aware that the drastic reduction in the engineering industry in the north-west has had a catastrophic effect on the north-west as a whole, and that further redundancies are being announced at British Aerospace? What action will the Government take to offset that problem? Has the Minister considered the proposals made by the Engineering Employers Federation, which has suggested a policy of development, investment and expansion in the engineering industry?
    Mr. Evans: The Government continue to engage in a wide range of steps to help the north-western economy. That economy would be helped if more hon. Members representing constituencies in the north-west spoke up for the north-west and drew attention to the fact that, even in a climate in which unemployment has decreased consistently for the past two years, the north-west has played its part, with unemployment decreasing by more than 40,000 in the past 12 months. I remind the right hon.
    338
    Gentleman that the number of people employed in his constituency has increased by more than 1,000 in the past two years.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent Lloyds bank survey, showing that north-west businesses are enjoying a record surge on order books and in profits? Does that not augur well for the future of manufacturing industry in the north-west?
    Mr. Evans: I am well aware of the information to which my hon. Friend refers. Undoubtedly, he is one of the hon. Members who portrays a positive view of the north-west, which is so important for winning new inward investment to Britain and to the north-west region.
    Mr. Eastham: The Minister has boasted about what he has done for the north-west. I bring to his notice the fact that, in the past 15 years, Trafford Park industrial estate, which was one of the biggest engineering estates in Europe, has become almost a ghost town. We are closing down all the rolling stock companies, cuts are being made in aerospace and the place is a complete disaster, because of the effects of the Government's policies.
    Mr. Evans: I am aware of the Trafford Park manufacturing institute and its specific initiative in that district, and officials from the Department are in contact about the initiative in relation to developments in Trafford Park. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman something to set against the image that he chose to give of the north-west: manufacturing investment in the north-west in the five years between 1988 and 1992 amounted to £9.4 billion. The hon. Gentleman would do better to talk up the region than to talk it down.

    Industrial Activity
    Mr. Mc William: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to increase industrial activity in the north-east region.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Overall Government assistance has created 35,000 jobs since 1986. The Department of Trade and Industry will continue to encourage local business through the business links system, through support for inward investment, and through measures set out in the competitiveness White Paper.
    Mr. McWilliam: What steps does the Minister propose to take specifically to protect the manufacturing of ammunition in the north-east of England given the talks that are taking place between British Aerospace and GIAT of France, a wholly owned French Government company? That poses a threat to the royal ordnance factory at Birtley and to the jobs and the excellent work that the men do.
    Mr. Taylor: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is greatly concerned for his constituency and his constituents who work at British Aerospace. It would be inappropriate for me, as a Minister, to intervene in discussions with a private sector company, but I hope that all companies, including British Aerospace, understand the importance of maintaining a presence in a vibrant north-east region. I visit the north-east regularly as sponsor Minister and have excellent meetings with Gateshead metropolitan borough council. There is an influx of inward investment and there is no sign that companies around the world have anything

    339
    other than the highest regard for the north-east. That may have a determining influence on the discussions to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Knapman: Would I be right in thinking that if a British-owned firm, such as an engineering firm in Gloucester, wished to expand its production or perhaps even export its production to Japan, no such subsidies would be available to it, but if a Japanese-owned firm wanted to set up in the north-east, several thousand pounds per job would be available for it? Is that wholly satisfactory?
    Mr. Taylor: It is wholly satisfactory for those people employed by the Japanese company in the north-east. There is a constant flow of companies wishing to invest in the north-east-the most obvious recent example was the Korean company, Samsung, which is itself creating 3,000 jobs and to which another 3,000 jobs will be connected through local suppliers. That is extremely good news for the north-east of England and for Government assistance to inward investment. The north-east has benefited particularly from that, which is why the region's vibrancy is now the most striking feature I see when I visit it. I hope that when other north-east Members come to the House, they will talk up and praise what is happening in the north-east so that more and more people in the House appreciate the region.

    Electricity (Standing Charges)
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will discuss with the Electricity Consumers Committee the benefits of abolishing standing charges to customers on low incomes.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: That is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply and for the regional electricity companies, which must decide how best to structure their charges.
    Mr. McAvoy: As electricity companies can afford share options worth £23 million to the executives and directors of National Power and PowerGen, does the Minister agree that those companies should use their profits to abolish standing charges, which would go a long way towards offsetting the extra cost of VAT on fuel imposed by the Government?
    Mr. Taylor: For a start, the hon. Gentleman should know that electricity prices have been falling, which has been more than offsetting the cost of value added tax to the consumer. Secondly, it is within the remit of the regional electricity companies to abolish standing charges if they so wish—the Merseyside and North-Western electricity board has done so. Thirdly, in nearly all cases, standing charges have been frozen for the past two years, and where that has not happened, they have been reduced. I hope that the example set by Eastern Electricity only yesterday will be copied in other parts of the country.
    Mr. David Shaw: Will my hon. Friend confirm that many executives who are leading the nation's privatised electricity companies are performing extremely well? Electricity prices have fallen in real terms and they are likely to continue to fall. Will he confirm that the executives at the head of our privatised utilities earn a
    340
    lot less than many of those who contributed to the Leader of the Opposition's fighting fund in his bid to lead his party?
    Mr. Taylor: The job of senior management in any company, including electricity companies, is to run that company and ensure that it makes a profit which ultimately can be reinvested to improve services. As the electricity companies have clearly improved services since privatisation, senior management can be congratulated on those grounds. How they are remunerated is a matter for them and their shareholders.
    Mr. Stevenson: The Minister said that standing charges have been frozen and have not increased, but does he realise that, in the five years following privatisation, standing charges in the Midlands electricity board area increased by no less than 33 per cent? Does he also realise that standing charges have not been frozen but have increased through the application of value added tax? Standing charges have nothing to do with the use of electricity and they hit those people on low incomes the hardest. When will the Government stand up for those on low incomes and intervene to remove standing charges?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should remember that the overall decline in electricity prices included standing charges. In the past two years, prices—even in the Midlands area—have been effectively frozen.
    The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the help that is targeted on those who are most in need and he should also realise that, if standing charges were abolished, the cost would have to be recovered by changes in consumer pricing based on consumption. Many people have high levels of electricity consumption because of the way in which their houses are heated, and they would be penalised. The argument is not quite as simple as the hon. Gentleman makes out.

    Coal Privatisation
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the reduced R. J. Budge bid prior to the privatisation contract from English pits; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Adjustments to RJB Mining's bid reflect developments since tenders were submitted in September 1994, or otherwise information which was not available to bidders at the time. The price paid by RJB Mining is still substantially higher than other tenders.
    Mr. Skinner: How on earth can the Government justify the fact that a bidder for the English coal industry put in a bid of approximately £900 million, which was accepted as the highest bid, but the Department of Trade and Industry then reduced the bid to around £800 million? In other words, the Government have ripped off the taxpayer by £100 million.
    If that practice occurred in local government, the councillors who accepted a bid and then reduced it by that kind of percentage would be surcharged and kicked out of office. The bid should be investigated and, what is

    341
    more, there should be an investigation of the Department of Trade and Industry which has allowed this sordid episode to occur.
    Mr. Wardle: If the taxpayer has been ripped off anywhere, I suspect it is in the form of the £20,000 million in taxpayers' money that has subsidised the industry since 1979.
    The hon. Gentleman must know that it was always intended to adjust tender prices to reflect developments that took place after the tenders were submitted. It is not a static situation and there was a reduction in all the successful bids. In any case, the price paid for the English bids was considerably higher than the other tenders.
    The hon. Gentleman should remember that 28 deep mines which were owned previously by British Coal are now owned in the private sector. The hon. Gentleman has contributed to that process by shouting for more subsidies, resisting change and resisting the realities of the competitive world in which we live.
    Mr. David Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that since we privatised the coal industry we have created jobs in that industry day in, day out? Does he further agree that when that lot opposite were in government during the 1960s and 1970s, they closed 325 pits at the cost of 250,000 miners' jobs? That is what that caring, sharing Labour party did.
    Mr. Wardle: How could I possibly match my hon. Friend's eloquence and persuasive force? He is absolutely right. Those 28 deep mines are now in the private sector and they have the best chance they have had for years to prove how competitive they can be.
    Mr. Clapham: Is the Minister aware that, out of the blue, the supervisory unions in the mining industry have been told that the industrial death and retirement scheme will be wound up? It is a scheme to which they have contributed and which has £2 million in funds. Can the Minister tell us why the scheme was not carried over under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981? What will happen to the £2 million in funds?
    Mr. Wardle: Employment contracts for those whose jobs were transferred to the new enterprise are protected by TUPE, as the hon. Gentleman appreciates. The new industry-wide pension schemes are required to provide benefits no less advantageous than those provided by the mineworkers' scheme and by the staff superannuation scheme.

    Trade Associations
    Mr. Page: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department is taking to ensure that only a single trade association liaises with each industrial sector.
    Mr. Heseltine: As I made clear in a speech at the CBI last week and on other occasions, I want to see powerful, well-resourced and effective trade associations which represent the interests of all within their sector. To encourage that process, I have said that officials should refer to me only proposals or representations from a lead association in a sector.
    Mr. Page: I thank my right hon. Friend for that positive response. Does he agree that, without one umbrella lead
    342
    trade association in a sector, the Government would receive only a host of confused and muddled messages? That would waste the time of officials and Ministers getting those diverse messages and, worst of all, those trade associations would be doing a disservice to their members by not putting their views coherently to the Government.
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has taken great interest in this important subject and I agree with him. There are too many trade associations. Many are too small and under-resourced. If they are to represent their members effectively to the Government and the European Commission with a wider audience, there is room for rationalisation and we in the Department of Trade and Industry are doing what we can to encourage that.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of jobs created or safeguarded by inward investment projects during 1994.
    Mr. Heseltine: According to figures notified to my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau for the financial year 1993–94, almost 30,000 new jobs have been created and some 69,000 jobs safeguarded as a result of inward investment. Figures for the financial year 1994–95 will be available in June.
    Mr. Congdon: I welcome those figures. Does my right hon. Friend agree that companies choose to invest here because of the favourable economic climate that has been created for business with flexible labour markets and a positive approach to deregulation? Would not all that be put fundamentally at risk if we imposed the unnecessary burdens of the social contract on businesses in Britain?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a surge of inward investment into Britain because it is perceived that it is the best place within the European Union in which to locate both service and manufacturing activities and, I am delighted to say, an increasing number of company headquarters and research and development facilities. With the Government's policy of maintaining the maximum competitiveness within the British economy and the European Union, we can build markedly on that success.
    Mr. MacShane: The President of the Board of Trade is following the Prime Minister yesterday and in Question Time on Thursday in saying that the lack of a social chapter here has some impact on inward investment. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment quoted Daimler-Benz extensively, saying that the chairman of Daimler-Benz decided to come to the United Kingdom because there was no social chapter. [Interruption.] I have his statement in German. He does not mention the social chapter, he does not mention Europe and he does not mention England. Will the President of the Board of Trade ask the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment when citing European business men at least to be accurate and not dishonest?
    Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is accurate in pointing out that European companies are flowing into every part of this country under our inward investment programme, because they

    343
    know it is the best place to be. If we want to bring that to an end, all we have to do is replace this Government with the Labour party.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Can my right hon. Friend think of anything more likely to discourage foreign investment in this country, other than a Labour victory at the next general election, than sending a signal to the world that we are decoupling from future developments in the European Union?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct to make the vital point that the inward investment we are attracting from outside the European Union and the rationalisation of investment within the EU are based on the United Kingdom's competitiveness within the European Union.
    Dr. John Cunningham: As to inward investment, ABB invested £70 million in new technology at the carriage works at York—making it one of the most advanced factories of its kind in Europe. What does the President have to say to the workers and management of that plant, when it is threatened with closure because of the complete shambles caused by rail privatisation and the ending of British Rail orders from that works for new coaches? What signal does that shambles send to other companies about inward investment in the British economy?
    Mr. Heseltine: I tell those people straight that, if they think that if Labour came to power it would bring to factories jobs for which there is no demand, they are even sillier to listen to the Labour party than I thought.
    Mr. Jenkin: Should not my right hon. Friend be at pains to stress that if Britain opts out of the single currency, we will still be part of the single market? Would it not be better to spend £75 million on the Invest in Britain Bureau than to waste it on a speculative venture and the European Monetary Institute?
    Mr. Heseltine: We are not faced with that decision. I am sure that my hon. Friend, with the wisdom that he brings to this as to all other matters, would want to be in possession of all the facts in all the circumstances before taking a decision.

    British Telecom Connection Charges
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to British Telecom on the level of its connection charges to residential customers.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: None. Regulation of BT charges is a matter for the Office of Telecommunications. Connection charges have fallen by 17 per cent. in real terms since 1984.
    Mr. Gerrard: Does the Minister not accept that the cost of installing a telephone in the UK is significantly higher than in most industrialised countries? It is four times higher than in Germany, three times higher than in France and double the cost in the United States. Is that not a real deterrent, particularly for people on low incomes and pensioners, who are among those who could
    344
    benefit most from having a telephone? Is it good enough for the Minister to say that he does not care and that it is not a matter for him?
    Mr. Taylor: Far from not caring, I care deeply that the UK telecommunications industry reaches every part of the country and people who were not previously able to afford a telephone. The hon. Gentleman should not assume that this country's industry comprises only BT. It is interesting that cable companies offering telephone services are attracting subscribers who could not previously afford a telephone, because cable company entry terms are more attractive. That is the effect of market competition. Incidentally, by definition, such new subscribers live in urban areas, because that is where most cable companies operate at present. This country has a good overall record of universal telephone coverage. That will continue with new technology, such as use of the radio spectrum, particularly in outlying areas.
    Mr. Sumberg: If we had listened to Labour, telecommunications would still be a nationalised state monopoly and imposing high charges. Instead, there is competition and the public benefit. UK telecommunications lead the world.
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Certain countries represented on the European Union Telecoms Council still do not understand that the consumer can only benefit from liberalisation of services, and that only in that way will consumer costs decline. That is why it is a triumph for this country to have persuaded the rest of the EU to liberalise all services by 1 January 1998, to the great benefit of telephone companies of all sorts in this country, which will be able to offer their services and supplies throughout the European Union.

    Gas Standing Charges
    Mr. Olner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will discuss the impact of standing charges on low-income customers when he next meets the Gas Consumers Council.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones).
    Mr. Olner: The Minister's previous answer was not satisfactory. Does he agree that the 75 per cent. increase in pay awarded to British Gas's chief executive, coupled with a 13 per cent. reduction in showroom staff, is a crime? Does he not think that some of the company's £1.6 billion profit should be used to reduce standing charges for people on extremely low incomes who are suffering from the value added tax increase imposed by the Government?
    Mr. Taylor: What appears to be a crime is the Opposition's wilful misunderstanding of the benefits to the consumer. The consumer has benefited from a fall in prices since privatisation. That is what hon. Members who are concerned for their constituents should be talking about. There has been a 15 per cent. fall in prices, even allowing for 8 per cent. VAT. That shows that we have an extremely efficient industry. Simply to go on about management salaries is to distort the truth. It also reveals the hon. Gentleman's complete lack of understanding of what is in his constituents' interests.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. John McFall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to bring to your attention some correspondence that I have received relating to my private Member's Bill which is due to receive a Second Reading on 3 March. The British Field Sports Society has written to say that there is insufficient time for the Bill to pass through all its parliamentary stages. The correspondence also contains a letter from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) which tells colleagues that it is not the intention to divide the House as there will be insufficient time.
It is my contention that such correspondence will militate against a full debate and votes on a closure motion and Second Reading. It may also lead to a false impression being given to hon. Members. I seek your advice, first, on the propriety of an outside body such as the British Field Sports Society daring to interfere with the rights of Members of Parliament by stating that there is insufficient time. Secondly, is it in order for the hon. Member for Wimbledon, to whom I gave notice of this point of order by putting a message on the board at 2 pm, to speak for other hon. Members in a way in which he is not entitled to do?
Madam Speaker: There seems to be nothing wrong with the course of action that has been taken. Hon. Members often receive letters giving advice or guidance on what they might like to do. As the hon. Gentleman knows, letters and correspondence do not bind anyone to anything.
Ms Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During my contribution to last night's debate on passenger service requirements under rail privatisation, I was remiss in not declaring an interest—that I am sponsored by ASLEF, the Associated
346
Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. May I take this opportunity to apologise unreservedly to the House for that omission?
Madam Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Lady.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) asked me to thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in notifying him of the point of order and to apologise for the fact that he was unfortunately unable to be here.
Madam Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether you have seen reports today that the Secretary of State for Health was summoned to see the Lord Chancellor about the legal action that was going to be taken against her because of her Department's lack of beds for severely disturbed mentally ill patients. Has the Secretary of State announced that she intends to make a statement on this alarming state of affairs?
Madam Speaker: I have had no notification that the Secretary of State for Health is seeking to make a statement to the House, at least not today.
While I am on my feet, may I say that some right hon. and hon. Members seem to think that it is rather smart or clever to manipulate the English language when referring to other right hon. and hon. Members across the Floor of the House. I remind the House of the wise words of "Erskine May":
"Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language."
I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind in future interventions and that they will make use of the richness of the English language and select elegant phrases that express their meaning without causing offence to others. I know only too well from my postbag that some exchanges across the Floor of the House do not enhance it in the eyes of our electorate.

Financing of Political Parties
3.34 pm
Mr. John Spellar: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the financing of political parties by requiring disclosure of the source of donations, by the prohibition of donations from overseas, and by the publication of accounts.
Let me make it clear at the outset that my Bill does not concern state funding of political parties; it concerns the regulation of donations and accounts. It has three main aims—to prohibit donations from foreign nationals not normally resident in this country, and from overseas companies and Governments; to ensure the recording and publication of donations above a certain limit, not tied to a particular figure but probably about £1,000; and to require political parties to publish income and expenditure accounts in the same way as companies and trade unions.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Like Maxwell's donations to the Labour party from Liechtenstein?
Mr. Spellar: I am pleased to hear that there is all-party support for that last item. In 1949, the House passed a motion requiring parties to publish accounts, but unfortunately it has not yet been activated by the Tory party.
This is the third occasion on which I have presented the Bill. It is fortunate that it falls on a day on which the Tories are having to declare redundancies because of the collapse of their domestic operations. Regrettably, on previous occasions the Bill has been blocked by Government Whips. It is extraordinary that the Conservatives should be so reticent about disclosure; that could, after all, lead people to believe that they have something to hide. Presumably such feelings also led the Prime Minister to state in the House recently that he revealed the existence of donations only when they had resulted in a vote at his party conference. That must have caused people to ask why the Conservatives become so excited about what is essentially a modest proposal, which would be regarded as normal in most democracies.
The prohibition of foreign donations, for example, has been in force for some time in the United States, with no complaints and with general approval. People find it hard to understand why the Tory party seems to be excessively dependent on large donations or loans from people who do not even have a vote in this country. Perhaps we are being unfair, and all the stories have been fabricated by ill-intentioned media; in that case, the Bill would help the Tory party by dispelling unhealthy myths that thrive in an atmosphere of secrecy.
If, for example, the Conservatives had been required to declare donations, they might have had second thoughts about accepting £400,000 or so from Asil Nadir. Think of the embarrassment that that would have saved them. If they had taken the money anyway, the report that they would have filed would have provided them with a record, enabling them to answer the receiver's questions about how much had been improperly donated. Their hapless head of administration, Mr. Judge, would not have had to admit that the records of donations had all been dumped in 1992—which was his explanation of why the Government were unable to accede to a perfectly reasonable request from the receiver.
348
Furthermore, by publishing proper accounts Conservative central office would be able to demonstrate to party members that they had not been funding the £300,000 estimated legal costs run up by the unfortunate Mr. Judge in his ill-advised libel action against The Guardian. That is an important point. When it was revealed that the legal bill of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) had been paid by Conservative central office, the party lost an estimated £500,000 in donations. Presumably even the dwindling hard core of Tory party members do not think that that is the reason for their wine and cheese parties and jumble sales. The party probably lost some members over that; although it is hard to tell, given the general collapse of Tory party membership—especially in the Young Conservatives, who were once the biggest youth movement in Europe but now have about the same number of members as any Trotskyist sect, and exhibit much the same behaviour. That is increasingly the nub of the problem, and it is presumably why the Conservative party is blocking any attempt to introduce transparency to its accounts.
Even the Prime Minister does not seem to be very well informed about the funding of his party. When I asked him about Tory party finances at Question Time on 19 October 1993, he said:
"There are a great many secret sources and they are all cheese and wine parties up and down the country."—[Official Report, 19 October 1993; Vol. 230, c. 144.]
One would have to be a real dimwit to believe that.
The Tory party has recently admitted receiving more than £400,000 from Asil Nadir; an estimated hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pounds, from John Latsis, a Greek ship owner; money from Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka Shi; and funds from tax-evader and ex-Nissan boss Oktav Botnar.
Mr. Latsis and other ship owners and foreign business men are estimated to benefit from a tax loophole called foreign domicile tax status, estimated to cost the Exchequer £1 billion a year. That sum would have enabled the Chancellor to have been far more generous in imposing VAT on fuel, instead of trying to claw it back from all sorts of other taxpayers. That £1 billion a year is being given to very few people rather than being distributed among the population of the country. This country is one of only four in western Europe to have such an arrangement. The others are the Channel Islands, Luxembourg and Switzerland—all well-known tax havens.
If there were transparency, we would know clearly who was donating, who was benefiting and how much was being given. We would also know how the £15 million overdraft of the Conservative party is being covered. It would be extraordinary if a major bank were offering such a facility without proper security. What assets does the Tory party have and who is underwriting that huge sum? I suspect that many small business men would like the same generosity from their banks. The Royal Bank of Scotland seems to have much to answer for about overdrafts that it has given to business men.
The Bill will also deal with the amazing and increasing dependence of the Tory party on donations from individuals, corporations, foundations and—possibly—even Governments from abroad, none of whom has a vote in this country. There are persistent rumours that many of the deals that have attracted public attention for other

349
reasons—the Pergau darn affair, the Al Yamamah project in Saudi Arabia, the Malaysian arms deal and relationships with the Government of Brunei—all connect to donations to the Tory party.
The fundamental reason for all that is simple: the Tory party is in crisis. As it becomes increasingly unpopular, its membership is falling and aging away; as it is wiped out in local government, its local structure is withering; as it decimates industry, its traditional friends are closing their cheque books; as it loses Members of the European Parliament, its influence at European level is seen as eroding. The Government are now a narrow oligarchy, clinging to central state power, propped up by a few heavy-spending companies mainly from the City and by foreign interests. The Government are kept together only by their monopoly of patronage through honours, quangos and political favours.
The Bill corrects some of the worst abuses and ensures that the public know what is going on. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Spellar, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Mike O'Brien, Mr. David Winnick, Ms Angela Eagle, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Gordon McMaster and Mr. Chris Mullin.

Financing of Political Parties
  FINANCING OF POLITICAL PARTIES
  Mr. John Spellar accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the financing of political parties by requiring disclosure of the source of donations, by the prohibition of donations from overseas, and by the publication of accounts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 March, and to be printed. [Bill 47.]
Orders of the Day

  Local Government Finance (Wales)
  3.43 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move,
  That the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1995–96 (House of Commons Paper No. 140), which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
  Madam Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
  That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (Wales) 1995–96 (House of Commons Paper No. 141), which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
  That the Special Grant Report (Wales) 1995 (House of Commons Paper No. 142), which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
  Mr. Redwood: The motions allow total standard spending of £2,782 million for local government in Wales in 1995–96; an increase of 3.24 per cent. and an increase well ahead of inflation. The motions represent £15.1 million more than that which I announced on 29 November 1994, as the amount includes extra money for the police following the consultation. That takes the total increase to £87 million, when compared with the equivalent spending this year. It brings the increase to £600 million—or 30 per cent.—since 1990–91 which is well ahead of inflation at 21.3 per cent. That gives the lie to some of the criticisms that were made ahead of the debate to the effect that we had cut spending or been mean. Here is another large increase for the people of Wales and the services provided by their local government.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Secretary of State has mentioned a figure of £2,782 million, and Hansard tells us that on 14 December 1994, talking about the budget for Wales, he said that £2,767 million represented an increase of 2.7 per cent. However, I have a letter here from the chief executive of Dyfed county council saying that that £2,767 million is in fact £48.9 million less than the local authority budgets for this financial year. What the Secretary of State portrays as an increase of 2.7 per cent.—rising today to 3.2 per cent.—is really a cut of 1.8 per cent. below the existing level of expenditure. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what is wrong with the chief executive's arithmetic?
  Mr. Redwood: There are two ways in which the chief executive could be wrong. First, we must adjust for the change in functions. I was very careful about what I said, and if we compare like with like we see the increase that I have described. Perhaps the council's figures were not properly adjusted for the change in functions.
  Secondly, as I have said, we must compare like with like. We must compare the total suggested to the House last year with the total suggested this year, or we could compare budgets with budgets. But we must not confuse the figures or we shall get a silly answer. I am comparing

  351
  like with like, and making the right adjustments for the new range of functions that local government is undertaking.
  Mr. Barry Jones: Does the optimism of the Secretary of State's opening statement presage an intervention, or even a subvention, for the benefit of the hard-pressed local education authority in Clwyd? The possibility of major cuts in teacher numbers and the problems facing the county in providing for special needs are causing deep concern there. Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with those issues?
  Mr. Redwood: Willingly; I shall speak in detail about Clwyd's budget later. I know that concerns have been expressed, but I believe that there are easy ways in which Clwyd could find the money that I believe its schools need and deserve, and I hope that the county councillors will look more carefully and find the right answer for local people.
  Mr. David Hanson: The chief executive of Clwyd county council has said that as a result of the grant figures before us Clwyd will face a cut of £8 million—about 4 per cent.—because inflation has not been included in the settlement at the proper rate. Schools and many parents in my constituency and elsewhere are appalled at the consequences of the settlement and have urged me to vote against it. What justification can the Secretary of State offer me to take back to them?
  Mr. Redwood: I shall explain later where I think the money can come from to provide high-quality education in Clwyd. That is what I want, and I am sure that it is what Opposition Members want, too. Given the generosity of the settlement, the solution lies in the county's hands.
  The notional amounts report adjusts this year's county figures for the creation of self-standing police authorities from 1 April 1995. I propose to use those adjusted figures to measure increases in 1995–96 for capping purposes. The counties have been consulted on those figures and agree that they are accurate.
  The special grant report will enable me to pay grants totalling £19.5 million to the new unitary local authorities in Wales that will be elected on 4 May. These grants meet in full the local authority associations' estimate of the running costs of the new authorities in their shadow period. I want them to get off to a good start and I hope that, if nothing else, Opposition Members will welcome our generosity in not only meeting the bill in full but meeting it by way of grant, so that there can be no question but that the money will be there to do the job.
  I have consulted the local authority associations on the formula for distributing the grants and they have endorsed it. Total standard spending of £2,782.1 million includes £315.8 million for the new police authorities and £124.4 million for community care; £156 million will be paid as police grant to authorities by the Home Secretary, which the House has already approved, and the balance of £159.8 million will be provided by standard spending assessments.
  I propose to provide £2,466 million in aggregate external finance, an increase of 2.4 per cent on the 1994–95 level. This will comprise £1,718.3 million in revenue support grant, £520 million in distributable
  352
  non-domestic rates and £227.7 million in other revenue grants. It accounts for about 89 per cent. of total standard spending, compared with about 80 per cent. in the English equivalent settlement.
  That means that Welsh council tax payers will continue to benefit from substantially lower levels of tax than their counterparts in England as a result of the settlement. I hope that Opposition Members will weigh that up carefully before thinking about voting against the proposal.
  A new non-domestic rating list will come into force on 1 April. That shows an overall increase in rateable values for Wales of 18 per cent., reflecting the relative improvement in property values compared with London and southern England since the last valuation. That shows that the Welsh economy is doing relatively well, and that it is growing fast during a strong recovery.
  The levels of rates raised from the new list must by law be the same in real terms as the rates raised in 1994–95. To counterbalance the rise in values, the poundage will fall from 44.2p to 39p next year. Some ratepayers' valuations have risen by considerably more than the compensating decline in poundage since the last valuation.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget, we have acted to limit the real rate rise in 1995–1996 to 10 per cent. for any given property and 7.5 per cent for smaller properties, usually occupied by smaller businesses. The cost of this will be met in part by phasing in rate reductions for those who gain from the revaluation and in part by a £25 million Exchequer contribution. Around 60,000 ratepayers in Wales will be assisted by the transitional arrangements.
  The aim of the police funding formula is to distribute resources fairly to police authorities in Wales and England, taking account of each area's need for police services. The settlement represents an increase of over £30 million for Welsh police authorities compared with police budgets for 1994–95. It gives the new authorities a sound base for providing high-quality services in their first year. It also shows how disappointing Welsh Labour local government has been in meeting the needs of the police when it had the freedom to do so. I withdrew that freedom with great reluctance, but the decision represented by this budget is extremely popular in Wales, especially south Wales, where it gives a big boost to the police force.
  I want the authorities to concentrate on appointing more constables and sergeants to patrol our streets and detect criminals. I do not wish to see the money spent on too much extra management or new offices. I look to the new police authorities to spend it wisely in line with the public's wish for effective crime control and reassurance.
  I thoroughly disagree with the Labour party in its contention that £87 million more is not enough. Next year the counties will have sufficient money to pay for the teachers currently employed and, if they wish, they could recruit some more. LEA schools in Wales began this financial year with balances of £47.6 million. That was money given to schools in past years, and they still have considerable balances.
  I remember an early visit which I made as Secretary of State to Clwyd to see a new development project. I was greeted by a crowd of chanting pupils from a local school, who had been permitted to do so by teachers and Labour

  353
  councillors—perhaps they had even been organised by one or two of them. They shouted that the settlement that year was too low.
  When I tried to discuss the matter with the pupils, I discovered they did not know how big the budget was, how much it had gone up by, or how the county proposed to spend the money that Parliament had voted. I felt that those pupils had been manipulated by people out to play politics with their lives in a quite disgraceful way.
  Imagine my interest in discovering that Clwyd LEA schools had £5.2 million in unused balances at the start of this year—hardly evidence that past settlements, which have been criticised, have been mean. If the schools spent that money next year, it would have the effect of increasing their delegated budgets by almost 5 per cent.
  Mr. Martyn Jones: The Secretary of State knows that schools which manage their own budgets have to keep balances. The district auditors would be down on them like a ton of bricks if they did not. If the Secretary of State is so keen on giving money to the police because they lace cuts under the present SSA arrangement, does he not realise that Clwyd faces cuts in teacher numbers under the present SSA arrangement? Will he treat the education of children in Clwyd: in the same way as the police force in Clwyd?
  Mr. Redwood: I do not propose to take powers away from Clwyd county council to decide how much should go to the schools. That is an important local democratic power. I am entitled to argue about how schools should carry out their functions when they argue that I have not given them enough money. I am about to demonstrate that there is plenty of money if the schools choose the right priorities in line with those of the electors whom some Opposition Members represent.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that in addition to the reserves that the schools in Clwyd have, the county has balances of some £6 million.
  Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend is ahead of me in the argument that I am about to make to the House. The Western Mail tells me that spending the balances is not the answer. Yet it is money voted by the House for local government which has not been spent at a time when I am told that more money should be spent on education.
  Mr. Ron Davies: The Secretary of State said that schools have their own accumulated budgets. I ask him a simple question. Will he confirm that the latest advice given to schools was contained in circular 294, which says:
  "the ability to make savings in one year and deploy them in the next (e.g. to purchase a piece of equipment) is an essential feature of schemes of local management"?
  Is that the advice that he gives to schools?
  Mr. Redwood: Of course schools should budget wisely. Of course they have some powers to save for the things that they most want. But when we have balances of more than £5 million, or 5 per cent. of the annual delegated schools budget, and schools tell me that they do not have enough money, I am entitled to ask why they do not spend some of that balance on the things that they say are most needed—enough teachers paid at the rate for the job.
  354
  The Labour party has run a wicked campaign to alarm school governors, parents and pupils.
  Mr. Davies: I put a specific question to the Secretary of State. I am surprised that he did not answer it. The largest school in Clwyd, which has a budget of more than £2 million, has an accumulated budget of less than £40,000. That is well within acceptable levels. If the Secretary of State is so concerned about accumulated budgets in schools in Wales, why on earth has he not responded to the county authorities in Wales, which for the past 12 months have asked him to spell out his policy? The Welsh Office has promised those people for the past 12 months that the Secretary of State's guidelines will be published to explain what procedures he expects them to take. If he now criticises them, why did he not accept his responsibility 12 months ago and give schools the advice that he magically expects them to follow now?
  Mr. Redwood: There is a great deal of delegated power in the system, I believe rightly so. I see that once again Opposition Members want to centralise everything. We give considerable scope to the local authorities to decide on priorities. We then give scope to the schools to decide on their priorities. I do not attack schools or local authorities unless they tell me through the elected representatives on the Opposition Benches that they do not have enough money. Then I ask where all the money has gone and whether they have some money that they could use for those priorities.
  Opposition Members have been busy saying that the Government will not provide for the teachers' award in the settlement when they do not even know what the pay award is. I do not see how they can possibly judge that it cannot be afforded out of the settlement.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State admit that the balances are not transferable from one school to another? Some schools have done badly and others, admittedly, have a surplus. If the funds were held by the local education authority at county hall level, they could be distributed to where the need was greatest. The Secretary of State talked about pupils demonstrating. I have received a letter from Mr. McCarthy, the headmaster of St. Gabriel's Roman Catholic primary school in Newport, and from a host of parents expressing great concern about losing teachers from the school. What am I to say to them? Am I to say that there are surpluses in other schools in the county? That is not the answer.
  Mr. Redwood: The rest of my argument will help schools that do not have large balances. The aggregate balances are large, so my point applies to quite a large number of schools within the county. There is other money, which I shall reveal in a minute, which will also help.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) for making the point about balances in schools. On local authority balances, the Secretary of State knows as well as I do that district auditors, under Labour and Conservative Governments, always advised local government to hold reasonable balances. What sort

  355
  of reasonable balances does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that Clwyd and other county councils should have? What is his definition?
  Mr. Redwood: Of course there should be prudent balances; it is right that auditors discuss that with the county councils. It is for the finance specialists on the county along with their auditors to satisfy themselves about what is prudent and what is wasteful. There is a level of balance that is excessive and could be better spent on the services that are Parliament's primary intention in voting the money.
  Mr. Alan Williams: The right hon. Gentleman has already accepted that there should be some balances and he has said that those balances should be prudent. How does he reconcile his present argument that he must tell the schools what to do with the Government's argument that they are leaving it to the governors and the parents to decide what to do?
  Mr. Redwood: The right hon. Gentleman should not confuse the issue. I have already made it clear that, unlike Labour Members, I believe in the maximum of delegated power. We have backed that view with our actions. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Not in this settlement."] All I am saying is that if Labour Members and Labour councillors criticise the settlement because there is not enough money, I am quite within my rights to explain why I think that there is more than enough money in the settlement and to explain how very easily the teachers can be paid and can provide a good quality of education.
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain, because I am a little confused and I am sure that some of my colleagues are, too, exactly what he means by the word "prudent"? Will he spell out what he means?
  Mr. Redwood: I have already dealt with that point. It is a matter for the judgment of individual counties based on their budgets and their requirements, and for the auditors who obviously comment on these matters. I believe that the aggregate level of balances, both in the schools of Clwyd and in county councils around Wales, is considerably higher than is needed for a prudent balance.
  I want now to make some progress with my argument—
  Several hon. Members rose
  Mr. Redwood: I want to make a little progress with my argument and I shall then take interventions if hon. Members still think that there are problems with my analysis. I am sure that they will not think that because it is a carefully constructed analysis of the budget position that their authorities face. When we decided on the increases—
  Several hon. Members rose
  Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he will not give way yet.
  Mr. Redwood: When we decided on the increase in cash for local government next year, of course we took account of the need to pay teachers more. It is not some new development that has taken us by surprise. I also took
  356
  account of all other relevant points about the budgets and requirements of Welsh local government in framing the settlement. I expect education to be a high priority for county councils next year; that is what the people of Wales clearly want.
  The average results in schools in Wales are still too low. They are lower than those in England, lower than those in Scotland and lower by far than those in Japan. Tests on pupils with an average age of 15 years and eight months in England and Wales have shown that only one quarter could calculate correctly the total in the decimal sum 2.6 minus 4.12 plus 6.3 minus 0.44 without a calculator.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: We shall find out how good the Secretary of State is at percentages. What is the percentage of the total budget of schools remaining in the balance?
  Mr. Redwood: I have already answered that point; the hon. Gentleman was not listening. It is about 5 per cent. of the delegated schools budget. I have given the £5.2 million figure for Clwyd. I am saying that that figure is higher than it need be; it means that there is money there to help.
  I go back to the point about levels of competence. I am sure that hon. Members in their more honest moments would agree that levels of competence in both English and arithmetic need to be raised as a matter of urgency in many Welsh primary schools so that secondary pupils have mastered the basics before moving on to other studies. The tables show that the schools that receive most money per pupil often produce the worst results. They warn against the idea that all that is needed is more money. What is needed is more ambition for the pupils, better teaching and more stretching assignments.
  Mr. Ron Davies: The Secretary of State must understand that we expect answers to our questions because the people to whom he refers are our constituents. I must press him on what he considers to be "prudent". Does he understand that in Mid Glamorgan, for example, although there are balances, 85 per cent. of the budget is held by fewer than a quarter of the 45-plus secondary schools? Nothing in the Secretary of State's local management of schools arrangements will allow him, under the proposals that he now puts to us, to take money from the schools that have balances and give it to those running a threadbare economy. He must answer that question before he proceeds.
  Mr. Redwood: I do not want to take money away from the successful schools. I simply stress than many of them have good money—
  Mr. Alan Williams: Which ones are successful?
  Mr. Redwood: Those that are successful at budgeting. They may also be successful at teaching and educating, and I hope that they are. I do not want to take away from them money that is there to be used for educational purposes. I shall go on to identify other money that may help schools which Opposition Members say have no balances on which to draw.
  Clwyd county council spends a little over half its total budget on education. If it chose to spend an extra 1 per cent. of that budget on education and 1 per cent. less on other things, that would yield £3 million, or 3 per cent. extra on the delegated schools budgets. The ideal areas

  357
  for spending less would be council publicity, members' allowances for too many committees and working parties, and general office overheads.
  Mr. Barry Jones: Has not the Secretary of State launched a mean and organised attack on Clwyd county council aimed at creating a diversion to save his skin in this matter?
  Mr. Redwood: Spelling out the facts about accounted budgets is hardly a mean attack. It is the sort of analysis which Labour as well as Conservative councils should encourage in council chambers throughout Wales. The public need to know how much money is there and how it is being spent, so as to ensure that the priorities are right.
  Clwyd county council also has substantial balances, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) pointed out. If it spent £2 million of those on education, that would produce another 2 per cent. for the delegated schools budgets. I hear that it may now be thinking along those lines.
  Mr. David Rendel: The Secretary of State said that money could be taken from councillors' allowances and expenses. Have not the Government recently introduced new measures to allow councils to pay councillors higher expenses? Do not all parties agree that it is necessary to increase, as far as possible, allowances given to councillors to ensure that we have a higher standard of councillor, which I am sure the Secretary of State would appreciate?
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman was not listening. I said that there were too many working parties and committees. That is so in the case of Liberal-Labour Berkshire council—the hon. Gentleman's council—which has massive balances that it should spend on a decent education for children in Berkshire. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening and giving me a chance to say that.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am mindful of what Madam Speaker said earlier about exchanging insults, but I wonder whether the Secretary of States lives on this planet. I have in my hand a document from Gwynedd council, which says that this is the worst revenue support grant settlement in its history with a cut of £3.346 million. Unless the Secretary of State is right on everything and Gwynedd council is wrong, he must answer that point.
  A second document from Dyfed council says that it is cutting school meals and charging more for them, stopping further expansion of its community education programme and giving up responsibility for the maintenance of buildings.
  The settlement is an absolute disgrace and however much the Secretary of State tries to dress it up in fancy language and stupid figures, it is still a drastic cut. He must recognise that.
  Mr. Redwood: Madam Speaker, £87 million extra next year is no cut or fancy figure. It is good money which I trust the House will vote for tonight. It is money that the councils need and which I want them to spend well.
  If we look at Clwyd's education budget, what is even more depressing is how little of the money that Parliament votes for local authorities in Wales gets through to
  358
  schools. In Clwyd, of a total 1994–95 schools budget of £146.5 million, only £99.6 million is given to schools for their delegated budgets. Whereas in Powys '78p in every pound of the schools budget goes to the schools to spend on what they think matters most, in Clwyd only 68p reaches the schools for teachers' salaries and other delegated items. If Clwyd matched Powys in its spending pattern for delegated spending on schools, rather than getting £99.6 million, schools would receive £114 million, which is a massive increase of 14 per cent.
  Mr. Martyn Jones: The Secretary of State offered us a rather glib analysis of how much money Clwyd could save from council publicity, committee members' allowances and so on, which amounted to £1 million. I should like him to spell out in more detail how that money could be saved. I accept that Clwyd could take some money from budgets, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would also ensure that the district auditor did not look too unkindly at budget balances of between 1 and 2 per cent. The comparison with Powys is hardly fair because its SSA is much bigger than that of Clwyd. It has more money because it is an old rural county. If Clwyd received the same SSA it would not now face such problems. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will allow the council tax payers of Clwyd to make a decision to increase their council tax to a level that would ensure that teachers in Clwyd do not have to face compulsory redundancy? I am sure that the people of Clwyd would accept that. It is in his gift to do so.
  Mr. Redwood: The comparison between Clwyd and Powys does not hinge on the SSA, but on how much of the schools budget gets through to schools for their delegated purposes. The comparison is entirely fair. As to the rights of the councillors and constituents of Clwyd, I want them to make the decision. I am not taking that decision from them; I am just trying to influence it. It would be wrong of councillors to make teachers redundant when there is money in the settlement to pay for them.
  We must ask what Clwyd is spending the money on that it is not delegating to the schools. The most obvious item in the education budget is the £3,256,000 spent on management and administration. That amount is 13 per cent. above the level of the next highest council. Let us say that Clwyd could save £2 million from the total of £46 million that does not get through to the schools. That would represent another 2 per cent. on the delegated schools budget.
  As hon. Members will be aware, I have already identified easy ways of enabling the schools of Clwyd to see their budgets boosted substantially. The county could do that next year without cutting any other county service. I have suggested a list that adds up to about £12 million. I am not saying that Clwyd needs to find all that money or that it should, but if it found a proportion of it, Clwyd could have more teachers rather than fewer and schools could make more of their own decisions about which services they need and which teachers they wish to retain and recruit.
  The scope for using balances and delegating more money to schools can be reproduced across Wales, county by county.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: Mid Glamorgan will draw no less than £8 million from

  359
  its balances and reserves, but that will still mean a cut of £1.5 million in the school formula budgets and, the cruellest cut of all, a £1.5 million cut in the building maintenance budget. Many schools desperately need such spending because of their age and character. Mid Glamorgan has obeyed the right hon. Gentleman's instructions and taken money from its balances, but it is still encountering difficulties, so there must be something wrong with the right hon. Gentleman's formula rather than with local government.
  Mr. Redwood: I am delighted that it will use some of its balances for good purposes. It can prudently do so and I look forward to it using that money. I also hope that it will look at the other items that I set out for one county, because Mid Glamorgan may find that some of them also apply to it.
  As to improving run-down schools, no one is keener than I am to see the standard of maintenance and building repairs improved in those schools that need it. That is why I have made sure that there has been a generous capital settlement for education and for local government in general.
  In the current financial year counties receive credit approvals of £42.5 million for educational capital spending—up by 11.6 per cent. on the previous year. For next year I am proposing a further increase of 7 per cent. to £45.3 million. I want to see that money spent on buildings of which we can be proud for the schools of Wales and I trust that Opposition Members agree with that aim.
  In suggesting that councils control their central overheads, which in some cases are large, I am asking local government to do only what central Government are already doing. I told the House on 14 December 1994 that there would be a cash and real terms reduction in Welsh Office running costs for 1995–96, and similar reductions for Welsh executive non-departmental public bodies.
  The local authority associations tell me that there is little room for further significant efficiency savings. In my experience, there is always room for large organisations with multi-million pound budgets to achieve savings by innovation and improved working practice. That judgment is supported by two recent reports from the Audit Commission on pay and performance, which concluded that savings of £500 million could be achieved by local government in England and Wales.
  I am providing £43 million on top of the settlement in 1995–96 through special grant and credit approvals to meet the costs of local government reorganisation. As I promised, the costs of reorganisation are not a call on this revenue settlement.
  Care in the community, which is another important matter, will receive £124.4 million—an increase of £38 million, or more than 44 per cent., on the current year's figure. It is not calculated for capping purposes. I have kept the November 1993 plans for care in the community, despite the further decrease in inflation, because I regard that as crucial.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I apologise to the Secretary of State that I was not here when he started his remarks. Does he recognise that the predictions that were made, when community care was introduced, of the number
  360
  of people who would be cared for in their own homes, considerably underestimated the number of people who have made that choice? Is he satisfied that the increase that he is announcing will satisfy that increased demand?
  Mr. Redwood: Yes; I think that it will. It is a generous increase. What matters is not the number of people who opt for a specific type of care but the total number of people who need care, whether it be in their home or elsewhere. I think that the plans do take more than fair cognisance of the likely growth in numbers. We want the policy to succeed; I am sure that Opposition Members do; I am sure that all sensible people in local government want it to succeed. A 44 per cent. increase in the amount of money for that purpose shows how important we believe it to be.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) always comes to Welsh debates empty-handed. In all the time that I have debated with him, he has never promised more money than I have proposed. He had his chance this winter to offer more for the police, when local communities throughout Wales said that I had suggested too little. He did not take that chance. There was no shadow money for the police from the hon. Gentleman. Today he has his chance to say how much extra the Labour party would give local government in Wales if it had to make the decision.
  I know that the hon. Gentleman will duck and weave again. I notice him already beginning to duck and weave because he knows that it is true. I can presume only that he never raises the cause of Wales in shadow Cabinet meetings, for fear of being slapped down by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor. There he sits, long on criticism, devoid of ideas, bereft of even shadow money. If he cannot deliver shadow money from a shadow Cabinet, why should anyone believe that he could deliver anything for real, were he ever in a position to try to do so?
  It is odd that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to intervene. I think that he knows that it is a fair criticism. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not mention Wales in the shadow Cabinet. He goes out to make the tea instead of asking whether Wales can be given a decent place in shadow Cabinet plans. I look forward to hearing the shadow budgets. I am sure that, were they ever to leak out, we would discover that there was not an extra penny, let alone an extra pound or ecu, for Wales anywhere to be seen.
  Local authorities will also receive generous capital provision next year. I announced on 14 December 1994 that that would total £525.6 million, up 4.5 per cent. on this year. I expect Welsh local authorities to act responsibly in setting their budgets. I shall consider those budgets carefully, in the light of my provisional capping principles and of all the available information.
  This is a good settlement for Welsh local government. It is a delight to see that it puts Opposition Members in such good humour as I tease them about their inability to come up with anything better. It gives Welsh local government an increase greater than inflation. It gives it extra resources to prepare for local government reorganisation. It could mean more teachers in the classroom if councillors want them to be there and are determined to budget sensibly. It will definitely mean more police on the streets and more care in the community.

  361
  I want local authorities in Wales to raise the sights of local communities, raising standards in schools and providing generously for elderly and disabled people. I commend the settlement to the House.
  4.19 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: If the Secretary of State had any friends, I do not think that even they would congratulate him on his performance.
  Mr. Rowlands: Offer him a shadow salary.
  Mr. Davies: I can hear my hon. Friend urging me to increase the shadow budget. There are no restrictions on our shadow budget; the problems begin with the restrictions that the Secretary of State is imposing on the real budget. It was interesting to note that all the detailed questions asked of the Secretary of State today have been pointedly ignored.
  The thesis of the Secretary of State's argument was that unspecified schools, unnamed councillors and unquantifiable council officials had conspired together to build up unreasonable balances in Clwyd. He only managed to single out Clwyd county council and did not refer to any other counties in Wales. He suggested that the solution to the problem of local government finance in Wales could be dealt with by attacking Clwyd county council.
  When the right hon. Gentleman was asked what constituted a prudent balance, he gave no answer. When he was challenged specifically on whether it was Government policy for those schools prudently to accrue balances for use in future years, he gave no answer. I cannot make the point strongly enough that those schools are following the specific advice given to them by the Government. It ill becomes the Secretary of State to criticise them for following Government policy.
  Of course, Clwyd has built up balances. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) explained what had happened to Mid Glamorgan. But the Secretary of State signally failed to say what proposals he had to meet the expenditure next year if Clwyd and all the other counties in Wales used all their balances this year. We all understand, even if the Government do not, that one can sell and spend the family silver only once. That represents exactly what the Government have done—the bonanza of North sea oil, the proceeds of privatisation and all our industry have gone.
  After 15 years of Tory Government, there is an increase this year equivalent to '7p in the pound on the standard rate of income tax. The right hon. Gentleman now 'wants Welsh local authorities to do precisely the same. If they get rid of the balances this year, next year they will face the prospect of either increasing rates—which he will not allow them to do because he will rate-cap them—or cutting deep into the body of public services. That is what the Government have been about. The Secretary of State's disgraceful speech demonstrates the fact as clearly as
  362
  anyone would wish that he does not care for the future of Welsh local government, which has co-operated with the Government for the past 15 years.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not an interesting commentary on what the Secretary of State said that he seemed to equate the quality of a school with the size of its balances?
  Mr. Davies: I shall return to that point. However, I shall first deal with some of the generalities in the Secretary of State's statement.
  It is worth looking at what the right hon. Gentleman said last year when he announced an increase of 4.2 per cent. in total standard spending. He said:
  "the settlement proposals are fair and will mean that good quality services can be delivered by councils throughout Wales, and that they offer enough money to avoid sacking essential staff"—[Official Report, 15 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 876.]
  Those objectives could be achieved with a 4.2 per cent. increase last year. This year, the increase is 2.7 per cent. Judging the Secretary of State by his own standards and using his speech, what will the settlement mean? If 4.2 per cent. was fair, is 2.7 per cent. unfair? If 4.2 per cent. was the minimum necessary to allow councils to avoid sacking essential staff, what will be the consequences of a 2.7 per cent. increase in total standard spending? It means that essential staff will be sacked. The Secretary of State is condemned by his own arguments.
  Mr. Redwood: Has not the hon. Gentleman noticed that the inflation rate has gone down?
  Mr. Davies: By the Government's own estimate, the current inflation rate is 3 per cent. How can the Secretary of State expect local authorities, which will receive a real terms funding increase of 0.4 per cent., to cope with inflation of 3 per cent.?
  Why will the right hon. Gentleman not tell us what the inflation figure will be for teachers' salaries? Once the Government have agreed to that inflation figure—it will be 2.5 or 3 per cent.; good luck to the teachers—the Government will have direct responsibility for it. Will the Secretary of State make complete resources available to meet the full cost of the teachers' pay award? Perhaps he will answer that question. The Secretary of State should get to his feet and give the House a proper answer.
  Mr. Redwood: For about the third time: yes, of course we have taken full account of the likely teachers' pay award in the settlement. It is in the funding that we have described.
  Mr. Davies: They are weasel words. When the Government say, "We have taken it into account," the House knows that they will underfund the teachers' pay award in the current year.
  This is a harsh settlement by any standards. How can it be reconciled with all that we have been told over the past 12 months about the country's economic performance? The Secretary of State comments at every opportunity about how well we are doing. If we are doing so well, why will we have to sack teachers and stop caring for the elderly and the infirm in our communities? How is that a measure of economic success?
  This year the effective increase in aggregate external finance support for standard spending assessments is 87.6 per cent. The Secretary of State did not mention that

  363
  because last year the figure was 88.5 per cent. If he had managed to maintain AEF at last year's level, the council tax increase this year would be 2.5 per cent. rather than the 10 per cent. which every council tax payer in Wales now expects to pay.
  The Secretary of State has managed his own unique triple whammy. As a consequence of the financial settlement, we have cuts in services, tax increases and a boost to inflation. Economic success, as defined by the Tories, brings cuts in public services and tax increases. The Secretary of State knows that the funding cuts will hit the education sector hardest.
  The Secretary of State and his colleagues must understand that if we are to begin to address the problems of the economic and social malaise which their policies have created, we cannot neglect the educational needs of our society. Only one strategy matters to the Government: the political strategy of achieving tax cuts before the next general election.
  The Government have no economic strategy, otherwise they would not cut education standards. They have no strategy for dealing with the increasing problems of alienation and unemployment among young people, otherwise they would not cut education standards. They have no strategy for dealing with drug abuse, crime and related social problems, otherwise they would not cut education standards.
  I will tell the Secretary of State what goes on in Wales because he does not know much about it. Since 1990 there has been a four-fold increase in the number of registered drug addicts. Since 1979 the number of drug offences has increased by 184 per cent. I will use Islwyn as an example—if the Minister bothers to talk to the people, they will tell him what is happening.
  In Gwent police C division, which is centred on Blackwood, the number of recorded drug offences has increased from 81 in 1990 to 294 in 1993. The Secretary of State says that he is good at percentages, so he can work that one out for himself. At the same time, the force strength in C division has fallen from 259 to 253. This year the county council is being forced to cut its expenditure on education and social services in that area by £5.5 million. The Secretary of State's arguments do not hold up, even if we accept his basis for presenting the figures. For those who are responsible for local government, the reality is far worse.
  I acknowledge that there has been an increase of £87.6 million in total standard spending over last year and that is welcome. But let us look at it. It includes £38.4 million transferred to fund community care. That is not new money or additional expenditure, as the Secretary of State implied; it is a straightforward transfer from a different budget. It is ring-fenced and hypothecated for a new statutory duty; it is not available for expenditure on any other sector.
  There has been a £37.5 million increase for police authorities. That is welcome, but it is a belated acknowledgement by the Secretary of State that his initial proposals were inadequate. All Welsh Opposition Members went to the Home Office or the Secretary of State last year to protest about the inadequate level of funding of our police forces in Wales.
  364
  What was the response of the police forces to the initial settlement that the Secretary of State proposed in December? Barely two months ago, he tried to tell us that it was satisfactory. The North Wales police had to announce an immediate freeze on recruitment. They prophesied that in 12 months' time there would be 60 fewer police officers as a result of the Secretary of State's proposals; there would be a freeze on recruitment of special constables, the closure of smaller police stations, community projects would be cut and there would be a failure to invest in communications, which the chief constable described as possibly catastrophic.
  In Dyfed Powys the police faced a 10 per cent. reduction in the number of serving officers—a reduction of 100 police officers. The chief constable's view was that policing would be decimated, with a consequent inability to protect the public.
  South Wales, which this year has had the lion's share of the increase and has done relatively well under the settlement, was underfunded, settlement by settlement, in previous years by the Government and the Home Office. Even after the increase, the treasurer of the police authority comments:
  "with the settlement for 1995–96 we are able to look at increasing the operational strength of the force but even now we are not able to return to previous levels."
  All that the Secretary of State has done to improve police funding is to ameliorate a crisis of his own making. If he now expects us to give him credit for correcting his own mistake, he will be disappointed.
  Mr. Redwood: Surely the mistake was made by Labour councillors who would not support the police.
  Mr. Davies: That is not true. The Secretary of State knows full well that he was asked time after time—certainly by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—whether under his budget he would give Wales the same indicative SSAs as were available for English local government and he refused.
  The Secretary of State bears full responsibility for any underfunding of the South Wales police. He also knows that, whereas for one or two years the police authority received less than the SSA that he knew existed although he would not tell the public, in other years, because of how local authorities were budgeting capital expenditure, it received in excess of what was in the notional SSA.
  Given that the Secretary of State is telling Clwyd to cut a few caretakers here and a few administrators there, and he is prepared to lay down to Clwyd what it should do now in response to the current crisis, why on earth did he not over the years give any indication to Mid Glamorgan, South Glamorgan, Gwent or West Glamorgan of the indicative strategies for police funding that he had in mind? Why?
  Mr. Redwood: The Government always made it clear that it was the responsibility of local authorities. The money was there within the settlement and we wanted them to spend it.
  Mr. Davies: It is a changed story now. In respect of Clwyd county council, the Secretary of State is prepared to look at the budget under a microscope and say item by item where the cuts should be. How can the Secretary of State say on the one hand that it is perfectly proper for

  365
  authorities in south Wales to fund the police authority according to their own priorities and it is not a matter for him even to give the indicative SSAs, and on the other hand tell Clwyd county council almost item by item how it should organise its affairs? It is completely unacceptable.
  Mr. Redwood: It is entirely similar. The Government always made it clear that they disagreed with the policing priorities established by Labour councils in south Wales. If Clwyd goes ahead with some of its threats to school budgets, I shall disagree with those priorities in the same way. I have no powers to stop those concerned, but I hope that common sense will prevail.
  Mr. Davies: That shows the Secretary of State's double standards. Of the 38 Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies, 27 are members of the Welsh Labour group. Twenty-seven of us wrote to the Secretary of State expressing our concern and asking to meet him to discuss the police funding crisis in Wales. I am sure that hon. Members from other Opposition parties would have joined us. Such is the right hon. Gentleman's sense of accountability and sensitivity to public opinion that he refused even to meet us. The Secretary of State has no credibility in these matters.
  Mr. Redwood rose—
  Mr. Davies: I know the cheap point that the right hon. Gentleman wants to make. If he intends to refer to this side of the House, I remind him that the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for education in Wales has not even shown the courtesy of attending this debate.
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is fulfilling the engagements that I would have undertaken if this debate had not been held today. I am sure that Wales will welcome my hon. Friend, who is to present awards and to hear the views of people in north Wales. The hon. Gentleman is right to be nervous. Why are only 13 Labour Members present out of 27? Why is Labour unable ever to marshall the majority of its Members of Parliament to support the hon. Gentleman—whether in the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff or for this debate, which the hon. Gentleman says is crucial?
  Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman answered his own question. My hon. Friends are fulfilling other duties—as Conservative Welsh Members are doing, no doubt. Of course the hon. Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) are fulfilling other duties.
  Mr. Redwood rose
  Mr. Davies: There is no need for the right hon. Gentleman to become agitated. He knows that all Members of Parliament have other responsibilities. Even if only one third of the members of the Welsh Labour group were in the Chamber, we would still outnumber Conservatives from Wales by two to one. The right hon. Gentleman should not labour the point.
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friends are entirely happy with the settlement and think that it is good news for Wales—so they do not need to be present. Only the
  366
  Opposition tell me that it is a bad settlement. Why cannot at least half of Welsh Labour group members turn up to tell me that in person?
  Mr. Martyn Jones: There are 14 of us present, which is more than half.
  Mr. Davies: I am sure that Hansard will record my hon. Friend's sedentary intervention.
  The Secretary of State wants to divert attention from the funding question. Community care, which is hypothecated, and police expenditure together total £75.9 million, leaving an increase of more than £11.7 million—4 per cent.—for all other services. Local authorities are required to cope with inflation, which is near 3 per cent., new legislation, increasing numbers of elderly people and a massive backlog of essential repairs and maintenance to buildings, roads and bridges.
  The Government have scored their most spectacular own goal in education. First, they changed the composition of governing bodies to do away with party political influence and replaced people appointed under that system with teachers, parents, business men and others from the community. The Government then changed the rules governing finance, to give greater local discretion. They altered the rules governing local education authority financial allocations, giving less discretion to central services. Next, the Government changed the rules governing central Government allocation to local government, to give greater control to central Government. They changed the rules again, to rate-cap local government and prevent it meeting local needs. At the same time, the Government established new quangos under their control, with open-ended purse strings.
  After spending 15 years constructing a system that the Government wanted, the people whom they chose to run it in the way that they wanted are in open rebellion. There are hundreds if not thousands of decent, law-abiding, respectable school governors in Wales who are now being placed in an impossible position. They are being asked to take decisions to cut the services that they are in public life to protect. What sort of Government are doing that to our communities? Only a party stupid and inept enough to give us the poll tax, VAT on fuel and the Post Office fiasco could plunge our education service into such chaos.
  The Secretary of State has made three fundamental mistakes with education funding. First, the settlement itself is inadequate. Secondly, no provision has been made for the continuing increase in the number of pupils in Wales. Last year, there was an increase of 7,000 and next year there will be an increase of 8,000. That is roughly the equivalent of a new, large comprehensive school for each county in Wales. The full running costs of that new comprehensive school will have to come from the existing schools budget. That is a measure of the increase in pupil numbers alone.
  In addition, the Government have made wholly inadequate provision to fund the teachers' pay increase. A 0.4 per cent. increase in the standard spending assessment falls far short of the 2.9 per cent. widely trailed as the teachers' pay award. That pay award alone will cost Welsh counties £17.5 million. That money has to come from somewhere—from other services or from the education budget itself. If the money has to come from education spending, there will, as a direct consequence,

  367
  be between 500 and 600 fewer teachers in Wales next year. If there are 8,000 more students, the inevitable consequence will be larger class sizes which will, in the words of the Secretary of State for Education, "shoot up" and falling standards of education.
  In typical fashion, the Secretary of State has tried to divert attention from his own inadequacies by attacking schools, teachers, governors and local authorities with the ridiculous claim that they are not spending the money allocated to them. The fact is that they are following very specifically the advice given by the Department for Education which states in its circular that balances are
  "an essential feature of schemes of local management".
  Despite repeated requests over the past 12 months from Welsh education authorities, and despite repeated promises, none of which has been fulfilled by the Welsh Office, the Secretary of State has refused to give schools and local education authorities his advice on the question of building up balances.
  One would have thought that the Secretary of State would at least acknowledge his own inadequacies and have the modesty to refrain from attacking the people who have been asking for advice for the past 12 months. In typical Tory fashion, he is now going to penalise most unfairly schools without balances for the supposed failings of schools with balances because they did not foresee that his views would apparently differ from those of the rest of the Government. He knows that he has no mechanism within local management of schools to divert the funds in these particular circumstances that he now chooses to criticise. Inevitably, the schools with the smallest balances are in the least prosperous parts of Wales and they will be hardest hit.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will not one of the consequences of what the Secretary of State has said be that outlined clearly by the Audit Commission in its document entitled "Adding up the Sums"? The governing bodies of schools will have to reduce the number of highly qualified and trained teachers and substitute less qualified and less trained younger teachers. It will be the quality of education and the quality of teaching that will suffer as a consequence.
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the many inconsistencies in the system. Having established local management of schools on the basis of a desire for local accountability and decision making, how on earth can the Secretary of State now criticise schools for operating the very system that he wanted?
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to yet another consequence? The very few grant-maintained schools that exist in Wales, with their additional funding, will not be as badly hit as state schools. Could that not be portrayed as an attempt to hit state schools hardest, to persuade those that have so far resisted the call to adopt grant-maintained status to adopt that status in order to secure the funds that they need to maintain their teaching staff?
  Mr. Davies: It hardly constitutes gentle persuasion, but I suppose that it is the sort of genuflection to democracy that we expect from the present Government. I have already mentioned an article in, I believe, last week's The
  368
  Times Educational Supplement about the balances held by grant-maintained schools in England. I have tabled a parliamentary question to the Secretary of State; I hope that the few schools that have been misguided enough to opt out of local authority control in Wales will be given an honest answer. Certainly, according to published figures, grant-maintained schools have carry-over budgets far in excess of those of locally managed schools.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I will, but I am anxious to finish my speech. This is the last intervention that I will take.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Is it not inevitable that grant-maintained schools will have larger surpluses? They receive 100 per cent. of the money due to them, while schools in Clwyd receive only 68p in the pound.
  Mr. Davies: Grant-maintained schools are in a better position to build up carry-over surpluses because they receive more money than locally managed schools. As a former Minister of State in the Welsh Office, the right hon. Gentleman knows the consequences of that very well. When he presided over the Welsh education budget, once grant maintained schools had been established he top-sliced the budget to try to bribe Welsh schools to become grant-maintained. It was plain that, if they did so, they would have a direct relative advantage over schools that remained under local education authority control. That was a specific attempt to destroy the idea of a planned comprehensive education system. Unfortunately, at every opportunity, the people of Wales have overwhelmingly shown that they do not want a different system.
  Let me give the Secretary of State an example of the impact that his policy is having. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) referred to the district auditor. Let me refer the Secretary of State to the Office for Standards in Education, which was set up to monitor standards. It has recommended, time after time, that local schools use the roll-over facility to meet the needs that have been identified.
  One of the schools that the Secretary of State chooses to criticise happens to be in my constituency. I know it well; it has the distinction.of having taught Neil Kinnock, my former colleague in Islwyn. Lewis boys' school in Pengam has a balance amounting to just over 3 per cent. of its budget. It desperately needs investment in buildings and facilities: some of its buildings date from 1860. Following Ofsted's recommendations in a report on the school, it is trying to purchase new information technology equipment. The school has to find £20,000 and it cannot get it from the local education authority. One of the consequences of the settlement is that schools like that across the length and breadth of Wales will not be able to secure the minimum finance necessary to equip themselves with new information technology.
  Mr. Alan Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State for Education in England has announced in the past couple of weeks that she is making available money for IT in English schools and that the Welsh Office has refused to introduce a similar scheme for Wales?
  Mr. Davies: That point invites me to use one of my favourite arguments in favour of devolution, which will,

  369
  no doubt, give my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) palpitations. Enormous powers have been devolved to the Secretary of State for Wales. He can choose the ways in which the education policy and the funding of education schemes in Wales differ from those in England. So there is already devolution of power in Wales—to the Secretary of State for Wales. I very much look forward to the day—I shall invite my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West at some time to warmly endorse our view—when power will not be devolved to the Secretary of State for Wales, who represents an English constituency, but to the people of Wales and their elected representatives.
  As a result of the settlement, schools such as the Lewis school in Pengam will be forced to try to second-guess the Secretary of State. He will not tell us what he has in mind. Schools will have to wonder what is a reasonable budget, what is a prudent percentage to carry over and how much their funds should be. If they try to build balances for a new science laboratory or new IT or, perhaps, to build a new sports hall, they will not know whether the Secretary of State will change the rules and penalise them the following year. His settlement has implied that intention this year.
  It is typical that, under the Secretary of State's uncaring regimes which lack understanding, schools such as the Lewis school will be penalised. Once again, this centralising, dogmatic, intolerant Government have sought to remove local discretion, to reduce the powers of local government and to undermine accountability to the people. They have got it hopelessly wrong; the settlement is hopelessly wrong and that is why my colleagues and I will be voting against the motions tonight.
  4.52 pm
  Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the settlement was good, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) called it a harsh settlement and, in the spirit of compromise, I shall call it a fairly tight but, nevertheless, manageable settlement, as has been almost every settlement that I have known.
  There are certainly very good points to the settlement. The increase of 3.2 per cent. in total standard spending is welcome. Indeed, my understanding is that no less than 89 per cent. of it is being met by central Government. Some specific features have caused concern, but have been resolved. The police settlement has been greatly welcomed by the police force in Wales and substantial provision has been made for local government reorganisation. I also welcome the 4.5 per cent. increase in capital grants and credit approvals, which, I am sure, will be put to good use by Welsh local authorities.
  The point has not been made that this year is the last for the Welsh counties and that some, if not all, have substantial balances. My county of Gwynedd, for example, has balances amounting to £8.6 million and it has already taken the view that it could reduce them to £6 million and possibly less to cushion the effect of the settlement. Other counties must be in the same position. If the Liverpool Daily Post is correct, Clwyd has already
  370
  decided that it may devote at least £1 million of its £6 million in balances to strengthening services following the settlement.
  Mr. Llwyd: In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks which, because of the tone in which they were delivered, I heard some of my colleagues describing as almost rebellious, may I ask him whether he received the briefing from the chief executive of Gwynedd county council, which says clearly that there will be a cut of £3.346 million? Is he saying that that man is misleading Members of Parliament about Gwynedd?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for leading me on to exactly what I was going to say next. When the counties talk about reductions they mean not that the 1995–96 settlement is less than the 1994–95 settlement but that the 1995–96 settlement is less than their actual budgets for 1994–95. That is precisely what the treasurer of Gwynedd said in the report to his finance committee, of which I do indeed have a copy. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the bottom of page 1 he will see that like is not being compared with like. As I said, the 1995–96 settlement is being compared with the council's actual budget for 1994–95, which was indeed higher than this year's settlement.
  Of course the 1995–96 actual budget is also likely to be higher. Indeed, the Government permit counties to spend an average of about 3.3 per cent. over and above their SSAs before the cap comes into effect. The report by Gwynedd county treasurer shows that there is an anticipated increase in the budget for almost every individual service. In education, for example, the budget for this year is £86.894 million and the base for next year it is £89.21 million.
  Of course there is concern about the level of the teachers' pay settlement and about inflation, and there is clearly a need for contingency reserves of about £2.9 million to cover those, but, as my right hon. Friend said, it is not only the counties that have balances. We heard yesterday that about £700 million was available in reserves in school budgets in England, and now we hear that Welsh schools too have about £47.6 million available in their reserves.
  The Opposition have made a great deal of what my right hon. Friend said, but surely he would reply—I certainly would—that schools cannot have substantial reserves yet at the same time complain of an inadequate settlement. They can use their reserves. Of course there are schools that may not have reserves, in which case there is nothing to stop the county education authority coming to their assistance with its balances. I am sure that in practice that is what will happen.
  There is no excuse for a drastic reduction in teacher numbers or in staffing generally in Gwynedd. Work has been done on some options, such as a 1 per cent. cut in the staffing budget, with a 1 per cent. cut in the total budget and up to a further 2 per cent. I dare say that those exercises are good for the souls of those concerned. The Audit Commission would approve, and I am sure that we should do so, but, given the balances available, it does not seem that drastic cuts will be necessary.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly should bear in mind the fact that expenditure per primary pupil in Wales is now 52.6 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1979–80. Expenditure per secondary school pupil is 64.2

  371
  per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979–80. Considerable expenditure has been made on education in Wales, with real terms increases.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Does not most education expenditure go on capital equipment, teaching or buildings? Throughout the period to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, the number of pupils declined enormously and a great percentage of the money was required simply to keep empty classrooms and school buildings. The Government's policies of opting out have made it difficult for local authorities to do anything about surplus places. Does not that artificially inflate the figure that is allegedly spent per child?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is protesting too much and is seeking a complex explanation for the fact that expenditure per pupil now is much higher. If he had visited classrooms, he would know that that increase has shown up in the facilities available.
  There are a substantial number of surplus places in schools in Wales, and whatever policy is pursued it must certainly be adhered to. Some grant-maintained schools might otherwise have been closed by local authorities, but there is still a duty on local authorities, which they must not shy away from, to get rid of surplus places. I do not think that the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) can use the policy on grant-maintained schools as an excuse for not getting rid of surplus places. I do not want to pursue this argument too far as the amount of time available is limited.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been able to increase the moneys available for community care, which was something of a pinch point. Gwynedd's social services budget will increase from £29.328 million this year to £33.5 million next year. That, and total expenditure of £124.4 million in Wales, will be widely welcomed in Gwynedd.
  The failure of my borough of Aberconwy to secure a significant allocation under the strategic development scheme has caused it disappointment, which I share. I have been dealing with the matter in correspondence with my right hon. Friend, and I am grateful for the letter that I received today in which he emphasised the strength of competition for SDS funds and stated that only seven out of 35 projects succeeded in attracting funds.
  The borough welcomes the increased funding for housing renovation grants, which are much needed in the renewal area of Penmaenmawr. Aberconwy has a surplus on its collection fund, which will help to keep down the council tax, but the gross cost of rent allowances will have risen by about 300 per cent. between 1991–92 and 1995–96.
  The borough's director of financial services therefore suggests that the rent allowance element be excluded from the capping calculations, because councils have little or no control over it. Rent allowances are in the hands of landlords and rent officers, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will look into the matter.
  I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Caerphilly, although I am bound to say that his speech sounded rather like an old, clattering alarm clock. He failed to wake us up for the simple reason that he did not answer the key questions: would the Labour party, if it were in
  372
  government, increase grant and, if so, by how much, or would it remove the cap and allow the council tax to rise? Those are the alternatives open to the hon. Member for Caerphilly. He has not told us which he would choose, and neither has he said by how much he would allow the council tax to rise.
  More surprisingly, I heard no mention of the Opposition's local government policy document, "Renewing Democracy, Rebuilding Communities". I have used the title of the document to oblige the Opposition and to ensure that it is placed on the record. The Opposition's policies are explained in the document: to abolish the cap and compulsory competitive tendering, to return business rates to local authority control and to release capital receipts and payments to councillors. Are those Labour policies or not? If they are, why on earth did we not hear about them?
  Mr. Ron Davies: Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman that it is a consultative document. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Unlike some of his hon. Friends, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the virtues of consultation. I look forward to him writing to me with his detailed observations on that consultation document.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: If I can help the Labour party by contributing my views, I may do so—if I thought that it would have any effect.
  I am bound to say that the tone of the document suggests that the consultation is not very real. The precise propositions to abolish the cap and so on are likely to be adopted by the Labour party, which will lead to a return to the old, profligate, bureaucratic and inefficient local authorities of the 1970s and 1980s.
  I think that Mr. McKinstry was right, and in case any hon. Member does not know what that former Labour councillor and adviser wrote in The Spectator on 21 January, here it is:
  "In my job with the Labour party at Westminster … I could see only too clearly that the spirit of Labour in local government—that mean minded cocktail of political correctness, bureaucracy, intervention and abuse of public money—pervaded the whole party".
  I am disappointed that we did not hear what the Opposition would do if they were in government. Until we know rather more positively what they will do, we shall continue to be disappointed.
  I began by saying that this was a fairly tight settlement but a manageable one. I shall finish by joining my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in describing it as a good settlement.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: This is the first opportunity that I have had to follow the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) since he returned to the Back Benches. It would be wrong if we did not put on the record the great kindness and courtesy that he showed to those of us who came to see him on various issues and problems. It was always appreciated. We welcome him back to the Back Benches. I hope that his successor will learn the right hon. Gentleman's courtesy, style and kindness as quickly as possible. Our personal relationships with the right hon. Gentleman have certainly been beneficial.

  373
  For a moment at the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech it sounded, on the Richter scale of language that we have come to expect from him, as if he was going to be slightly rebellious. He managed not to be. I saw slight signs of worry on the Secretary of State's face. If the right hon. Member for Conwy starts to rumble him, the Secretary of State really has to worry.
  There are a number of symptoms of the late stages of a Government in decline. We saw an extraordinary set of them today. Financial decadence has been preached by the Secretary of State and, believe it or not, even by the right hon. Member for Conwy, who suggested that because county councils were to be abolished in 12 months, they ought to clear their balances out. Is that the official position of the Government?
  How much does the Secretary of State think should remain in the balances of county councils in their last year? What sort of assumptions does he make in his plans for the changeover from county to unitary authority? Has he made assumptions about the amounts of money that will be transferred and how they will be transferred? I should be grateful if the Secretary of State could advise us on that. The recommendation of the right hon. Member for Conwy was that county councils should clear out their balances in their last year of office. That is a sign of a Government preparing to leave office.
  Then there was the prescription of the right hon. Member for Conwy that balances should be run down to cover the costs of the failure of the Secretary of State to reach a satisfactory settlement with the Treasury.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones:: I wonder why my hon. Friend is surprised. Does he recognise a parallel between the subject that we are discussing and what the Government are doing with the Welsh Development Agency? They are running down the assets of the WDA in preparation for the time when they are no longer in office. We shall then have to refund that organisation for the capital assets that it has been forced to spend.
  Mr. Rowlands: I said that there were a number of symptoms of a Government on their way out. They have been manifested in the debate this afternoon. The concept of running down one's assets and balances is a striking contrast with the Thatcherite prudent housekeeping about which we had lectures for a decade and more. None the less, it is interesting to note the right hon. Gentleman's solution for local authorities which face tight financial problems such as those described by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), those referred to by Welsh Members in their representations to Ministers and those which I am sure will be described in the debate.
  I know that among Conservative Members there is a feeling that local government cries wolf every year when this annual ritual takes place. That seems to be the idea. I will tell the Secretary of State the symptoms that have appeared this year which I have not seen before. I have never received so many representations from governors of schools as I have this year. Governors of schools took on the greater responsibilities placed on them by the Secretary of State and in the overwhelming majority of cases rose to the occasion. As a result, they recognise forcefully the consequences of some of the decisions that have been made by central Government. Whatever the Secretary of State may think about previous years' ritual objections and criticisms—I gather that in England criticism has reached monumental proportions when
  374
  Shropshire is up in arms—I have received more representations from governors of schools than on any other settlement.
  I have never received so many letters from headmasters in the terms that I have received this year. They do not speak for the National Union of Teachers. The Secretary of State ought to distinguish between the stolid representations against which he has gained a level of immunisation and the new phenomenon this year of representations from head teachers who do not necessarily belong to a union. They may or may not belong to a union, but they have written and spoken to me in terms different from anything that I have heard before.
  Head teachers feel that the system and the financial arrangements are closing in on their schools and on the type of education service that they are capable of providing. They have been told that they should spend their balances, as should the county councils, while remaining prudent. We repeatedly asked the Secretary of State during his speech to tell us what percentage was a prudent balance. Time and again, the Government have been more than willing to give the strictest possible advice on capping formulae. We need a new formula to determine what constitutes a prudent remaining balance.
  The nature of the representations that I and many hon. Members have received this year compared with previous years should at least make the Secretary of State think that he might be the one who has got it wrong. Just for once, he should consider that the various representations received indicate that there is at least a genuine major doubt about the financial settlement.
  We have had some comments not from the Secretary of State but from the right hon. Member for Conwy about surplus school places. In his ministerial days, the right hon. Gentleman used to lecture us about surplus school places. I do not know whether he has gone to look for surplus places in his constituency or campaigned in his constituency to close down school places. Perhaps as a new Back Bencher he will now suddenly find that when one talks about surplus school places one is talking about schools that are cherished and loved by parents and their young children.
  It is easy to talk about surplus school places. The right hon. Gentleman should visit Bedlinog and see the concept of surplus school places in practice. There is a small nursery school and primary school at the top of a hill and another school right down at the bottom. Both schools are loved by the community, by the parents and by the pupils. When people say, "Let us remove X thousand school places from the system," they really mean that schools in villages should be closed down, creating in a village already suffering from dereliction—a pit may have been closed, for instance—yet more dereliction. The last school that was closed lay derelict and empty for years. Closing schools to deal with surplus places would create more dereliction in small communities such as Bedlinog. I am sorry, but I will not advocate that.
  The county council made a proposal as part and parcel of its attempt to balance the books to close schools in Pentrebach and Bedlinog. There was an immediate, natural and full reaction by the community to the idea of its schools being closed. It is easy to talk vaguely about surplus places, but in fact they represent much-loved schools.

  375
  I will not support the closure of school surplus places in Bedlinog. If there was a Bedlinog in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Conwy, he would not support the closure of the school. We heard quick and easy words from the English Secretary of State for Education yesterday. I should like to see her going round doing away with surplus school places.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) was right. One of the other curious consequences of the Government's reforms is that it is more difficult for a county education authority to plan and reorganise its education system in the way that the Secretary of State supports. If a school is threatened with closure, the automatic consequence is that that school will seek grant-maintained status. Will the Secretary of State for Wales support the closure of schools by the county education authority or will he be tempted politically to say, "At last I have an application for grant-maintained status before me, and I do not have many: I have tried everything under the sun—I have made schools have recounts and treble recounts to try to get grant-maintained schools off the ground, but for some reason they do not seem to get popular support from staff, teachers and parents."? If the Secretary of State can persuade the county education authority to threaten to close some schools, he can then come as a saviour and have a brand new collection of grant-maintained schools. If that is the right hon. Gentleman's cynical ploy, he should admit it. If it is not, he should agree that his policies have made it infinitely more difficult for there to be planned management of the development of education within any county.
  Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in view of the enormous popularity of grant-maintained schools with the children of shadow spokespeople, to have enough places for the rest of the people who want to go to such schools we need to have more of them?
  Mr. Rowlands: I have never indulged in the politics of personality in any shape or form and I will not lower my tone and my contribution to the right hon. Gentleman's level. We are talking of schools in our communities that have no wish to become grant maintained. The only possibility of an application for grant-maintained status has been when there has been a threat of closure, after which the Secretary of State has come forward as a saviour. Is that the thinking behind some of the proposals? If it is, it is a cynical ploy and we are right to reject it.
  It is not a matter of just hanging on to the education that we have. We desperately need new investment in our schools. The county of Mid Glamorgan has obeyed the exhortation of the right hon. Member for Conwy and taken £8 million out of the balances to cover some of the £12 million deficit. Despite raiding £8 million from its surpluses, the county has had to make two cuts. It cut £1.5 million from the schools formula budget. I do not present that as a draconian cut, but I believe that it is damaging the local management of schools. The one Government reform that I have strongly supported is LMS, which has been a success story. Headmasters, headmistresses and staff have taken to the concept of LMS and have managed to make it work. It is sad that as a consequence of this financial arrangement counties may have to put pressure
  376
  on school formula budgets, as Mid Glamorgan has attempted to do, while desperately trying to avoid the worst impact.
  The other cruel cut in Mid Glamorgan is a cut of £1.5 million in the centrally controlled building maintenance budget. The Secretary of State and other Conservative Members frequently portray the money held back at county level as being used to finance a bloated bureaucracy. That is a standard accusation. If it is true, the matter should be looked at—I accept that—but when the right hon. Gentleman makes such sweeping statements he should look more closely at what has been kept back centrally.
  I give the Secretary of State one example. In my area—1 do not know whether this is the case in other areas—many schools do not want to take on the responsibility of financing school transport. The county has offered to transfer that responsibility, but most of the local schools have said that they do not want to take on the headaches and administrative costs of school transport. Parents are very worried about how their children get to and from school. There is an understanding between most schools in the county and Mid Glamorgan county council that that area of expenditure should not be transferred.
  Another responsibility is major external repairs to buildings. It is not that the county council is in some wicked way holding back money from the local schools: on the whole, schools have wanted responsibility for big external repairs to remain at county level. There has been a tragic cut of £1.5 million in Mid Glamorgan. I come back to my Bedlinog school. Because of the age of the building, the external wall of that much-loved school, which is strongly supported by parents, teachers and children, is in desperate need of substantial repair. The same point could also apply to Vaynor and Penederyn high school.
  This expenditure is vital to schools that are old fashioned, but which have many years of life left in them if investment in repairs and maintenance is made now. There is no reason to think that an old building is dead and must be knocked down. As I have said, that creates a form of dereliction. I am afraid, however, that as a result of this financial settlement, much essential building maintenance may be postponed. The postponement of such investment has disastrous consequences on the whole fabric of some of the old but characterful schools in our community. I hope that the Secretary of State will think twice when he makes sweeping allegations about the counties' centrally held funds.
  We have missed a trick. We should have asked the Secretary of State to come to the Mid Glamorgan orchestral concert which is held every January. Perhaps we shall get him to come to the last one, next January, in St. David's hall. There are some 2,500 parents present, so children have the chance to play before an audience as big as the audiences for Shirley Bassey and Tom Jones. The hall is packed out and the places could be sold all over again. It is a tremendous and wonderful success story of the past 15 years.
  One of the success stories of the time during which I have represented the constituency has been the growth of orchestral music in Mid Glamorgan. We were always able to sing and we always had choirs, but there was a strange absence of orchestral tradition in our community. In Merthyr, we have a youth orchestra of 160 youngsters who practise every Friday evening between 4.30 pm and

  377
  6 pm. My daughter and son belonged to that orchestra and never missed a rehearsal on a Friday night; they would then go out for the night. They would go to the rehearsals with 'flu, no matter how ill they were. We now have a magnificent county orchestra.
  With the new unitary policy, we must be careful that we do not destroy these collective arrangements. The orchestra is funded by the county. Its success depends on the centre at Ogmore, where the children go for five or six days. That visit is paid for by money held centrally. It is not bureaucratic money, but money held centrally and used to make a county orchestra from the smaller building bricks of the Merthyr, Bridgend, Rhymney and Pontypridd orchestras. The Secretary of State makes sweeping statements about centrally held funds. Some of those centrally held funds support the activities that I have described, which could be in danger as a result of a poor financial settlement and, unless we are careful, local government reorganisation.
  We should not just be trying to hang on. An area in which we should be spending money is nursery provision. Curiously, as a result of being an old county borough, Merthyr has considerable nursery provision. One of the historic successes of this old county borough is that it developed nursery education fairly comprehensively. As the borough's boundaries are now rather different, there are areas, including areas in the Rhymney part of my constituency, which have no nursery provision. We have the nonsensical position where Abertysswg has no nursery provision but lower Rhyrnney has full nursery cover and upper Rhymney has no formal nursery education.
  What has happened to all the Government's plans for nursery education? Where is the great initiative that was supposed to come from the Prime Minister down for the development of nursery education? Where is the Secretary of State's nursery provision? And where, in this financial settlement, is the extra money needed to fill the gaps in nursery education in the communities that I represent?
  When I say nursery education, I mean education. I do not believe in too much play. I started school at the age of three and learned to read at that age. Like many others of my generation, I believe that the learning process opens up the real world for children, so I favour old-fashioned nursery education. I should like to see the gaps in nursery provision in Wales filled. I hope that filling those gaps will be one of the missions of the new county boroughs of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. I feel that I am spitting into the wind when I write to county education directors and ask why they make no provision in next year's budget for filling those gaps in education and they turn round and say that they are just about hanging on to the nursery provision that they have now.
  Before the Secretary of State decides that the proposals are fair, generous and wonderful, he should realise the pressures on the ground in what we all agree is one of the most vital services for the future—our education service.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: I am delighted to have a chance to participate in this debate, not least because I listened to the Secretary of State's announcement on 14 December, which turned out to be some sort of Budget for Wales, when the bad news for local government finance in Wales was first revealed. I had hoped that the battering he had on that occasion would have lent him
  378
  some strength in Cabinet discussions and given him a chance to return with better proposals today. Sadly, my hopes have been dashed in that regard.
  My hopes were raised again when we debated the local government settlement for England; I had hoped that the Secretary of State would have taken the warning that the country felt that the amount of Government money going towards local government resources was inadequate. Sadly, that, too, seems to have passed him by, as has the rumpus that erupted recently between school governors and parents who are trying to get their children educated in our schools. They feel extremely sore about the effect of this Government's actions on the education system, not only in England but in Wales. I am sorry that the Secretary of State has chosen to take no notice of what has happened in this Chamber or outside it since he made his announcement on 14 December last year.
  Unfortunately, the settlement means that people, particularly teachers, are likely to be thrown on the scrap heap. In effect, therefore, the settlement will waste resources, be inadequate for Wales's needs and probably cause a reduction in local government services in Wales.
  I shall concentrate on education, because, not surprisingly, it has been a major subject of debate today, not least because it plays such a major part in local authority finances. Wales has a particular problem with the education system because of the sparsity of population in its rural areas. We are all aware that sparsity of population is not yet fully taken into account in the formulae that the Government use to decide on standard spending assessments and grants to local authorities. I hope that the Government will face that problem before we reach this occasion next year, because it needs to be dealt with not only in Wales but throughout the country.
  I return to the point made earlier about school closures. In sparsely populated areas, the closure of a school, even if there are empty places, presents particular difficulties. The Government have not yet fully understood that point, so it needs to be made again. School closures in sparsely populated areas present financial difficulties when the nearest school is some distance away. Social difficulties arise when children's education is disrupted and family arrangements are also disrupted as parents find that they must take their children to a different school. They also have financial consequences for the community as a whole.
  It is easy for the Government to think purely in terms of the cost of education to local government, but the cost of educating a child includes the cost of getting that child to and from school, not only for daytime work but for extra-mural activities. It is important for the Government to recognise that a saving for local government in terms of direct funding of a school may be counterbalanced—even overturned—by the extra costs to the community as a whole of moving children to a different school some distance from where they live.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Another factor that must be borne in mind is the quality of education that children receive. When numbers run very low, the quality of education suffers because it is impossible to maintain an adequate supply of teachers.
  Mr. Rendel: It is interesting that that argument is often advanced by Conservative Members, many of whom pay large sums of money to ensure that their children are educated in small classes. The suggestion that the quality

  379
  of education necessarily worsens when school sizes go down is not valid. It has certainly never been proved. In Powys, for example, attempts have been made to increase school sizes to about 1,000 pupils. Those attempts have not proved successful and some of the best-quality education is given in schools with only about 500 pupils.
  The problem of nursery education was rightly discussed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). It is a significant factor in terms of education in Wales. As we know, it presents problems throughout our nation but particularly in Wales, where clear gaps exist in nursery provision, especially in the state sector. We should all seek to fill those gaps. I admit that there are some good voluntary and charity nursery schools that are well worth their place in the education system and I hope that the Government will see their way to encourage such schools. For example, the Malldwyn family centre has proved highly successful; if the Government could copy such schools, it would be well worth while. Such nursery schools allow children to get a decent education while allowing parents to live their lives as they wish. That cannot happen in parts of Wales with an absence of nursery provision.
  Care in the community is a major and growing part of local government financing, so it is right that the Government now see the need to put more money into it. Many of us have believed for some time that the care in the community policy is right in principle, but we have seen what a shambles has been made of it in practice.
  The money that is provided for care in the community always has to catch up with requirements a year or two late. Any hope that the Government might have that the extra money put into care in the community this year means that there will be a real increase in spending is damned by the obvious fact that that money is needed simply to plug the holes in the care in the community programme that have become evident in the past few years. The claim that so much more is now provided for Wales as a result of the Government's settlement must be countered with the contrary claim that the settlement merely represents a catching-up exercise.
  The transitional costs of introducing care in the community are not being met. The most serious problem relates to the most severely handicapped adults. An attempt has been made to shut many of the older institutions that used to care for those people. That has caused enormous anguish to those who will be forced to care for them in the community without adequate resources. If one listens to the parents of those who have reached adulthood, but are so severely handicapped that they cannot properly care for themselves, one is immediately aware of the difficulties that they face in looking after their adult children in the community. One must therefore accept that the Government still have a long way to go before they can claim that they have properly funded their care in the community policy in Wales.
  A particular problem for Wales this year is that it is rapidly moving towards the election of the new shadow authorities for the new unitary authorities. This year's settlement must obviously provide for the costs of those shadow authorities and, happily, to a large extent it does. It is also setting the trend for the future of those authorities, because those authorities have been given a
  380
  guideline as to how they should plan for local authority expenditure once they become fully fledged authorities in their own right. It is sad that they will have to plan for a base of spending well below the real needs of the people of Wales. It is sad that, in effect, they will have to plan for cuts in services well below the level of need.
  The settlement is a sad reflection of the Government's lack of care for Wales. It shows what happens when the man in charge is more interested in bribing the voters of south-east and southern England with tax cuts than in looking after the real needs of, and providing services to, the Welsh people. Wales deserves better.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. David Hanson: The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) mentioned the sparsity of the population in Wales, but perhaps he should have referred to the sparsity of Tory speakers in the debate. It seems that only the Opposition are interested in the settlement and its effect on Wales. The Opposition have made a healthy contribution to the debate and we will continue to do so during the remainder of it.
  I have been driven to speak by the scurrilous attack that the Secretary of State for Wales—let us remember that he is the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—made on my county of Clwyd and the effect that that settlement will have on it. I should also like to respond to the Secretary of State's interpretation as to what Clwyd should do about that settlement. I have been in the House for just three years, but I was struck by that vitriolic attack on Clwyd. Perhaps it was meant to boost the right hon. Gentleman's virility on the near empty Conservative Benches, but I am sure that it failed in that objective.
  Apart from that attack on my county council, the Secretary of State for Wales expressed his strong concerns about the tactics used by my constituents—the schoolchildren of Maes Garmon in Mold. Last year, they had the temerity to go to a meeting held by the Secretary of State in north Clwyd to protest about the effects of the spending assessment and grant allocation on local education authority spending. The right hon. Gentleman described their actions as politically motivated and he implied that, by putting across their strength of feeling, they were almost deranged. As for their political motivation, I should tell the right hon. Gentleman that those schoolchildren came to my surgery to lobby their Labour Member of Parliament, just as they lobbied Labour councillors. They felt so impassioned about the effects of any cuts in the education budget on their school and its teachers that they felt that they had to lobby the Secretary of State for Wales. What was his response? It is not apparently part of Tory party democracy of the late 20th century that people should be able to lobby the Secretary of State about the effects of spending cuts on their schools.
  I should like the Minister and the Secretary of State to tell me how many schools in Clwyd they have visited in the past year. In the past year, how often have they expressed their concerns about education to local councillors? How often have they written to Clwyd Members drawing their attention to the concerns that were expressed by the Secretary of State in the Chamber this afternoon? On all three counts, the answer is that they have taken such action on very few occasions. I certainly

  381
  never received a letter from the Secretary of State expressing concern about the level of balances in Clwyd. The Minister might like to respond on that point.
  The blunt fact is that the settlement is a very difficult one for local schools, the local education authorities and all local government services in Clwyd. The Secretary of State has argued that Clwyd should consider its management costs and be prudent with its balances: apparently, it should consider reducing its overall expenditure so that it is more in line with the expectations expressed in central Government diktats from the right hon. Member for Wokingham.
  The Secretary of State offered no suggestion on the level of balances that he wants Clwyd county council to set. He mentioned £5.5 million as the current balance; the county council's budget this year is £271 million. Is £5.5 million a prudent balance on that level of expenditure? Although some money may be taken out of the balances—I am sure that the county council will do that as a result of the settlement—does £5.5 million represent a prudent balance? What is a prudent balance? Perhaps the Minister will tell us.
  Is it prudent for Clwyd county council, in its final year of existence, to plunder its balances so that, next year, the new authorities of Flintshire, Denbighshire and Wrexham have to go back to the Secretary of State and say that they have no inheritance from the former authority? They will tell him that no balances were passed on to them and that they are therefore in a difficult position.
  We have heard many Members of both Houses talk about selling the family silver. If we spend that family silver as a short-term measure to shore up Clwyd county council and to overcome its current problems, when it has only a £5.5 million balance from £271 million expenditure, what will happen next year? What will happen to Flintshire, Denbighshire and Wrexham. when the undoubted central aim of Government policy is to reduce public spending? What will happen when, next year, the Government reduce the settlement still further and impose a stricter cap?
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: It will be a generous settlement next year because it will be election year.
  Mr. Hanson: I hope that my hon. Friend is right because my constituents deserve a better settlement than that offered today.
  Clwyd county council has made it clear that, this year, as a result of the settlement, it will have to make cuts of £8 million in the services it provides centrally—a cut of approximately 4 per cent.—if it is to keep within the Government's set capping limit. I take my council's word on that, because it has examined the issue properly.
  My authority was not elected to make cuts of £8 million in services and it has no intention of doing so. It has no mandate to do that, because I remind the Minister that 32 of the 66 members of that authority are Labour and only six represent the Tory party. Four out of five Clwyd Members of Parliament are Labour Members and none of us was elected on a mandate to make cuts of £8 million.
  Mr. Jones: Where is the Tory Member for Clwyd?
  Mr. Hanson: The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), the Under-Secretary of State, is out on duty today, when he should be in the Chamber to answer for the Government's policies. This year, Clwyd
  382
  county council, my local county council, will be confronted by an £8 million cut in expenditure. That money cannot be made up simply by prudent management. It cannot be made up simply by raiding the balances and selling the family silver for future years. It must be made up—unless there is an increase in the cap or, even better, perhaps an abolition of the cap or an increase in grant—by direct cuts in services in my county.
  Those cuts will fall, by and large, on the education committee, because the education committee makes up most of the cost of Clwyd county council's expenditure. The county council has already considered making large cuts and has cut the central non-schools budget; nevertheless, it must make £3.5 million of proposed cuts, which in my county means the loss of nearly 300 teachers. Cuts in the non-schools budget have been made. Those cuts are now falling on the delegated school budgets, as governors are realising.
  As my hon. Friends said, the reaction to those cuts is not an uprising of politically motivated people. I have received hundreds of letters from worried parents who do not blame the county council. They are streetwise parents. They know where the responsibility lies and they all, individually and collectively, have said to me, "Please go to the Welsh Office and ask it to review the grant, or, at the very least, we are willing, as ratepayers in Clwyd. to pay more on our local council tax by a higher cap to allow us to spend money in investing in our children's future."
  As recently as last night, I presented a petition to the House on behalf of a school in Carmel in my constituency, signed by 2,000 parents who specifically asked for a review of the grant and the rate cap. I have received 200 letters from parents from one school in Northop Hall in my constituency. They are not politically motivated by unions. They are genuine parents who send their children to Clwyd schools—as I do—and whose children need investment in the future. Those parents want a proper settlement that reflects their aspirations, yet my county is confronted with a cut of £8 million, which will translate into £3.5 million in the education budget.
  Clwyd county council social services have reviewed their budget recently because of the settlement and, as a result, must plan cuts of £1.4 million in a budget that is already unable to sustain the demand, statutory and real, that hits it. They are considering "rationing" services or charging for them, which would have a significant impact on the people in our community, whom I represent, to whom we try to deliver top-quality services. It will almost inevitably hit the most disadvantaged people in our community with the most difficult problems, who need the support of the county council. It makes any idea of a comprehensive, co-ordinated approach to community care a pipe dream, because that reduction in funding will hit hard the county council's ability to deliver locally based services.
  The highways committee has considered services and has already identified £400,000 of cuts in the local maintenance budget for roads in Clwyd. I drive on roads in Clwyd continually and I can tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that work certainly needs to be done, and that cut will really have an impact on our local services.
  In answer to the Secretary of State, of course Clwyd county council has considered, and will continue to consider, its central core services—the services provided at shire hall in Mold in my constituency. The county council has already considered about £400,000 worth of

  383
  savings in central departments, and I am sure that it will consider further. No Labour authority is about inefficiency. If there are genuine inefficiencies, I hope that the Secretary of State will write to me and tell me about them, so that I can write to the county council and ask it to review them. Let him put it on the record today. When the Minister replies, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let him tell the House, and tell me as the local Member of Parliament, the savings that Clwyd county council can make. If he is to go down the road of considering budgets and determining what is waste and what is not, let him tell Members of Parliament who represent Clwyd what should be cut from the budget to make the savings and compensate for the loss in grant that will confront us. I look forward to hearing his response to those questions.
  All that is from a Government who, while the settlement continues, continue to plough money into grant-maintained schools throughout Wales—enormous amounts of capital spending—and recently announced a £20 million good schools initiative. In my opinion, the £20 million would be far better spent by local authorities in Wales rather than in response to a central diktat of what is a good school from the Secretary of State for Wales.
  On the funding of schools, perhaps the Minister will tell us why the small schools initiative of England does not translate to Wales, and why small schools do not receive similar financial support to that which such schools receive in England.
  My local authority would wish many steps to be taken today. I shall therefore be forced to vote against the settlement unless those steps are announced in the Minister's reply. The county council would certainly want the cap to be raised, so that additional resources might be raised locally by local taxpayers to pay for services that local taxpayers want. People have consistently voted for better spending and improved spending on education; if the Minister cares to visit Clwyd, he will find that many people in my community are willing to pay more in the absence of proper Government spending to achieve that level of services.
  The Minister needs to consider many technical aspects of capping. In Clwyd, matters such as the Dee crossing and the Bryn Estyn case place additional costs on the county council, but are not, in the opinion of the county council or Members of Parliament who represent that county, adequately reflected in the calculation of the standard spending assessment.
  Obviously, the council cannot achieve cuts of £8 million in 1995–96 without seriously reducing services. Let me remind the Minister that those serious reductions follow £22 million of reductions in county council spending in the past three years alone. The county council cannot do that without further serious cuts in services. The settlement is detrimental to the people of Clwyd and to the people whom I represent.
  I leave the Secretary of State and the Minister with the thought that there are things that can be done by the Government to improve the situation in Clwyd. There is a will in Clwyd to find additional money from existing resources to help to offset the effects of the settlement, but, ultimately, people in my county want and demand good services. They want and demand maintenance of the existing level of services. If the Minister votes tonight to maintain the settlement, he will commit my county to
  384
  serious decisions on the future of schools, social services, highways, the infrastructure and the industrial development of Clwyd.
  People in my constituency say that they do not want increased class sizes; they do not want reduced numbers of teachers; they do not want less spending on buildings, fewer books and less spending on the range of school matters. They do not wish old people to be forced to pay increased charges for their home helps. They do not wish the infrastructure of our local community to be run down. The one way in which I can reflect those demands is to vote against the settlement, and I shall do so with pleasure.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am disappointed that the Secretary of State is not in the Chamber at the moment. For some time, I had tried to obtain a meeting with him to discuss some important economic matters in the south of my constituency. I wrote to him in English, as I know that he does not like anything Welsh, but I could not obtain a reply. Eventually, I received a reply saying that he would see me after Christmas—that is when he would be up in the constituency.
  Nevertheless, the Secretary of State appeared in September on the set of the "White Knight" film. He has since referred to "White Knight" in speeches with worrying regularity. He even referred to "White Knight" in the Welsh Grand Committee. He sees himself as some kind of white knight. I should prefer to call him something else, but he is not here to meet that particular barrage just now and, in any event, time does not permit the full number of words that I should like to use.
  The white knight syndrome typifies the right hon. Gentleman's style of politics. I am grateful for the revised settlement for the police, which is sensible and will serve the needs of north Wales very well; but we have seen the white knight syndrome in action, because the first offer was ridiculous and would not have afforded any level of policing. I speak as the son of a policeman and the brother of a policeman, and I am a qualified lawyer and have had many dealings with the police. As the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) well knows, the first settlement would have been a disaster for north Wales, hence the review of £3.3 million when the white knight came riding in with bags of much-needed money. It is a silly ploy to offer a couple of peanuts and then hand over half a bag of them. We can all see through it; the public can see through it and are clearly aware of what is going on.
  The right hon. Member for Conwy and I have a common interest—apart from being two humans, our constituencies split the borough of Aberconwy. He said earlier—I think in reference to Gwynedd—that further cuts were good for the soul. I do not accept for one moment that further cuts are good for the soul given the consistent deep cuts in Gwynedd over four or five years. Those are not empty words—as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, there have been substantial cuts. To say that those cuts are good for the soul is little short of disingenuous.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I said—the hon. Gentleman can check it in the Official Report—that the exercise experienced in Gwynedd of a 1 per cent. cut, an additional

  385
  1 per cent. cut, then a possible 2 per cent. cut might be good for the soul and might appeal to the Audit Commission. I also said that I did not think that the cuts would be called upon.
  Mr. Llwyd: With the greatest of respect, if the right hon. Gentleman looks back over the past three or four years, he will see that such cuts have been made. I do not know why this year should be different from those years. I have attempted to make that point. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I do not think that it took us much further.
  I agree entirely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who spoke of the pressing need for nursery school provision. We in Wales have a great pride in our education system and have always seen the value of good education. I have one perfectly true story of what happened in my constituency five years ago. A gentleman came from a public school to teach a science subject in a secondary school in the south of my constituency. When he arrived at the school, he saw that the laboratory was a shambles. Gwynedd education authority had no money to invest in the school—I do not blame it for that, as it had other priorities all over the county and a small budget with which to meet the needs. The teacher rang a friend of his in the science department of a public school and asked him if he had spare equipment. His friend said that it was just as rung as the public school was installing a laboratory and his friend could have the old one.
  That secondary school now has the best-equipped physics laboratory in Gwynedd. We are relying on scraps. There is a hidden agenda, and we know what it is. The Government want education for the rich and any old nonsense for the rest of us. They are in the business of establishing, yet again, a ruling class. We are not blind and we can see what is going on.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) mentioned the hidden problems of this year's budget. Care in the community is becoming an increasing drain on local authority resources. As the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said, there is no doubt that the policy is welcomed in principle, but unless it is properly financed, it will not achieve what was intended.
  The right hon. Member for Conwy mentioned one or two matters raised by Aberconwy borough council in its responses to the settlement. As he said, the strategic development scheme announcements were disappointing for the borough. I echo that sentiment and go further—there is no conceivable reason why the scheme should not have been allowed.
  Aberconwy is not designated for European assistance in the form of grant aid. If what I have seen of Welsh Office applications to Europe for grant funding in south Gwynedd is anything to go by, its procedure is a shambles. I wonder when, if ever, we shall gain any form of credibility in the European Union. The application for south Gwynedd has been submitted to the European Union Commission three times. It was submitted in March and was bounced back, marked in red—we are talking about education-to show where the application had gone wrong. It was resubmitted in April or May and was bounced back marked in a different colour. Shortly after Christmas, this year, there was a meeting so that the directors general, of the various departments could tell the
  386
  Welsh Office how to put a case together. We in south Gwynedd have waited almost 12 months to advance one inch, and have not yet done so. I suspect that that is one reason why the white knight would not see me earlier than next week, despite many attempts by me and those in my office to see him earlier. I am disappointed in the general level of proficiency in the Welsh Office vis-à-vis its contacts with the European mainland.
  I shall develop the argument put fairly and squarely by the right hon. Member for Conwy about the concern in Aberconwy about the rent allowance costs, which are a heavy burden. I would be obliged if the Minister would look again at the effects on Aberconwy and other areas in Wales of that policy. At present, it is a drain and little else, and it should be shored up, otherwise other cuts will have to be made—where, I cannot say. I appreciate that the SSA formula recognises the incidence of rent allowance, but it does not deal sufficiently with its effects. Will the Minister respond to that point in due course?
  The right hon. Member for Conwy mentioned the £3.46 million cut. Whatever the position and the mathematics, that represents a real cut. Gwynedd, Dyfed, Clwyd and other responsible authorities throughout Wales have avoided cutting their education budgets. Part of the reason for that is probably that we in Wales respect good education and what it can provide in a normal economy. This year, there is no doubt that Gwynedd's education budget will be cut. It is no use the Minister saying that it is because of this, that or the other; it is directly because the money allocated is insufficient to meet the county's needs.
  Mention has been made of the further 1 per cent. cut in Gwynedd's staffing budget, the 1 per cent. cut in the total budget and a possible further 2 per cent. cut. Those are stark enough cuts in themselves, but when they come in the fifth year of cuts, the position becomes almost unmanageable. I am sure that many officers and members in local government in Gwynedd are fed up with being apologists for the Government. They are at the sharp end and have to deal with the cuts and try to explain them. They know that if a responsible administration were looking after a central, core budget, the cuts would not have to be made. But there will be a cut in Gwynedd's budget. It gives me no pleasure to say that. As various hon. Members have said, there are hidden problems in the budget in Gwynedd which involve community care and which will impact even further than has been suggested.
  Dyfed county council is proud of its education system and of the way in which it has looked after its schools in the face of tremendous funding pressure. There is a link between Dyfed and Gwynedd, as both counties have a large number of fairly small primary schools. Those of us who come from rural backgrounds know how important village or town schools are to communities. The local authorities have recognised that fact and they have hitherto safeguarded their schools. However, they fear that they cannot hold out any longer; the dyke will burst any minute. Many dozens of villages throughout Dyfed, Gwynedd and Clwyd will suffer directly as a result of the settlement that has been offered.
  As I mentioned in an intervention, Dyfed has recognised that it will have to cut its community education provisions. The nature of school meals will change and they will cost more. The local authority will be not be able to maintain school buildings. We obviously face difficult times, and it is not good enough for the Government to

  387
  say that we should cut the cloth accordingly. The cloth has been cut as much as it can be cut, and the Government must recognise that fact.
  The Secretary of State recognised that there was a crisis in policing in north Wales. I had several meetings with him to discuss that subject, as did other hon. Members. We are now facing a crisis of equal proportions, and this crisis is not simply confined to the police; it extends to education, transport, social services and community care. I invite the Government to reconsider this savage settlement, which will do nothing for local government.
  The new unitary authorities will be grossly disadvantaged. Many of us were involved in the legislative process last year, and we do not want to bequeath those authorities a legacy of failure before they have even commenced operations. The settlement must be reviewed if we are to adopt a responsible attitude to local government in Wales.
  6.12 pm
  Dr. Kim Howells: It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). At the end of his speech he highlighted a matter which worries a great many Welsh people as we move towards the establishment of unitary authorities in Wales. In that respect, we are much further ahead than England.
  I am worried about a whole range of subjects, and my hon. Friend referred to some of them. We face a serious problem with the maintenance of school buildings in the valleys of south Wales. School buildings are literally sliding down the hillsides because of the extensive mining that occurred in the past, and the cost of shoring up those buildings is often exorbitant.
  A question mark hangs over the future of special needs education in schools in south Wales. Marvellous initiatives have been taken in special needs education—mainly instigated, not by the Government, but by staff and pupils. The "much despised creatures"—as they are described by the Government Front Bench—the administrators of education in Wales, have done a marvellous job trying to integrate children with handicaps into mainstream education. We aim to give everyone an equal opportunity in society and allow them their rightful civil liberties.
  My children do not have fields to play in and I perceive a constant need throughout the urban centres in Wales for green spaces for our children in schools.
  I am concerned about the state of our schools and the problems associated with their maintenance. Owing to the topography of south Wales and its industrial past, many buildings in Pontypridd will have to be grouted at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Many of the schools in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) have faced a real crisis. Old and newer mining operations have burrowed under schools and under whole communities. What might be a quite expensive repair bill for a household, can prove catastrophic for a school. As a result, ordinary care and maintenance jobs, such as painting walls and repairing electrical fittings or windows,
  388
  are often put off for many years in schools in south Wales. The money must be spent simply to keep the walls and the buildings together.
  A school in my area, ysgol Gyfan Rhydfelin, had to nail doors shut because subsidence had forced the walls askew and prevented the doors from locking. It was a fire hazard and an absolute disgrace. We solved that problem, but only after quite a struggle. That school also has terrapin classrooms. Time and again, schools in south Wales solve their maintenance problems by housing children in temporary classrooms. The climate is invariably very wet and often very cold, and no child should spend his or her educational life under those appalling conditions.
  Mine was the most lucky of generations because when I went to school in south Wales the schools had just been built. They were airy and light. People believed that children should not be trapped in concrete playgrounds, and the schools were surrounded by fields. They were marvellous places.
  Those same schools which were built in the 1950s and 1960s are now falling apart because the maintenance costs simply cannot be met. The school maintenance budget in Mid Glamorgan alone has been cut by £1.5 million. There is no excuse for that, and I hope that the Minister will address the problem.
  Special needs education concerns me enormously. Many schools in Wales have done a marvellous job providing special education. The special care unit at Bryncelynog school in my constituency has pioneered all sorts of projects. A little primary school at Pentyrch has transformed not only the lives of the disabled children who have now been integrated into mainstream education, but the whole school, because it has changed schoolchildren's views of those who have physical handicaps. That marvellous initiative must not be threatened in any shape or form by the Government's tight-fisted fiscal policies. Integration should continue and special needs must be met.
  The schools in the constituencies of my hon. Friends are crying out for speech therapists and for peripatetic physiotherapists, which would solve the problem of children taking whole days off school in order to receive physiotherapy treatment in hospitals. We are talking about our future wealth-creating base: our children. We cannot afford not to tap the potential of children with disabilities any more than we can afford not to tap the potential of those children who are lucky enough not to suffer any disability.
  Finally, I return to the problem of the lack of green spaces in so many of our schools. My own children's school, Coedylan primary and junior school, has no grass for the children to play on; it has a small, concrete playground. That position is echoed throughout Wales.
  There was a time when children could play on the mountainsides and in the streets. They cannot do that any more. Anyone with kids knows that parents are too paranoid and frightened to allow their children to roam on the mountainsides because of the stories that we hear. Children cannot play in the streets because there are too many cars.
  If I may be slightly flippant, I suspect that one of the reasons why the Welsh rugby, soccer and cricket teams have performed so badly in recent years—heroically perhaps, but pretty badly—is that kids are inhibited by the

  389
  fact that their whole sports lives are structured. The only time they ever indulge in sports is when they take part at school or go to a special coaching class on a Saturday.
  If financial pressures are to be brought to bear on boards of governors, education authorities and schools, there must be no more sell-offs of school playing fields and green spaces. Those facilities have to be properly maintained and extended.
  I am glad that the Secretary of State has returned to the Chamber. He has missed some marvellous speeches from hon. Members who have kids attending schools in Wales—as mine and those of my constituents do. He will have heard that there is what amounts to a crisis, certainly in the minds of many of us who observe what is happening in schools today. For that reason alone, I shall vote against the Government tonight. I hope that they listen to what has been said. It is extremely important because those children are the future of Wales.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Alan Williams: I apologise for croaking my way through just a few comments in the aftermath of cold. The nub of the debate was an exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) in his opening speech and the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend pointed out that when we take out of the settlement the special amounts for the police and for community care, we are talking about an increase of 0.4 per cent. at best. Immediately, the Secretary of State rose to his feet and his answer was, "It is all right because inflation has fallen to 2 per cent."
  It seemed strange that the Secretary of State could put forward such a proposition. He was saying that it was all right because the rate of inflation will be only five times higher—instead of six or seven times higher—than the extra money being provided. Most of us know that it will be six or seven times higher at some time during the year. That is what it is all about—the authorities were first entrapped and then virtually strangled for years as far as resources are concerned.
  My own county has absorbed £6 million in cuts in the past three years by using up some of its reserves. The Secretary of State said that we should not worry about the increase in teachers' pay because the provision is enough to cover it. How can he say that before he knows what the teachers' pay increase will be? The provision was set long before he could even have had prior warning of what the increase would be—which no doubt he has now.
  The Secretary of State has no accounting or statistical grounds to say that an increase of one fifth of the rate of inflation will enable local authorities to cover an unknown and significant—although most of us would say inadequate—increase in teachers' pay. I have to declare an interest as my wife is a teacher. We have to recognise that the consequence of today's announcement is either cuts in teaching staff or larger classes, leading to a reduction in the standards of education provision.
  I caution hon. Members about the idea being pushed by one Conservative Member about lifting the cap. Let me make this cautionary point about what the Secretary of State has said about the 89 per cent. central provision. If the Government decided to fund the teachers' pay rise by lifting the cap, a 1 per cent. increase in local authority
  390
  costs would mean a 9 per cent. increase in the council tax because of the ratchet effect, so councils would be blamed for the fact that the Government have under-provided.
  I now come to another peculiar proposition that the Government have suddenly dug up. The Secretary of State has been thoroughly briefed. He mentioned reserves in addition to school reserves. His case was that the reserves will be the solution for this year. What is the Secretary of State actually saying about reserves? We know that the Government always say that to be in debt is wrong and will criticise those irresponsible councils which get into debt—of course, they are not Conservative councils according to the Government—yet the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box to announce increased borrowing powers to get councils deeper into debt.
  What about the concept of reserves? Are they good or bad? The Secretary of State does not really know. He cannot make up his mind. Are the schools which have no reserves virtuous because they used them up to meet previous cuts in resources, or are the schools with big reserves being prudent? The Secretary of State will not give us any guidance. He depends on his concept of a prudent level of reserves, but he gives no indication of what it is.
  We understand that there is a difference between certain reserves. We know that big reserves are good in grant-maintained schools because the right hon. Gentleman has told us so, but the Government will not tell us whether those reserves are good in other schools. We assume they cannot be good, because the Government are telling them to use them up. That is the illogicality of our position.
  I made an intervention about information technology. Is it not anomalous that at Question Time the Secretary of State will stand up and say, "Look at what inward investment in information technology and electronic engineering has meant to Wales," but, at the same time as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has announced a scheme in England to make extra information technology facilities and equipment available in English schools, he has flatly refused to do the same in Wales, which, according to him, will be hoisted by the boot laces by the electronics and information technology industries?
  The Secretary of State is a mass of inconsistencies. He had the cheek to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly—I know that it was a jocular comment—that my hon. Friend leaves the shadow Cabinet to make the tea. We all know very well that the Government will not let the right hon. Gentleman leave the Cabinet to make the tea.
  Dr. Howells: Because he would poison it.
  Mr. Williams: No, because while he was outside he would sell the kettle. Is that not what they are advocating? They are telling schools to spend the money that they put aside to buy equipment. That is what the Secretary of State said. I have never heard such financial absurdity. I will go with relish into the Lobby to vote against it.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: The consistent theme from the Opposition has been the dire straits into which the local government settlement has put local authorities in Wales. There is no doubt that all my hon. Friends have consistently made a plea for the Government to

  391
  reconsider the settlement, which will result in a cut in the services which local authorities in Wales will be able to provide. We heard from the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) the novel suggestion that county councils could, as they go out of existence, run down their reserves with impunity. Has it not occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that immensely important education, social, highways and transportation services will have to be provided by the new unitary authorities? It will be prudent of county councils, as it will of district councils, to maintain balances that can be handed over to the new authorities.
  The Secretary of State said today, as he did on ITN lunchtime news yesterday, that a lot of money is available. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) reminded us that the Secretary of State could not have included sufficient money to cover the pay review body's settlement for teachers, which will not be announced until later this week. It would have been impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to anticipate last December the fine-tuning in January and to know exactly the review body's recommendation. He does not know the figure any more than local education authorities, even though all have tried to make budgetary provision for that pay increase.
  None of the education authorities in Wales has wholly provided for the anticipated 2.9 per cent. pay increase. All will have to dip into their balances to make up the shortfall. Some authorities have already told schools that they are expected to provide some of the extra funding. Other authorities may be able to do so out of the fabled, fabulous balances that they are supposed to hold.
  When the Minister replies, I hope that he will say if he knows anything more about today's school balances compared with the figures thrown about at the start of this financial year. My bet is that most schools have already used their balances to purchase better equipment or more books and for other purposes. The consistent message from virtually every Welsh council is that the budget represents a cut over last year.
  The Secretary of State was at pains to stress that one must compare like with like and the settlement for this and last year. Local authorities must consider the money that they had to spend this year and that which the right hon. Gentleman is making available for next year. Whichever indicator one uses—the TSS, AEF, SSA or other initials that come to mind in respect of local government spending—it is clear that there will be a real terms cut this year. Although there will be extra money, it will buy less. The same is true of education and housing authorities.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West pointed out that the message from north, south, east and west Wales is that more money is needed. The same is said beyond Wales—the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) brought the same message from the Liberal Democrats.
  The Secretary of State can say as much as he likes about extra cash, but it will not buy the same in the current financial year that it did last year. Cuts have been made over several years. Over the past three years, Mid
  392
  Glamorgan has had to make savings of £34 million. This year, authorities throughout Wales are being stretched on the rack and are falling apart.
  Today I received two letters from Clwyd, over which the Secretary of State took so much time to salivate in his criticisms. Mr. Edward Williams of ysgol Morgan Llwyd wrote:
  "Teimlwn bod ein pobl ifanc wn haeddu gwell."
  That means, "Our children deserve better." The Federation of Welsh Schools commented that teachers are fed up trying to hold together a system that is falling apart around them.
  Pupil-teacher ratios are a good indicator of the economic climate in education. From 1979 until 1990, pupil-teacher ratios in secondary schools fell year on year—from 16.8 pupils per teacher to 15.3. In 1993, ratios began to creep up, to 15.7 pupils per teacher. In primary schools, the ratio was at its lowest in 1984, when it was 21.5 pupils per teacher. By 1993, it had increased to 22.1. The situation is worsening inexorably.
  Judging from the cash available, there has been an increase in district budgets of 1.1 per cent., but when one considers what can be bought, that represents a reduction of 2.5 per cent.—£11 million less than what is needed for a standstill budget. Compared with district council spending last year, there will be an overall cut of nearly 6 per cent.
  The number of homeless in Wales is increasing and the state of its housing stock is worsening. Current new builds are probably only half the number required. The Government signed up to the United Nations housing strategy—a declaration, as far as Wales was concerned, that there would be houses for all by the year 2000. The money given to local authorities or to Tai Cymru will probably allow only 40 per cent. of that target to be achieved. In the year that the Government signed that document, they have already admitted failure. There will be deeply damaging cuts in both industrial and rural Wales.
  The Secretary of State was at pains also to stress that he had fully catered for improved technology, to help bring the new unitary authorities into being—and we applaud him for that. He has catered in full also for the shadow authorities' budget. However, when it comes to financing possible redundancies, the right hon. Gentleman has provided £3.5 million, which must be borrowed.
  The Secretary of State is on record as saying that he expects very few workers to lose their jobs, even though at one time he talked about a 5 per cent. loss which he thought would mainly be accomplished by natural wastage. There are huge differences in the numbers who are likely to lose their jobs and the terms on which they will lose them.
  The Government have chosen, in their arcane way, to interpret TUPE—the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—in such a way as to exclude a large number of local government workers. As is often the case when the Government interpret the directive's demands, they have got it wrong. This is another instance in which they would be well advised to come to a new accommodation with local government workers to make sure that the redundancy scheme is properly financed. How many people's redundancies can be financed on a £3.5 million scheme? Very few, I would guess.

  393
  In addition to local government reorganisation, the Welsh Office is proposing that contracting out be reintroduced in Wales much sooner than in England, where the Department of the Environment is proposing a reasonable delay of 18 months to enable the new authorities to settle in before moving to compulsory competitive tendering. In Wales, however, some authorities have to begin the job six months after reorganisation, some a year after and many 18 months after. Bearing in mind the difficulties that local authorities will have with their budgets, will the Secretary of State extend the period before local authorities have to examine the problems that CCT will cause them?
  Finally, I deal with efficiency. The Welsh Office's own expenditure plans showed efficiency savings of 2 per cent., 2 per cent., 1.5 per cent. and 1.7 per cent. for 1992–93. All of a sudden, in 1993–94, the planned efficiency saving was 5.6 per cent. Will the Minister tell us exactly what savings were achieved that year?
  Let us examine staff numbers in local government and the Welsh Office. Whereas Welsh Office staff have declined in number by 82 since 1979—a reduction of just over 3 per cent.—local government staff have declined by nearly 14,000, or about 6 per cent., which is double the number of redundancies. By any measure, local government has already shown itself to be more efficient.
  The settlement proves that the Welsh Office, by having 15 press officers and quadrupling its publicity expenditure, is trying to sell the impossible in Wales. We shall be left with crumbling and under-resourced schools, exhausted and over stretched teachers, frenzied fund-raising parents trying to get money for the basics in our schools, impoverished housing stock, houses unfit for habitation, growing repair lists, growing numbers of homeless, roads increasingly potholed and taking longer to repair and overstretched social services. The needs of children and the elderly will not be met, and it will all be down to a settlement that is wholly inadequate for the needs of the real world. We shall vote against the settlement proposals.
  6.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): We have heard the traditional claims that this or that is going wrong and that we are heading for disaster or crisis. One need only turn to the previous year's debate or that of the previous year or the one before to realise that the same claim has been made again.
  Let us analyse today's debate. It is clear that it has been a low-key, even-tempered debate about how local government in Wales is proceeding in the final year before our popular reorganisation. The only thing that we have not heard is a positive alternative from Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), whom I can at least congratulate on broadening the debate more than any of his colleagues, either today or in previous debates on Welsh affairs. However, the hon. Gentleman will have to pay more attention to the facts. I assure him that we have given careful consideration to compensation for local government reorganisation and have included appropriate funding for the costs that are likely to arise in the coming financial year.
  394
  Nor has the hon. Gentleman studied his housing brief. He certainly has not read the interim house condition survey, which was published last year and which outlined the continuing improvement in housing in Wales. No doubt he will examine it more closely in future.
  The settlement gives local government in Wales an additional £87 million to spend—a total of more than £950 for every man, woman and child in Wales. It provides more money for the police—a fact widely welcomed by police authorities—and for care in the community. In addition, there is £43 million to fund the costs of local government reorganisation and a generous increase in the local government settlement for the forthcoming year.
  Welsh local authorities are responsible for very large budgets. All but one county council have budgets of more than £150 million. They have flexibility to manage their budgets as they see fit and will be setting their budgets at a time of low inflation, which means that their money will go much further than last year or previous years. They can use accumulated reserves to fund expenditure if they consider it prudent to do so.
  In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out that there is always room for efficiency savings in large-scale organisations. Given the discretion available to them, I cannot accept Opposition Members' argument that the settlement will not enable local authorities to protect the front line or, most important, functions. They can protect those functions if they have the will to do so.
  Central Government support will account for about 89 per cent. of total standard spending. Local authorities will have increased scope for raising revenue locally, which they have sought in the past. At the same time, Welsh council tax payers will pay considerably less for their council than their counterparts in England and Scotland. Those on income support or low incomes can qualify for benefit up to 100 per cent. of their council tax bill.
  I am not prepared to speculate on council tax levels for 1995–96; that is a matter for individual local authorities. Council tax levels will depend on local authorities' budget decisions and their success in collection and changes in their tax base. Welsh billing authorities have an excellent record on collection, for which I commend them. I understand that they estimate a surplus of £15 million on collection funds at 31 March this year. That is very good news for council tax payers in Wales as it means that they will benefit from lower bills—a reduction of about £15 at band D in the coming financial year. Indeed, press reports suggest that at least one Welsh local authority is planning to reduce its council tax.
  None the less, I must tell the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) that it is essential for the Government to have power to protect local taxpayers from unreasonable council tax increases, especially at times when it is necessary to restrain public expenditure.
  Opposition Members have voiced their concern for local taxpayers in speculating on the council tax increase that will result from the settlement proposals. It seems inconsistent for them to argue for the removal of capping, which would almost certainly result in a considerable increase. They cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. Hanson: Will the Minister explain why the Welsh Office knows better than the people of Clwyd, who elected 32 Labour councillors out of a total of 66 in the

  395
  most recent election and who have previously delivered a Labour majority? The Minister's party has six councillors. Is not local democracy about letting local people decide on the local services that they want?
  Mr. Jones: Capping is now a well accepted and appreciated protection. Local electors know that they have that protection in addition to the accountability that they should expect to come directly from their councillors.
  Welsh local authorities have established an excellent record for prudent budgeting in recent years, and I trust that that will continue. The criteria for capping are provisional, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take all relevant considerations into account before making his final decisions.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) reminded us that he has no policies on this matter, just as he has no policies on anything else. The proposal to abolish capping is only a consultative proposal. We all know how thin Labour's policies are; it was understandable that the hon. Gentleman should appeal to my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) to write to him and offer anything that he could possibly set up as a policy—so desperate is the hon. Gentleman to find something positive to say.
  The police settlement is excellent, and is consistent with the new funding formula arrangements. It will be welcomed by the public and the new police authorities, if not by Opposition Members. It is essential for the new authorities to have a sound financial base in their first year, so that they can provide the high quality of policing that the public have a right to expect. As single-service authorities, they will have less flexibility than counties and districts in making budgetary decisions; they may also wish to build a prudent level of reserves to meet contingencies in future years.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Caerphilly welcomed the police settlement. I can well appreciate the condemnation that he implied about past spending decisions and policing levels, not least in the constituency of Islwyn. The electorate of that constituency will note the disapproval expressed by the shadow Secretary of State for Wales. The spending decisions of the police forces in Gwent and South Wales were made by Labour county councillors, and the electorate should consider Labour county councillors' priorities when deciding whether to give their traditional vote to the Labour candidate yet again.
  Much of today's debate has been about education, especially the speeches of the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), for Delyn, for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). Their comments were very much in line with the emphasis that we who come from Wales have always placed, and will continue to place, on that important subject.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jones: I am short of time, but I will take one last intervention.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I thank the Minister, because he has made an important point. He said that the police
  396
  authorities' spending decisions were made by Labour councillors. Is he telling us that the spending decisions that led to the difficulties experienced by South Wales police authority were made by Labour councillors? That is not the impression that I have gained from the press; nor is it the impression gained by the police.
  Mr. Jones: I cannot imagine where the hon. Gentleman gets his impressions from, impressionable young man though he may be. The fact is that Labour county councillors kept the South Wales constabulary desperately short of money. I know what the current impression is among the hon. Gentleman's electorate and mine in Cardiff: they welcome a 15 per cent. increase in spending for the South Wales constabulary, which will right the wrong perpetrated by Labour councillors.
  Inevitably, there have been many complaints about alleged cuts in education by one or more of the eight county councils in Wales. In theory they come of age this year, but I do not think that that will be celebrated as much as their conclusion next year. What the apologists in the Opposition say confirms that those councils appear to be incapable of making their own decisions, which are forced on them by someone else every time—usually the Government.
  The hon. Member for Delyn asked me about prudent balances. The district auditor and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy recommend that authorities should have reasonable balances; what is reasonable in any particular case is a matter for the individual authority and its auditor. I realise that that is not in line with the hon. Gentleman's centralising tendency: amazingly, in an early intervention, he appeared to be asking for the power to decide education spending to be taken away from Clwyd county council. That must have been his local concern.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that some balances are needed for prudent management, and that it is a good idea for schools to save up for new equipment. He has also said something that is plain common sense: how can schools with £47 million in balances say that they cannot afford to pay their teachers when they have so much in the bank?
  The hon. Member for Pontypridd asked me about education capital spending. The constituency example that he gave is a matter for Mid Glamorgan county council. In the current financial year, counties have received credit approvals amounting to £42.5 million for education capital spending—a rise of 11.6 per cent. on last year. Next year will see a further increase of 7 per cent., to £45.3 million. I hope that authorities will hear what the hon. Gentleman says and what we say, and will make the best possible use of the resources and capital receipts that are available. I hope that they will renovate and replace classrooms like that featured on the front page of today's Western Mail.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, county councils certainly have the financial ability to make education a priority—to provide for the pupils of tomorrow, and to provide more rather than fewer teachers. But they choose other priorities: they choose to spend the money elsewhere. My right hon. Friend reminded us that Clwyd allows only 68p in every £1 of the school budget to reach schools, and rightly contrasted that with the position of Powys, where the figure is as high as 78p. The sums that Welsh county councils are keeping back from

  397
  schools are not small. In Clywd, the total is more than £17.5 million, in Gwent rit is nearly £22 million, in South Glamorgan it is nearly £16 million and in West Glamorgan it is nearly £14 million.
  I am sure that parents will wish to consider how much money is being kept from their schools. They will want to decide who they trust more to make spending decisions—their local schools, or remote education committees. I think that many will believe that their schools are almost certainly better placed to make the right decisions, and will decide, for instance, to provide more teachers rather than adopting the scare tactic of slashing numbers that is so beloved of Labour education committees.
  For too long, Labour has regarded Wales as largely a collection of rotten boroughs. Not long ago, an article was published in which someone said of Welsh Labour councillors that the "we know best" attitude must change. He called for Labour councillors to treat people as potential converts rather than eternal enemies, and demanded a new type of considerate councillor. Who was that far-seeing individual? It was the hon. Member for Caerphilly, in an article entitled "Call to end 'Cult of Arrogance"'. There is testimony from the expert himself about the way in which the Labour party has treated the people of Wales.
  We have new councils this year—new, popular councils that will be close to the people. Here is the opportunity for the people of Wales to take control of those councils, and to cast away the tide of arrogance that has dominated local government in Wales for so long. This is the opportunity for councillors, who are responsive to the people of Wales, to run efficient councils and provide value for money with attractive council tax. Already, one council in Wales is talking about cutting its council tax. That could be followed by so many councils in Wales, which could ensure that priorities were right and that money went, in particular, to education so that we could have more teachers rather than fewer.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 269.

  Division No. 68]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Aitken.Rt Hon Jonathan

  Booth, Hartley

  Alexander, Richard

  Boswell, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Amess, David

  Bowis, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Brazier, Julian

  Ashby, David

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Atkins, Robert

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Baldry, Tony

  Burns, Simon

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Butcher.John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Butler, Peter

  Bates, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carrington, Matthew

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Carttiss, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cash, William

  Body, Sir Richard

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  398

  Churchill, Mr

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clappison, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Colvin, Michael

  Horam, John

  Congdon, David

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

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

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cran, James

  Hunter, Andrew

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

  Jack, Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jessel, Toby

  Day, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dover, Den

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Duncan, Alan

  Key, Robert

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dunn, Bob

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knapman, Roger

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'stn)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evennett, David

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Faber, David

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Legg, Barry

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Leigh, Edward

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Forman, Nigel

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Forth, Eric

  Lidington, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lightbown, David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lord, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Luff, Peter

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Lyell.Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gallie, Phil

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  MacKay, Andrew

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Maclean, David

  Garnier, Edward

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Madel, Sir David

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Malone, Gerald

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mans, Keith

  Grant, Sir A (SWCambs)

  Marland, Paul

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mates, Michael

  Hague, William

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Merchant Piers

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mills, lain

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Harris, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hawkins, Nick

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Nicholls, Patrick

  399

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Steen, Anthony

  Norris, Steve

  Stephen, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Stern, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Streeter, Gary

  Ottaway, Richard

  Sumberg, David

  Page, Richard

  Sweeney, Walter

  Paice, James

  Sykes, John

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Pawsey, James

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Thomason, Roy

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Townend, John (Brildlington)

  Powel, William (Corby)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Tracey, Richard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Trend, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Trotter, Neville

  Robathan, Andrew

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Viggers, Peter

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Walden, George

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Waller, Gary

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Ward.John

  Sackville, Tom

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Waterson, Nigel

  Scott Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Watts, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Whittingdale, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shersby, Michael

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sims, Roger

  Wilkinson, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Willetts, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wood, Timothy

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Yeo,Tim

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spring, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sproat,lain

  Mr. Sydney Chapman, and

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mr. Bowen Wells.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bradley, Keith

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Allen, Graham

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Alton, David

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

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Burden, Richard

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Callaghan, Jim

  Austin-Walker, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Ronnie (Btyth V)

  Battle, John

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Bayley.Hugh

  Canavan, Dennis

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cann, Jamie

  Beggs, Roy

  Chidgey, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Bell, Stuart

  Church, Judith

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clapham, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Berry, Roger

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Clelland, David

  Blunkett, David

  Clwyd,Mrs Ann

  Boateng, Paul

  Coffey, Ann

  Boyes, Roland

  Cohen, Harry

  400

  Connarty, Michael

  Ingram, Adam

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Corbett Robin

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jamieson, David

  Corston, Jean

  Janner, Greville

  Cousins, Jim

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Dafis,Cynog

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jowel, Tessa

  Darling, Alistair

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Denham, John

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dewar, Donald

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dixon,Don

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dobson, Frank

  Lester, Joan (Eccles)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Lewis, Terry

  Dowd, Jim

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Livingstone, Ken

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eastham, Ken

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Enright, Derek

  Loyden, Eddie

  Etherington, Bill

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McAllion, John

  Fatchett Derek

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McCartney, Ian

  Fisher, Mark

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Flynn, Paul

  Macdonald, Calum

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fraser, John

  McMaster, Gordon

  Fyfe, Maria

  McNamara, Kevin

  Galbraith, Sam

  MacShane, Denis

  Galloway, George

  McWillam, John

  Gapes, Mike

  Madden, Max

  George, Bruce

  Maddock, Diana

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mahon, Alice

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Marek, Dr John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Golding, Mrs Lin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Maxton, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Meacher, Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meale, Alan

  Gunnell, John

  Michael, Alun

  Hall, Mike

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hanson, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hardy, Peter

  Milburn, Alan

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Miller, Andrew

  Harvey, Nick

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Henderson, Doug

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Heppell,John

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mudie, George

  Hoey, Kate

  Mullin, Chris

  Home Robertson, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Hood, Jimmy

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hoyle, Doug

  Olner, Bill

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Hutton,John

  Parry, Robert

  Illsley, Eric

  Patchett Terry

  401

  Pearson, Ian

  Soley, Clive

  Pendry, Tom

  Spearing, Nigel

  Pickthall, Colin

  Spellar, John

  Pike, Peter L

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Pope, Greg

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Stevenson, George

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stott, Roger

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Straw, Jack

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Radice, Giles

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Randall, Stuart

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Redmond, Martin

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Reid, Dr John

  Timms, Stephen

  Rendel, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Turner, Dennis

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Tyler, Paul

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Rooker.Jeff

  Wallace, James

  Rooney, Terry

  Walley, Joan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wardel, Gareth (Gower)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wareing, Robert N

  Ruddock, Joan

  Watson, Mike

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Short, Clare

  Wilson, Brian

  Simpson, Alan

  Worthington, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wray, Jimmy

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

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

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Mr. Stephen Byers, and

  Snape, Peter

  Mr. Joe Benton.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1995–96 (House of Commons Paper No. 140), which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
  It being after Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions necessary to dispose of the other motions relating to local government finance in Wales, pursuant to Order [3 February].
  Resolved,
  That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (Wales) 1995-96 (House of Commons Paper No. 141), which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
  That the Special Grant Report (Wales) 1995 (House of Commons Paper No. 142), which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Conway.]

  Points of Order
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have given the Minister prior notice of what I am about to say. Tonight on Channel 4, Eastern Electricity is being exposed as having perpetrated a disgraceful scam on 3 million customers by billing them three weeks in advance and virtually embezzling the interest. What I should like to see—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. What I should like to know is what is the point of order for the Chair? There has been none so far, although I shall listen a little longer to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Griffiths: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that to happen without a statement being made by the President of the Board of Trade so that he can take action tonight to ensure that that money is returned to all the customers?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?
  Mr. Mackinlay: Not absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that point of order.

  Children (Northern Ireland)
  7.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): I beg to move,
  That the draft Children (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 12th January, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
  That the draft Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 12th January, be approved.
  Mr. Moss: The draft Children (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1995 has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, so I will confine myself to commenting on the substantive provisions of the draft Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 itself.
  First, I shall draw the attention of the House to the general purpose of the order. I shall also say something about the consultation that has taken place and the changes made following publication of the proposal for a draft Children Order in July 1993. As I wish to afford hon. Members who wish to speak as much time as possible, I shall try to be brief.
  The order is designed to bring together most of the public and private law relating to children in Northern Ireland in a single statutory framework along the lines of the Children Act 1989, which has been in operation in England and Wales since October 1991.
  The order is based on a clear and consistent set of principles designed with the common aim of promoting the welfare of children. It will uphold the view that, wherever possible, children should be brought up and cared for within their own families.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister's giving way to me, especially as he wishes to be brief. As he said that the order followed the Children Act 1989, which applies to England and Wales, will he tell us what lessons have been learnt from the working of that Act and how they have been incorporated in the draft order?
  Mr. Moss: I will deal with some of those points later, but if I do not cover them all in this speech I will certainly address the issues that hon. Members have raised when I wind up the debate.
  The order makes it clear that the welfare of the child is paramount where a court has to make a decision affecting his or her future, and that children should be protected by effective intervention if they are in danger.
  The order will give practical effect to those principles by setting out the services to be provided to support the upbringing of children in need, including disabled children, within their own families. The new concept of parental responsibility that will be introduced will also help to maintain the integrity of the family by ensuring that such responsibilities will continue even when it becomes necessary for a child to be taken into care.
  Where the courts intervene in family life the new legislation will provide a clear checklist of matters which must be considered in any family proceedings involving
  404
  a child. In particular, the court must ensure that the needs of the child are addressed when decisions are made regarding his or her future.
  The order also paves the way for the creation of a guardian at litem service which will ensure that, wherever practicable, the voice of the child is heard in a wide range of care-related proceedings. As regards child protection, the introduction of new powers for the courts to make child assessment and emergency protection orders will provide for effective intervention where necessary, while ensuring that the intervention is open to challenge. A proper balance will thus be struck between the rights of parents and the duty of authorities to intervene where the child's welfare requires action to be taken.
  Extensive provision is made for those cases where it is not desirable or practicable for a child to be brought up within his or her own family. Where children are looked after in accommodation provided by a health and social services board or trust, a voluntary organisation or any other type of home, the order will ensure that their welfare is promoted and protected through effective registration and inspection. Similar safeguards will be in place for children who are fostered, and detailed provisions are included to ensure that those providing child minding and day care services are subject to effective registration and inspection procedures.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: With regard to the Minister's last statement, it has been widely canvassed in Northern Ireland that the order could carry great weight in relation to church work and Sunday schools, and could also affect the work of various youth groups with boys and girls. Will the Minister comment on that?
  Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. There was some concern about the implications of the registration and child minding measures included in the original draft. As a result of the consultation that my noble Friend Baroness Denton undertook in the middle of last year, it was decided to introduce article 121 (6), which now includes the power to exempt specified supervised activities from registration. Boards will now have the power to proscribe activities such as scout and church activities.
  I have mentioned that the proposal for a draft order was published for public consultation in July 1993. During the extended consultation period, in excess of 100 organisations and individuals responded. This was followed by a debate in the Northern Ireland Committee in February of last year. My noble Friend Baroness Denton, who then had responsibility for the Department of Health and Social Services, invited members of the Committee to discuss the issues. The outcome of that was an announcement by my noble Friend in July 1994 of the changes to be incorporated in the draft order to be laid before Parliament.
  Before I detail those changes, I must take the opportunity to thank all of those who commented during the consultation period. I also thank hon. Members who participated in the debate in the Northern Ireland Committee for the consideration that the Committee has given to the issues.
  A significant number of changes have been made to the draft order since the publication of the proposal. I will draw attention to the substantive matters. One of the issues which gave rise to concern was that the proposal included a requirement for those providing child minding

  405
  day care to be registered only where the children concerned were under the age of eight. Many considered the age limit in the proposals to be too low. The order will now require registration where the children concerned are under 12.
  Concern was expressed that by requiring registration for anyone providing child minding services for more than two hours in any day the order would require registration in circumstances where it would be inappropriate—for example, where a child was looked after for a short period by a neighbour. The order will now require only those providing child minding services for reward to register.
  Sir James Kilfedder: I understand that problems have arisen with the operation of the Children Act 1989. Has the Minister made sure that those problems have been dealt with in relation to this order?
  Mr. Moss: That is a similar question to the one asked by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), which I answered by saying that if I did not cover the points in my initial speech I would certainly do so in winding up the debate. If the order goes through today—I am led to believe that there is all-party support for it—I would expect a period of consultation lasting about a year to build up the regulations. Any difficulties which have occurred in the implementation of the Children Act in England and Wales will certainly be addressed in the way in which we formulate the regulations in Northern Ireland.
  Concern was also expressed that by requiring all those providing supervised activity to be registered the proposal would place an unreasonable burden on some organisations. This point was raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). The order will now enable the Department of Health and Social Services to make regulations exempting certain supervised activities from registration requirements.
  The Government recognise the importance of voluntary organisations in the provision of services to children in Northern Ireland. While we wish to ensure, through regulation and inspection, that voluntary homes for children maintain a high standard, we have decided that the imposition of registration and inspection fees would place an undesirable burden on voluntary organisations. We have therefore dropped those provisions from the draft order. The provision for fees to be imposed on those providing child minding and day care services has also been dropped.
  In response to the concerns raised in Committee that a children's home for fewer than four children would not be required to register, a change has been made to ensure that all children's homes will be subject to registration, regardless of the number of children. A change has also been made to article 21 to ensure that where a health and social services board or trust provides accommodation for a child, this should be in a proper care setting.
  A large number of drafting and technical changes have been made since the publication of the proposal. Many of them relate to changes brought about by the Health and Personal Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which provided that the statutory functions of health and social services boards may be discharged by trusts. The remaining substantive changes include changes to the jurisdictional arrangements designed primarily to ensure that appeals from magistrates courts will lie to the county
  406
  court rather than to the High Court, and additional provision to allow for the establishment of care units within existing training school complexes.
  One final and most important addition to the order has been made in recognition of the fact that hon. Members and others will have a continuing interest in the new legislation. The order will now provide for an annual report to be published by the Department of Health and Social Services in consultation with the Lord Chancellor, the Department of Education and the Department of Finance and Personnel.
  The order is the first step towards providing Northern Ireland with a modern framework of child care law. Much remains to be done to give effect to the new legislation, and we are keen to see that process under way. I look forward to hearing the views of hon. Members. I am confident that the order will have widespread support and that the changes to which I have referred will be welcomed. I commend the order to the House.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Paul Murphy: The House will welcome the comments of the Minister and also, of course, the changes that have been made. Hon. Members will also welcome the fact that—at last—the order is before the House.
  During the past few months, Northern Ireland has dominated the news and this House so far as the peace process is concerned, and it is inevitable and natural that that should be so. But sometimes in talking about that we tend to forget that in Northern Ireland—as in Wales, England and Scotland—the quality of life of the people has to be discussed. That has been forgotten as far as Northern Ireland is concerned.
  Life goes on. Children have to be educated. Hospitals have to be built. Jobs have to be provided. There is no question but that the vast majority of people living in these islands believe that the quality of children's lives, the need to stop exploitation and prevent abuse, and the need to educate and prepare children for the future must lie at the basis of our beliefs.
  We welcome the order, but we wonder why it has taken so long to appear. After all, six years have intervened between the Children Act 1989 and the order for Northern Ireland today. Indeed, there have been 16 years of discussion since the matters were originally discussed on various professional committees. The Minister said that there would be yet another year of consultation. I hope that that consultation does not mean that implementation of the legislation will be held up. That is very important.
  I understand that the United Nations committee on the rights of the child has already said that the delay has disadvantaged children in Northern Ireland especially in view of the levels of poverty in the Province. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is important to put on record our congratulations to all the people and bodies in Northern Ireland who have badgered the Government and pushed the importance of the order. Child care professionals and members of the voluntary sector have worked so long in a statutory vacuum. The children's organisations in Northern Ireland have influenced the shape of the order. The Children Order Group, which was formed by people from the public and voluntary sectors of child care to work on the drafting and shadowing of

  407
  the legislation, deserves the particular thanks of all Members of the House of Commons and especially those who represent Northern Ireland.
  I put on record the special thanks of the Labour party to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who spoke on Northern Irish matters until recently. He was instrumental in ensuring that small private children's homes of four children or fewer would be required to be registered. I am delighted that the Minister made reference to that this evening. We also welcome the removal of the registration fee, which the Minister has stated will be further changed.
  We are worried about the lack of a common strategy in implementing the order, especially when so many bodies and agencies in Northern Ireland, including social services, education, housing and leisure services, have to work together. It is important that joint planning by relevant Government Departments in Northern Ireland and those agencies, local authorities and bodies should be a matter of priority for the Government.
  We are worried about trusts and their lack of accountability. We often hear about the quango state. In my constituency in Wales and in the rest of Britain there is great disquiet about the growing number of quangos and the non-elected members of those boards. There are four health and social services boards in Northern Ireland, with 12 community units. Six trusts have already been established. I am given to understand that the Government are insisting that the other six must now apply for trust status. That is a mistake. Nowhere else in the United Kingdom are social services administered by trusts. They are generally administered by people who are elected by the people. It would be a bad move.
  In a sense, Northern Ireland has been treated as a guinea pig on trusts. We had the poll tax in Scotland and local government reform in Wales. Now we have social services trusts in Northern Ireland. I hope that the areas on the fringe of the United Kingdom will not be used as testing grounds for Government philosophy. I would be disappointed if that were the case. We do not want to see the fragmentation of the child care system in Northern Ireland. A single Northern Ireland body, not the number of bodies that the Minister suggests, should look after child care.
  The Minister did not say much about resources. So often in the past decade or so Acts of Parliament have been passed with all the good intentions in the world but the money has not been there to service them. It is wholly pointless to pass legislation setting up a plethora of bodies if the money does not come from central Government, in this case to Northern Ireland, to implement the legislation.
  There is one advantage in looking at what has occurred under the Children Act 1989 in Britain. We can see what it has cost local authorities. There is not a shadow of doubt that the costs of social services departments in local authorities throughout Britain have increased. They have rightly done so as a result of the imposition of new legislation by the House. I hope that the Minister will tell us precisely what money is being made available to ensure that aspects of the order which are to be implemented as soon as it is passed by the House are properly resourced.
  408
  It is absolutely necessary that family support services, family centres, pre-school and after-school care, holidays, support from social workers and health visitors, preventive work, and so on are properly resourced if only because, like many parts of Britain, Northern Ireland—especially its children and young people—is severely socially deprived. I will not go through all the statistics, but I will give a few. In Northern Ireland, 27 per cent. of the population is under 18 years of age. That is a higher proportion than in Britain. There is a high birth rate in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, 19 per cent. of families are headed by a lone parent and 95,000 children live in lone-parent families. Some 62,000 households with dependent children were in receipt of income support in 1992. Northern Ireland has the highest level of unemployment and the lowest level of average growth in disposable weekly household income. Poverty is possibly worse in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland certainly has the lowest level of state provision of pre-school places in Britain.
  If we take all those factors into account, it is clear that the need for family support in Northern Ireland must be greater than in any other part of Britain. It has been estimated that at least £20 million extra must be spent in Northern Ireland on that aspect of child provision alone. When we add to that a further £6 million for children with disabilities and another £3 million for other aspects of the legislation, a total of £45 million is needed. That is the estimate of the professionals who work on the ground, so to speak, in Northern Ireland. That is what it will cost for the legislation to be implemented properly.
  We can give figures because we have the experience of Britain. In one London borough with a population of just under 200,000, a 51 per cent. increase in the budget was needed to deal with the Children Act 1989. That amounted to about £4 million in one London borough alone. In that borough, there was a 36 per cent. increase in social work time, a 114 per cent. increase in home and day care support and a 45 per cent. increase in substitute care. Those are the figures that we have to consider.
  We talk about a peace dividend. Money will be saved because, happily, the peace process is continuing in Northern Ireland. Surely that money should go back into the Province to ensure that children are looked after properly. I am sure that everyone would agree that there is no better place for money from the peace dividend to go than into the protection of children.
  The professionals in Northern Ireland have also expressed worries about court organisation, exclusion orders and emergency protection orders. I hope that the Minister will refer to those matters and give assurances to those who have to deal with those problems. I am glad that he said that there would be a proper annual report to the House of Commons. That is excellent. It was missing from the original legislation. There is a case for some monitoring to take place in Northern Ireland. I hope that that will be taken into account in the consultation process in the next few months.
  Northern Ireland has had 25 years of misery with all the troubles. In all that time, the people who have worked in the care and protection of children must have had the worst and hardest time of child care professionals in any part of the United Kingdom. Their morale will be boosted

  409
  by the passing of the order, but only if it is passed with consequential increases in the resources necessary to make it work properly.
  We welcome all that is included in the order. Work still needs to be done. Changing needs and circumstances should be reflected both in the resources and, if necessary, in further legislation. At least this is a start. Even though years have passed, the Minister can be assured that he has the good will and support of the Opposition in the legislation before us today.
  7.38 pm
  Rev. William McCrea: I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for bringing the order to the House tonight. It has been awaited for a long time and with keen interest by all bodies involved in the care of children. I also put on record our deep appreciation of the courtesy shown by Baroness Denton when she received the elected representatives and our deep appreciation of her personal interest in this need of the Province. I am sure that the Minister will ensure that our thanks are passed on to his noble Friend.
  I also take this opportunity to thank the Children Order Group which represents various organisations with a wide range of experience and expertise. Its constructive comments were a tremendous help not only to me, but to other health spokesmen of the parties represented in the House. These organisations did the children of the Province a signal service in gelling together their comments and presenting a cohesive argument for action by the Minister.
  All those involved in the care of children, from both the voluntary and statutory sectors in Northern Ireland, broadly welcome the order. They acknowledge that many of their recommendations have been accepted and are included in the order. However, they regret that other key matters have been left out. It is felt, for example, that the opportunity to learn lessons from the implementation of the Children Act 1989 in England and Wales has not been fully taken. It is hoped, however, that any relevant and appropriate amendments made to that Act will also be made to this important order without delay.
  One of the recommendations made by the Children Order Group was that there should be provision for an exclusion order to oust from the home a parent or caretaker who is suspected of abusing a child. That recommendation was not accepted by the Minister although it had the support of the Children Act advisory committee in its 1992–93 annual report. As this opportunity has been missed, can the Minister assure me that if the law in England and Wales is amended, a similar amendment will immediately apply to the Province?
  Displeasure was also felt at the failure by the Department to make a change in the definition of disability. The definition in the order uses the term 'deaf and dumb". Surely it was not beyond the Department's ability to use other terms. It is hoped that more acceptable terms will be used in the regulations and the guidance.
  Two major issues arising from the order will be vital to its success or failure. An order is not, in itself, the end of the matter; rather, it is a very important beginning. It has taken many years and much lobbying to get to this important juncture; we are glad that we have arrived. To ensure success, the Department must give vibrant leadership in carrying forth the vision contained in the
  410
  legislation and in putting it into action. Such detailed and complex legislation will not implement itself. It requires proper co-ordination by the Department and it demands effective planning from the beginning. The Department must display initiative and leadership skills. Those within the Department who front the implementation of the order will carry a heavy responsibility in ensuring its success. Half-hearted leadership will make the community resentful because those people will have been filled with expectations without having them realised.
  Some people in the statutory and voluntary sectors have serious doubts about the Department's approach as they fail to see a strategy for implementing the order. Surely it is appropriate that statutory agencies work to a common agenda. Social services, education, housing and leisure services all have a range of responsibilities under the order. Only by joint planning within Government Departments can operational effectiveness be achieved. I trust that the Minister can assure the House tonight that the order will be put into operation with determination and that no effort will be spared in making it work effectively and efficiently.
  The various Departments have had knowledge of the progress of this legislation; they are not starting from tonight. We expect, therefore, that much of the groundwork has been done in terms of co-ordination and planning so that it is ready for smooth implementation. When did this co-ordinated departmental planning begin? Can the Minister assure me that all the Departments are ready for action? I was a little concerned when I heard the Minister mention another year. That has caused me concern and will worry interested bodies and those who are keen to move forward because we have waited so long to get this legislation. We expected that the Departments involved would want to move forward. Urgent implementation is essential.
  The second area of concern, the resources issue, is vital to the order's success. The provisions in the order, especially those relating to children in need, must not be hampered from the outset by a lack of resources. Indeed, having studied documents relating to the matter, I am certain that considerable resources will be needed to finance the order because of the low baseline of the preventive services being operated in Northern Ireland.
  I am sure that the Minister can understand the hopes raised for children and families by the order. Those hopes cannot become a reality without essential investment from Government. This point is vital. The present level of funding is inadequate. We dare not rob Peter to pay Paul in this operation. The demand is clearly for a commitment from the Minister.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman talks about robbing Peter to pay Paul. Does he agree that it is a mistake to think that under our combined health and social services system, money can be moved around more easily? The reality is that the big battalions gather a greater percentage of the money. In view of the recent news of the money needed to develop the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast, is he fearful that not only other hospital services, but the social services budget could suffer?
  Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. What he says causes grave concern. I know that there will be a scrabble for resources and that there will be in-fighting to try to win resources. The order

  411
  is something above the resources already allocated. It is vital that we get additional resources because without them, it will not take the House or the Province long to realise that the order is pie in the sky. We shall have an order, but we shall not be able to put it into effect. It is vital that the Minister gives tonight a commitment that there will be extra money to implement the order.
  The order emphasises supporting families who care for their children in the home; that is not a soft and easy financial option. The order endeavours to develop a preventive framework for families rather than relying solely on child protection. Unfortunately, during the past year, family support, day care and after care services have been poorly developed and underfunded, and have been provided in the main by the voluntary sector.
  I put on record that the people of the Province owe a tremendous debt to the voluntary sector for all its efforts over the years. It has made those efforts with few resources at its disposal. If we are really to support and strengthen families, new funding is an urgent must. Family support services are in urgent need of development in Northern Ireland.
  I make no apology for relying on the expertise of the Children Order Group to advise me on the details that need attention. I genuinely feel that it is evident to all in society that, over the years, preventive work with families has been neglected in Northern Ireland and that the high rates of poverty and deprivation experienced by many in the Province make the need more pressing than any other matter within the United Kingdom.
  The population of Northern Ireland has a higher proportion of children than any other region of the United Kingdom. Statistics provided for me amply express the need. For example, 19 per cent. of families in Northern Ireland are headed by a lone parent; 95,000 children live in lone-parent families; 33,000 lone parents receive lone parent support; and at least 62,000 households with dependent children receive income support. Northern Ireland has the highest unemployment and the lowest average growth in disposable weekly household income, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). Northern Ireland has the lowest state pre-school provision in Europe.
  When all those and many other adverse factors are considered, it is not surprising that the odds on a child coming into care are one in 10 compared with one in 7,000 if those factors are not present. Resources, therefore, will be an essential ingredient in the success of the action proposed in the legislation. The House welcomes the legislation that has been brought before it but resources are required to enable many aspects of it to be implemented, for example the registration and inspection of day care centres, child minders and children's homes, as outlined in the order. There are already long waiting lists for registration.
  Another area requiring resources is the accommodation necessary to meet the needs of young people within the community and those leaving care. The order requires health and social services boards to provide for such, if they feel that the young people's welfare is likely to be seriously prejudiced by failure to provide accommodation. The number of people in that category is greatly
  412
  increasing year by year, and the budget to cover that must be adequately financed if the order is not to remain meaningless.
  The order regards children with disabilities as children in need and sets out statutory obligations towards them, not only in service provision but in the promotion of opportunities for such children to lead as normal a life as possible. To take steps to fulfil the obligations under that part of the order will cost some £6 million, covering day care and after-school care. It is essential that such provision for the disabled is properly co-ordinated across the Province lest we are left with the current patchy, haphazard approach.
  Taken as a whole, the order is complex and deserves the closest possible scrutiny. I am glad that, in Committee and now on the Floor of the House, we can comment on it. I have no doubt that it covers a wide remit concerning both collective and individual responsibilities for children. It therefore requires a partnership approach between parents and statutory and voluntary bodies.
  The order demands a proactive role by the courts, with legal representations for parents as well as children. It also requires the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the child to deal with all those and other relevant matters. If this legislation is to be carried through, an important area is the appropriate and proper training of staff. Boards will be faced with tremendous costs in addition to all other previous burdens. That begs an important question: will the Minister assure the House that additional money will be made available and earmarked to enable boards to make the order a success?
  Resources need to be stable for the foreseeable future. We need not just initial funding but consistent finance linked to careful and detailed long-term planning for the service. I am concerned that, while we may be given some initial funding to prime the pump, the boards may be left to find funding in years to come. We shall then return to patchy provision throughout the Province.
  It is important to put on record tonight that the health and social services boards have estimated that they require approximately £45 million to implement the Children (Northern Ireland) Order fully. When I saw that, I thought that it was a lot of money. But I was present during the previous debate on local government finance in Wales. I listened carefully to the Minister's reply, when he stated that £43 million had been set aside in the Welsh budget to finance local government reorganisation, which is one of the Government's pet subjects. If £43 million can be set aside to fulfil Government policy on reorganising local government in Wales, there will be little problem for the Secretary of State in getting £45 million—if he can get only £43 million I suppose that I could be pushed to accept it—for Northern Ireland.
  There is no reason why the Minister cannot make a clear commitment properly to implement the order. Funding is essential not only for health and social services boards but for Departments inter-related in the order's operation, such as the Department of Education, which also needs additional funding to ensure that the measure is meaningful.
  What recognition has the Minister given to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which has expressed concern that there is no effective independent co-ordination mechanism for ensuring the convention's

  413
  implementation in United Kingdom law, policy and practice? Has he recommendations to make to the House on that matter?
  The order is important and I seek to take nothing away from the broad welcome that many hon. Members have given it, or from the Minister in presenting it to the House tonight. Two key issues have been raised in the debate: first, leadership in implementation; and secondly, resources to make implementation possible. How the Government react to those will reflect overall Government policy towards our most precious investment—our children. I earnestly trust that this golden opportunity to make a vital difference will be grasped willingly and prove to the world that we cherish our children whom the scriptures tell us are the heritage of the Lord.
  I have already told the Minister that, unfortunately, an urgent constituency matter has arisen and I must return to my constituency as soon as possible. I therefore mean no discourtesy to the House by leaving. I shall read carefully every response that the Minister makes. Even though I shall not be present, I trust that the Minister will carefully take matters I have raised on board, because they will make all the difference for the children of our Province.
  7.59 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: This is an historic occasion in many ways. It takes us back through the history of child care in the United Kingdom to the Children Act 1908, which was the starting point for the care of children. It was a landmark in the development of policy in the United Kingdom. It is significant that it remained the principal Act in Northern Ireland until 1950, so it cannot be said that we rush things too much. The pattern of developing child care legislation is still continuing. It is interesting to note that under the 1908 Act the interests of the child were not the most important; rather parents could not be deprived of their rights unless they were found guilty in some sense. I believe that the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 is a new landmark because the emphasis is placed on the child rather than the adult, who has certain responsibilities.
  The order is historic for other reasons, not least because it has had a long gestation. The children and young people review group, known as the Black committee, which was established in 1976, published its findings in December 1979. It is 12 years since I came to the House, so we have been pressing for almost 13 years for the implementation of the Black committee recommendations.
  We had a fair bit of discussion on the order in the Northern Ireland Committee and subsequent discussions with Baroness Denton, who proved not only to be a listening Minister, but a heeding one. The reaction to those discussions was welcome. I welcome without hesitation the changes that have been made to the order as a result. In Committee, however, we pressed that we should take on board some of the lessons learnt from the implementation of the Children Act 1989 of England and Wales. I hope that before the end of the debate the Minister will gain further inspiration and tell us what lessons have been learnt from England, or whether no lessons can be learnt. If that is the perception of advisers, it does not match that of professionals. It is important that we do not wait too long before the order is implemented.
  Today's debate is historic, because although the debate in Committee was on the original draft proposals, we could have had today's debate in Committee as well. That
  414
  debate would have been noted by a few enthusiasts, but by recording today's debate in Hansard, people will learn much more easily about some of our concerns. That is the best that we can do with this type of legislation.
  We should have had the opportunity to examine the order in Committee, line by line, clause by clause, so that we could have amended it. All that we can do tonight is stupidly vote down the order. Since the Government introduced it and we have waited for it for such a long time, we would not want to do that, not least because the Government have a majority and would get it through in any case. In any case, if there was a Division, and I doubt that there will be, my party would vote in favour. We have waited far too long for the order, but to suggest that the order is perfect would imply that it is the only piece of perfect legislation ever to go through any Parliament. Even during my sojourn in the House I have been amazed at how Government Bills have been amended by hundreds of Government amendments, never mind by Opposition pressure to table yet more amendments. The tragedy is we have been unable to scrutinise the order, so a degree of unaccountability has slipped into the machinery of government in Northern Ireland.
  I thank the Government for meeting our request to have a debate on the Floor of the House and I welcome the modifications that have already been incorporated into the order. It is proposed that registration will be required governing the supervision of paid staff. I hope, however, that because church volunteers are normally unpaid that does not mean that they do not require supervision. I recognise the tremendous work done by those groups and acknowledge that the standard of it is remarkably high. I welcome the fact that they are not required to be subject to the same registration, but I am sure that the Minister and others would agree that even in such quarters we must watch carefully those who have been entrusted with the care of our young people.
  In several areas the views of professionals have been ignored and the Government must take note of that. How will the great changes in the Province be co-ordinated? The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) has already alluded to that. Who will steer the order's implementation through? I am not thinking about the Minister but about those behind-the-scenes co-ordinators. As I understand it, and unless something has happened recently among those who know more about this than some of us, no proper consultation has occurred between the court services, the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Education in Northern Ireland. I understand that little effort has been made up to now to educate the various Government Departments and boards, which all have a part to play in the successful introduction of the order. I admit that members of one of the trusts under the control of the Department of Health and Social Services recently gave a talk on what might be involved. That lack of co-ordination is reflected in the fact that it will take a year to introduce the regulations, whereas we believe that, by now, it should have been possible to implement the order.
  The concept of co-ordination, to which the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster referred, relates to links between social services, education, housing and leisure services. Each has responsibilities under the order. Within the Departments, however, there appears to be little understanding of what will be involved and certainly little visible enthusiasm. Social workers responsible for child

  415
  care are already stretched to breaking point and they are short-staffed. Because of the lack of co-ordination—I can put it no other way—things are done at one level that have no relevance to those working on the ground. For example, the joint protocol system on child abuse involves the police, social workers and others. They are trained together, yet one trained person from social services was also supposed to be responsible for Kidscape, a vital element in child care. She could not undertake her work on Kidscape for months. She had to look after the joint protocol outwith her area because there were not enough trained folk in the service to undertake that protocol work. I urge the Minister to, as we would say in Ulster, "gee up" such Departments a little and ensure that a system for co-ordinating efforts is introduced.
  Some hon. Members have mentioned resources. I would sound one caveat. I am glad that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, has returned to his place. He referred to Northern Ireland being the poorest part of the United Kingdom. It might be the poorest region according to some calculations, but, if one examines the statistics of social surveys, we are not the worst. The hon. Gentleman may have alluded to another poor part of the UK when he referred to the London boroughs problem. However, I believe that the level of deprivation on Merseyside would cause some of us to be thankful that we live in Northern Ireland.
  We must be careful when we make comparisons, because sometimes we do not compare like with like. That is not to say that I would argue with the hon. Member for Torfaen about his anxiety about resources, which was echoed by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster. I noticed that the Minister was using his calculator at that moment. We may find out before the end of the debate whether he has come up with an offer or whether he has sent messages to the Treasury so that he may tell us how we might reach the target.
  We are all familiar nowadays with tight budgets and the need for effective and efficient use of public money, and few people would disagree with that requirement. However, there is genuine anxiety that the effective implementation of the order will be hampered by a lack of available resources.
  That is one reason why we ask what lessons have been learnt from the implementation of the Children Act 1989 in England, and which parts of that Act have not been implemented; for I do not want the House to go down the road of our Italian colleagues in the European Union, who have an art of passing legislation but not implementing it. When they are asked, "What do you do about this?" they reply, "We have it!" but the folk who require it have not had it. The legislation has not been implemented. We do not want to go down that road. We want to go down the road where there is implementation.
  The emphasis in the order is on supporting families to care for their children at home—developing a preventive framework for families rather than relying solely on child protection. We have heard that, in Northern Ireland, family support day care and after-care services are poorly developed, underfunded and provided mainly by the voluntary sector. Indeed, much of those services continue
  416
  to be provided in places by the extended family. That level of community care is to be welcomed, but it is not an excuse for society to abrogate its responsibilities.
  We ask, not rhetorically but factually, how can that requirement in the order be fulfilled without appropriate and adequate resources—resources not provided in the current plan? That might be the reason why the regulations will not come into force for a year; it might enable us to reach the next financial year.
  The euphemism of a three-year start-up is but a euphemism. It highlights the problem. The early years development scheme has been promised £310,000 for three years, which appears to be a sizeable amount, but there were already 180 applicants to that scheme alone in response to a public advertisement in a newspaper.
  The order brings in the much-welcomed registration and inspection of day care, child minders and children's homes. There are already long waiting lists for registration, as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster said, and adequate funds to support the measure are not provided.
  Under the order, health and social services boards are required for the first time to provide accommodation if children's welfare is likely to be seriously prejudiced by a failure to provide accommodation. That is not simply accommodation in Housing Executive property but accommodation with care; yet evidence from England and Wales demonstrates that 96 per cent. of social services departments considered that they had inadequate resources to comply with that aspect of the Children Act 1989.
  If the measures in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order are to function in the way in which they are intended to, adequate funding must be made available. Stable resources and strategic long-term planning are needed.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster referred to the concept of a lack of definition of disability. Surely the Government and those who have advised them should by now be aware of the reaction among those who are disabled and their supporters when we use such outdated terminology. It is a patronising approach to people with disabilities.
  I ask that Ministers make a commitment tonight that the terminology will be amended, not simply when the amendments are made to the Children Act 1989, but as soon as possible. That commitment was given earlier, when the Government were pressed from the Ulster Unionist Bench about the Wildlife and Countryside (Registration and Ringing of Certain Captive Birds) (Amendment) Regulations 1984, when they were caught with their pants down, if I might use that metaphor, not having done their homework properly. They gave us that commitment on that occasion.
  The exclusion orders are there, and many child care organisations have emphasised the importance of introducing them, but to introduce them so that the abuser, rather than the victim, is removed from the home environment. The Minister referred to the fact that the child would be removed only as a last resort, but sometimes we forget the links between children and parents.
  I remember speaking to a colleague who had a problem with a father who was not the best type of father. I asked him, to help me in my pastoral work, "By the way, how did you react to your father's death?" I shall never forget his words. He said, "He was my father." To take a child from home, or, for that matter, to move a mother and child from home into a hostel, with all the degradation that that can be

  417
  associated with, is not the way, in the 20th century, to care for children who are being abused. I believe that the abuser, whether it be father or mother, should be removed from the home, even temporarily, until things can be sorted out rather than uprooting a child from its roots, from the environment that it knows so well.
  I know that those of us who travel become used to strange places, but I think that you will agree with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, even for those of us who travel, no matter where we roam, there is no place like home. If it is true for us, how much truer it is for a child. regret that the Government have ignored the wisdom of that key measure.
  As I draw to a close, 1 consider several other matters, especially the concept of guardian ad litem. The Black committee recommended that a guardian ad litem be appointed to safeguard the children's interests. That has emerged repeatedly. Even in 1987, the Northern Ireland Adoption Order, which was implemented in 1989, did not make the guardian ad !item role independent of the agencies. One area board can still be the placement agency and provide the guardian ad litem report. Admittedly, the boards try to ensure that the guardian ad litem is not an officer for the same placement district. That at least is an attempt to do something about it.
  However, we live in a small world. The people work in the same services. They might even be wanting promotion. The human reaction is not to trample over people when trying to climb up, so as to avoid problems with them when falling down. It is equally true that one should not start arguing with the boss who might be on the interviewing panel for promotion. There is not the degree of independence required of somebody who is there to protect the child's interests.
  I regret that the recommendation does not seem to have been taken up. Admittedly, there has been a limited introduction of the guardian ad litem system. It seems unfair that, where a parental dispute has gone to private law, the rights of a child to independent representation are not recognised. Will the Minister reconsider the decision not to extend the guardian ad litem system to cover private law cases?
  I understand that the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee has kept reviewing the implementation of the Children Act 1989. But up to now there has been little evidence that the lessons learnt from that Act have been applied. At the British Association of Social Workers conference in Northern Ireland on the subject not long ago, it was suggested that there was no strong sense of leadership in that area. I understand that the management executive was represented on the co-ordinating body, which also included the chief social services inspector and the deputy director of court services, but there was no education representative. The question was asked: how do the professionals in that sector feed into the organisation?
  On 22 November there was, apparently, a stab at setting up an implementation group, but its functions and membership are not yet clear. I believe that it has met once and that working groups in different sectors are being set up to provide guidance and regulation. That might explain why it will be a year before we get anything.
  The four boards are now invited to participate, but where do the voluntary groups fit in? At a time when the provision of child care is increasingly coming from the voluntary and private sectors, surely voluntary groups
  418
  should be involved in the discussions at an earlier stage. In east Belfast it is proposed to close Firbreck children's home—a statutory home with places for 12. The figures show that the statutory home costs about £500 per child. The voluntary home costs about £1,000 per child. The voluntary home is large, taking 30 or 32 people, but only half its places are filled and the costs are much higher. Why is it that a statutory home, which provides a useful and excellent service, is being closed? At Christmas, its 12 spaces were occupied by 14 people. Nobody can deny that there is a need for such care and, when the order is implemented, the need to co-ordinate it effectively will be even greater.
  8.23 pm
  Dr. Joe Hendron: I thank the Minister for introducing this important legislation. I was delighted that he used a calculator earlier. I hope that that is a good omen for the finances involved in the implementation of the order. Naturally, I am delighted to support the order. I wish to congratulate all those organisations in Northern Ireland which have made such a significant contribution to the debate over the past couple of years. They include the Children Order Group, which has already been mentioned, Child Care, Gingerbread and the Save the Children Fund.
  I have been in medical practice in Northern Ireland for more than 30 years and I should like to think that I have first-hand experience of the deprivation of my constituents and patients. That deprivation extends not merely to west Belfast, but to sections of north, south and east Belfast, as well as other parts of Northern Ireland. The deprivation is concentrated in west and north Belfast where, according to the registrar general's classification, most of the population comes from social class groups 4 and 5. By any criteria of social deprivation, west and north Belfast have suffered greatly.
  The debate is about family poverty—children, their needs and how they have been treated in various ways over the years. In west and north Belfast, more people have died through violence over the past 20 years than anywhere else in western Europe, excluding the terrible conflict in Bosnia. There are more people on social security benefits, and there are probably more people with alcohol problems and illnesses.
  Unfortunately, I do not have the figures in front of me, but childhood illness, even asthma, occurs more among those in deprived areas than elsewhere. There are also more children coming under the influence of paramilitary organisations. All those factors have an important effect on children, especially when they reach 12 or 13 years of age.
  The Save the Children Fund has done great work over the years in highlighting the problems involved in the care of children. Both the voluntary and statutory sectors in Northern Ireland have broadly welcomed the order and will be pleased for it to pass on to the statute book. But the Save the Children Fund believes that it is important that, rather than simply paralleling the Children Act, lessons should be learnt from its implementation in England and Wales and applied in Northern Ireland, through the regulations and guidance drawn up for the implementation of the order.
  There are two main issues: the success of the order in practice and ensuring that the outstanding issues raised by the United Nations committee on the rights of the child

  419
  are monitored and considered in future. There is a need for resources—about which much has rightly been said—and the need to extend the philosophy and principles underpinning the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and the order to other areas of law, policy and practice affecting children. There is concern that the effect of implementing the order will be hampered by lack of available resources. Further resources will be required to enable the registration and inspection of day care, child minders and children's homes as outlined in the order.
  I believe that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned the accommodation needs of young people in the community and of those leaving care. Those needs must be seriously considered.
  In its concluding observations following the examination of the UK Government's first report on the implementation of the convention in the UK, the UN committee on the rights of the child raised a number of issues which are pertinent to the welfare of children. If left unaddressed, those issues could restrict the effectiveness of the order. The committee expressed concern that there was no effective independent co-ordinating mechanism for ensuring the implementation of the convention in UK law, policy and practice. The order is very much in keeping with the UN convention, particularly in its emphasis on seeking the core principles—ensuring that children's best interests are safeguarded and ensuring that children can express their views and have them taken into account.
  The subject of co-ordination is so important that I have no doubt that all the public representatives involved in the debate—especially those of us in Northern Ireland—will consider it carefully. I appreciate that the Minister cannot do that himself, but I am sure that some organisation or person will co-ordinate all those services. We are concerned that children who are placed in care in Northern Ireland under the social welfare system may be sent to training schools which are institutions for the detention of children.
  Much has been said about the Children Order Group. I am personally indebted to that group, which has done much work in this area and has provided us with valuable documentation. The group largely comprises social workers. The hon. Member for Belfast, South spoke forcefully about the physical and sexual abuse of children. I believe that social workers, not just in Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom, have performed outstanding work in that area. Unfortunately, sometimes chances must be taken in allowing children to return to the home or to visit a particular relative and, when things go wrong, social workers seem to take most of the blame. In my experience—which has been gained over many years—social workers, health visitors, nurses and all those who work with children through the statutory and voluntary services do an outstanding job.
  The Children Order Group pointed out that a lack of commitment by Government in implementing the legislation is evidenced by continual delays in bringing forward the order. I understand there may be a further delay of one year, but perhaps it cannot be helped.
  The United Kingdom Government have been criticised by the United Nations committee on the rights of the child. The delay of more than five years between. the Children Act 1989 for England and Wales and the
  420
  introduction of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order has disadvantaged children in Northern Ireland. Despite strenuous complaints by statutory and voluntary bodies, the Government have no apparent strategy for implementing the order. I know that the Minister will address those important points.
  Successful implementation of the order will depend upon a number of statutory agencies working to a common strategy. Social services, education, housing and leisure services will all have responsibilities under the order. However, at present there is no evidence of joint planning by the Government Departments which are responsible for those services.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) made the point about additional funding. We are aware of the funding problems within the trusts and health boards, especially the Eastern health board. I am also aware of the financial problems within the west and north Belfast trusts. I do not criticise the executives or the staff who work for those bodies, but funding levels are very important. Other hon. Members have already emphasised that point.
  We will be watching for co-ordination among the bodies responsible for implementing the order. At the end of the day, the Minister must use his calculator and, together with his colleagues, ensure that there is enough funding to implement this extremely important piece of legislation.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I apologise for missing most of the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and some of the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). What I did hear, I fully endorse and wish to be associated with.
  I suspect that this important debate will not be reported in the press because the subject does not make news headlines. As an English Member of Parliament, I will use this occasion to acknowledge the diligent work of all 17 Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland. They perform the same duties as other hon. Members, while addressing and accommodating additional constitutional and security problems. I hope that I do not sound patronising as I wish to acknowledge their role. I do not think that it is often commented on or properly understood by the media.
  I believe that the order is a farce in law-making terms. I am interested in scrutiny in this place, and this process is a charade. We would be taking the mickey to suggest that we are performing a proper law-making role this evening. It is a nonsense and I am not prepared to acquiesce, by my silence, to this charade.
  In every other context, an order of this size would constitute an Act of Parliament. It is a nonsense to suggest that we are paying adequate attention to the contents of the document, or indeed to the people who will, we hope, benefit from it. Regardless of whether there is a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland, so long as we are responsible for making orders in this place that affect Northern Ireland we must ensure that they are examined properly and on the same basis as legislation for England, Wales and Scotland.

  421
  My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) referred to "Great Britain" legislation, but I think that he meant legislation for England and Wales. At present, the House of Commons is considering the Children (Scotland) Bill in Committee. That legislation parallels this order and it is being dealt with line by line. Hon. Members are able to probe every detail, and that is the correct procedure. However, that process is not followed for Northern Ireland legislation. That example underlines the nonsense of the situation to which I have referred.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I meant to refer to that point in my speech. Does he accept that the Scottish legislation is a separate corpus of legislation which the House is able to handle well? I do not understand why it is claimed that it cannot handle legislation for Northern Ireland in the same way.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman and I are as one on that point. I hope that the time will come when Northern Ireland legislation is treated in the same way as legislation for Scotland and for other parts of the United Kingdom.
  Naturally, hon. Members want to see this order on the statute book. However, I urge them to hang on because I believe there are a few omissions. I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that I have read every page, but I have certainly done my best to scrutinise the document. Unfortunately, it is a vast volume with no pictures, so it takes some time to read.
  The document is flawed because it does not take account of the fact that we share a land border with the Irish Republic. Christian denomination and voluntary organisations, as well as statutory organisations, perform many social work duties in Northern Ireland, and I do not think that the document fully takes account of that or the interface with the Republic.
  People who have abused children have in the past absconded to the Republic to avoid justice. The Attorney-General recently complained that I had tabled 25 questions about Father Brendan Smyth. I make no apology for that, because it goes to the heart of the Government's stewardship of children's services.
  I am critical of the Government on that issue, among many others. I do not think that they ensure good stewardship of social services in Northern Ireland. Not many people lie awake at night worrying about it—except for hon. Members from Northern Ireland and my friends on the Opposition Front Bench—but the Government's stewardship, as represented by the Northern Ireland Office and the Attorney-General, has been shown to be flawed. I think that the Attorney-General has been dilatory in his handling of the celebrated case of Father Brendan Smyth. He has refused to acknowledge that he and the Church have failed the victims of Father Brendan Smyth and their families. It is time to look at why that has occurred. I believe that the legislation should be beefed up to take account of those circumstances.
  I am indebted to Ulster Television, which produced the documentary "Suffer Little Children" as part of its Counterpoint series. It was broadcast on 6 October 1994 and it showed how Church and state had failed to ensure justice for children and their families in Northern Ireland. I regret that, so far, the other independent television companies have failed to network this important programme elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I have
  422
  tabled an early-day motion suggesting that they should do so. If they did, it would alert other hon. Members to the fact that the justice and social work regimes in Northern Ireland are not satisfactory. I urge hon. Members not only to study that programme, if they have not already seen it, but to support me in the suggestion to independent television companies that it is networked.
  The House will be aware that Father Brendan Smyth is now in prison having been found guilty on child sex abuse charges—there is therefore no question of sub judice—of which he had a long history, yet for some time he was able to escape justice by going to the Irish Republic.
  I recently asked the Attorney-General a question, but it has not been answered satisfactorily. I asked him to
  "explain why Cardinal Cahal Daly, in his detailed statement, reported that Brendan Smyth had been interviewed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary early in 1990 in connection with child abuse complaints, that the priest had admitted wrongdoing, but was riot arrested".—[Official Report, 16 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 447.]
  The words "admitted wrongdoing" are taken from the cardinal's statement. I therefore want to know why the RUC did not arrest that priest early in 1990. Why did it take from then until 1994 for that man to face trial? We know that he did not abscond to the Irish Republic for many months after that interview. No adequate explanation has been given of the stewardship of this matter by the RUC or the Attorney-General.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It is perfectly proper for the hon. Gentleman to allude to certain cases. This is not the primary cause of this evening's debate, so I hope that he will only make allusions to it rather than further develop any particular case.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I always obey everything that you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I very much appreciate your wise counsel and guidance.
  The measure is voluminous. If it were English or Scots legislation, the matter to which I am alluding probably would require an entire morning in Committee. I appeal to you to consider my point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I promise that I shall not labour it too long, but this matter probably would have been discussed in Committee and alluded to in consideration of many of the articles. It goes to the heart of whether there is adequate social work support. The hon. Members for Belfast, South and for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) referred to measures to protect children from abuse. The matter has to be aired.
  I take your point Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if I can demonstrate that the matter is relevant, I might consider dividing the House because the order is deficient. The parent of one of the victims of Brendan Smyth has raised with me whether the order should, as the lid has been lifted on Brendan Smyth's activities—he is only one example; there are probably others—allow the RUC and the social work authorities that are subject to the order to investigate matters that are some years old. That certainly is the view of the aggrieved parents who feel that the authorities, the Attorney-General, the RUC and, to some extent, the Northern Ireland Office want to keep the matter under drapes and do not want to go back too far. If the order were a Bill, I would move amendments to that effect in Committee.
  My second point concerns the Northern Ireland Secretary. I addressed it to him recently in a written parliamentary question. There has been inordinate pressure

  423
  from some members of religious communities to prevail upon aggrieved parents of children who have been abused to withdraw their complaints.
  My written question referred the Northern Ireland Secretary to the specific case of the parents of one of the victims of Father Brendan Smyth, who were approached by a member of the Norbertine order to see whether they would withdraw their complaint. In fairness to the Northern Ireland Secretary, he wrote back to say that the matter continues to be investigated to see whether there has been an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
  Will the Minister give us a progress report on that matter, as it is extremely important in view of the failure of Church and state to protect the interests of those families?
  It is documented that the Church knew about the activities of Brendan Smyth, not for months but for years, and covered it up. I am of the Catholic faith, so there can be no suggestion in any sense of my demonstrating any spite. I am proud of my faith. The overwhelming majority of pastors are well-motivated people, but there have been one or two bad eggs and there has been a propensity to cover things up, which I very much regret. These matters need to be brought out into the open.
  Obviously, it has been a difficult matter for my friends and colleagues from Northern Ireland to articulate, but I have at all stages kept in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), whose constituency was primarily affected by the matter that I have raised. He and I have worked in concert and I know how concerned he has been about it. In view of the sensitivities in the Province, it is probably better that a lad from Essex raises it rather than one of my colleagues from Northern Ireland, and in that spirit I have done so tonight. The Secretary of State and the Minister really have to address what is happening.
  In conclusion, let me endorse the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen made. We hope that there will be a considerable peace dividend. There is much ground for optimism. I believe that we should talk up Northern Ireland. It is a tremendous place to visit, the quality of life there is first class and the hospitality is superb, but it is battered and bruised after 25 years of strife. Children, in particular, have suffered indoctrination as well as the pain and anxiety of the troubles.
  Generally, Northern Ireland needs to enjoy the dividend that will come from a reduction in the security services. Those resources need to be reallocated in Northern Ireland, particularly to the national health service and social work. It would be appropriate, prudent and fair if a large amount of those resources were channelled into promoting the welfare of children in the cities, particularly in the constituency of my Labour colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West and other colleagues, who have many inner-city problems and who, in my view, would be Labour Members if they represented other parts of the United Kingdom. I am aware of the problems faced by children in their constituencies.
  The Government have an obligation to take advantage of the new atmosphere, to build up cross-community relationships between children—which already exist thanks to the tremendous work that has been started—and
  424
  to ensure that children who have suffered as a result of the troubles, poverty or unemployment and everything that flows from them should be the subject of positive discrimination in respect of the distribution of resources now available as a result of the peace dividend.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Paragraph 4(5) of schedule 3 to the order states:
  "In this paragraph and paragraph 5 'hospital' does not include special accommodation within the meaning of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986."
  That set me thinking, because I recently received correspondence from constituents about a child with mental illness. I support the measures in the order, in that it will give greater protection for children and consider their needs. However, in the Northern health and social services board area, children under 18 suffering from acute mental illness such as schizophrenia are not provided with proper accommodation in which to undergo psychiatric treatment.
  The hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) covers my area, and I make it clear that I make no criticism of the professionalism of the staff who care for people who suffer from mental illness and require psychiatric treatment and care. Their devotion and dedication to patients, young and old, are appreciated by patients later and, during the period of their illness, by patients' parents and relatives.
  A 14-year-old constituent of mine had to be placed in Holywell hospital's adult acute admission ward, and later spent one month in the adult male intensive care ward because no alternative in-patient facilities designed and staffed to manage the degree of disturbance presented by seriously ill young persons were available in Northern Ireland.
  Skilled and qualified psychiatric nurses should not be expected to treat seriously ill children in wards designed for seriously mentally ill adult patients. I ask the Minister to seek to provide for the children of Northern Ireland special and appropriate accommodation for their medical and psychiatric care. That could be done on an all-Northern Ireland basis, which would be more conducive to early recovery of children suffering from mental illness and undergoing treatment.
  I invite the Minister to bring together officials of all health boards in Northern Ireland, to seek funding for specific accommodation in the treatment of mentally ill children. Provision of discrete areas within an adult hospital may be feasible, but it is not considered desirable or best practice. I trust that the Minister will not forget my brief comments but will endeavour to make even better provision.
  8.53 pm
  Mrs. Llin Golding: Some years ago, I spent a memorable holiday in that beautiful country of Ireland. As often happens, there was an Irish promotion week. One shop I visited had labelled everything that one could imagine. There was Irish cheese, Irish butter, Irish cream, local bread, Irish potatoes and shamrocks all over the shop. They had tried desperately to label everything. Some wag had put up an enormous notice, which read, "Think Irish. Buy French beans."

  425
  The order reminds me of that notice, because the Government thought about Irish children, but when it came to drawing up the order, they failed to consider the special needs and difficulties facing the Irish people, believing that a rehash of English and Welsh legislation would do.
  Northern Ireland's population has a larger proportion of children than any other part of the United Kingdom. It urgently needs concerted help and support, and has been waiting far too long for the order. The Government have rightly been criticised for the delay of five years since the implementation of the Children Act 1989. The stresses and strains of family life in Northern Ireland are apparent for us all to see, yet there have been inexplicable delays and lack of Government commitment to presenting the order.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and the hon. Members for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) raised many concerns. I shall therefore deal with only a few issues, including several not yet mentioned.
  The decision that the functions of health and social services boards may be discharged by trusts led many hon. Members to question who will be legally responsible when things go wrong, how consultation will be undertaken and who will he involved. There is obviously a need for accountability when dealing with complex legislation, and that is especially important when children's lives are at risk.
  Why could not an article have been added to prevent all child minders or anyone paid to care for children having the right to smack children? The order offers the Government the opportunity to protect some children while they are busy, as the result of a recent court decision, producing guidelines that will allow child minders to smack. A National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children leaflet, recently distributed with Government approval, states that children should not be shaken or smacked. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the age at which a small child can be smacked by a paid child minder. Nothing in the order tells us that.
  The lack of independence of guardians ad litem has been frequently raised with me. Clearer guidelines on their duties could have been issued. There is great concern for their independence as well as for an extension of their services and perhaps use in criminal courts.
  The procedures for children to give evidence in courts are far from satisfactory. There is growing demand even from the judiciary to implement the recommendations in Judge Pigot's report on video evidence, and for children's evidence to be taken outside the realms of a court. The identifying of children in court should have been prevented by earlier legislation but continues. Stronger wording should be used, to prevent that happening in all courts.
  The committee of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child strongly criticised the British Government's lack of social expenditure. It is estimated that 39 per cent. of children in Northern Ireland live in poverty—much higher than the average for the rest of the UK. Northern Ireland also has the highest level of
  426
  unemployment and the lowest disposable household incomes. Are the Government prepared to put money into doing something about it?
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen said, the health and social services boards have estimated that, to implement the order and provide the necessary training, they will need £20 million for child minders and day care, £6 million for children with disabilities, £3 million for child protection and £2 million for children leaving care—a total of £45 million. That sum does not take into account the changes in court services, which will also be very expensive. Will the Government provide all that money?
  If the Government really want to do something to help, they should consider carefully the United Nations committee's report on the effect of the emergency legislation on the children of Northern Ireland and its criticism of the outrageous power to hold children as young as 10 for seven days without charge. The Government should also examine children's complete lack of confidence in that system.
  The need for support for the teaching of the Irish language was also mentioned. So much has been done to keep alive the languages and traditions of Wales and Scotland; why has not the same been done in Northern Ireland?
  The UN committee was also disturbed by reports of physical and sexual abuse of children, as has been mentioned. It was concerned about secure training orders and children placed in training schools in Northern Ireland. It also mentioned gipsy and travelling children, especially with regard to their access to basic services such as education. The report discussed the need to establish an independent mechanism for the monitoring of the Children Act 1989 and the convention on the rights of the child; the need for children to have a greater voice in decisions affecting them; and the need for urgent race relations legislation in Northern Ireland. Those are just a few of the matters mentioned in the UN committee report, which should have been considered when the order was finally drafted.
  I have been brief to allow the Minister time to respond. Many things could have been done to improve the Children Act 1989. It is not good enough virtually to repeat the legislation that came into force more than five years ago. Times have changed and flaws in the legislation have been identified. The Government should have taken this opportunity to strengthen the Act and to think about the needs of the Irish people. My advice to the Minister when he embarks on his one-year consultation is, "Think Irish, not French beans."
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Moss: We have had a very good debate. Of course, this is the final debate on the order which, as was rightly pointed out, has been gestating for a considerable time. The order is lengthy and complex and its preparation has involved a great deal of work. The Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland, the Office of Law Reform, the Department of Education, the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland court service have also been involved.
  The order was first published in July 1993, with a longer than usual consultation period of three months. We were then asked for an extension, which we gave, until the end of November 1993. The order was debated in

  427
  February last year in the Northern Ireland Committee by many hon. Members who have contributed to this evening's debate, and many changes were suggested. Baroness Denton invited all members of the Northern Ireland Committee to discuss amendments to the order with her. Some took her up on that invitation and, has been said several times, she listened carefully and suggested about 11 amendments.
  One of the main issues raised this evening was that of resources. Among those who mentioned resources were the hon. Members for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron). We accept that implementation of the order will have resource implications for boards and trusts in Northern Ireland. It will replace the existing legislative framework and, of course, account needs to be taken of the resources already deployed and of the development of child care services already in hand.
  It is recognised, nevertheless, that additional resources will need to be deployed in certain areas over a period, before and after the order comes into operation. Much of the expenditure involved will not begin to arise until the next financial year 1996–97, when we envisage the order coming into operation, and will be spread over a number of years as services develop in line with boards' and trusts' child care trusts plans. Even before that, however, a large number of staff in the health and social services boards and trusts will require training, a point raised by, among others, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster. Those involved in the voluntary sector will also require training and the Department of Health and Social Services will provide support for that.
  Resources will also be required in relation to the new requirement to appoint guardians ad litem in care and care-related proceedings. Additional funds of up to £2 million will be made available in the current year to cover training in the new legislation and the start-up costs for the guardian ad litem service.
  Reference has been made to the fact that the Government have less than wholehearted support for resource provision in Northern Ireland in the sphere of health and personal social services. Resources are limited but, even in the face of competing priorities, the Government have increased resources for HPSS every year. Overall expenditure on HPSS in Northern Ireland will total £1,510 million in 1995–96, an increase of 5.4 per cent. in cash terms or 2 per cent. in real terms over the 1994–95 forecast outturn. Hon. Members who referred to my calculator now know what I was doing.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Did the Minister also calculate why, when it is Government policy to shift to care in the community, there have been cuts in the south and east trust area for Belfast?
  Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman can write to me about any specific lack of resources in a particular trust and I shall certainly look into that. However, I can say in all honesty that I am not aware of a lack of resources for community care in any trust in Northern Ireland.
  I was talking about overall expenditure. In Northern Ireland, it has increased an impressive 55 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80.
  428
  A number of hon. Members also mentioned the key issue of implementation.
  Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way before he finishes with the issue of resources. It is very important that we heard that £2 million is being made available for the setting up and implementation of the new legislation, but what about the figure suggested by those who work in social services in Northern Ireland? They believe that, in the years to come—perhaps three, four or five years ahead—and in view of the experience of England and Wales, on a pro rata basis more than £40 million extra will be required specifically to implement the order.
  Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman gave some figures in his speech. I added them up, and they came to £29 million. A sentence later, the total had risen to £45 million. I have seen the same briefing from various parties as the hon. Gentleman, and it seems to me that the figure grows and grows, like Topsy.
  The honest answer is that we do not know exactly how much the measure will cost to implement. What we are saying is that we are starting to spend the money now. The hon. Gentleman will know how Government spending is organised: each year, the public expenditure survey takes on board the bids from each Department for the necessary expenditure. We shall build into next year's HPSS public expenditure round sufficient bids to implement the policy during the intervening years, but it will take at least a year for many of the regulations to be published and consulted on. We already have a mound of paper which will be submitted for consultation fairly soon.
  To those who ask for commitment, I can give the commitment that we intend to press on as quickly as possible to organise the regulations and ensure that the order is up and running in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Murphy: Although exact comparisons cannot be made between London boroughs and towns and cities in Northern Ireland, surely the Northern Ireland Office is taking account of what has happened in England and Wales over the past six years. Surely it can examine the figures and make a proper comparison. Clearly, the Minister cannot specify the cost of implementation to the nearest million, but surely some figures will emerge. There is no question of a "bid"; the order presumably has the backing of the Treasury and the entire Cabinet, and if it is to be implemented the money must go with it.
  Mr. Moss: It does not work quite like that. We shall, as usual, be making our bids in the public expenditure survey round for next year and the year after; we shall make proper costings, and we shall take the experience of England and Wales into account in the implementation of the Children Act.
  We also recognise that the implementation will have an impact on a wide range of agencies. That point has been raised by a number of hon. Members. It is intended that the implementation will be carried out under the overall direction of a project board comprising representatives from the Department of Health and Social Services, including the management executive, the chief inspector of social services and the Northern Ireland court service.
  In addition, there will be a broadly based implementation steering group, which has already been set up to co-ordinate the plans of the wide range of

  429
  agencies with key roles in the order's implementation. That group includes representatives from the health and social services boards, the voluntary child care sector, the Department of Education, the police and the legal profession.
  I remind hon. Members that it took about two years to bring the Children Act into operation here in England and Wales. We hope to proceed at a faster rate in Northern Ireland.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister mentioned the Department of Education. Is that Department not fairly remote from the work base? Should not the group include representatives of the education boards? There have been hold-ups in the provision of access to ordinary schooling for children in need.
  Mr. Moss: That is an interesting point. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in these matters, and that many of his amendments have already been accepted by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State. We shall begin consultation on the regulations fairly soon; if he wishes to make his point to us then, we shall consider it in more detail.
  The hon. Members for Mid-Ulster and for Belfast, South mentioned the exclusion of abusers from the family home. We accept that there is widespread support for the principle of a court order that would exclude an abuser, or an alleged abuser, but we pointed out in the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs that it would be difficult to ensure not only that the rights of a person against whom such an order might be made are protected but that the order achieves the desired outcome. Reference was made to the Children (Scotland) Bill, which is currently being debated. The Scottish Office issued a White Paper suggesting that a provision for the exclusion of abusers be included in that Bill.
  The Scottish Office experienced extreme difficulty in drafting an appropriate clause, and that is now the subject of considerable discussion in Committee. It is unlikely that it will survive in its original form. We sympathise with the points that hon. Members have made, but it is extremely difficult to draft an appropriate measure while retaining a vestige of human rights for the person who may be excluded from the family home.
  The hon. Members for Belfast, South, for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) asked whether we would learn lessons from the Children Act of England and Wales. The Government consider that the legislative base provided by that Act is sound. A number of issues, of course, have to be addressed during the implementation of the order in Northern Ireland, but, as I have said, we are confident: that the primary legislation provides a sound basis and there are no plans to reform the fundamental principles of the Children Act. Work on the regulations and guidance which will flow from the order is proceeding in the Department. In carrying out that work, much regard will be taken of developments in England and Wales in the implementation of the Children Act.
  The hon. Members for Mid-Ulster and for Belfast, South raised the definition of disability, which they felt was rather stigmatising. The definition provided in the order follows that used in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 and is repeated in the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. Changing the definition may give rise to anomalies
  430
  and it would be inappropriate to use a definition for disabled children that differs from that used in legislation affecting disabled people generally.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Moss: If I must.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister said in his opening speech that he would be brief to allow us to speak. He has plenty of time now to answer the points that have been raised. The Minister is, of course, acting on advice, but it is the same advice that the same Department tendered to his predecessor in 1989, when I was steering the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Bill through the House. If that Department has not learned anything from 1989, it is time that there was a shake-up.
  Mr. Moss: My colleagues in the Department probably heard that as well as I did. [Interruption.] I am not blaming anybody.
  The hon. Members for Belfast, South and for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked about guardians ad litem and what steps we were taking to ensure their independence. We recognise the key importance of those people and that there should be a representative of the child and his or her interests in certain proceedings under the order. The creation of an effective guardian ad litem service will be essential to the successful operation of the children order. Detailed arrangements have yet to finalised, but it is envisaged that the service will operate as an independent body, quite separate from the health and social services boards and trusts.
  I shall also address one or two individual comments. The hon. Member for Torfaen asked how we will monitor the children order. I assure him that the management executive, assisted by the social services inspectorate, will monitor the implementation of the order. The hon. Gentleman also asked about trusts being less accountable for their actions than boards. The health and social services trusts are statutory bodies established by the Department of Health and Social Services and remain fully within the health and personal social services department. Trusts exercising delegated functions will be fully accountable for their actions to appropriate boards and, ultimately, to the Department and the Minister.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South raised two other issues—one about Kidscape. The regional strategy for 1992–97 contains a target that Kidscape, a self-protection programme for children, will be introduced in every primary school by 1997. The Department is confident that that target will be met. The hon. Gentleman also asked about waiting lists for the registration of child minders. It is true that in some places the processing of applications for registration is delayed, but, overall, that is not the case. Boards and trusts actively encourage people to apply for registration. In the past five years, for example, the number of registered child minders has risen by 57 per cent.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, West asked about care units in training schools. The order makes provisions for the creation of separate care units in training schools. We emphasise that those care units will be quite separate from the parts of the complexes that accommodate children who have committed offences.

  431
  Last, but not least, the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) raised a specific point. It is true that a teenager was recently treated in Holywell hospital as the hon. Gentleman described, but that was a most unusual case. The circumstances will be reviewed to eliminate the likelihood of similar admissions in the future.
  I commend the orders to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Children (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 12th January, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 12th January, be approved.—[Mr. Moss.]

  Children (Northern Ireland)

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &;c.),
    That the draft Northern Ireland (Loans) (Increase of Limit) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.—[Mr. Willetts.]
    Question agreed to.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
      ROAD VEHICLES
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8958/94, relating to recording equipment in road vehicles; and supports the Government's view that, while there is a need for alternative recording equipment, further development work is needed to prove the security of any new system before any change can be agreed.

      EUROPEAN SOCIAL POLICY
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9069/94, relating to the future of European social policy; and shares the Government's view that future Community social policy must centre on the need to tackle unemployment and facilitate the creation of new jobs, taking account of the principle of subsidiarity, the need to respect the diversity of Member States' institutions and traditions, and the importance of enhancing the competitiveness of Community businesses; takes note of European Community Document No. 4075/94, relating to the application of the Agreement on Social Policy, of European Community Document No. 11115/94, relating to a Resolution on the future of social policy, and of European Community Document No. 6230/94, relating to European Works Councils; and welcomes the fact that that acts adopted under the Agreement on Social Policy are not applicable to the United Kingdom under the terms of the Maastricht Treaty.—[Mr. Willetts.]
      Question agreed to.

    PETITION

      Doveridge Bypass
      9.20 pm
      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I beg leave to present a petition given to me by Councillor Percy Brindley on Monday. It is about the Department of Transport's decision to postpone its plans to build the Doveridge bypass. The petition reads:
      To the House of Commons
      The Petition of residents of Doveridge and the surrounding area declares that the decision to delay the construction of the A564 Stoke-Derby link road means that the failure to build it puts them in continuing danger and the Petitioners urge the House to press the Secretary of State for Transport to reinstate this road, otherwise known as the Doveridge Bypass, into the roads programme immediately.
      And the Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
      To lie upon the Table.

    Horticultural Colleges
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Willetts.]
    9.21 pm
    Mrs. Marion Roe: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise matters connected with a subject rarely debated in the House—horticulture. It is a topic close to my heart, first because it is a major industry in my constituency, but secondly because I am aware of the problems associated with the industry through my work as chairman of the Conservative parliamentary horticulture and market sub-committee, as vice-president of the Capel Manor horticulture trust, as a livery man of the Worshipful Company of Gardeners, as an honorary member of the Institute of Horticulture, and, finally, as parliamentary consultant to the Horticultural Trades Association, which has, of course, been properly registered in the Register of Members' Interests.
    I wish to draw the attention of the House to a matter that should be of concern to hon. Members: further education students training for a career in horticulture are at an unfair disadvantage compared with most students training for work in other industries.
    Commercial horticultural production is an industry of great importance to the United Kingdom, with a total value of about £1.8 billion per year. There is also considerable scope for import substitution, especially in the provision of ornamental trees and shrubs used in landscaping schemes and in private gardens.
    The British garden, park and rural landscape are part of our heritage, and contribute enormously to our tourist industry and to our leisure industries. Not only do our urban landscape schemes enhance the visual appearance of our towns and cities, but the trees that they contain improve air quality, filtering out dust and traffic pollution and reducing noise. The horticulture industry therefore makes an incalculable contribution to the British way of life, beyond what can be measured in purely financial terms.
    This important industry relies upon a relatively small number of further education graduates—about 1,500 a year. A relatively modest slice of the UK's further education budget—a mere 0.32 per cent.—would sustain the education needs of an industry which makes a major contribution to the UK economy and to the environment.
    It has long been recognised that horticulture is best taught in colleges with appropriate facilities, and excellent colleges do exist. The nature of the industry demands that such colleges, with their workshops, glasshouses and outside growing areas, should be located in rural areas. A relatively high proportion of students will also be attracted from rural areas, which inevitably means that most students either travel long distances to attend courses or seek residential accommodation.
    Each horticultural college draws its students from a wide area, frequently from throughout the United Kingdom, and is equipped with extensive residential accommodation. That distinguishes the colleges from a typical further education establishment, which is situated at the centre of a public transport network in the centre of an urban area and draws upon day students who travel from home.
    434
    If the centres provided by horticulture colleges—modern horticultural units with the latest technology in keeping with the highly specialised nature of the industry—are expensive to install and run, the teaching methods employed are also costly. Small teaching groups are required because of the safety demands of the training. That those additional costs are inevitable has been recognised by the Further Education Funding Council tariff advisory committee, which recommended a higher level of funding for courses.
    Despite that recognition, the facilities and the centres of excellence which contain them are in danger of being lost because the courses are hardly viable. That is due to a combination of two factors. The first is the small number of horticulture students, when taken over the country as a whole. I stated earlier that there were about 1,500 horticulture further education graduates a year. Within that number is an enormous diversity, with graduates in landscape construction, landscape maintenance and green-keeping, and a substantial number of general horticulture graduates.
    The commercial production industry—which has the greatest potential for import substitution and export development—relies on about 200 graduates per year being supplied by a handful of courses.
    The second, and more significant, point is that there is an increasing incidence of potential students being denied the resources to attend courses. Student fees and maintenance grants are part of local authority expenditure, and students in further education rely on discretionary awards. Although local authorities have an obligation to provide such awards in practice, funds are often not available for all who demand them.
    In each successive year, there is an increase in the number of eligible students who are unable to obtain adequate awards. Statistics from 1992 show that nearly 7 per cent. of students eligible for discretionary awards were unable to take up courses in land-based subjects because grants were not available. In addition, the level of some awards was insufficient to allow the student to commence his or her chosen course. I do not have more recent statistics to hand, but all the evidence points to a deterioration of the situation since then.
    Courses which are otherwise viable are therefore put in jeopardy. Discretionary awards can be denied to students for a variety of reasons, none of which relates to the education needs of the student. I shall cite a number of examples. First, despite their obligation to do so, some authorities do not make discretionary awards. Their justification for that is that their expenditure is fully allocated elsewhere.
    Secondly, other authorities do not provide out-county awards where they consider that relevant courses are available in-county. That action demonstrates the local authorities' lack of appreciation of the diversity within the industry. Such authorities fail to recognise the need for the very specialised training facilities required for the various sectors of the industry. At present, different colleges specialise in different sectors. One might have excellent facilities for landscape construction. Another might have facilities for hardy ornamental stock production or garden centre operations. To combine groups of students into one general course is to destroy the excellence that currently exists.

    435
    Thirdly, other authorities will not fund land-based courses. Therefore, effective use cannot be made of existing resources, not because further education funding is inadequate but because students are denied access. That results in the available courses being undersubscribed and threatens the continued viability of such centres and the specialised courses that they provide for the needs of horticulture. That will result in valuable national resources going to waste. Also, students entering further education are discriminated against vis-à-vis students entering higher education, who are entitled to receive mandatory awards. That is unjust discrimination.
    Students who enter horticultural further education are more likely to require accommodation or incur extensive travelling costs than more typical further education students. Thus there is inequality of opportunity between rural students who wish to train for a horticultural career and urban students who have easy access to local further education colleges. The current system of discretionary awards is seen to be unsatisfactory because it discriminates against students in the horticulture industry who wish to take up further education. The withholding of discretionary awards threatens the future of the excellent courses that are now available and the centres that provide them. The horticulture industry cannot tackle the problem alone. While the industry might in various ways help to support a limited number of centres of excellence, its efforts will be to no avail if students cannot obtain the grants that they need to attend those centres.
    I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the considerable benefits of an efficient, well-run horticulture industry which provides well-trained staff and can hold its own against competition from any part of the world. Against that, he should consider the relatively modest cost of introducing mandatory further education awards for horticulture students in place of the current discretionary awards. I ask my hon. Friend to agree that such a change in the funding of students' awards in further education should be enacted. I look forward to his response.
    9.33 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on her success in obtaining an Adjournment debate to raise this topic in the House. I thank her for her interesting, eloquent and informative speech. We would expect no less because we well understand her expertise in horticulture and we appreciate very much her work on behalf of the horticulture industry. In turn, she will know that my own family has been actively involved in horticulture for many years—indeed, for generations—and I can well appreciate personally the issues involved.
    My hon. Friend's speech focused mainly on horticulture students in further education, but she also mentioned, to differentiate them, higher education students. Students on designated higher education courses, whatever the subject, will, of course, be eligible for mandatory awards and also for student loans. It is a matter of record that Britain's system of support for higher education students is one of the most generous in the world. For 1995–96, the total support available through grants and loans in this area will increase by 2.5 per cent., in line with forecast price increases.
    436
    With regard to further education, my hon. Friend is right to say that students depend to a large extent on discretionary awards from local education authorities. Although local education authorities are required to make grants to eligible students attending designated courses, they may make grants at their discretion to students who are not personally eligible to receive mandatory awards or who are attending non-designated courses. The decision whether to make such a grant lies entirely with the authority concerned, as does the rate of grant payable and the method of assessment.
    Although authorities are entirely free to decide on the allocation of discretionary awards funding, they must make clear the basis on which their decisions are made. The public can, of course, try to influence the discretionary awards policies and budgets of individual authorities. The Audit Commission's arrangements for the publication of performance indicators for each authority's services, including discretionary awards, are promoting informed comparisons of local education authorities' effectiveness in responding to local needs.
    There has been a good deal of concern recently about the supposed decline in the availability of discretionary awards. In fact, the evidence suggests that the system as a whole is holding up well. The Gulbenkian survey, published in April last year, found that the number of discretionary awards to further education students was forecast to rise by 32 per cent. between 1990–91 and 1993–94. Expenditure on those awards was also expected to rise by 14 per cent. in real terms over the same period. My Department's own statistics show that in 1992–93, local authorities in England and Wales spent almost £170 million on further education discretionary awards.
    Within that overall picture, I accept that there are wide variations in local authorities' practices. To some extent, that is a response to local needs and priorities; that is inevitable and should, indeed, be welcomed. But there is evidence that potential students' chances of obtaining an award are increasingly dependent on where they happen to live and that some authorities are effectively throwing in the towel on discretionary awards, as my hon. Friend has mentioned.
    The Government are concerned by this evidence and are keeping the situation under review. However, unless there is evidence that a local education authority is in breach of its statutory duty—for example, by operating a policy of saying, "No awards, come what may"—it is not open to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to intervene in an individual authority's policies. It must be for the local authorities themselves in the first instance to respond as necessary to concerns about the availability of awards. I understand that the local authority associations are currently working on a voluntary code of practice, and I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming that development.
    My hon. Friend's particular concern is with the position of residential horticultural colleges. I am certainly aware of the particular difficulties faced by students wishing to attend residential colleges because of the relatively high cost to local authorities of supporting them. She will appreciate that a similar problem arises in relation to the agricultural colleges. She may like to know that I am to meet two delegations soon to hear their views on the issue.

    437
    My hon. Friend's proposed solution is simply to make mandatory awards available for students at those colleges. There are two difficulties with her proposal. First, it would require primary legislation, because the 1962 Act provides for mandatory awards to be made only to students on higher education courses. Secondly, it would be expensive. Even to extend mandatory awards only to full-time students at residential horticultural and agricultural colleges—1 doubt whether my hon. Friend would argue that the two should be treated differently—would cost an estimated £30 million a year. To extend the student loans scheme, which would be the natural corollary, would cost another £8 million a year initially. More importantly, any such move would open the floodgates to other further education students who felt that they had an equally strong claim to mandatory funding. That could be enormously expensive and in the current public expenditure climate it is simply not a realistic option.
    Of course, colleges need to ensure that students are aware of other sources of finance—notably access funds and career development loans. In 1994–95, the further education access fund will give more than £5.7 million to students in financial difficulties, which is a rise of almost 20 per cent. on the previous year. In 1993–94, 118 agricultural or horticultural trainees paid for their courses themselves using a career development loan. I also welcome the support for students provided by the industry.
    In the main, the horticultural sector is holding up well. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also be pleased to know the promising trend in enrolments. Between 1992–93 and 1993–94-it is always difficult to get bang up-to-date statistics, especially at this time of year before the returns come in—full-time equivalent enrolments in agriculture and horticulture colleges rose by 6 per cent., which is slightly higher than those for the further education sector as a whole, which were 5 per cent. College strategic plans show that enrolments in these colleges are expected to rise over the period to 1996–97 by slightly more than FE colleges as a whole. For full-time students, 39 per cent. in agriculture and horticulture compared with 23 per cent. in other further education.
    438
    Thirty-four colleges in England offer horticulture and there is evidence of a growth in demand for the newer courses. Pershore college of horticulture in Worcestershire reports that it now fully expects to meet its present target numbers. Moulton college in my home county of Northamptonshire is an example of effective linkage between horticultural provision and industry. Many other land-based colleges have diversified their horticultural provision to reflect new market demands. They have successfully developed flexible provision related to garden centre management and management of the countryside.
    The Further Education Funding Council is sensitive to the costs of such courses and gives a higher weighting to them in its funding mechanism. In 1995–96, the council will increase the relative cost weighting factor accorded to such courses by 25 per cent.
    Furthermore, in its work to develop the new funding methodology, on which it has consulted widely, the funding council found that considerable variations had existed between LEAs in the level of funding for FE colleges. The FEFC is addressing that by gradually converging its average funding per unit of activity. That means that institutions with historically low funding for their type of provision can expect to get more in future, and to flourish from it.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those topics, which are of great importance to the industry. I hope that she appreciates that, in turn, we continue to review the position. We are grateful for the evidence that she has given today. I hope that she will report back to those in the industry that we are aware of the importance of their work and are doing what we can to help. In the meantime, by way of exhortation, I encourage colleges to build on their effective liaison with the industry, and to continue to develop training to meet its needs. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the House will join me in stressing the importance of a well-trained work force, both for the individual and the industry that it serves.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Ten o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Oxygenated Petrol
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what research his Department has carried out into oxygenated petrol; what plans he has for research into the environmental suitability of oxygenated petrol; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  This is a development issue which is being pursued by the fuel industry, but the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council is considering launching a programme into fundamental combustion research aimed at raising the efficiency and reducing the harmful emissions of the combustive process.

  Ian Greer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many items he has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 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.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Economic
  Secretary on 6 February 1995, Official Report, column 69.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Ian Greer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many items he has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I received one item from Ian Greer last week. It was an invitation to a reception which my constituency secretary declined on my behalf.

  Child Witnesses
  Mrs. Llin Golding
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all fast-tracking initiatives being made to reduce delays faced by child witnesses; and if these initiatives are to be evaluated for broader application.
  240
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Fast-tracking schemes are currently in place at the following Crown court centres: Leeds, Lincoln, Newcastle, covering cases from Durham; Peterborough; Plymouth, pilot scheme; Preston and Winchester, pilot scheme. Area criminal justice liaison committees are still considering whether similar schemes can be set up in other Crown court centres. However, a number of informal schemes are also in existence, in response to the duty on the courts to ensure that waiting times in cases involving child witnesses are kept to a minimum.

  The Criminal Justice Consultative Council is due to review the introduction of fast tracking schemes in the Crown court at its next meeting in April, when a decision will be taken as to further action.

TREASURY

  VAT
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table comparable to table 3 of appendix 7 of HC 289 of Session 1990–91 giving estimates of the increase in VAT payments between. 1991–92 and 1995–96 by decile group.

  Mr. Nelson
  Latest estimates of VAT paid by decile of income are given in the Central Statistical Office article "Effects of taxes and benefits upon household income 1993" on the December 1994 edition of "Economic Trends". VAT payments in 1995–96 will depend on what happens to earnings and prices, and on household composition and spending patterns.

  Lending Package (Mexico)
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the short-term lending package for Mexico authorised by central banks through the bank of international settlement has been promised by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Nelson
  No formal lending proposal has yet been received from the BIS.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the costs of collecting capital gains tax for each of the previous five years.

  Sir George Young
  The figures for the five tax years to 1993–94—the latest figure available—are:

  £ million

  1989–90

  34.3

  1990–91

  39.0

  1991–92

  43.3

  1992–93

  38.4

  1993–94

  41.9

  The figures quoted exclude tax on gains made by companies included in corporation tax. Some of the costs associated with companies, however, cannot be separately identified and are therefore included in the costs figures for CGT rather than corporation tax.
  241

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the monthly changes in the retail prices index since January 1989, with January 1989 being taken as 100.

  Mr. Nelson
  Monthly percentage changes in the retail prices index are available from the Central Statistical

  Monthly percentage changes in the Retail Prices Index (January 1989=100)

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Year

  1989

  —

  0.7

  0.5

  1.8

  0.6

  0.4

  0.1

  0.2

  0.7

  0.9

  0.8

  0.2

  1990

  0.7

  0.6

  1.0

  3.0

  0.9

  0.4

  0.1

  1.1

  1.0

  0.8

  -0.3

  -0.1

  1991

  0.3

  0.5

  0.4

  1.3

  0.3

  0.4

  -0.2

  0.2

  0.4

  0.3

  0.4

  0.1

  1992

  -0.1

  0.5

  0.3

  1.5

  0.4

  0.0

  -0.4

  0.1

  0.4

  0.3

  -0.1

  -0.4

  1993

  -1.0

  0.6

  0.4

  1

  0.3

  -0.1

  -0.2

  0.4

  0.4

  0.1

  -0.1

  0.2

  1994

  -0.4

  0.5

  0.3

  1.2

  0.4

  0.0

  -0.5

  0.5

  0.2

  0.2

  0.1

  0.5

  Beer Excise Duty
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reconsider the Government's position on beer excise duty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government's position with respect to the excise duty on beer and other alcoholic drinks was made clear in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement and in his further statement to the House. The increase in duty which took effect from 1 January 1995 resulted from the decision to leave the rate of VAT on domestic fuel and power at 8 per cent.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from Yorkshire brewers regarding the excise duty on beer.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Representations have been received from the Yorkshire Brewers and Licensed
  Retailers Association.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research his Department has carried out into the effects of maintaining a higher level of duty on beer in the United Kingdom than in other European Union member states.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  HM Customs and Excise has considered the effects of the differing level of beer duty among EU member states, the impact these have had on UK production and revenue receipts, the findings of consultants engaged by the European Commission and the various representations made by trade and other bodies.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the extent to which the exchange rate would have fallen against the deutschmark and the United States dollar since the end of June 1994 if interest rates had not been raised since then.

  Mr. Nelson
  Interest rates are set to deliver the Government's inflation objective. Movements in exchange rates depend on many factors beside interest rates, and it is not possible to estimate the effect of any one factor with any degree of confidence.

  Customs and Excise Office, Ellesmere Port
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made on the effectiveness of
  242
  Office database—series CLEQ—which can be accessed by the House of Commons Library.

  Rebasing the index by using January 1989 as 100 rather than the official January 1987 = 100 base has little effect on monthly changes. There are, however, slight differences due to the retail prices index methodology of calculating percentage changes from index numbers rounded to 1 decimal place. The figures requested are listed below.

  anti-drug smuggling activities in relation to the proposed closure of Ellesmere Port Customs and Excise office.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The estimation of the effectiveness of anti-smuggling activity in a particular area is a matter for the head of the local Customs and Excise executive unit.

  Customs has examined the effect of moving its operational anti-smuggling base from Ellesmere Port to Liverpool and has concluded that there will be no adverse effect on anti-smuggling control.

  Ian Greer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many items he has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  None.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Ian Greer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many items he has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.

  Mr. Newton
  None.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects the accounts of the parliamentary contributory pension fund for 1993–94 to be presented to Parliament.

  Mr. Newton
  The accounts of the parliamentary contributory pension fund for 1993–94 were laid in the House on 11 January 1995—HOC paper 129.
  243

  Badge Messengers
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission what was the longest period of continuous duty worked by a badge messenger in the weeks commencing(a) 23 January and (b) 30 January and for what hours he or she worked; what was the longest week worked by any badge messenger; what plans the Commission has to review the working hours of badge messengers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Beith
  There are no current plans for the Commission to review the working hours of badge messengers, but they will be included in any examination of alteration of patterns of work caused by revised sittings arrangements of the House. I have asked the Serjeant at Arms to write to the right hon. Member with the operational details that he requests.

  Official Paid Post Cards
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many official paid post cards to acknowledge with thanks the receipt of a communication have been printed with an air mail marking; what was the cost; for what reasons it was necessary to produce them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  [holding answer 7 February 1995]In 1991, the House of Commons Services Committee gave approval in principle for the free provision of telephone calls and postal services to the main institutions of the European Community and the offices of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of the Western Europe Union. These proposals were approved subsequently by the Commission, and a range of stationery for use by Members in correspondence to approved official destinations in Europe was subsequently made available. I have asked the Serjeant at Arms to write to the hon. Member about the cost of the postcards.

  Disabled People Access
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what measures(a) have recently been taken and (b) will be taken to assist people with disabilities to gain better access to the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The Committee has given detailed and careful consideration to the consultant's report on access by disabled people commissioned by the Parliamentary Works Directorate and submitted to the Committee on 30 June 1993. The report is a very comprehensive study dealing with the Palace and 1, The Abbey garden. The cost of implementing all the recommendations proposed by the consultant was estimated by the Director of Works to be £1,272,700.

  In addition to receiving written evidence, the Committee also took oral evidence on four occasions including sessions with the all-party disablement group, English Heritage, the consultant and Officers of the House. Oral and written evidence received by the Committee during the inquiry will be published in due course: the consultants report will be deposited in the Library and in the Record Office, House of Lords. The relevant minutes of proceedings of the Committee are being published today.
  244
  Many of the consultant's proposals were considered uncontroversial by the Committee and have already been implemented by the Parliamentary Works Directorate. Other schemes needing greater expenditure have been endorsed and will be included in the programme of works. A full list of the items undertaken or planned has been placed in the Library. The consultant's report also recommended several projects which, in the committee's view, would be highly controversial, if implemented. The committee has therefore considered these proposals in greater detail. As with other recommendations, it has been necessary, in seeking to make possible dignified access to the various parts of the building for people with disabilities, to take into account the need to preserve the historic fabric of the Palace, which is a grade 1 listed building of national and international importance. The committee was concerned that the provision of access to certain areas should not subject disabled people, particularly those in wheelchairs, to increased risk if an emergency evacuation of the premises became necessary, and has asked the Serjeant at Arms and the Director of Parliamentary Works to conduct a further study into this aspect.

  One of the areas where access for disabled people is most difficult is the Grand Committee Room and Jubilee Room. The consultant's proposal was for a lift from Westminster Hall to the Grand Committee Room level,. involving a cavity being opened up in the 12th century walls of Westminster Hall, at a total cost of £230,000. The Committee was aware, in considering this proposal, that the adjacent Westminster Hall cafeteria is due to be converted to a visitor centre following approval by the House on 12 July 1994 of a report by the Catering Committee on Refreshment Provision for Line of Rowe visitors, HC, 1993–94, 307. The Committee therefore considered that the design work for the conversion should contain a requirement for the architect to consider how a lift could be incorporated in this area. This would have less impact on Westminster Hall and the Grand Committee Room. As the conversion to a visitor centre cannot take place until a suitable alternative for the present lunchtime users of the cafeteria is provided, the Committee also proposes that a replacement for the current chairlift which would allow disabled people to remain in their wheelchairs should be sought as a matter of urgency. The Committee also agreed to support the provision of a disabled person's toilet outside the Grand Committee Room.

  Another area which presents considerable difficulty for anyone using a wheelchair is the Crypt Chapel. Public access is via entrances in Old Palace Yard and Westminster Hall. The Committee has asked the Serjeant at Arms to examine whether alternative access arrangements via the Cloisters are practicable. The Committee does not, however, favour the solution proposed by the consultant, of a chair lift.

  Access by disabled people to the Ground, Principal, Committee and Upper Committee floors by disabled people is also vital. The Committee supports the proposal of the Parliamentary Works Directorate to upgrade lift No.15 to ensure that these floors are easily accessible.

  The consultant proposed that a central handrail should be provided on the stairs leading to St. Stephens Hall. As there are already handrails at the side of this staircase, the entrance is narrow, and as a separate route is available for people in wheelchairs, the Committee did not support this

  245
  proposal. Other proposals supported by the Committee included the provision of a tactile model of the building and consideration of a sound guide on the line-of-route to assist visually impaired visitors; and further improvements to the existing induction loop provision to include all Committee Rooms.

  As part of the review, and in the light of the anticipated beneficial effects of the provision of the New Parliamentary Building (Phase 2), the design for which includes improved facilities for people with disabilities, the Committee has invited the Serjeant at Arms to give further consideration to what organisational or administrative changes might be made to assist disabled people.

  I understand that similar arrangements are being made in another place to implement the consultant's proposals.

  The measures and recommendations outlined above are the result of careful and sympathetic consideration by the Accommodation and Works Committee and, when complete, will enable people with disabilities to reach all but the most difficult parts of this historic building in a

  Course title

  Course objective

  Organisation

  Total cost (exclusive of VAT) £

  Responsibility of participants

  Developing a Strategic Approach

  To enable senior managers to develop and encourage their staff to take a more strategic view of their work.

  Nexus consulting 12 Whitworth Close Wellesbourne Warwickshire

  7,050

  Senior Managers

  Management Skills for Senior Managers

  To show senior managers how they can help staff develop and how to gain the co-operation of their staff by demonstrating leadership.

  Weavers Down Seymour Hall Bratton Seymour Somerset

  8,947

  Senior Managers

  Effective Presentation Skills for Senior Managers

  To help senior staff to develop effective oral communicatin techniques in the context of advice and presentations to Ministers and presentations to senior officials in theprivate and public sectors.

  Weavers Down

  5,070

  Senior Managers

  Developing Personal Effectiveness

  To encourage staff to consider their personal effectiveness, future potential and development needs and to show them how to make practical action plans to take their development forward.

  Nexus Consulting

  8,225

  Junior and Middle Managers

  Development Training for HEO/SEO staff

  To develop the following important skills for middle managers: policy and planning; setting objectives; managing staff; teamwork; written and oral communication; managing meetings; making decisions.

  Weavers Down

  6,267

  Junior and Middle Managers

  Note:

  1. The courses were evaluated by scrutinising the participants' course reaction questionnaires and tutors' reports.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what initiatives he is taking to obtain more speech therapists in Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he will set up a north Wales training scheme for speech therapists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  The recruitment and retention of speech therapists is a matter for employers. They will need to liaise with the education sector over the number of students entering the appropriate training.
  246
  dignified manner. The Committee will continue to consider the needs of people with disabilities as new works projects are proposed.

WALES

  Training Courses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list ach 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. Redwood
  During 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1994 the Welsh Office purchased five training courses costing more than £5,000 each. Details are as follows:

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many speech therapy vacancies have been vacant for six months or more; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  This information is not held centrally.

  Language Units
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will visit language units in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.
  247
  (2) what is his policy concerning language units in maintained schools in Wales;

  (3) which language units he has visited in (a) Clwyd and (b) Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I has yet paid a specific visit to a language unit but I will bear it in mind for my future programme. It is the responsibility of local education authorities and schools to make appropriate provision for pupils, including those children with special educational needs who may need support from a speech and language unit.

  Opencast Coal Sites
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the opencast coal sites in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  There are currently 17 operational licensed opencast sites in Wales. These are as follows:

  Site

  County

  East Pit Extension

  Dyfed

  Ffos Las

  Dyfed

  Gilfach Iago

  Dyfed

  Lane End

  Clwyd

  Springhill Quarry

  Clwyd

  The Smelt

  Clwyd

  Kays and Kears

  Gwent

  Great White Tip

  Mid Glamorgan

  Helid Colliery

  Mid Glamorgan

  Llanilid West Revised

  Mid Glamorgan

  Henllan Uchaf

  Powys

  Blaenpergwm South

  West Glamorgan

  Brawds Level

  West Glamorgan

  Derlwyn 2

  West Glamorgan

  Lletty'r Crudd

  West Glamorgan

  Nant Helen

  West Glamorgan

  Tyn y Craig

  West Glamorgan

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on school playing fields.

  Mr. Richards
  The Government's policy on school playing fields is laid down in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981, which set minimum area standards. In addition, policy planning guidance note 17 states that, with the needs of the wider community in mind, playing fields should normally be preserved.

  Art Collection
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to ensure that the Welsh Arts Council's art collection will be available for viewing by the general public.

  Mr. Richards
  The Secretary of State has no powers of direction in this matter; it is an issue for the Arts Council of Wales.

  Pre-school Playgroups
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many pre-school playgroups there are in each of the counties of Wales.
  248
  Mr. Richards
  The latest available figures provided by Wales PPA are for 1993–94. They are taken from "Statistics from Wales PPA Facts and Figures 1993–94" and are as follows:

  Number

  Clwyd

  79

  Dyfed

  45

  Mid Glam

  80

  South Glam

  89

  West Glam

  17

  Gwent

  68

  Gwynedd

  32

  Powys

  34

  Wales

  444

  These do not include combined parent and toddler groups/playgroups.

  Ian Greer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many items he has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.

  Mr. Redwood
  No items have been received from Ian Greer.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 1 February 19951 I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 6 February,Official Report, column 69, by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current ratio of staff to prisoners at(a) Doncaster, (b) the Wolds, (c) Lindholme, (d) Wakefield, (e) New Hall and (f) Wakefield prisons; and what was the figure (i) six months and (ii) 12 months ago.

  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. Martin Redmond, dated 8 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the ratio of staff to prisoners at Doncaster and Wolds, both of which are local prisons, at Lindholme, a category C prison, New Hall which is a closed women's prison and Wakefield, a dispersal prison.
  The number of prisoners per member of staff at each prison is as follows.
  249

  Prison

  December 1993

  June 1994

  December 1994

  Doncaster

  not open

  0.49

  1.75

  Wolds

  1.45

  1.17

  1.47

  Lindholme

  1.44

  1.49

  1.45

  Wakefield

  1.00

  1.07

  1.10

  New Hall

  0.85

  0.80

  0.89

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to alter the arrangements for incentives and privileges for prisoners.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Prison Service is developing a national framework for incentives and earned privileges. The emphasis will be on prisoners earning privileges by good behaviour and participation in work or other constructive activity. I will be making an announcement later.

  Poisons
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of(a) category A, (b) category B and (c) category C places available in each of the Prison Service regions; and if he will list the changes that have taken place during the last 12 months between those categories.

  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 8 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the total number of Category A, B and C places available in each Prison Service region.
  Prisons are defined by operational function and an establishment will have, according to its particular function, accommodation designed for holding prisoners up to a particular security category.
  Information on the security standard of accommodation available in each of the Prison Service areas at closed training prisons and local prisons is given in the attached tables. Copies of these tables have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Table 1: Number of adult male prison places available for prisoners categorised A, B or C at 31 December 1994 (March 1994 figures are shown in brackets)

  Area

  Category A

  Category B

  Category C

  Central

  362(362)

  1,841(1,695)

  1,361(1,660)

  Chilterns

  —

  932(890)

  776(776)

  East Midlands

  —_

  1,437(1,433)

  1,526(1,572)

  East Anglia

  —

  992(1,088)

  1,259(1,259)

  Kent

  —

  1,231(1,208)

  859(838)

  London North

  534(534)

  2,141(2,039)

  1,127(1,277)

  London South

  301(334)

  2,964(2,976)

  151(145)

  Mercia

  —

  168(168)

  —

  North East

  1,014(1,051)

  1,173(1,140)

  1,307(1,307)

  North West

  —

  854(894)

  1,116(1,097)

  South Coast

  —

  2,213(2,047)

  721(768)

  Trans Pennine

  727(637)

  2,614(2,077)

  794(751)

  250

  Table 1: Number of adult male prison places available for prisoners categorised A, B or C at 31 December 1994 (March 1994 figures are shown in brackets)

  Area

  Category A

  Category B

  Category C

  Wales and West

  —

  1,078(1,130)

  270 (256)

  Wessex

  936(970)

  1,192(1,304)

  Yorkshire

  —

  320(320)

  408(394)

  Total

  2,938(2,918)

  20,895 (20,075)

  12,867 (13,404)

  Notes:

  1. Figures for Category A places comprise total number of places available in dispersal prisons which are suitable for Category A and Category B prisoners; and the number of places in the Category A Unit at HMP Belmarsh.

  2. Figures for Category B places comprise the total number of places in non-dispersal training prisons and local prisons. Some of the more secure local prisons also hold Category A prisoners as and when necessary. A formal maximum number of places for this purpose is not designated.

  3. The Category B figures include 127 (145) places immigration detainees at HMHC Haslar.

  Table 2: Number of places available for convicted and sentenced Category A female prisoners

  Area

  Category A

  Category B

  Category C

  North East

  48

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. There is currently only one sentenced Category A female prisoner.

  2. With the exception of those categorised A, convicted and sentenced female prisoners are not categorised, but are allocated to open or closed conditions.

  Misuse of Drugs
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he expects to introduce legislation to outlaw the illicit supply of anabolic steroids;

  (2) if he will publish the minutes of the January meeting of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The technical committee of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs met on 24 January. The meeting considered, in the light of the decision to control anabolic steroids and similar substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, precisely which substances should be brought under control. The Committee's conclusions will be considered by the full council at its next meeting on 11 May, a date which I understand it would not now be practicable to bring forward. We intend to bring forward the necessary draft order and regulations as quickly as possible thereafter. It is not the practice to publish the minutes of meetings of the advisory council or its committees.

  Police Authorities
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the estimated percentage increase in population for each police authority area since 1979 and (b) the estimated percentage increase in police establishment since 1979.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is set out in the table.
  251

  Population

  1Police establishment

  Police authority

  1979

  19932

  Population increase

  19793

  19943

  Percentage increase

  Avon and Somerset

  1,334,000

  1,447,000

  8.5

  2,953

  3,087

  4.5

  Bedfordshire

  499,000

  539,000

  8.0

  947

  1,162

  22.7

  Cambridgeshire

  579,000

  683,000

  18.0

  1,140

  1,241

  8.9

  Cheshire

  926,000

  972,000

  5.0

  1,805

  1,920

  6.4

  City of London

  5,000

  4,000

  -20.0

  1,022

  803

  -21.4

  Cleveland

  569,000

  559,000

  -1.8

  1,418

  1,502

  5.9

  Cumbria

  470,000

  490,000

  4.3

  1,113

  1,190

  6.9

  Derbyshire

  898,000

  951,000

  5.9

  1,712

  1,850

  8.1

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,371,000

  1,526,000

  11.3

  2,673

  2,928

  9.5

  Dorset

  591,000

  667,000

  12.9

  1,164

  1,302

  11.9

  Durham

  603,000

  608,000

  0.8

  1,349

  1,389

  3.0

  Dyfed-Powys

  433,000

  471,000

  8.8

  934

  972

  4.1

  Essex

  1,377,000

  1,489,000

  8.1

  2,533

  2,950

  16.5

  Gloucestershire

  497,000

  544,000

  9.5

  1,116

  1.184

  6.1

  Greater Manchester

  2,648,000

  2,579,000

  -2.6

  6,766

  7,109

  5.1

  Gwent

  436,000

  450,000

  3.2

  975

  1,010

  3.6

  Hampshire

  1,575,000

  1,718,000

  9.1

  3,034

  3,269

  7.7

  Hertfordshire

  808,000

  849,000

  5.1

  1,533

  1,700

  10.9

  Humberside

  850,000

  884,000

  4

  1,939

  2,034

  4.9

  Kent

  1,456,000

  1,540,000

  5.8

  2,842

  3,150

  10.8

  Lancashire

  1,370,000

  1,421,000

  3.7

  3,138

  3,229

  2.9

  Leicestershire

  836,000

  910,000

  8.9

  1,706

  1,867

  9.4

  Lincolnshire

  534,000

  601,000

  12.5

  1,182

  1,206

  2.0

  Merseyside

  1,532,000

  1,441,000

  -5.9

  4,451

  4,705

  5.7

  Metropolitan Police

  7,353,000

  7,420,000

  0.9

  26,589

  27,736

  4.3

  Norfolk

  686,000

  765,000

  11.5

  1,265

  1,446

  14.3

  North Wales

  611,000

  656,000

  7.4

  1,309

  1,369

  4.6

  North Yorkshire

  663,000

  722,000

  8.9

  1,368

  1,418

  3.7

  Northamptonshire

  523,000

  592,000

  13.2

  978

  1,190

  21.7

  Northumbria

  1,446,000

  1,445,000

  -0.1

  3,325

  3,613

  8.7

  Nottinghamshire

  974,000

  1,028,000

  5.5

  2,260

  2,344

  3.7

  South Wales

  1,295,000

  1,329,000

  2.6

  3,069

  3,168

  3.2

  South Yorkshire

  1,301,000

  1,306,000

  0.4

  2,752

  3,031

  10.1

  Staffordshire

  1,000,000

  1,054,000

  5.4

  2,066

  2,215

  7.2

  Suffolk

  598,000

  646,000

  8.0

  1,123

  1,233

  9.8

  Surrey

  725,000

  770,000

  6.2

  1,602

  1,685

  5.2

  Sussex

  1,298,000

  1,440,000

  10.9

  2,811

  3,014

  7.2

  Thames Valley

  1,760,000

  2,001,000

  13.7

  3,005

  3,812

  26.9

  Warwickshire

  469,000

  494,000

  5.3

  876

  1,020

  16.4

  West Mercia

  987,000

  1,109,000

  12.4

  1,834

  2,067

  12.7

  West Midlands

  2,696,000

  2,634,000

  -2.3

  6,509

  6,991

  7.4

  West Yorkshire

  2,064,000

  2,102,000

  1.8

  5,104

  5,295

  3.7

  Wiltshire

  516,000

  583,000

  13

  1,032

  1,181

  14.4

  Total

  49,162,000

  51,439,000

  4.6

  118,322

  126,587

  7.0

  1 Figures exclude officers seconded to regional crime squads and central services.

  2 Population figures are provided by the OPCS. 1993 is the latest available estimate.

  3At 31 December.

  Child Witnesses
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the steering group on child evidence will next meet; and what policy decisions arose from the last meeting.

  Mr. Maclean
  The steering group on child evidence will next meet on 23 March.

  At its last meeting, the steering group discussed the causes of delay in bringing child abuse cases to court, and the action being taken by the relevant agencies to reduce delays.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has commissioned in respect of delays faced by child witnesses in cases of alleged abuse; and if he will outline the scope of any such research project.
  252
  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office and the Department of Health are funding research by Ms Joyce Plotnikoff and Mr. Richard Woolfson into the delays in bringing prosecutions in child abuse cases. The purpose of the research is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Government's policy to give priority to such prosecutions, to identify factors causing delay and to recommend mechanisms for reducing delays.

  Reconviction Rates
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the current reconviction rates for persons discharged from(a) first custodial sentences, (b) subsequent custodial sentences and (c) custodial sentences generally.
  253
  Mr. Maclean
  The information is as follows:

  Percentage of offenders reconvicted1 within a two-year period following discharge from a custodial sentence in 1990 by whether or not the current sentence was a first custodial sentence.

  History of imprisonment

  Number discharged

  Per cent, reconvicted

  First custodial sentence

  28,298

  52

  Subsequent custodial sentence

  18,701

  53

  All discharges2

  47,473

  52

  1 Reconvicted of a serious offence as defined by the standard list in Appendices 4 and 5 of Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1993.

  2 Includes 474 cases where the previous history of imprisonment is not known.

  Comparisons between reconviction rates are affected by differences in the age, sex, previous convictions and other characteristics of offenders.

  Woodcock Report
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his detailed timetable for the implementation of each of the recommendations of the Woodcock report.

  Mr. Howard
  I have today placed in the Library a timetable for implementation of the 64 recommendations in Sir John Woodcock's report on Whitemoor. The timetable may be subject to amendment in the light of any comments made by Sir John Learmont when he reports on his review of security in the Prison Service. I have asked Sir John Learmont to report to me by the end of the year on how far the recommendations of Sir John Woodcock have been implemented.

  Prevention of Terrorism Act
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many extensions of detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act were made in each month in 1994; and how many of these resulted in a criminal charge.

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

  Extensions of detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act by outcome: United Kingdom in 1994

  Number of extensions

  Number of criminal charges

  Month

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  Total

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  Total

  January

  —

  43

  43

  —

  9

  9

  February

  2

  46

  48

  2

  12

  14

  March

  —

  36

  36

  —

  16

  16

  April

  —

  81

  81

  —

  14

  14

  May

  1

  70

  71

  1—

  16

  16

  June

  1

  39

  40

  1—

  18

  18

  July

  —

  17

  17

  —

  6

  6

  August

  —

  41

  41

  —

  14

  14

  September

  —

  7

  7

  —

  23

  3

  October

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2—

  —

  November

  —

  2

  2

  —

  2—

  —

  December

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2—

  —

  Note:

  1 The two persons whose detention was extended in Great Britain in May and June were both subsequently served with exclusion orders.

  2 Provisional figures.
  254
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many exclusion orders made under the provision of the Prevention of Terrorism Act were in force in 1994; and how many were reveiwed, replaced, revoked or scrapped.

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

  Exclusion orders: United Kingdom 1994

  Orders made by Home Secretary

  Orders made by Northern Ireland Secretary

  Orders in force on 1 January

  71

  9

  New orders made

  4

  1

  Orders reviewed, of which

  28

  —

  Orders renewed or replaced

  14

  —

  Orders revoked or allowed to lapse

  14

  —

  Deaths

  3

  —

  Orders in force on 31 December

  58

  10

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the review for 1994 of the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

  Mr. Howard
  I received Mr. Rowe's report on 3 February and shall arrange for it to be made available in the usual way in good time for the debates on the future of the legislation.

  Ian Greer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many items he has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.

  Mr. Howard
  None.

  Asylum
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has reviewed the working of the asylum appeals system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I have today placed in the Library a report by the consultancy firm KPMG Peat Marwick on the operation of the asylum appeals procedures. The study arose from the commitment which was given at the time of the adoption of the Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1993 to review the new regulations after a year of operation. The consultants analysed over 200 appeal cases and looked at all aspects of the asylum appeal determination system from an operational perspective. They have produced a helpful report, and have made a number of recommendations of a mainly operational and procedural nature, which the Lord Chancellor and I are considering.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of Sate for the Home Department if he will make a statement about future arrangements for delivering the police national computer and other police information technology.

  Mr. Howard
  We are currently discussing with the police service proposals to set up a new body to deliver police IT more effectively and efficiently on a partnership
  255
  basis between chief constables, police authorities and the Home Office. The discussions are based in part on proposals from the police, and are focusing on the scope for bringing into a single organisation the responsibility for centrally provided IT services, such as the police national computer, and delivery of the police information services/information technology initiative which was launched last November.

  Following a detailed study, I have decided that the market test of the Hendon Data Centre should not proceed to competitive tendering at present. The existing police national computer system, which is provided by the centre, has been in service since 1991 and planning for its eventual replacement has already begun. A decision about the future management of the centre and the possibility of contracting-out the service will be taken in about 18 months when the likely nature, size and scope of the new system is clearer. Whatever arrangements are made in future for the provision of the police national computer system, the ownership and use of the criminal records held on it will remain firmly under the control of the police.

  Data Protection Directive
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the nature of the data rules applying to banks recently approved by the EC; what will be the cost of the measures; what benefit will stem from the rules; and if Her Majesty's Government voted for the measures.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]The directive is intended to help the operation of the single market by ensuring common standards of data protection within the European Union. It is likely to require the elaboration of existing United Kingdom data protection rules and will involve their application to manual as well as computerised records. The initial proposals would have imposed substantial additional costs on the banks and other data users; modifications made to the proposals in the course of subsequent negotiations have gone a significant way to reducing those burdens.

  Political agreement was reached on the directive in the Foreign Affairs Council on 6 February: the UK said that it would be abstaining when the matter is put to a formal vote, probably later this month. The UK's abstention was conditional upon, among a number of other points, the Council and the Commission expressing their agreement to greater flexibility in applying the directive to existing manual records.

  Prison Escapes
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of escapes from prison in each year since 1979 stating(a) which prison the prisoner escaped from, (b) what the offence of the prisoner was and (c) for how long each prisoner was at large.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 February 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 Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 8 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for details of the number of escapes from prison in
  256
  each year sincc 1979 stating (a) which prison the prisoner escaped from (b) what the offence of the prisoner was and (c) for how long each prisoner was at large.
  Before 20 June 1988, records were not kept centrally on escapes. The attached table lists the number of prisoners who have escaped and the prison establishment concerned from that date until 31 December 1994. A copy of this table has been placed in the Library of the House.
  The information on the offence of the prisoner involved and the length of time these prisoners were unlawfully at large could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  20 June 1988–31 Dec.

  Establishment

  1989

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Acklington

  2

  6

  11

  6

  2

  3

  0

  Aldington

  1

  6

  6

  16

  14

  1

  4

  Ashwell

  7

  3

  2

  6

  1

  4

  4

  Bedford

  1

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  1

  Belmarsh

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Birmingham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Blakenhurst

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Blantyre House

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  2

  Blundeston

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Brinsford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Bristol

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Brixton

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Brockhill

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  1

  Buckley Hall

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bullwood Hall

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Camp Hill

  1

  1

  3

  1

  4

  1

  2

  Campsfield House

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Canterbury

  0

  2

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Cardiff

  0

  0

  1

  2

  5

  0

  0

  Castington

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Channings Wood

  2

  5

  3

  9

  8

  2

  6

  Chelmsford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Coldingley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Dartmoor

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Deerbolt

  0

  12

  5

  5

  6

  0

  4

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Dorchester

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Dover

  0

  0

  0

  7

  4

  0

  0

  Downview

  0

  0

  0

  3

  4

  6

  5

  Durham

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Eastwood Park

  0

  1

  5

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Elmley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Erlestoke

  0

  4

  7

  4

  1

  4

  0

  Everthorpe

  0

  0

  0

  4

  12

  4

  2

  Exeter

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Featherstone

  6

  4

  5

  5

  3

  10

  11

  Feltham

  20

  3

  0

  14

  18

  3

  0

  Frankland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Glen Parva

  6

  0

  0

  5

  8

  2

  2

  Gloucester

  0

  0

  8

  3

  8

  0

  0

  Guys Marsh

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  18

  0

  Haslar

  0

  5

  0

  0

  7

  5

  8

  Haverigg

  0

  1

  6

  4

  3

  10

  5

  Hewell Grange

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Highdown

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Highpoint

  14

  28

  11

  15

  17

  2

  3

  Hindley

  6

  6

  0

  1

  3

  0

  1

  Holloway

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  3

  Huntercombe

  0

  0

  7

  3

  4

  0

  0

  Hull

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kingston

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kirklevington

  0

  1

  0

  3

  1

  1

  1

  Latchmere House

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Lancaster

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Lancaster Farms

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Leeds

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Leicester

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  257

  20 June 1988–31 Dec.

  Establishment

  1989

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Lewes

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Leyhill

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Lincoln

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Lindholme

  11

  4

  7

  29

  9

  8

  6

  Littlehey

  2

  0

  5

  1

  5

  7

  1

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Maidstone

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  2

  Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Moorland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  The Mount

  1

  2

  1

  12

  2

  4

  2

  New Hall

  0

  0

  0

  1

  9

  1

  1

  Northeye

  0

  5

  4

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Norwich

  2

  4

  9

  7

  5

  3

  0

  Nottingham

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Onley

  0

  0

  2

  4

  0

  9

  2

  Oxford

  0

  2

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Parkhurst

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Pentonville

  3

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  3

  Portland

  1

  3

  4

  24

  10

  17

  4

  Preston

  0

  0

  3

  1

  0

  3

  0

  Pucklechurch

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ranby

  4

  9

  29

  11

  14

  22

  9

  Risley

  0

  0

  0

  4

  3

  1

  4

  Rochester

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  2

  1

  Rollestone

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Send

  0

  0

  4

  4

  3

  3

  1

  Shepton Mallet

  0

  0

  4

  2

  0

  3

  0

  Stafford

  0

  5

  1

  1

  0

  3

  1

  Stocken

  1

  3

  2

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Stoke Heath

  0

  0

  0

  8

  0

  3

  0

  Styal

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sudbury

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Swaleside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Swansea

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Thorn Cross

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Thorp Arch

  1

  2

  3

  0

  1

  0

  6

  USK

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  The Verne

  3

  5

  3

  1

  6

  8

  2

  Wandsworth

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  Wayland

  2

  0

  7

  7

  3

  0

  1

  Wellingborough

  0

  0

  2

  4

  5

  7

  3

  Werrington

  0

  0

  0

  4

  7

  8

  9

  Wetherby

  0

  3

  0

  2

  3

  5

  10

  Whatton

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Whitemoor

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Winchester

  0

  0

  0

  2

  3

  0

  0

  The Wolds

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Wormwood Scrubs

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Wymott

  3

  11

  5

  18

  1

  0

  0

  Total

  103

  161

  195

  303

  254

  204

  156

TRANSPORT

  Train Cancellations and Delays
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains arrived more than five minutes late during peak hours; how many of these cancellations were attributable to(a) train breakdowns, (b) signal failures, (c) track/points failures, (d) leaves on the line, (e) staff shortages, (f) adverse weather conditions and (g) other factors; and what percentage of peak hour
  258
  trains arrived more than five minutes late on each of the Network SouthEast divisions in each four week period during (i) 1992, (ii) 1993 and (ii) 1994.

  Mr. Watts
  BR publishes details of train service performance against passengers charter targets for punctuality and reliability every four weeks. However, the detailed information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Heathrow Airport (Night Flights)
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many flights land at, and take off from, Heathrow airport on average(a) between 2300 hours and 0600 hours and (b) between 2330 hours and 0630 hours.

  Mr. Norris
  At Heathrow, the night quota period runs from 2330 to 0600. In the 1994 summer season—27 March 1994 to 23 October 1994—there were 3,204 runway movements in the night quota period, of which 2,905 counted against the movements limit, an average of 15 per night. Data for times outside the night quota period are not readily available on an equivalent basis. Very few movements are scheduled for the period 2300 to 2329, but actual numbers of movements in this period fluctuate considerably per night depending on whether flights have been delayed from earlier in the day. Movements in the period 0601 to 0630 are mostly arrivals. Analysis of data for sample weeks during the summer shows an average of about 16 movements per night during this half hour. There can be considerable variation in the number of movements in the half hours immediately before and after 0600 on a particular night due to the weather.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reports he has had on diversion of traffic from the Severn bridge to rural routes in Gloucestershire.

  Mr. Watts
  In July last year, a study carried out on behalf of the Highways Agency by Gloucestershire county council showed that while, on average, some 2,700 more vehicles than might be expected—allowing for traffic growth—travelled west through the county each day, only 1,500 of these could be positively identified as avoiding the bridge tolls. The extra traffic was distributed fairly evenly over the M50 and three other diversion routes, the A48 (T), A40(T)/A4136 and B4215.

  Roll-on-roll-off Ferries
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the percentage reduction, or other measure of reduction, of vehicle-carrying capacity of roll-on-roll-off ferry vessels that would he occasioned by the installation of removable bulkheads.

  Mr. Norris
  This is a technical matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Robin Bradley to Mr. Nigel Spearing, dated 8 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about loss of vehicle carrying capacity on ro-ro ferries if removable bulkheads are installed.
  No general estimate has been made of the reduction in capacity consequent upon installing removable bulkheads on the car deck. The reduction of vehicle capacity will depend upon the size of the

  259
  ship and the vehicle loading and stowage arrangement. During the second half of 1990 a study was made into modifications that would be needed for existing ferries to meet the requirements known as SOLAS 90. The details are contained in the International Maritime Organization paper SLF 35/inf.7 a copy which is attached, and which you may find of interest.

  Railway Signalling
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much will be invested in railway signalling

  £ million cash

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Signalling and track projects1

  91

  141

  189

  214

  242

  Signalling only (included in above)

  —

  —

  —

  126

  140

  £ million 1994–95 prices2

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Signalling and track projects

  114

  164

  207

  225

  247

  Signalling only (included in above)

  —

  —

  —

  132

  143

  1 Major resignalling schemes are often combined with alterations to track layouts eg. to simplify traffic flow at junctions.

  2 Using GDP deflator.

  RSS Report
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the terms of reference of the report being carried out on the RSS office in Cardiff; and on what date this report is due.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Robin Bradley to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 8 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about the review being carried out on the RSS Office in Cardiff.
  The terms of reference of the review are to:

  (a) follow up initial work carried out by the Department's internal auditors and make such further enquiries as are necessary to ensure that the requirements of propriety and effective operation, management and control are being met throughout RSS;

  (b) make recommendations on any changes to policy, procedures or practice needed to achieve the above;

  (c) make recommendations on any personnel or training issues arising;

  (d) consider whether the service level agreement under which RSS operates provides a suitable basis as presently written for the future management of RSS.

  The review is a management review being carried out on my behalf and the report is due to be made to me by 31 March 1995.

  Cycle Helmets
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current Government policy on cycle helmets; and what plans he has to change it.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government actively promote the benefits of cycle helmet wearing, but we have no plans to make them compulsory.
  260
  infrastructure in Great Britain in 1994–95; and how much has been invested in each of the previous five years at (a) cash and (b) constant prices.

  Mr. Watts
  In 1994–95, Railtrack expects to invest about £175 million in railway signalling infrastructure.

  Investment in the previous five years in signalling and track projects is as follows. Figures for signalling alone are not available before 1992–93.

  Rail Consultants
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff are currently employed full-time and part-time on contract and as consultants on property matters for British Railways; and what were the figures for the same time last year.

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for British Rail.

  Merchant Fleet
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to meet the chairman of the Chamber of Shipping to discuss the future plans for the British merchant fleet.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport meets the president of the Chamber of Shipping from time to time to discuss a range of shipping issues.

  Cellos and Double Basses (Rail Transport)
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport: what discussions he has had with(a) the chairman of British Rail, (b) the Musicians Union and (c) representatives of leading British orchestras concerning problems experienced by musicians transporting cellos and double basses by rail.

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he proposed to take to ensure that all British Rail staff responsible for the issuing and examination of tickets are aware of the fares policy for the transportation of cellos and double basses by rail.

  Mr. Watts
  This is a matter for the British Railways Board and its train operating units. However, I understand that ticket retail and examining staff are issued with manuals detailing current fares policy.
  261

  Hunting (Damage)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the damage caused by the York and Ainsty North hunt to the York to Harrogate railway in January.

  Mr. Watts
  I understand that no damage was caused either to Railtrack north-east's infrastructure or to the train operated by Regional Railways north-east.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest timetable for implementation of his Department's proposals for red routes in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The traffic director for London is currently considering a revised timetable for implementing the red route measures with the objective of having the network operational in 2000.

  Ian Greer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  The ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many items he has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what external financing limits have been set for British Rail and Railtrack for 1995–96; and what estimates he has made for Government grant support to passenger services for 1995–96.

  Mr. Watts
  The British Rail and Railtrack EFLs have been set respectively at contributions of £817 million and £128 million. These contributions are based on an estimate of grant support, comprising franchising director and metropolitan railway grants, of £1,800 million for 1995–96. This estimate of grant includes metropolitan railway grant paid by the Scottish Office to Strathclyde regional council. These external finance contributions and the estimated level of grant support are consistent with the combined external finance limits for BR/Railtrack and European passenger services/Union Railways announced in the Budget statement last November, after allowing for a transfer of –15 million from EPS to Railtrack for investment to be carried out by Railtrack on behalf of EPS. Any adjustments to these figures will be notified to Parliament.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what external financing limit has been set for the railway industry in 1994–95.

  Mr. Watts
  The railway industry external finance limit (EFL) for 1994–95 is currently £496 million, as previously announced in reply to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) on 29 November 1994,Official Report column 659. However, the Government have agreed to increase the EFL by up to a further £64 million, if required, to meet certain working capital requirements. If the EFL is increased, the external finance contribution of British Rail, which is currently £272 million, will be reduced by a corresponding amount. Parliament will be notified of any adjustments.
  262

  ISYS Warning System
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the safety advantages of using the ISYS warning system to avoid collisions.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 31 January 1995]My Department is not aware of this system.

  MV Derbyshire
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has reached arising out of the report by the Marine Accident Board on the findings of the Oceaneering Technologies investigation into the wreck of MV Derbyshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 7 February 1995]My right hon. Friend is still considering the chief inspector of marine accidents' assessment of the material provided by the International Transport Workers Federation, and whether further action needs to be taken.

  Electrical Shock Weapons
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now institute an inquiry into how British Midland Security allowed ICL Technical Plastics to carry an electro-shock weapon on a British Midland flight from Glasgow on 25 November 1994 arriving in London Heathrow at 10.20 a.m.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 7 February 1995]My Department has made inquiries of both British Midland and BAA at Glasgow. Neither can trace the incident.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will list the severance payment 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]I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 7 February 1995, column 69.

ENVIRONMENT

  Homelessness
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, columns 574–75, if he will list the contribution each of the 10 authorities receives from homelessness indicators in the SSA formula, in descending order.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Homelessness is one of a large number of general indicators that are included within composite indices in the personal social services and all other services service blocks. It is the overall value of an index which is important in determining an authority's SSA and not the value of an individual indicator within an index. Subject to that qualification, the 10 authorities which have the highest contribution from homelessness indicators, and the amounts, are:
  263

  £ millions

  Birmingham City Council

  13.323

  Manchester City Council

  9.807

  London Borough of Lambeth

  6.356

  London Borough of Hackney

  5.789

  London Borough of Southwark

  5.319

  London Borough of Islington

  4.891

  Walsall Metropolitan Borough

  4.775

  Bradford City Council

  4.003

  London Borough of Haringey

  3.944

  Westminster City Council

  3.519

  Lord Government Finance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional amount was needed on Nottingham's 1995–96 local government finance settlement in order to keep pace with inflation; and what further amount beyond this was allocated.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Adjusted for changes of function, the increase in total standard spending for

  GO—

  GO—

  GO—

  GO—

  GO—

  GO—

  GO—

  GO—

  GO—

  GO—

  GO—

  GO—

  NE

  NE

  NE

  NE

  NW

  NW

  NW

  NW

  M

  M

  M

  M

  Grade

  DTI

  DOE

  DOT

  ED

  DTI

  DOE

  DOT

  ED

  DTI

  DOE

  DOT

  ED

  G2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  G3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  G4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  G5

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  G6

  2

  1

  —

  2

  2

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  G7

  7

  9

  1

  11

  8

  17

  2

  16

  3

  4

  1

  6

  SEO+ EQV

  14

  10

  1

  4

  13

  11

  1

  4

  2

  5

  —

  3

  HEO+EQV

  24

  14

  4

  10

  22

  22

  1

  20

  13

  10

  1

  8

  EO+EQV

  32

  21

  7

  10

  31

  34

  2

  14

  12

  17

  —

  8

  AO+EQV

  26

  24

  7

  12

  31

  46

  1

  19

  8

  20

  1

  8

  AA+EQV

  21

  8

  1

  2

  18

  23

  —

  4

  9

  5

  —

  2

  SGB1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SGB2

  3

  8

  —

  —

  7

  6

  —

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  TECH

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  131

  99

  21

  52

  135

  164

  7

  83

  50

  65

  3

  37

  GO—

  GO—

  GO—

  GO—

  GO—

  GO—

  GO—

  GO—

  GO—

  GO—

  GO—

  GO—

  YH

  YH

  YH

  YH

  WM

  WM

  WM

  WM

  EM

  EM

  EM

  EM

  Grade

  DTI

  DOE

  DOT

  ED

  DTI

  DOE

  DOT

  ED

  DTI

  DOE

  DOT

  ED

  G2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  G3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  G4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  G5

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  G6

  2

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  —

  2

  G7

  8

  9

  2

  12

  7

  11

  1

  12

  5

  9

  2

  12

  SEO+EQV

  8

  21

  1

  5

  15

  13

  1

  3

  8

  10

  1

  4

  HEO+EQV

  25

  20

  2

  16

  28

  19

  2

  17

  21

  15

  1

  12

  EO+EQV

  25

  24

  1

  22

  32

  23

  2

  12

  22

  16

  3

  12

  AO+EQV

  19

  24

  2

  11

  42

  37

  1

  13

  16

  35

  1

  18

  AA+EQV

  19

  25

  —

  8

  30

  13

  2

  9

  17

  9

  —

  3

  SGB1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  SGB2

  3

  8

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  1

  3

  6

  —

  —

  TECH

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1ll

  134

  8

  78

  160

  120

  9

  71

  96

  104

  8

  64

  264
  England between 1994–95 and 1995–96 is 0.8 per cent. The Treasury forecast for underlying inflation for the same period is 2.5 per cent. The distribution of resources to individual local authorities is dependent on needs assessments, which vary from year to year.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the numbers and grades of staff, broken down by programme where possible, allocated and to be allocated by each department to each Government office for the regions, in each of the financial years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The number of staff by grade and Department in each Government office for the regions as at 31 January 1995 is shown in the table below. There are no equivalent figures for 1993–94, since the Government offices came into being only in April 1994. Staffing arrangements in the Offices in 1995–96 have yet to be finalised. Details will be available in the Government office MINIS returns, which will be published in the spring.
  265

  ER

  ER

  ER

  ER

  SW

  SW

  SW

  SW

  Grade

  DTI

  DOE

  DOT

  ED

  DTI

  DOE

  DOT

  ED

  G2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  G3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  G4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  G5

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  G6

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  3

  1

  2

  G7

  3

  11

  2

  11

  4

  7

  1

  10

  SEO+EQV

  3

  8

  1

  5

  4

  8

  —

  6

  HEO+EQV

  11

  8

  1

  12

  14

  16

  2

  7

  EO+EQV

  14

  19

  2

  12

  18

  18

  3

  16

  AO+EQV

  18

  13

  3

  4

  26

  18

  2

  13

  AA+EQV

  7

  9

  —

  5

  18

  5

  —

  5

  SGB1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SGB2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TECH

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  57

  71

  10

  53

  86

  77

  9

  60

  SE

  SE

  SE

  SE

  L

  L

  L

  L

  Grade

  DTI

  DOE

  DOT

  ED

  DTI

  DOE

  DOT

  ED

  G2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  G3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  G4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  G5

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  4

  2

  1

  G6

  1

  —

  —

  3

  1

  2

  1

  3

  G7

  3

  12

  2

  14

  3

  21

  13

  19

  SEO+EQV

  6

  10

  1

  2

  2

  14

  7

  5

  NEO+EQV

  14

  17

  2

  13

  11

  30

  5

  22

  EO+EQV

  17

  25

  2

  13

  17

  30

  8

  16

  AO+EQV

  24

  18

  2

  14

  17

  21

  13

  11

  AA+EQV

  8

  5

  —

  1

  7

  7

  4

  2

  SGB1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SGB2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TECH

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  74

  90

  11

  61

  59

  131

  54

  79

  Local Government Commission
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the environment when he expects to announce his response to the Local Government Commission's recommendations for Staffordshire.

  Mr. Curry
  We are still considering the Local Government Commission's recommendations about the future structure of local government in Staffordshire, and will announce a decision as soon as possible.

  Water Charges
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from local authorities, voluntary organisations and other consumer groups concerning future options for charging for the provision of water supplies.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department has received representations from a number of local authorities and other interested bodies such as the Consumers' Association and Age Concern.

  Ian Greer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many items he has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.

  Mr. Gummer
  None
  266

  Water Meters
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of households with water meters which have been installed(a) voluntarily and (b) compulsorily.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Office of Water Services estimates that 1.1 million households in England and Wales currently have water meters. Information on the proportion of households metered voluntarily and compulsorily is not available.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each programme of expenditure under the single regeneration budget in each London borough or London training and enterprise council area, the commitments predating the single regeneration budget for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]I am placing this information in the Library of the House.
  267

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Ian Greer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General how many items he has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

  Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will place in the Library the advice given by his Department to the CBI on the application of the TUPE regulations.

  The Attorney-General
  By convention, the Law Officers do not normally disclose whether advice has been given on a particular issue or the substance of any advice that they may have given.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Union
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what consultations have taken place on the European content on the draft framework document on Northern Ireland with(a) heads of Government in the EU other than the Taoiseach, (b) ministerial councils of EU states other than the Irish Republic, (c) the President of the EU and (d) individual commissioners of the EU.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ensure that so long as Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland interests will continue to be represented in the European Union's various ministerial Councils exclusively by Ministers answerable to the Parliament at Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

  Eastern

  Northern

  Cases paid

  Settlements £

  Legal costs £

  Cases paid

  Settlements £

  Legal costs £

  1990–911

  22

  770,500

  76,116

  10

  132,250

  51,109

  1991–92

  49

  302,200

  361,726

  14

  204,650

  98,861

  1992–93

  31

  409,268

  260,942

  12

  332,766

  102,507

  1993–94

  43

  4,025,707

  576,461

  7

  33,700

  40,974

  Southern

  Western

  Cases paid

  Settlements £

  Legal costs £

  Cases paid

  Settlements £

  Legal costs £

  1990–911

  9

  140,248

  31,902

  8

  45,250

  10,339

  1991–92

  15

  637,644

  158,550

  10

  199,750

  92,247

  1992–93

  6

  855,550

  190,361

  12

  194,842

  83,129

  1993–94

  13

  1,031,500

  68,364

  10

  268,148

  61,985

  1 Information is only available for the last six months of 1990–91.

  268
  The Prime Minister
  Under article 146 of the treaty of Rome, as amended by the treaty on European Union, member states' representatives on the Council must be authorised to commit the Government of that member state. United Kingdom Ministers are answerable to the Parliament of Westminster, and will continue to represent the United Kingdom.

  Ian Greer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister how many items he has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Chequers
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to public funds of the meeting held at Chequers on 13 January to review British foreign policy; and what are the rules determining which expenditures at Chequers shall be met from public funds.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer Tuesday 7 February]It is not my usual practice to give the costs of individual meetings or receptions.

  Expenses incurred by Ministers and officials meeting at Chequers in the course of official duty are met by the Cabinet Office.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide a table showing the number of cases of medical negligence settled and the total cost of damages awarded together with legal costs, in each year since 1990–91, by health board area.

  Mr. Moss
  The number of cases of medical negligence settled since 1990–91 along with total costs of damages and legal costs by health and social services board area is as follows:
  269

  Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many firms in Northern Ireland have received Government assistance under the small firms loan guarantee scheme in the last five years.

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of loans guaranteed under the small firms loan guarantee scheme in Northern Ireland over the past five years was 101. Some companies may have received more than one loan.

  Funeral Costs
  Dr. Hendron
  to ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the average cost of a funeral in(a) Belfast and (b) Northern Ireland; and what comparisons he has made with funeral charges outside Northern Ireland;

  (2) what plans he has to make higher provision for the costs of a funeral in Northern Ireland following the Secretary of state for Social Security's recent decision that social fund payments to cover funeral costs are to be limited to £875.

  Mr. Moss
  Information on the average cost of funerals in Belfast and Northern Ireland is not available.

  Costs of funerals vary considerably within and between local areas and regions of the United Kingdom. The social fund funeral payment scheme cannot be expected to meet the cost of all variations and eventualities.

  The Government have referred their proposals to the Social Security Advisory Committee and will consider its report when it has been completed.

  Divisional allocation of additional funds (£000)

  Functional heading

  Ballymena

  Belfast

  Coleraine

  Craigavon

  D'Patrick

  Omagh

  1. Capital works

  (a) Carried over form 1993–94

  —

  —

  —

  900

  —

  —

  (b) Development schemes

  —

  —

  715

  —

  —

  —

  (c) Bridge strengthening

  147

  231

  95

  50

  122

  150

  2. Structural maintenance

  358

  453

  359

  450

  426

  654

  3. Plant and building

  —

  133

  127

  —

  —

  —

  Some of these changes are subject to Parliament's approval of the Spring supplementary estimates for 1994–95.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  [holding answer 1 February 1995]I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 6 February 1995 by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary,Official Report, column 69.

HEALTH

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in London were diagnosed as
  270

  Anglo Irish
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration has been given in the Anglo-Irish discussions to the Irish Government's proposal to hold elections in 1995 for senators representative of Irish people living outside the Republic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Ian Greer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many items he has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.

  Sir John Wheeler
  None.

  Roads Service Budget
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many amendments have been made to date in the Department of the Environment's roads service budget during the year 1994–95; and what has been the effect of each amendment, in financial terms, for each division of the roads service.

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 7 February 1995]Apart from a number of technical adjustments which have no financial effect for any of the six divisions of the Department's roads service, five amendments have been made in the roads service budget during the current financial year resulting in additional funding for those Divisions as follows:

  mentally ill and detained (a)n medical wards, (b)n prison or (c)n police cells in the latest year for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients on psychiatric wards are legally detained under the Mental Health Act.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Risley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients have been detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983 in each year since 1990;

  (2) how many patients are currently detained under the Mental Health Act 1993 in private psychiatric hospitals.

  Mr. Bowis
  A bulletin and booklet on legal status statistics 1987–88 to 1992–93 containing figures on admissions of patients detained under the 1983 Mental Health Act to national health services facilities, private
  271
  nursing homes and to the special hospitals are shortly to be published. Copies of both publications will be placed in the Library.

  Private Psychiatric Hospitals
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to(a) monitor and investigate deaths of patients in private psychiatric hospitals and (b) monitor standards of care in private psychiatric hospitals.

  Mr. Bowis
  All hospitals in all sections, which are caring for patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 should notify the Mental Health Act Commission of the death of any such patient. Health authorities and national health service trusts purchasing services from private psychiatric hospitals should ensure that their contract allows for the procedures outlined in circular HSG(94)27 to be initiated following the death of any NHS—funded patient. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Arrangements for monitoring the standards of care given to NHS patients in private psychiatric hospitals are agreed between health authorities and NHS trusts and the private hospital as part of the contracting process. The Mental Health Act Commission visits detained patients in private psychiatric hospitals regularly.

  Mr. Ilkley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations are being carried out into the deaths of Oswald Morson, Grant Anstead, Alex Clements and Alan Bannister at the Kneesworth House private psychiatric hospital.

  Mr. Bowis
  These cases have been investigated by the coroner. An inquest into the death of Alexander Clements was held in Sheffield on 19 December. In the case of Alan Bannister, the coroner has decided that an inquest is not required. An inquest into the death of Oswald Morson will be held on 6 March. An inquest into the death of Grant Anstead has been opened and adjourned to a date yet to be fixed.

  In each case, the hospital managers have held an internal inquiry and made a full report on the outcome to the health authority responsible for funding the patient's care.

  The Mental Health Act Commission is currently carrying out a review of the circumstances of these patients' deaths, as it does in all such deaths.

  Death With Dignity Act
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the recent vote in Oregon on the Death With Dignity Act; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government's firm view is that the deliberate taking of life should remain illegal. The House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics rejected the case for legalising euthanasia or assisting a person to commit suicide, and the Government wholly share the Committee's view. The vote in Oregon does not change our position on the matter.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the 272
  BMA regarding the views of hospital doctors on the possibility of cannabis being made available on prescription.

  Mr. Bowis
  None, as far as I am aware.

  Psychiatric Beds
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received regarding shortfalls in the availability of psychiatric beds.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have received a number of representations concerning alleged shortfalls in psychiatric beds. The requirement for beds must be judged locally and cannot be viewed in isolation from other provision for mentally ill people.

  Pharmacy Licences
  Mr. Illsley To ask the
  Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make it her policy that the grant of a licence for the establishment of a pharmacy is conditional upon the establishment of such a pharmacy within a specified time scale;

  (2) what plans she has to prevent companies from holding licences for the establishment of pharmacies which they do not intend to use.

  Mr. Malone
  Under the provisions of the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992, as amended, a pharmacy which is given permission to open must do so within six months of permission being granted. A family health services authority, or on appeal, the family health services appeal unit, may extend this period, up to a maximum of 24 months from the date of the original grant, if it considers there is good cause for so doing.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the impact on surgical provision in individual hospitals of general practitioner fundholders switching moneys from hospital to hospital.

  Mr. Malone
  The precise pattern of care to meet patients' needs in a particular locality is agreed in contracts between national health service purchasers— health authorities and fundholding general practitioners— and hospitals. Fundholding general practitioners, like health authorities, are expected to provide six months' notice of their intention to make significant changes to their contracts.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has given to ensure that a loss of general practitioner fundholders' money for non-emergency surgery in hospitals does not lead to a reduction of emergency services for the same fundholder.

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  District health authorities are responsible for purchasing emergency services for the patients of both fundholding and non-fundholding general practitioners. It is for purchasers and hospitals to agree contracts which best meet patients' needs.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received in the last
  273
  12 months from doctors about funding out-of-hours work by general practitioners; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  Throughout the period, we have had regular discussions with representatives of the medical profession. These discussions are continuing.

  Neuroleptic Drugs
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to instigate research into deaths of psychiatric patients associated with neuroleptic drugs.

  Mr. Bowis
  We are discussing with the Royal College of Psychiatrists the possibility of extending the remit of the confidential inquiry into homicides and suicides by mentally ill people to cover the deaths of psychiatric patients associated with neuroleptic drugs.

  Consultants
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she intends to take to monitor the allocation of time by NHS consultants between their NHS responsibilities and their private practices.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 2 February,Official Report columns 837–38.

  Rights of the Child
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she intends to take to take to implement the British Government's obligations under article 44 of the United Nations convention following the committee's report on the rights of the child in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The government fulfilled their obligations under article 44 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child by publishing the United Kingdom national report in February 1994.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance her Department offers to regional health authorities on the premium of intensive care beds on the same site as elective surgical beds.

  Mr. Sackville
  None

  Private Health Insurance
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had private health insurance for each year from 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the number of people with private health insurance is not collected by the Department.

  NHS Beds
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide figures of(a) the number of surgical beds (b) the number of intensive care beds and (c) the number and locations of surgical beds without same site access to an intensive care unit for (i) North Thames regional health authority and (ii) South Thames regional health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on beds is collected by ward classification and not by clinical speciality. Details 274
  of the average daily number of intensive care beds available and the average daily number of general and acute beds available for each national health service trust in the North Thames regional health authority and the South Thames regional health authority is published in "Bed availability for England, Financial year 1993–94", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intensive therapy unit beds there were in London in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave on 2 February,Official Report column 846.

  Children in Care
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children looked after by local authorities were placed in the area of another local authority in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Bowis
  During the year ending 31 March 1993, it is estimated that 4,200 children looked after by local authorities in England started foster placements in the area of other authorities. At 31 March 1993, the total number currently placed in that way was 5,700. Corresponding figures are not available centrally for other types of placement.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children looked after by local authorities were placed in residential care(a) in privately registered children's homes under section 63 of the Children Act 1989, (b) in residential care homes registered under the Residential Homes Act 1984 and (c) in voluntary children's homes registered under the Children Act 1989 in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Bowis
  Estimates for the year ending 31 March 1993 are shown in the table:

  Children looked after by local authorities and placed in selected types of residential tare homes, England estimates for the year ending 31 March 1993.

  Type of Home

  Number1 starting a placement during the year

  Number1 at 31 March

  a In privately registered children's homes under section 63 of the Children Act 1989

  690

  670

  b In residential care homes registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984

  60

  60

  c In voluntary children's homes registered under the Children Act 1989

  550

  620

  Notes:

  1Figures are provisional and are estimated to the nearest 10. They exclude children accommodated in a series of short-term placements under one agreement under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when information on the placement of children looked after by local authorities for the year 1993–94 will be available.

  Mr. Bowis
  In due course.
  275
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children looked after by local authorities were absent for more than one week from agreed placements; and, of those children, in how many absences their whereabouts were unknown in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Bowis
  Out of some 85,000 children looked after by local authorities during the year ended 31 March 1993, it is estimated that 680 were absent for more than one week from their agreed placements.

  The number of absences of these children where the whereabouts was unknown was 520.

  Private Children's Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private children's homes were listed in each local authority for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Hospital Social Workers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what circumstances a hospital social worker would be expected to undertake the role of keyworker for an individual.

  Mr. Bowis
  It may be agreed, as part of the arrangements for a psychiatric patient's discharge under the care programme approach, for a hospital social worker to be his key worker.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to monitor the level of referrals to hospital social workers.

  Mr. Bowis
  It depends on the referral of whom or what.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many social workers were based in hospitals in 1993.

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of social work staff directly employed by local authority social services departments in hospitals and other health related settings in September 1993 is given in "Local Authority Social Services Statistics: Staff of Local Authority Social Services Departments at 30 September 1993; England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Secure Accommodation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times her Department has received requests for secure accommodation for young people in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the secure facilities currently available for young people provided by(a) local authorities, (b) the voluntary sector and (c) the private sector.

  Mr. Bowis
  A list of secure units in England providing accommodation for young people is contained in the publication "Children Accommodated in Secure Units During the Year Ending 31 March 1994"—series number A/F 94/21—copies of which are available in the Library.
  276

  Social Day Care Places
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many social day care places were available for(a) the elderly, (b) those with learning disabilities, (c) those with physical disabilities and (d) mentally ill people in (i) local authorities, (ii) the voluntary sector and (iii) the private sector in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested on day centre places, covering survey weeks in 1992 and 1993, is published in "Personal Social Services: Day and domiciliary services for adults 1993", statistical bulletin 1994–98. Data before 1992 were collected on a different basis and for local authority provision only and were published in "Adult Training Centres for People with Learning Disabilities and Local Authority Day Centres for Adults", up to 1991, A/F91/8; and in "Adult Training Centres for Mentally Handicapped People and Day Centres for Mentally Ill, Mentally Handicapped, Elderly and Younger Physically Handicapped People" up to 1989, A/F89/8. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Mental Handicap Hospitals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 25 January,Official Report, column 248, if she will make it her policy to collate the number of long-stay mental hospitals which have gained trust status.

  Mr. Sackville
  No.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) of 19 January,Official Report, column 634, what statistics are collected from local authorities on their use of independent sector residential accommodation and day and domiciliary services.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on the detail of the routine statistics on residential accommodation and day and domiciliary services was published in the minutes of evidence following the appearance of the director of statistics on 21 April 1993 before the Health Select Committee—paper 624 of Session 1992–93, annexes C. D and E. Information on data sources is also provided in the "Personal Social Services Statistical Information Directory April 1994", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Hostel Places
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hostel places were available for people with mental health problems in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Bowis
  Hostels are not defined or identified within our information collection system.

  Doctors, St. Thomas's Hospital
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors are currently working over 72 hours a week at St. Thomas's hospital, London.

  Mr. Malone
  St. Thomas's has reported to the South Thames region task force that at 30 September 1994, there were 41.5 junior doctors contracted for an average of
  277
  more than 72 hours a week. None of these posts was in the hard-pressed specialties which are now subject to a ceiling of 72 hours a week. Task forces were set up in each region to help implement and monitor the new deal on junior doctors' hours. They report progress to the national health service executive.

  In December, I announced that £64 million—£14 million more than last year—would be spent in 1995 on tackling junior doctors hours. The extra £14 million will be enough to set up 230 fully funded posts.

  Hospital Closures
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has provided to district health authorities on taking local opinion into account when deciding to close a hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  Guidance about consultation on hospital closure and substantial changes in service provision was attached to an executive letter—EL(90)185—issued in September 1990, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Hinchingbrook Hospital
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds there have been at Hinchingbrook hospital in each year since 1990; and how many times the hospital has had to close to emergencies through lack of beds in the last year.

  Mr. Sackville
  The hospital has not had to close to emergencies through lack of beds in the past year.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many projects at the Hinchingbrook hospital are currently being considered or have been considered over the last three years which involve ownership of the hospital or part of the hospital by the private sector.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. This is a matter for the Hinchingbrooke Health Care national health service trust and Anglia and Oxford regional health authority. The right hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the trust, Mr. Ken Spink OBE, and the chairman of the health authority, Sir Stuart Burgess, for details.

  Cardiac Centres and Cancer Services
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 31 January,Official Report, column 876, how many cardiac centres and cancer services there are in London; what is her estimate of the number needed; and if she will explain her reference to a great duplication and concentration of specialty services in London.

  Mr. Malone
  The Tomlinson report found"unwarranted duplication of specialist services, sometimes at great expense",
  referring inter alia to 14 cardiac centres and 13 cancer centres providing regional specialty services in inner London. The reports in June 1993 to the London implementation group of an independent review of specialist services in London confirmed Tomlinson's findings and said, of cardiac services, that
  "there is a clear case for rationalisation to create fewer, larger and stronger centres"
  and, of cancer services,
  278"there are several serious disadvantages in the current pattern of small centres".
  Both reports recommended some consolidation in order that high-quality clinical care, teaching and research should be sustained. The advice of these and the other specialty reviews remains available to inform health authorities and NHS hospital trusts.

  Leeds General Infirmary
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future practice of pathology services at the Leeds general infirmary.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for trusts to determine the best means of delivering pathology services to secure high-quality patient care and the most cost-effective use of resources. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. David Hall, the chairman of the United Leeds Teaching Hospitals national health service trust for further details.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress on the capital investment programme at the Leeds general infirmary with particular reference to whether the programme is running in line with budget targets.

  Mr. Sackville
  The capital investment programme currently in progress for the United Leeds Teaching Hospitals national health service trust, which includes the Leeds general infirmary, is running within budget and on time.

  Ian Greer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many items she has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.

  Mr. Sackville
  From the available information, no items have been received from Ian Greer in the last month.

  Propofol
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adverse reactions and how many fatalities reported to the Medicines Control Agency were associated with the use of anaesthetic propofol since 27 February 1986.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 3 February I 995]Since 27 February 1986, the Medicines Control Agency has received 1,072 yellow card reports for propofol describing 1,987 suspected adverse reactions, 35 of which were fatal. The large number of suspected adverse reactions is a reflection of the extensive use of this drug as an anaesthetic agent. No anaesthesia is without risks; the adverse reaction profile for propofol is not significantly different from other widely used anaesthetic agents. A report of a suspected reaction to a drug does not necessarily mean that the drug itself caused the reaction.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Drugs
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what services the European monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction will be
  279
  able to offer to developing countries attempting to replace drug-linked cultivation and defeat drug production and trafficking.

  Mr. Baldry
  The European monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction is set up to provide the Community and its member states with objective, reliable and comparable information at the European level on drugs and drug addiction and their consequences. The centre's future work programme has not yet been decided. The centre does not have a remit to offer specific services to less-developed countries. However, subject to member states' obligations on transmission of information under the provisions of United Nations drugs conventions, the centre may promote the inclusion of data it collects into international monitoring and drug control programmes, particularly those established by the UN.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total sum the United Kingdom has made available to the UN drug control programme for each year since 1994 and the percentage of these figures used for drug control programmes in developing countries.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom made £4.8 million available to the UN international drug control programme in the financial year 1993–94, the latest complete year for which figures are available. Sixty-two per cent. of this sum was used for UNDCP programmes in less developed countries. The remainder was used for UNDCP programmes in central and eastern European countries.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the criteria, under the draft European action plan to combat drugs which will be used to assess a country's progress in drug control.

  Mr. Baldry
  The scope and extent of co-operation between the European Community and third countries is set out in individual association agreements. These agreements cover all subjects of common interest, including illicit drugs, and aim to promote co-operation and facilitate joint initiatives. They also provide for a continuing process of consultation and co-ordination. Drugs clauses in these agreements may, for example, include co-operation on measures to tackle the supply, trafficking and demand for illicit drugs, as well as action against money laundering and misuse of chemical precursors.

  The draft European action plan to combat drugs proposes that failure by recipient governments to achieve the drugs objectives in association agreements would allow the Union to consider suspension or termination of specific aspects of relations, including imposition of political, economic or financial sanctions.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with European counterparts with regard to the European action plan to combat drugs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom has been actively involved in discussions with European partners about Commission draft proposals for a new European Union action plan to combat drugs. The proposals require further refinement and improvement, within the mechanisms set up under the treaty on European Union, to produce a balanced multidisciplinary plan for effective action. The 280
  draft plan is to be submitted to the European Council during the current French presidency.

  We welcome this work within the European Union to consolidate and further improve anti-drugs co-operation between member states and between the EU and other regions and countries. Drug trafficking and misuse remain a serious and growing threat to the UK, other countries in the European Union and most other countries around the world. Drug traffickers are quick to exploit new markets and routes for their pernicious trade. Firm national action by all Governments is fundamentally important. But effective practical action and international co-operation are also essential if we are to succeed in defeating the global menace of the illicit drug trade.

  The UK has played, and will continue to play, a leading role in the international fight against drugs, both bilaterally and multilaterally, in particular through the UN international drug control programme, the Council of Europe and the European Union.

  Sudan
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consult with the French Government about relations with the Government of Sudan; and if he will make it his policy that while France has the Presidency of the EU, the EU will maintain a united policy towards Sudan with respect to the sale of arms and respect for human rights.

  Mr. David Davis
  We exchange views regularly with the French Government and other EU partners in the framework of the common foreign and security policy. We have no evidence to suggest that any EU country intends to change its policy towards Sudan with respect to the sale of arms and respect for human rights.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arms or military training the Government of France are providing to the Government of Sudan.

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to my

  earlier reply today. The EU agreed an arms embargo against Sudan in March 1994. This remains in force.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings representatives of his Department have had with representatives of the Polisario Front; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Polisario representatives have met FCO officials on a number of occasions.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions at the United Nations Security Council the United Kingdom representatives has raised the issue of the performance of the MINURSO force in the Western Sahara.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The subject of MINURSO and its performance has been raised and discussed in the UN Security Council on numerous occasions, most recently on 13 January 1995.
  281
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the statement made to the United States Congress House Appropriations Committee on 25 January by Frank Ruddy concerning the United Nations operation in Western Sahara; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We understand that no transcript or detailed record was made of Mr. Ruddy's comments to the appropriations sub-committee of the United States House of Representatives on 25 January, and have made no assessment of them.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what visits have been made to the Western Sahara by representatives of Her Majesty's Government; and which diplomatic post deals with relations with the Polisario.

  Mr. Baldry
  Three visits were made to the Western Sahara by FCO officials in 1994. We do not have formal relations with Polisario.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution Britain currently makes to MINURSO; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The United Kingdom does not at present contribute personnel to MINURSO. The mission continues to operate from an unencumbered balance assessed on member states in 1991, the UK contribution

  to which was US $8.2 million.

  Mr.Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions have been taken by the United Kingdom to assist giving effect to the United Nations Security Council resolution 973, concerning the future of the Western Saraha.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The United Kingdom will be paying its share of the cost of the reinforcements for MINURSO which are provided for in Security Council resolution 973. Implementation of the resolution is primarily a matter for the UN secretariat. The British ambassadors in Tunis and Addis Ababa have, with French, American and Spanish colleagues, lobbied the President of Tunisia—the current President of the Organisation of African Unity—and the OAU Secretary-General to provide extra observers for the UN's identification process in Western Sahara.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of the Government of France in respect of providing arms or military training to the military, or the militias, loyal to the out-going Government of Rwanda.

  Mr. Baldry
  The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs has informed us that the French Government do not provide arms or military training to the supporters of the former Government of Rwanda.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which country it is proposed to hold the international tribunal into war crimes in Rwanda.

  Mr. Baldry
  The location of the tribunal has yet to be decided but the UN Secretary General is due to report on this and other matters relating to the tribunal soon. In the meantime, a prosecutor's office is being established in Kigali to allow investigations to continue.
  282

  Legislatures
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to place in the Library the names and details of each member of the local legislatures for each colony and dependent territory.

  Mr. Baldry
  I will place such lists in the Library.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by which method it is possible for(a) the chief minister and (b) individual member of colony and dependent territory legislatures to bring to the attention of Her Majesty's Government or hon. Members of the House any grievance they have about the stewardship or conduct of governors or official members of the local government and legislature in respect of those matters for which the governors or official members are directly responsible.

  Mr. Baldry
  All British dependent territories citizens have the right to approach us or Members of the House on any matter they wish to raise.

  Chief Ministers and members of the legislature in the dependent territories can and frequently do raise issues in connection with the Governors' reserve powers with us and hon. Members.

  Colonies and Dependent Territories
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the total cost and any other subventions paid from United Kingdom public funds to the(a) defence, (b) administration, (c) economic and social generation and (d) promotion of interest for each colony or dependent territory in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Baldry
  The total amount paid from United Kingdom public funds to the dependent territories over the past five financial years is estimated to be in the region of £1 billion.

  To provide a breakdown per subject and territory, as requested by the hon. Member, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the total contribution to imperial functions and services paid to the Exchequer from the local governments by each of the colonies or dependent territories over each of the last five years; and if he will list the contributions made towards the cost of(a) defence, (b) the civil list and (c) consular and other services provided by his Department abroad.

  Mr. Baldry
  The total contribution to United Kingdom public funds made by the dependent territories over the past five financial years is estimated to be £382 million.

  To provide a breakdown per territory and subject heading, as requested by the hon. Member, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by which method voters in the colonies and dependent territories are able to influence(a) foreign policy, (b) defence policy and (c) policing policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  All three policy areas fall within the reserve powers of the governors of dependent territories, as laid down in the respective constitutions.
  283
  However, control of the individual budgets for some of these powers rests with the elected local government—for example, the police budget in the Caribbean dependent territories—and this allows the electorate to influence policy decisions. Members of legislative councils may appeal to the governor in respect of decisions relating to his reserve powers and in some territories the governor takes advice from statutory advisory bodies and public committees, for example, the Police Complaints Committee in Hong Kong.

  Governors have authority to delegate aspects of their reserve powers to elected Ministers, examples of which include certain policing matters in Bermuda and contacts with regional organisations in Anguilla and Montserrat.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names of all the governors of the colonies and dependent territories, with the names and functions of each official member of the local government or legislature who are appointed by his Department or governor.

  Mr. Baldry
  The following are the names of the governors of the dependent territories and the names of official members of the government or legislature appointed by governors:

  Anguilla

  Governor: Alan W. Shave, CVO, OBE

  Deputy Governor and ex-officio member of the House of Assembly: Harry McCrory, LVO, OBE

  Attorney General and ex-officio member of the House of Assembly: Kurt DeFreitas

  Second Nominated Member to the House of Assembly (Governor's appointee): Vacant

  British Indian Ocean Territory

  Commissioner: David Maclennan (non-resident)

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  Governor: Martin Bourke

  Chief Secretary and ex-officio member of the Legislative Assembly: Roger Cousins

  Attorney General and ex-officio member of the Legislative Council: David Ballantyne

  Second Nominated member of the Legislature Assembly (Governor's appointee): Vacant

  Montserrat

  Governor: Frank Savage, LVO, OBE

  Attorney General and ex-officio member of the Legislative Assembly: Mrs. Gertel Thom

  Financial Secretary and ex-officio member of the Legislative Assembly: Charles John

  First Nominated Member of the Legislature Assembly (Governor's appointee): Frank Edwards

  Cayman Islands

  Governor: Michael Gore, CVO, OBE

  Chief Secretary and ex-officio member of the Legislative Assembly: James Ryan, MBE, JP

  Attorney General and ex-officio member of the Legislative Assembly: Richard Coles

  Financial Secretary and ex-officio member of the Legislative Assembly: George McCarthy, OBE, JP

  British Virgin Islands

  Governor: Peter Penfold, OBE

  Deputy Governor and Chief Secretary: Elton Georges

  Attorney General and ex-officio member of the Legislative Council: Mrs. Dancia Penn

  284
  Bermuda

  Governor and Commander-in-Chief: The right hon. Lord Waddington, D,L QC

  President of the Senate: Senator Albert Jackson MBE, (Appointed by the Governor)

  Vice President of the Senate: Senator Norma Astwood (appointed by the Governor)

  Senator Alfred Oughton, MBE, Governor's nominated member in the Senate.

  Pitcairn Islands

  Governor: Robert Alston CMG (resides in Wellington)

  Member of Island Council (voting): Mrs Betty Christian

  Member of the Island Council (non-voting): Mrs Phillipa Foley

  Gibralter

  Governor and Commander-in-Chief: Field Marshall Sir, Itohn Chapple, GCB, CBE

  Deputy Governor: A. Carter

  Acting Attorney General and ex-officio member of the Legislative Council: P. Dean

  Financial Secretary and ex-officio member of the Legislative Council: B. Traynor

  Hong Kong

  Governor: The Rt Hon Christopher Patten

  Chief Secretary and ex-officio member of the Legislative Council: Mrs Anson Chan, CBE, KBE, JP

  Financial Secretary and ex-officio member of the Legislative Council: Sir Hamish Macleod, KBE, JP

  Attorney General and ex-officio member of the Legislative Council: J. F. Matthews, CMG, JP

  Falkland Islands

  Governor: D. E. Tatham, CMG

  Attorney General and ex-officio member of the Legislative Council: D. Lang, CBE, QC

  Financial Secretary and ex-officio member of the Legislative Council: D. Howatt

  Chief Executive and ex-officio member of the Legislative Council: A Gurr.

  St. Helena

  Governor and Commander-in-Chief: A. N. Hoole, OBE

  Chief Secretary and ex-officio member of the Legislative Council: J. G. Perrott

  Financial Secretary and ex-officio member of the Legislative Council: R. J. Perrott

  Attorney General and ex-officio member of the Legislative Council: D. J. Jerimiah

  Ascension Island

  Administrator: B. N. Connelly (appointed by the FCO)

  Tristan da Cunha

  Administrator: B. Dailey (appointed by the FCO)

  Member of the Island Council: Mrs. J. Green

  Member of the Island Council: D. Rogers

  Member of the Island Council: S. Swain

  South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

  Commissioner: D. E. Tatham CMG (appointed by FCO)

  Asst Commissioner: C. S. Shelton (Appointed by FCO)

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his most recent estimate of the population of each colony or dependent territory excluding Hong Kong, with the total population.
  285
  Mr. Baldry
  The most recent estimates of the population of each colony or dependent territory, excluding Hong Kong, are as follows:

  Territory

  Population

  Anguilla

  9,000

  Ascension Island

  1,132

  Bermuda

  70,000

  British Antarctic Territory

  Nil

  British Indian Ocean Territory1

  3,500

  British Virgin Islands

  17,000

  Cayman Islands

  30,000

  Falkland Islands

  2,120

  Gibraltar

  29,000

  Montserrat

  11,000

  Pitcairn Islands

  54

  St. Helena

  5,390

  Tristan da Cunha

  294

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  14,000

  Total (including Hong Kong)

  6,212,490

  1 No indigenous population.

  Tivar to Bari Ferry
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response has been made by the international community to the assertion by the President of Albania regarding the use made by Serbia of the Tivar to Bari ferry route; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Davis
  We are not aware of such an assertion. According to the international sanctions monitors there is no ferry service operating between Tivar and Bari. The only service operating under UN Security Council resolution 943 is that which links the ports of Bar and Bari.

  Refugee Camps (Zaire)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to which countries the United Nations appealed for troops to police Rwanda refugee camps in Zaire; and what was the response.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The United Nations approached a total of 60 potential troop-contributing nations seeking troops to police the Rwandan refugee camps in Zaire. Of those 60, we understand that only one responded positively. A list of the countries concerned is not available.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he is currently giving to British citizens in Sierra Leone.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have advised British citizens that dependents, and those with no pressing need to stay, should leave the country as soon as possible. We are monitoring developments closely, and will review our advice in the light of changing circumstances.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present security situation in Sierra Leone.

  Mr. Baldry
  Over the last few weeks there has been a substantial increase in attacks on people and property over a large area of Sierra Leone with many reported deaths. At least 17 foreign citizens including six Britons are being 286
  held captive. We have advised British citizens with no pressing need to remain to consider leaving the country. We continue to follow the situation closely and are working for the release of those held captive. We are also responding to requests for emergency aid for those who have been displaced by the latest fighting.

  Civil Servants, Hong Kong
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent discussions with the Chinese Government concerning the pensions of Hong Kong civil servants after 1997.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Hong Kong Government intend to establish a HK$7 billion pension reserve fund to reinforce existing statutory pension safeguards and the guarantees in the Sino-British joint declaration on the continued payment of Hong Kong public service pensions. This subject has been discussed by the British and Chinese Governments in the Sino-British joint liaison group.

  Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations he will make to the Government of Burma for the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The continued detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi without charge is indefensible. We have repeatedly called for her early and unconditional release. We will continue to express our concerns directly to the State Law and Order Restoration Council and through the relevant international forums.

  Burma
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to review Her Majesty's Government trade policy in respect of Burma.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Our policy with Burma is kept under regular review. For the present we ensure that British firms are aware of trade opportunities not covered by the EU arms embargo. But we offer no financial support to them.

  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Burma to end their offensive against the Karen ethnic group.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 3 February, at column 883.

  Ian Greer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many items he has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To my knowledge there were none.
  287

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council on 23 to 24 January.

  Mr. David Davis
  The Council began with an open debate on the French presidency programme. All member states broadly endorsed the presidency's plans.

  The Commission then set out its timetable for follow-up work to the Essen European Council. Commission priorities include the White Paper on the integration of the central and eastern European states into the single market, proposals on financing for trans-European networks and a paper on the Mediterranean.

  The Council agreed the text of the EC/Vietnam co-operation agreement.

  The presidency's proposals for handling the preparations for the Euro-Mediterranean conference were agreed.

  The presidency reported on progress in the negotiations on customs union with Turkey and on preparations for the review of Cyprus' application for EU membership. This was remitted for further discussion at the 6 February FAC.

  Ministers discussed events in Chechnya and issued a statement.

  The presidency outlined plans for the preparation for the Council's report to the 1996 IGC study group.

  The Council agreed a statement on Algeria which confirmed the EU's support for all initiatives aimed at encouraging dialogue between those who reject terrorism and violence. The EU also confirmed its willingness to support a policy of democratic development and economic restructuring in Algeria.

  Over lunch, the Italian Foreign Minister, Ms Agnelli, said the new Italian Government were ready to resume discussions soon with Slovenia over obstacles to the EU/Slovenia agreement.

  Ministers took note of the Danish candidacy to succeed Switzerland as OSCE chairman in office in 1997.

  The Council heard a report from Lord Owen and exchanged views on the situation in the former Yugoslavia. They approved a declaration on Bosnia and Croatia. They agreed to consider in March whether to begin negotiations on an EU/Croatia trade co-operation agreement. The Council also adopted a common position and Council regulation continuing sanctions relief for Serbia-Montenegro.

  The presidency and the Commission informed Ministers about preparations for the concluding conference to adopt the stability pact in Paris on 20–21 March.

  The French For
  eign Minister, Mr. Juppe, and Sir Leon Brittan briefed the Council on the agenda for their 26–27 January visit to Washington. Mr. Juppe said that he would raise EU/United States relations, former Yugoslavia, the middle east peace process, Latin America, Russia and Chechnya, and the director-generalship of the WTO.
  288
  Sir Leon Britt
  an reported briefly on relations with Japan and looked forward to a full debate at the April FAC. He introduced the Commission's communication on Korea, proposing a Commission negotiating mandate for an EU/Korea trade and co-operation agreement.

  The Council approved a statement expressing interest in the Singaporean proposal for an EU/Asian Summit and requesting the political committee and Coreper to present it with a report in March.

  The presidency. noted that the Commission would shortly come forward with a draft mandate for article XXIV.6 negotiations with the United States and others to compensate for tariff increases arising from EU enlargement.

  There was a preliminary discussion on trade aspects of the mid-term review of the fourth Lome convention, and on the size of the eighth European development fund.

  Mr. Martin—Com
  missioner for the Mediterranean. Latin America, the middle east and Asia—reported on progress in negotiations with Israel, Morocco and Tunisia.

  The Council agreed on an early ministerial Troika visit to Lebanon, Syria, Israel and the Occupied Territories.

  A partnership and co-operation agreement between the EU and Kazakhstan was signed on 23 January.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Drugs
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what research his Department has carried out into the effectiveness of crop replacement programmes in zones of drug-linked cultivation in developing countries.

  Mr. Baldry
  The ODA has carried out research in Peru and North Morocco, and has funded desk studies covering the main coca growing areas of South America and the opium growing areas of Asia. Alternative crops have been identified, but their exploitation depends on social, economic and infrastructural changes. Since 1985, the ODA has committed £7 million to promote crop substitution in northern Pakistan.

  Algeria
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid, by way of grant, loans, credit or otherwise, has been provided to Algeria by the European Community or European Union and their institutions in the last four years.

  Mr. Baldry
  European Community support to Algeria is provided through its programme of grant and European Investment bank loan funded assistance to the mediterranean region and loan financed balance of payments support.

  Under the Community's mediterranean programme, through the fourth financial protocol, 1992–96, Algeria is eligible for 350 mecu, or £276 million, comprising 280 mecu or £220 million, EIB loans, 18 mecu, or £14.2 million, risk capital and 52 mecu, or £41 million grant aid. By the end of January 1995, 88 per cent. of the budget funds had been committed and 64 per cent. of the EIB

  289
  loans. Algeria has also received a loan of 55 mecu, or 43.3 million, from the mediterranean structural adjustment facility as balance of payments support.

  Since 1991, Algeria has been granted a total of 600 mecu, or £473 million, loan funded balance of payments support. Of this, 400 mecu, or £315 million, was agreed in 1991 and a further 200 mecu, or £157 million, subject to continuing compliance with its IMF programme, in December 1994. The first tranche of the further 200 meco—100 mecu, or £78.9 million—has already been disbursed.

  Trinidad and Tobago
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the value of Britain's multilateral and unilateral aid to Trinidad and Tobago for each of the last five years; and what is the projected aid for the next two years.

  Mr. Baldry
  Gross bilateral aid expenditure for Trinidad and Tobago comprises primarily disbursements by the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Total gross United Kingdom bilateral aid for the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  £ thousands

  1989–90

  556

  1990–91

  808

  1991–92

  5,310

  1992–93

  11,659

  1993–94

  5,725

  The latest figures available for the estimated United Kingdom share of multilateral disbursements of net official development assistance to Trinidad and Tobago are:

  Year

  £ million

  1989

  0.29

  1990

  0.97

  1991

  0.33

  The distribution of aid resources for the public expenditure survey period 1995–96–1997–98 is currently being considered and no final decisions have yet been made.

  Refugees (Guinea)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what humanitarian

  ATP agreements with Indonesia concluded since 1980

  Country

  Project

  Company

  EOL date

  Type

  Export value £ million

  ATP value £ million

  Sector

  ATP agreements concluded during 1982

  Indonesia

  Mrica Hydro Project

  Balfour Beatty

  22 October 1982

  44.646

  12.075

  Power

  ATP agreements concluded during 1983

  Indonesia

  Jambu Aye Hydroelectric Dam Study

  RendelWilliamson Hydro

  1983

  0.200

  0.200

  Power

  Indonesia

  Ombelin Coal Mine Project

  Dowty Meco

  30 August 1983

  19.200

  4.445

  Mining

  290
  assistance is being given to refugees from Sierra Leone in Guinea.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Food Programme are providing food, blankets and shelter materials for an estimated 24,000 Sierra Leonean refugees who have recently fled to Guinea, in addition to sustaining relief assistance to over 500,000 Liberian and Sierra Leonean refugees in Guinea's forest region over the past five years.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the costs of training consultancy visits to Indonesia by British specialists working with the Indonesian police force in each year since 1990; and in each year how many consultants visited Indonesia.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding reply 3 February 1995]The costs of consultancy visits have been as follows.

  Costs of consultancy visits to Indonesia£

  Number of UK consultants visiting

  Total number of visits by consultants

  1990–91

  155,000

  4

  6

  1991–92

  106,000

  4

  7

  1992–93

  155,000

  4

  9

  1993–94

  99,000

  4

  8

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list all aid and trade provision projects in Indonesia since 1980, in each case specifying the date of the agreement, the cost to the aid budget and the name of the British companies involved;

  (2) if he will list dates when aid and trade provision government-to-government agreements and exchanges with Indonesia were signed in each year since 1980;

  (3) if he will list all aid and trade provision contracts with Indonesia since 1980 stating the year and month in which the agreement was reached, the lead United Kingdom company, the value of aid given, and in each case the date of the formal appraisal documents submitted by the Overseas Development Administration and the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]A list of all aid and trade provision projects in Indonesia on which government-to-government agreements have been concluded is set out in the attached table. Details of appraisal documents for aid projects are not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  291

  ATP agreements with Indonesia concluded since 1980

  Country

  Project

  Company

  EOL date

  Type

  Export value £ million

  ATP value £ million

  Sector

  ATP agreements concluded during 1984

  Indonesia

  AIS Submarine Cable

  STC

  12 November 1984

  104

  3.093

  Telecom

  Indonesia

  Education Equipment Study

  British Council

  27 November 1984

  0.036

  0.036

  Misc

  Indonesia

  Jabotabek Railway Study

  L H Manderstan

  1 June 1984

  1.000

  1.000

  Transport

  ATP agreements concluded during 1985

  Indonesia

  S Bengkulu Oil Palm Study

  Massey Ferguson

  1985

  0.400

  0.400

  Misc

  Indonesia

  Isolated Diesels

  HSPE

  26 March 1985

  38.400

  12.515

  Power

  Indonesia

  Bukit Asam Rail Bridges

  Balfour Beatty

  15 July 1985

  0.750

  0.152

  Transport

  Indonesia

  Offshore Supply Vessels

  Marine Design Consultants

  14 August 1985

  2.156

  0.571

  Transport

  Indonesia

  Ombelin Coal Mine Training

  Dowty Meco

  1985

  0.655

  0.655

  Mining

  ATP agreements concluded during 1986

  Indonesia

  Jabotabek Feasibility Study

  Manderstan/F Wheeler

  5 September 1986

  0.007

  0.007

  Transport

  Indonesia

  Railway Track Turnouts

  Henry Boot Railway Eng Ltd

  6 March 1986

  ATP/TC

  0.259

  0.259

  Transport

  ATP agreements concluded during 1987

  Indonesia

  Steel Bridging

  Mabey and Johnson

  2 April 1987

  SL

  9.930

  6.642

  Transport

  Indonesia

  Navigational Aids

  Pharos Marine

  29 April 1987

  SL

  9.906

  6.386

  Transport

  Indonesia

  Coal Fired Power Station Training

  British Electricity International

  4 June 1987

  ATP/TC

  0.533

  0.533

  Power

  Indonesia

  Marine Diesel Engines

  Mirrlees Blackstone (STPT) Ltd

  10 February 1987

  ATP/TC

  0.048

  0.048

  Transport

  ATP agreements concluded during 1988

  Indonesia

  Batam Island Power Development Study

  Kennedy and Donkin Power Systems Ltd

  17 June 1988

  ATP/TC

  0.194

  0.194

  Power

  Indonesia

  Bandung Television Studios

  Quantel Link Systems

  24 October 1988

  SL

  11.735

  9.734

  Telecom

  Indonesia

  Radio/Rehabilitation

  David Whittle Associates

  29 February 1988

  ATP/TC

  0.156

  0.156

  Telecom

  ATP agreements concluded during 1989

  Indonesia

  Cigading Port Extension

  Tarmac International Special Projects

  1 March 1989

  SL

  17.28

  13.266

  Transport

  Indonesia

  Radio Studios

  David Whittle Associates

  2 November 1989

  ATP/TC

  0.651

  0.651

  Telecom

  Indonesia

  Satellite Remote Sensing

  Technology Applied Systems

  —

  —

  0.028

  0.028

  Telecom

  Indonesia

  Scattered Diesels

  GEC Diesels Ltd

  25 January 1989

  SL

  6.887

  5.891

  Power

  Indonesia

  Ombilin Coalmine I

  Dowty Meco Ltd

  1.89

  ATP/TC

  0.211

  0.211

  Mining

  ATP agreements concluded during 1990

  Indonesia

  Citayam/Cibinong Railway

  Foster Wheeler World Services

  30 Novembeer 1990

  SL

  23.000

  20.105

  Transport

  Indonesia

  Cigading/Serpong Railway Rehabilitation

  Davy/British Railway International

  15 March 1990

  SL

  31.861

  24,690

  Telecom

  Indonesia

  Radio Communication System for the Ministry of Forestry

  Philips Radio Communication Systems

  30 November 1990

  SL

  37.234

  34.111

  Telecom

  Indonesia

  Radio Studio Rehabilitation

  Audix Ltd

  1 February 1990

  SL

  6.33

  5.04

  Telecom

  Indonesia

  Shortwave Radio Transmitters

  Marconi

  30 November 1990

  SL

  29.000

  26.911

  Telecom

  Indonesia

  Aircraft Simulator Consultancy

  CAA

  14 February 1990

  ATP/TC

  0.050

  0.050

  Transport

  292 293

  ATP agreements with Indonesia concluded since 1980

  Country

  Project

  Company

  EOL date

  Type

  Export value £ million

  ATP value £ million

  Sector

  ATP agreements concluded during 1991

  Indonesia

  Western Universities Equipment

  Philip Harris International/Gallenkamp

  14 May 1991

  SL

  14.284

  13.671

  Misc

  Indonesia

  Bali and Medan Airport Security

  IAL International Aeradio Ltd

  21 August 1991

  SL

  11.452

  10.455

  Misc

  Indonesia

  Jambi Power Station

  Mirrlees Blackstone (STPT) Ltd

  21 August 1991

  SL

  5.74

  5.345

  Power

  Indonesia

  Flight Simulator

  Aeronautical Systems Designers

  20 June 1991

  SL

  4.969

  4.659

  Transport

  Indonesia

  Steel Bridging II

  Mabey and Johnson

  22 May 1991

  SL

  3.831

  3.669

  Transport

  Indonesia

  Cikampek/Padalarang Toll Road

  Cementation

  15 October 1991

  ATP/TC

  1.7

  1.7

  Transport

  Indonesia

  Auto Industry Development Study

  De Montfort Management Ltd

  7 January 1991

  ATP/TC

  0.489

  0.489

  Transport

  ATP agreements concluded during 1992

  Indonesia

  Western Universities Training Centre

  Sunderland Engineering Education Services

  29 August 1992

  ATP/TC

  2.214

  2.214

  Education

  Indonesia

  Flight Simulator

  CAA

  24 January 1992

  ATP/TC

  0.389

  0.389

  Transport

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost in each year since 1990 of supporting work with the Indonesian national police force.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]Costs from 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1994 were as follows:

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  247,000

  1991–92

  178,000

  1992–93

  283,000

  1993–94

  126,000

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the cost of scholarship awards in Britain for Indonesian police officers in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]: Costs from 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1994 were as follows:

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  33,200

  1991–92

  26,000

  1992–93

  66,500

  1993–94

  3,000

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of the Indonesian national police force have visited the United Kingdom for training purposes in each year since 1990.
  294
  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]The numbers of such members financed by the Government were:

  1990–91: 14

  1991–92: 13

  1992–93: 21

  1993–94: 1

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the cost to his Department of annual study tours to the United Kingdom for Indonesian police officers in each year since 1990, in each case stating which British police forces are involved.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]: The cost of study tours, which last up to one month, was as follows:

  UK police forces

  Study tour participants

  Cost per year £

  1990–91

  Surrey

  10

  31,000

  1991–92

  Surrey

  10

  30,000

  1992–93

  Surrey

  15

  43,000

  1993–94

  —

  0

  0

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Indonesian police officers have received scholarship awards in each year since 1990, in each case specifying the recipient's rank, the cost and duration of the scholarship.
  295
  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]Scholarship awards involving training for one month or more have been made as follows:

  Name of police officer

  Rank

  Cost of Awards per year £

  Duration (months)

  1990–91

  Mr. Yusnar Arsyad

  Lieutenant Colonel

  8,300

  4

  Mr. Adjie Rustarn Ramdja

  Major

  8,300

  4

  Mr. Deddy S. K.

  Lieutenant Colonel

  8,300

  4

  Mr. Medhy Chumadi

  Lieutenant Colonel

  8,300

  4

  1991–92

  Mr. Minton Mariaty Simanjuntak

  Major

  8,000

  3

  Mr. Soekamid

  Major

  9,000

  8

  Mr. Yadi Ermlady

  Captain

  9,000

  8

  1992–93

  Mr. Soekamid

  Major

  13,500

  12

  Mr. Yadi Ermlady

  Captain

  13,500

  12

  Mr. Pengasihan Gaut

  Major

  8,500

  3

  Mr. Adjie Ramdja

  Major

  8,500

  3

  Mr. Pepe Tjhjana

  Lieutenant Colonel

  8,500

  3

  Mr. Tito Kamavian

  First Lieutenant

  14,000

  12

  1993–94

  Mr. Herman Rasyld

  Colonel

  3,000

  1

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  BBC
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has for the capital receipts from privatising the transmission services of the BBC to be(a) retained by the corporation and (b) paid over to Her Majesty's Treasury.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am currently considering the options for the future of the BBC transmission service.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the BBC's annual transmission costs broken down by revenue, capital and regions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information about the BBC's internal costs and charges is primarily a matter for the BBC. We do not routinely hold such information.

  Contemporary Arts
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what provision he is making for the encouragement of active participation by the elderly in contemporary arts;

  (2) what plans he has to enable regional arts boards to fund educational work with people beyond the age of 25 years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department provides funds to the Arts Council, and through it to the regional arts boards, which themselves take decisions on how those funds are used. In doing so they take into account both artistic objectives and other issues of the kind the hon. Gentleman mentions.
  296

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Patten
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list those public bodies for which he retains departmental responsibility; which of these bodies have been identified as suitable for placing in the private sector; and by when it is expected each of these bodies will enter the private sector.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The public bodies for which I am responsible are all listed in "Public Bodies 1994", which was published on 6 February and is available in the Library. None of the bodies for which I am responsible has been identified as suitable for placing in the private sector.

  Ian Greer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many items he has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have no record of any items received from Ian Greer in the last month.

  Women's Football
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to ensure that women can play league football.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]Responsibility for the development of women's football in this country rests with the Football Association. The FA is currently developing a strategy document outlining its aims and objectives for the future development of the women's game.

EMPLOYMENT

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the median weekly earnings of full-time working men and women on adult rates in Yorkshire and Humberside and the north in 1994 and 1984.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information showing the median weekly earnings of full-time men and women employees on adult rates in each region of England can be found in part E, table 116 of the "New Earnings Survey", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the change in earnings for full time employees for every year, a cumulatively, since 1979 of the top and bottom (i) 1 per cent., (ii) 5 per cent. and (iii) 10 per cent. of the earnings distribution as recorded in the "New Earnings Survey", also breaking down the data by gender.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]The top and bottom deciles are published in part A, table 1 of the "New Earnings Survey" from 1979 to 1994, copies of which are available in the Library. Information on the top and bottom 1 and 5 per cent. points of the earnings distribution is not available.
  297

  Investors in People
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest available figures for the number of employees in each training and enterprise council area who have been recognised as achieving investors in people standard; and what percentage of the employees potentially eligible for receipt of the award this represents in each area.

  Mr. Paice
  The latest figures, at 4 December 1994, for employers in each training and enterprise council area in England and Wales, who have been recognised as achieving the investors in people standard are shown in the following table. It is not possible to provide information on what percentage of the employees potentially eligible for receipt of the award this represents in each area. Organisations committed to, or recognised as, investors in people employ between them 17 per cent. of the UK work force.

  Employers recognised as investors in people—as at 4 December 1994

  TEC

  Employers

  Greater Nottingham

  7

  Leicestershire

  11

  Lincolnshire

  6

  Northamptonshire

  16

  North Derbyshire

  11

  North Nottinghamshire

  17

  Southern Derbyshire

  28

  Bedfordshire

  10

  CAMBSTEC

  3

  Essex

  11

  Greater Peterborough

  2

  Hertfordshire

  7

  Norfolk and Waveney

  16

  Suffolk

  7

  County Durham

  18

  Northumberland

  14

  Teeside

  19

  Tyneside

  22

  Sunderland City

  6

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  17

  Bradford and District

  5

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  9

  Humberside

  48

  Leeds

  18

  Rotherham

  10

  Sheffield

  7

  Wakefield

  4

  North Yorkshire

  14

  Bolton/Bury

  14

  Cumbria

  6

  ELTEC

  22

  LAWTEC

  7

  Manchester

  19

  METROTEC

  6

  NORMIDTEC

  23

  Oldham

  7

  Rochdale

  2

  South and East Cheshire

  16

  Stockport/High Peak

  7

  Birmingham

  17

  Central England

  20

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  15

  Dudley

  6

  HAWTEC

  13

  Sandwell

  3

  Shropshire

  7

  Staffordshire

  5

  Walsall

  5

  Wolverhampton

  6

  298

  Employers recognised as investors in people—as at 4 December 1994

  TEC

  Employers

  Mid Glamorgan

  18

  South Glamorgan

  11

  Gwent

  10

  Powys

  4

  North East Wales

  5

  North West Wales

  6

  West Wales

  21

  Avon

  20

  Devon and Cornwall

  58

  Dorset

  39

  Gloucestershire

  89

  Somerset

  10

  Wiltshire

  16

  Hampshire

  30

  Heart of England

  14

  Wight Training and Enterprise

  1

  Kent

  9

  Milton Keynes

  4

  Surrey

  16

  Sussex

  15

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  39

  AZTEC

  8

  North London

  3

  North West London

  7

  CILNTEC

  4

  CENTEC

  10

  London East

  5

  SOLOTEC

  7

  West London

  8

  South Thames

  4

  CEWTEC

  15

  Merseyside

  32

  QUALITEC

  3

  Ian Greer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many items he has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.

  Mr. Portillo
  None.

  Pre-pension Income
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the economic status of men and women just prior to reaching the statutory pension age for the latest year for which information is available.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Estimates from the "Labour Force Survey" of the economic activity of men aged 64 and women aged 59 are given in the following table:

  Economic activity of Men aged 64 and Women aged 59 Great Britain—Summer 1994

  Thousands

  Men aged 64

  Women aged 59

  In employment

  95

  123

  ILO unemployment

  11

  1—

  Economically inactive2

  160

  155

  1 Estimate below 10,000 not shown.2 Includes long-term sick and disabled and people looking after the home.

  Source:

  LFS
  299

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Ingram:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the percentage of cases cleared by individual Child Support Agency centres during the first two quarters of 1994–95 (a) in under 40 days, (b) between 40 days and 100 days and (c) in over 100 days; and when he expects to be able to provide detailed information on the average time taken for each stage of the assessment process.

  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 shortly.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Adam Ingram, dated 8 February 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency's clearance times for the maintenance application process.
  The information you require is shown in the tables in Annex A. Table 1 includes figures on all cases cleared by the Agency, many of which have been outstanding for a long period. Table 2 provides details of the average time taken for each stage of the assessment process.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  ANNEX A

  Table. 1 Time taken to clear the percentage of cases across all Child Support Agency Centres 1st quarter: April to June 1994

  Child support area centre

  40 days or less Per cent.

  More than 40 days, less than 100 days Per cent.

  More than 100 days Per cent.

  Belfast

  45.63

  27.63

  34.41

  Birkenhead

  58.72

  17.04

  24.25

  Dudley

  45.63

  19.66

  34.71

  Falkirk

  34.68

  30.52

  34.81

  Hastings

  42.27

  21.00

  36.74

  Plymouth

  27.97

  24.35

  47.7

  Agency

  41.2

  23.37

  35.43

  2nd quarter: July to September 1994

  Child support area centre

  40 days or less Per cent.

  More than 40 days, less than 100 days Per cent.

  More than 100 days Per cent.

  Belfast

  38.85

  19.21

  41.95

  Birkenhead

  56.11

  9.89

  34.00

  Dudley

  43.68

  11.82

  44.51

  Falkirk

  43.34

  8.03

  48.63

  Hastings

  36.51

  15.96

  47.53

  Plymouth

  30.53

  11.31

  58.16

  Agency

  41.50

  12.7

  45.8

  Table 2. Average times taken for each stage of the Agency's assessment process.

  Stages of assessment process

  Average time (days)

  Period form the issue of the maintenance application form(MAF) to the parent with care to the date it was returned to the Agency.

  39

  300

  Period from the return of the MAF to the Agency to the date when a maintenance enquiry form (MEF) was issued to the absent parent.

  69

  Period from issue of the MEF to the date it was returned to the Agency.

  47

  Period from the return of the MEF to the date a maintenance assessment was completed.

  86

  Overall period.

  1175

  1 This figure does not equal the sum of the first four stages due to the variation in sample sizes which arises when cases are withdrawn.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the 2,269 outstanding Child Support Agency cases referred to in his answer of 18 May 1994,Official Report, column 526, in which paternity was being disputed at the end of March 1994, have now been resolved; if he will consider monitoring disputed paternity cases to establish the outcomes; in how many cases dealt with by the Child Support Agency between April and October 1994 the alleged absent parent disputed paternity; how many of these cases have been resolved without reference to court; how many disputed paternity cases have been referred to court by the agency; how many cases have been heard to date; in how many paternity has been established by the court,; and what is the total number of unresolved paternity disputes to-date.

  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 shortly.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Adam Ingram, dated 8 February 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about disputed paternity cases dealt with by the Child Support Agency.
  Improvements were introduced during April 1994 to the Agency's management information systems which improved the monitoring of paternity cases. As a result it has been ascertained that at the end of April 1994 there were 5,350 paternity cases on hand, just over 3,000 more than had previously been reported at the end of March 1994.
  Between the end of April and October 1994 there were a further 5,693 cases of disputed paternity. Of these, 4,316 cases were resolved without reference to Court. There were 178 applications to Court for a hearing, and 51 cases were heard. Paternity was established in each of these cases.
  At the end of October 1994, 5,976 cases were on hand, of these. 1,761 were more than 6 months old. In addition to the 51 cases where Court action was completed, there have been applications to Court for a hearing in a further 127 cases.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what considerations underlay the decision to transfer from child support offices to area managers the responsibility for issuing reduced benefit directions under the requirement to co-operate procedure in the special cases sections of the regional centres; whom the Child Support Agency consulted before changing the procedure; what training has been given to area managers when taking over this responsibility; and what systems are in place for monitoring the decisions made by area managers and ensuring consistency of decision-making across the country.
  301
  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. Adam Ingram, dated 8 February 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the issuing of reduced benefit directions (RBDs).
  This work was transferred to Field offices from the Child Support Agency Centres because a degree of double handling had been identified. As is usual in such circumstances, and internal consultation exercise on the implication and viability of the measure took place. The final decision was taken by the Operations Management Team in the light of the Agency's business needs, resources available and relevant staff experience. The Trade Union Side in the Agency were kept fully informed of the changes and the appropriate technical training was given.
  The Agency monitors decisions on RBDs in a similar way to other adjudication decisions made by child support officers (CSOs). CSO decisions are also monitored by the Chief Child Support Officer, an independent authority, who reports annually, in writing, to the Secretary of State.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give figures for the number of cases taken on by the Child Support Agency that previously involved absent parents that had paid no maintenance as a proportion of all cases for each six-month period since the establishment of the agency; and if he will give figures for the actual child maintenance paid by absent fathers as a proportion of the child maintenance paid by virtue of the work of the agency for each six-month period since the agency was founded.

  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. Rhodri Morgan, dated 8 February 1995:
  I am replying to you Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security on the number of absent parents (APs) who paid no maintenance for each six-month period of the Child Support Agency's operations; and the actual proportion of child maintenance paid as a result of action by the Agency.
  The estimated proportion of cases that involve APs who had paid no child maintenance, as a proportion of all cases, is given in the following table:

  Per cent.

  April 1993—September 1993

  43

  October 1993—March 1994

  59

  April 1994—September 1994

  77

  The gross child maintenance paid by APs via the Agency's collection service is given in the following table. This does not include cases where maintenance is paid direct by the AP to the PWC. These amount to around 20 per cent of cases dealt with by the Agency. There is no business need for the Agency to collect details of payments made in this way and it is assumed that, unless the PWC advises otherwise, payments are received regularly.
  302

  £million

  April 1993—September 1993

  0.73

  October 1993—March 1994

  11.26

  April 1994—September 1994

  25.70

  Benefits Agency Office, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will make a decision on the plan to build a national Benefits Agency office block on a site in Wood street, Doncaster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 6 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the timing of a decision on the plan to build a Benefits Agency office on a site in Wood St, Doncaster.
  I confirm that negotiations with the Developer are now at a late stage and a final decision on progressing the project to build a new office to serve the Doncaster area is expected by the end of February 1995.
  I hope you find this reply helpful,

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many days in the last five years cold weather payments have been made covering postcode areas NE12 and NE23 in the north east of England; and which weather stations cover these areas.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the Cold Weather Payments Scheme is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 7 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Cold Weather Payments made in postcode areas NE12 and NE23 in the last five years.
  Postcode NE12 is linked to the Leeming Weather Station and NE23 to the Tynemouth Weather Station.
  Cold weather periods are forecast or recorded on a weekly basis and, if appropriate, a payment is made for the same period. I have provided a table showing the number of weeks for which Cold Weather Payments were made for each year in the areas in question.

  11990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  NE 12

  3

  3

  2

  2

  0

  NE 23

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 The 1990–91 figures include Cold Weather Payments made on a national basis, irrespective of recorded temperatures, for the two week period 1 February 1991 to 14 February 1991.

  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of benefit clawback that will be attained by the compensation recovery unit of his Department in the present financial year.
  303
  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 24 November 1994,Official Report, columns 285–86.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received in the past year about the work of the compensation recovery unit.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  A number of representations have been received, in particular from Clydeside Action on Asbestos and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers.
  304
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to recover benefit paid to guilty parties in motor accident cases.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  None.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research he has conducted into the impact of the compensation recovery unit on the level of settlements in actions for compensation for industrial injury and disease and traffic accidents.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  None. The level of settlement is a matter for the plaintiff and the defendant.

  EU Pensions
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the percentage contributions provided by employers and employees towards public pensions in the member states of the European Union for the latest year for which information is available.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information available is in the table. In some member states, the contributions for retirement pensions and survivors benefits are included in a general contribution. There are also differences between states in the measure of income/earnings to which the contribution rates apply and in the application of ceilings to contribution amounts. Reliable and detailed information on the precise calculation of contributions is not readily available.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if benefit paid to victims of motor

  EU—contributions towards pensions

  Employer

  Employee

  Ceiling

  Benefits covered

  Austria1

  12.55 per cent.

  10.25 per cent.

  Yes

  Old age, survivors

  Belgium

  8.86 per cent.

  7.5 per cent.

  No

  Old age, survivors

  Denmark

  National pension: nil (tax financed) Supplementary pension: fixed rate contribution ⅔

  National pension: nil (tax financed) Supplementary pension: fixed rate contribution ⅓

  Not applicable

  Old age, survivors

  Finland1

  Basic pension: private sector: 2.4 per cent. Of payroll public sector: 3.95 per cent. Of payroll Employment pension: 15.2 per cent. (average)

  Basic pension 1.8 per cent. Employment pension: 3.0 per cent. (average)

  Yes

  Old age, survivors, invalidity

  France

  8.2 per cent, (plus additional contribution for the old age solidarity scheme)

  6.55 per cent, (plus additional contribution for the old age solidarity scheme

  Yes

  Old age

  Germany

  9.6 per cent.

  9.6 per cent.

  Yes

  Old age, survivors, invalidity

  Greece

  13.33 per cent.

  6.67 per cent.

  Only for those insured before 31.12.92

  Old age, survivors, invalidity

  Ireland

  9.0 per cent, up to IR£173 per week 12.2 per cent. On all earnings where annual income is in excess of IR£9,000

  5.5 per cent.

  Yes

  Old age, survivors, invalidity, sickness, maternity, employment injuries, occupational diseases unemployment

  Italy

  18.93 per cent.

  8.34 per cent.

  No

  Old age, survivors, invalidity

  Luxembourg

  8.0 per cent.

  8.0 per cent.

  Yes

  Old age, survivors, invalidity

  Netherlands

  Nil

  15.85 per cent.

  Yes

  Old age, survivors

  306
  accidents or industrial accident, illness or disease is recovered when their compensation award was not for income maintenance.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Yes.

  Ian Greer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many items he has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.

  Mr. Hague
  One, item has been received by Ministers in this Department, during the week commencing 6 February 1995.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount of unemployment benefit claimed in each of the past five years in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  307

  EU— contributions towards pensions

  Employer

  Employee

  Ceiling

  Benefits covered

  Portugal

  24 per cent.

  11 per cent.

  No

  Old age, survivors, sickness, maternity, invalidity, unemployment, family

  Spain

  24.4 per cent.

  4.9 per cent.

  Yes

  Old age, survivors, survivors, sickness, invalidity, family benefits

  Sweden1

  Basic pension: 7.45 per cent. Supplementary pension: 13 per cent.

  Nil

  No

  Old age, survivors, invalidity

  UK

  No contributions for weekly earnings below £57; otherwise: 3.6 per cent., 5.6 per cent., 7.6 per cent. or 10.2 per cent., depending on level of earnings

  Rates are reduced by 3 per cent. if employee is contracted out of state earnings-related pension No contributions for weekly earnings below £57; otherwise: 2 per cent. of £57 plus 10 per cent. Rates are reduced by 1.8 per cent. if employee is contracted out of state earnings-related pension

  Employees only

  Old age, survivors, sickness, maternity, invalidity, unemployment

  Sources:

  Social Protection in the Member States of the Union—MISSOC 1994

  1Comparative tables of social security schemes—Council of Europe 1992

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food when he expects to make a decision on the National Rivers Authority's proposed byelaw changes to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975.

  Mr. Jack
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the new National Rivers Authority byelaws intended to rationalise the rules on the close season for fishing for coarse fish. I hope to be able to announce a decision on these in the near future.

  Milk Marque
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will conduct an investigation into the sales overseas by Milk Marque during December at discount prices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  No. Milk Marque's pricing policy is a commercial matter for the company itself. It is for the competition authorities to investigate any complaints.

  Mink and Arctic Fox
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions in the past three years his inspectors have supervised, examined or monitored the slaughter of factory farm mink and Arctic fox; and by what method killings were carried out.

  Mrs. Browning
  In the last three years officers of the State Veterinary Service have monitored the slaughter of Arctic fox on one occasion and of farmed mink on 11 occasions. The method of slaughter used for the Arctic fox was by lethal injection. The methods used for the 308
  farmed mink were exposure to CO and CO2, and by lethal injection.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if mink or Arctic fox are still present at premises at Brooksbank avenue, Scholemoor, Bradford.

  Mrs. Browning
  When last visited by the State Veterinary Service in November 1994 no mink or Arctic fox were found on these premises.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken to improve the welfare of mink and Arctic fox kept at factory farms since the Farm Animal Welfare Council report of April 1989.

  Mrs. Browning
  The welfare of animals farmed for their fur is protected by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, which makes it an offence to cause them unnecessary pain or distress. Fur farms are subject to annual visits from officers of the State Veterinary Service, who will check that this legislation is being complied with. We are currently consulting interested organisations on additional advice received from the Farm Animal Welfare Council in 1994.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licences were issued for mink factory farms for each county of England and Wales in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Browning
  No licences have been issued in Wales in the last five years. The numbers of licences issued in England are as follows:
  309

  Number of Licences issued in England during the last five years1

  County

  1 April 1990–31 March 1991

  1 April 1991–31 March 1992

  1 April 1992–31 March 1993

  1 April 1993–31 March 1994

  1 April 1994–31 January 1995

  Cheshire

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  Dorset

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Humberside

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Lancashire

  9

  9

  9

  4

  4

  Norfolk

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Northumberland

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South Yorkshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Suffolk

  3

  3

  2

  2

  1

  West Yorkshire

  4

  —

  2

  1

  1

  Total

  26

  19

  20

  12

  12

  1 The date of issue of a licence does not necessarily correspond with the date on which the licence comes into effect.

  Ian Greer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many items he has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None.

  Agri-Environment Regulations
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to meet the EEC Agri-Environment Regulations; and what funds have been made available for their implementation.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 7 February 1995]Over the last year we have launched in England six new environmentally sensitive areas, new payments to promote public access in ESA, a habitat scheme, 22 new nitrate sensitive areas, an organic aid scheme and a countryside access scheme. We plan to launch a moorland scheme shortly. These are additional to the 16 existing ESA, the 10 pilot NSAs and the countryside stewardship scheme, which also form part of the agri-environmental programme for England. Expenditure on all these schemes is planned to rise to £75 million in England by 1996–97. In addition, there are separate agri-environment programmes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has of the connection between pesticide exposure and neurological and other diseases.

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 2 February 1995]The use of pesticides is closely regulated and monitored. There are no proven links between the use of pesticides, in accordance with their statutory conditions of approval, and neurological and other diseases. However, were any evidence of such links to emerge, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides would be consulted and Ministers would take any necessary action as a matter of urgency.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the severance payments 310
  made to special advisers in each of the last five years indicating (a) the amount and (b) the date.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 1 February 1995]I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 6 February 1995,Official Report, column 69.

EDUCATION

  School Meals
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received about the call to restore nutritional standards for school meals; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In the last two years, the Department has received 12 written representations on the matter. The Government will be drawing up voluntary nutritional guidance for school meals providers as part of the programme to achieve the targets set in "The Health of the Nation" strategy. I hope that this guidance will be published in the summer.

  School Suspensions and Exclusions
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children were(a) suspended temporarily and (b) excluded permanently from secondary schools in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on permanent exclusions from maintained schools in England was collected by the Department over a two-year period, starting with the summer term 1990, under the national exclusions reporting system. In England, 2,910 permanent exclusions were reported in year one and 3,833 in year two. Figures for temporary exclusions were not collected.

  Ian Greer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many items she has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has received no items from Ian Greer Associates in the last month. Her three ministerial colleagues have received invitations to a social event, which have been declined.
  311

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Gas (Standing Charges)
  1. Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trace if he will discuss with the Gas Consumer Council the benefits of abolishing standing charges to customers on low incomes.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  British Gas's standing charges are a matter for the company and Ofgas. The tariff formula, agreed by Ofgas, limits the prices which British Gas can charge to tariff customers.

  Gas Care Services
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will meet the Gas Consumer Council to discuss the future of services to gas customers who have disabilities.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  British Gas has made it clear that it will not cut the services it offers to the elderly or disabled or introduce charges for such services. The forthcoming Gas Bill will provide that all suppliers make special services available to these groups of customers.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will meet the chairman of British Gas to discuss the future of services to gas customers who have disabilities.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will meet the Gas Regulator to discuss the future of services to gas customers who have disabilities.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Members to the oral answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown).

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he is next due to meet his EU counterparts at the Council of Ministers; and what will be on the agenda.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My right hon. and noble Friend Earl Ferrers, Minister for Small Firms and Consumer Affairs, will attend the Consumer Council on 30 March. The agenda has not yet been fixed.

  Engineering
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to promote United Kingdom engineering.

  Mr. Needham
  Under the title "Action for Engineering" my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has set up an industry—led steering group and five task forces with the remit to increase substantially the influence, involvement and achievements of professional engineers and technicians for the benefit of British industry. This Department also continues to promote innovation, industrially relevant research and development and world-class engineering education and training.
  312

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many inward investment projects were announced during 1994.

  Mr. Heseltine
  According to figures notified to my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau for the financial year 1993–94, there were 427 decisions by foreign companies to invest in the United Kingdom.

  Figures for the financial year 1994–95 will be available in June.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to propose further measures for deregulation.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Deregulation measures are announced as and when the opportunity arises. For example, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently announced that we intend to liberalise the legislation on Sunday licensing. We have now brought into force the great majority of deregulation measures in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. A range of further measures are currently the subject of consultation and consideration and will be announced over the next few months.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what annual target he has set for his Department with regard to the deregulation of existing rules and regulations; and if he will make a statement as to what progress he has made to reach his target in the current year.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Deregulation targets for the year to 31 March 1995 were published as part of MINIS 94 last July. Progress against these targets will be published in May following completion of MINIS 95.

  Business Link
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to publicise Business Link.

  Mr. Heseltine
  A major national campaign to develop awareness of business link and to support Business Links local activity is being developed. This will begin when the majority of Business Links are in place.

  The campaign will have three phases: first, an editorial and advertising campaign beginning this April; secondly, a national launch of the Business Link network this autumn, by which time almost 200 Business Links should be open; and, thirdly, highly targeted promotion activity from the end of this year, aimed at small firms.

  Manufacturing Exports
  Hendry
  26. Mr. To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the latest information he has on the level of manufacturing exports; and what was the corresponding figure for the previous year.

  Mr. Needham
  Manufacturing exports over the three months to October 1994 amounted to £29 billion, 12 per cent. higher than in the same period of 1993.
  313

  British Coal Property
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the head of British Coal Property to discuss its future activity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle: Ministerial colleagues and I have had no meetings with the head of British Coal Property. However we meet senior British Coal staff regularly to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Mrs. Adams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will meet the gas regulator to discuss the future of services to gas customers who are blind.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown).

  Car Industry
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new measures his Department is considering to help the car industry in 1995; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Last May's White Paper "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win" identified a wide range of factors critical to the United Kingdom's international competitiveness. We are reviewing with the car industry the importance of each of these to its own performance and aim to agree, during 1995, a joint programme for accelerating the recovery that is already under way in this key sector.

  Postal Services, Rochdale
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent meetings he has held with Post Office representatives relating to postal services in Rochdale.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None. The provision of postal services in a specific locality is the operational responsibility of Post Office management.

  Oil Industry
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on prospects for the United Kingdom oil fabrication sector.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Most of the oil and gas discoveries now being developed need small platforms, floating production systems or sub-sea facilities. Demand for large-scale fabrication work has fallen and we do not expect it to increase significantly in the near future.

  Gas Supply
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress he is making with his plans to introduce competition in the supply of gas.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I expect shortly to bring forward a Bill to introduce further competition in the supply of gas. On 24 January I issued a consultation document with the Director General of Gas Supply, inviting views on the choice of areas for the initial phase of competition which would be introduced from 1996–98, subject to parliamentary approval of the Bill. A copy of this consultation document has been sent to all right hon. and hon. Members.
  314

  British Rail Engineering
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what level of assistance his Department has given British Rail Engineering Ltd. since 1990.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The company, now ABB Vehicles Ltd, has received Government assistance towards its export and research and development efforts.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet representatives of the small firms sector to discuss the abolition of the audit requirements.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have no such plans at present. My Department is in touch with a wide range of interested parties to see how the changes we introduced last August are beginning to operate. We will review the position with those concerned once the efforts of those changes are clear and will, of course, consult widely on any further proposals.

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the current agreement for green ticket payments to Electricté de France for electricity supply via the cross-channel interconnector concludes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government are considering the future of the fossil fuel levy and the associated arrangements, including non-leviable status, in respect of nuclear generation as part of the nuclear review, and I cannot prejudge the outcome.

  British Companies
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the relative size of the largest British companies, by market capitalisation, compared with the largest companies in other EU countries.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  According to the Financial Times FT500 which appeared in the FT of 20 January, 40 of the top 100 EU companies ranked by market capitalisation were United Kingdom-registered, including three that are Anglo-Dutch.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many civil servants since 4 May 1979 have left the Export Credits Guarantee Department and within two years joined companies engaged in contracts with the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Needham
  Such information is not held by ECGD and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list in order of pound sterling value the 10 principal product imports to the United Kingdom from Indonesia;
  315
  (2) if he will list in order of pound sterling volumes the 10 principal United Kingdom product exports to Indonesia.

  Mr. Needham
  The available information is published in Central Statistical Office business monitor MM20 "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom with countries outside the European Community", available in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each year since 1979 the extent of Export Credits Guarantee Department cover, and the extent of claims paid relating to trade with Indonesia.

  Mr. Needham
  The figures for business and claims paid in respect of export credits for capital goods and projects to Indonesia are set out in the table:

  Year

  Business

  Claims paid

  £ million

  £ million

  1980–81

  9

  0.5

  1981–82

  150

  0.8

  1982–83

  566

  1.5

  1983–84

  301

  2.1

  1984–85

  249

  2.3

  1985–86

  140

  17.1

  1986–87

  73

  7.1

  1987–88

  48

  6.3

  1988–89

  67

  4.8

  1989–90

  52

  4.3

  1990–91

  150

  3.4

  1991–92

  124

  1.6

  1992–93

  450

  0

  1993–94

  100

  0

  Reliable comparable data are not available prior to 1980–81.

  ECGD total capital goods and project business experience—(£ million) for specific markets requested.

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Brazil

  37

  49

  459

  162

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  0

  0

  0

  45

  Chile

  3

  0

  1

  13

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  13

  0

  10

  0

  Libya

  0

  70

  40

  4

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Malta

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sudan

  0

  0

  15

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tunisia

  0

  11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20

  0

  13

  0

  Yemen

  0

  11

  1

  0

  11

  4

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  ECGD defence business (£ million) for specific markets requested.

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Brazil

  0

  0

  36

  111

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  45

  Chile

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  0

  Libya

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Malta

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sudan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tunisia

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Yemen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received regarding the review of fire safety legislation and enforcement matters arising
  316

  Sulphur Quotas
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek a reallocation over the next two years of unused sulphur quotas from England and Wales to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The allocation of sulphur quotas between England and Wales and Northern Ireland under the United Kingdom's national plan for the implementation of the large combustion plants directive is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In common with other elements of the plan, this is kept under regular review.

  Chemical Exports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how long the group of chemicals and related products now classified as ML7 has required export licences.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Heading ML7 covering toxicological agents, noxious chemicals, tear gas and related equipment, specially designed components and software was introduced into the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1985. Subsequent orders have extended and clarified the items subject to export control under this heading. Prior to 1985 a number of specified noxious chemicals were subject to control.

  Export Credits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) of 25 January,Official Report, columns 127–8, regarding export credits if he will provide similar information for (a) Brazil, (b) Sudan, (c) Libya, (d) Tunisia, (e) the Yemen, (f) Malta and (g) Chile.

  Mr. Needham
  The figures requested are shown in the tables:

  from the deregulation proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Since the review was announced on 17 January 1994,Official Report, column 381, colleagues and I have received some 3,500 representations

  317
  from various organisations and individuals about the review of fire safety legislation and enforcement. Following the publication of the review team's report for full consultation, over 460 organisations and individuals have provided detailed written comments on the recommendations in the report.

  All these comments are now being fully analysed. No decisions will be taken on making changes to the current fire safety legislation and enforcement regime until we have carefully considered all the views that have been expressed.

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the latest estimate of the loss of trade with Libya as a result of United Nations sanctions.

  Mr. Needham
  The British Government neither promote nor discourage trade with Libya. We are not able to estimate the loss of trade as a result of United Nations sanctions. However, provisional figures for 1994 showed that our visible exports decreased 28.1 per cent. to £197 million compared with £274.1 million in 1993.

  Ian Greer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many items he has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.

  Mr. Heseltine
  No items were received from Ian Greer last month.

  ICL Technical Plastics
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial assistance was given to ICL Technical Plastics, in Glasgow in sponsoring sales trips abroad; and what sum was involved.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]It is not normally the practice to disclose such details, but in view of the public interest in recent allegations about this company I am prepared to disclose that support was given in the context of an overseas trade mission to Singapore in 1978. The case papers have since been routinely destroyed, but the amount of travel grant available for Singapore at that time was £505 to help defray air travel costs.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions were held between his Department and ICL Technical Plastics in order to promote its products in the foreign market place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]There is no record of such discussions with, or support for, ICL Technical Plastics Ltd. for the sale of electro-shock equipment. Establishing whether any other discussions have taken place could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost and would in any case be a matter of commercial confidentiality. I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him of today in respect of financial assistance to the company towards participation in an overseas trade mission to Singapore in 1978.

  Electro-shock Weapons
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the manufacture and supply 318
  of (a) electro-shock weapons and (b) instruments of torture by United Kingdom companies to countries with an established record of using torture.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]The manufacture of electro-shock weapons is prohibited under the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1992 and requires the specific authority of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. My Department gives careful consideration to applications for the export of weapons. In considering such proposals special care is taken over the political and military implications of allowing consignments to go overseas. Particular attention is paid to countries with poor human rights records, where equipment might be used for internal repression. The Government deeply deprecate the export of any equipment knowingly to be used as an instrument of torture. The difficultly in this area lies in the fact that many perfectly innocuous goods may be misused for such purposes overseas and it is not practical to control the export of such items. However, if any such cases are brought to the Government's attention we shall make the strongest possible representations to those involved. If they are ignored, we will examine what steps could be taken to prevent export from taking place. When realistic, enforceable controls arc possible we can act urgently to impose them.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial assistance has been given by his Department to United Kingdom companies actively involved in the manufacture, marketing and supply of electro-shock weapons, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]I am not aware of any such companies.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received on the manufacture, marketing and supply of(a) electro-shock weapons and (b) instruments of torture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]A number of people, including right hon. and hon. Members, have written to me about the allegations in the Channel 4 television programme "Dispatches" on 11 January 1995. The companies involved have made public denials of the allegations.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on the manufacture and supply of(a) electro-shock weapons and (b) instruments of torture by United Kingdom-based companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]None.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the policy of his Department in providing financial assistance to firms involved in the manufacture, marketing or supply of electro-shock weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]I know of no such companies.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assurances are sought from United Kingdom companies active in the manufacture, marketing and supply of(a) electro-shock weapons and (b) instruments of torture that such assistance as is given to them will not

  319
  be used to facilitate trade in and support the marketing of electro-shock weapons.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]I know of no such companies.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1994,Official Report, column 301, what percentage of export credits to Indonesia in each year since 1979 have been related to defence exports.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]The percentages requested are set out in the following table:

  Year

  Percentage

  1980–81

  0

  1981–82

  36

  1982–83

  4

  1983–84

  0

  1984–85

  44

  1985–86

  59

  1986–87

  70

  1987–88

  13

  1988–89

  4

  1989–90

  0

  1990–91

  2

  1991–92

  2

  1992–93

  98

  1993–94

  6

  Reliable comparable data are not available prior to 1980–81.

  Contractors
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will identify those contracts dated since January 1990 valued at more than £1 million that have been supported by export credit guarantees, together with the country concerned and the leading United Kingdom contractor.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 7 February 1995]It has been the policy of successive Governments not to disclose details of individual contracts unless the relevant parties have agreed to this.

DEFENCE

  Royal Military Police
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances the Royal Military police central criminal records index office computers store information on the sexual orientation of civilians.

  Mr. Soames
  The Royal Military police central and criminal records intelligence office stores on its computer database information about sexual orientation in individual cases where this has given grounds for an investigation into a suspected offence. The database includes information about investigations of former service personnel suspected of committing an offence while serving in the armed forces and of UK-based civilians and dependants suspected of committing an offence who, while serving overseas, were subject to the Army Act 1955.
  320

  Porton Down
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost of running the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down in each of the last five years; what is the planned expenditure for each of the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment Porton Down, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Derek Fatchett, dated 6 February 1995:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what has been the total cost of running the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down in each of the last five years; what is the planned expenditure for each of the next three 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. In providing the gross cash budgets for CBDE Porton Down over the past five years, it is important to recognise that there have been significant changes in accounting and financial practices.

  a. From 1990/91 onwards, the figures include works and property management costs as MOD untied from PSA on 1 April 1990.

  b. From 1 April 1991, CBDE became a Defence Agency under the Next Steps programme and our annual accounts are in accruals format to a Treasury Accounts Direction.

  c. From 1 April 1991 some expenditure previously control:led centrally was desegregated to CBDE causing the gross cash budget to increase.

  Consequently the figures provided for 1989/90 and 1990/91 are not directly comparable with those in the published Annual Reports because of the changes in the accounting and financial procedures.

  3. The gross cash budgets for CBDE in each of the last five years at 1994/95 price levels was as follows:

  Year

  Gross cash budgets £ million

  1989–90

  23.4

  1990–91

  26.7

  1991–92

  33.4

  1992–93

  35.0

  1993–94

  34.2

  The apparent increase in cash budget is primarily due to the changes in accounting and financial procedures resulting in the inclusion of the works and property management costs which vary from year to year depending on the works programme. In addition since becoming an Agency CBDE has successfully won contracts from outside the MOD thereby increasing the gross cash budget.

  4. The intention is that from 1 April 1995 CBDE Porton Down will become part of the proposed new Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and operate on a trading fund. From this date, CBDE will no longer receive direct vote funding. Its level of expenditure will therefore be determined by the income which it attracts from a number of MOD budget holders. It is consequently not possible to make a definitive statement about the expenditure for the next three years, although it is not expected on current plains to change significantly.

  Land Mines
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the research conducted by his Department on the current need for anti-personnel mines by United Kingdom forces.
  321
  Mr. Freeman
  The need for, and role of, anti-personnel land mines is not assessed separately from our overall military strategy, and can be considered only in that broader context. It is therefore not possible to release information on the military utility of a particular weapon system without revealing details of wider operational capability and tactics. Such information is classified.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will commission a report on the military utility of anti-personnel mines for United Kingdom armed forces within the context of the United Kingdom's military strategy.

  Mr. Freeman
  Anti-personnel land mines continue to have an important defensive role. Our requirement for such equipment will continue to be kept under review.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the United Kingdom's policy on anti-personnel mines is based on contemporary analysis of the need of these weapons by United Kingdom forces.

  Mr. Freeman
  The United Kingdom's policy on anti-personnel land mines is based on a number of factors, including not only an analysis of military requirements but a desire to avoid the indiscriminate and irresponsible use of these weapons.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conclusions for United Kingdom policy he has drawn from the report published by the United States Department of Defence in June 1994 entitled "The Military Utility of Landmines: Implications for Arms Control"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have not made an assessment of this report, which I understand was prepared by the Institute for Defence Studies.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give an estimate of the number of land mines on and around the former confrontation lines between the Bosnian Croats and Muslims; what progress has been made in clearing those mines; and if British personnel are involved in this task.

  Mr. Soames
  Estimates have placed the figure for mines on and around the former confrontation lines as high as 800,000. The mine clearance programme continues and, although this has been successful in clearing many roads and areas in central Bosnia, a significant proportion of mines remain to be dealt with. BRITFOR explosive ordnance disposal personnel continue to make an important contribution to the programme, liaising with Bosnian Muslim and Croatian troops and monitoring clearance operations to ensure that all the mines are lifted and destroyed.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the number of anti-personnel mines still active in the Falkland Islands; and what plans exist for their removal.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 7 February 1995:]A total of some 30,000 Argentine mines are believed to remain in the Falkland Islands. We do not have precise details of the numbers of individual types of mine, nor their current condition. Work is progressing on the offer by Argentina to pay a third party to clear the minefields in the Falklands.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) people and (b) animals have been injured by anti-personnel land mines in the Falkland
  322
  Islands and other territories formerly occupied by Argentinian forces.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 7 February 1995]Four British service men were seriously wounded in the course of operations to clear minefields in the Falklands Islands immediately after the conflict. No personnel have been injured by mines in other United Kingdom territory in the South Atlantic formerly occupied by Argentine forces. No records are kept of animals injured by mines in the Falkland Islands.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of armed forces personnel sent to Indonesia to support Rapier missile sales.

  Mr. Freeman
  Details of any training assistance to other countries, including costs, are not normally disclosed as they are regarded as confidential between Governments.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the involvement of armed forces personnel in training members of the Indonesian armed forces or security forces in counter-insurgency techniques since 4 May 1979.

  Mr. Soames
  Details of any training assistance to other countries are not normally disclosed as they are regarded as confidential between Governments.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to his Department in each year since 1990 of supporting work with the Indonesian national police force.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has not been involved in work of this nature.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Ministers or officials in his Department have at any time since 1979 been informed of British-supplied defence equipment being used in East Timor or in its territorial waters or airspace.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has no evidence that British-supplied defence equipment has been used in East Timor.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the rank of defence attaches to the British mission in Indonesia in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Soames
  Since 1979, the defence attache to the British embassy in Indonesia has been at the rank of colonel. In addition, an assistant defence attaché with the rank of squadron leader was attached to the embassy from 1981 to 1983. The assistant defence attaché from October 1983 until February 1987 was at the rank of lieutenant colonel. He was replaced by a navaUair attaché at the rank of wing commander from July 1988 until February 1991 and at the rank of commander RN from February 1991 until February 1993, when the post lapsed.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the costs of training consultancy visits to Indonesia by British specialists working with the Indonesian police force in each year since 1990; and in each year how many consultants visited Indonesia.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has not engaged in consultancy visits of this kind.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the involvement of United Kingdom armed forces personnel in counter-insurgency activities in Indonesia or East Timor since 4 May 1979.
  323
  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom armed forces personnel have served in Indonesia in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Soames
  A defence attaché with the rank of colonel is attached to the British embassy in Jakarta with a warrant officer in support. Until 1993, a joint naval air attaché was also attached to the embassy. Details of training assistance given by the UK, including the numbers involved, are not normally disclosed as they are regarded as confidential between the Governments.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the level of military aid to Indonesia for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our practice to disclose information of this nature.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates memoranda of understanding have been signed with the Government of Indonesia since 1 January 1980.

  Mr. Freeman
  Memoranda of understanding concerning defence contracts with the Government of Indonesia were signed in September 1983, March 1984, April 1986 and November 1991.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what accommodation and facilities are available for British UNPROFOR personnel in Gorazde.

  Mr. Soames
  British UNPROFOR troops in Gorazde are accommodated in 123 portacabins which are equipped with bunk beds and camp beds and fitted with electric heaters. Troops have access to purpose built shower, toilet and washbasin facilities and the camp has its own tented kitchen facilities which are currently in the process of being replaced by a prefabricated kitchen and dining area. There are also two welfare telephones to enable troops to make calls home.

  USA Global Positioning System
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the United Kingdom has direct access to the USA global positioning system; and what agreements or treaties govern such access.

  Mr. Soames
  The United Kingdom armed forces make extensive use of the United States global positioning system. They do so under conditions set out in a memorandum of understanding first negotiated with the US Department of Defence in 1978. MOU IV signed in October 1993 provides for an extension of these arrangements into the next century.

  School and Related Fees
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which armed service officers are entitled to school and related fees for their children to be met: from the armed forces vote; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Boarding school allowance is designed to assist with the payment of school fees, and is available to all ranks of the armed forces who are serving either in the United Kingdom or overseas, providing that they meet the eligibility criteria. Service career and manpower structures and terms and conditions of service, including 324
  boarding school allowance, are however the subject of an independent review which the then Minister for the Armed Forces my right hon. Friend the Minister for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), announced on 30 March 1994, Official Report, columns 752–53.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what purpose school and related fees are paid from the armed forces vote in respect of the education of children of officers in the armed forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Boarding school allowance is provided to assist eligible service parents of all ranks in providing a stable education for their children in the face of the domestic turbulence frequently encountered in service life.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost over the past 10 years of school and related fees for the children of officers in the armed forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The total cost of school and related fees is not held by my Department. Boarding school allowance is paid up to a maximum annual limit, and service parents are expected to make a contribution of 10 per cent. to the fees. Additionally, for schools whose fees are higher than this maximum rate of BSA, parents are expected to make up any shortfall themselves. The total amounts of BSA paid for all ranks for the years in question is as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  85.00

  1986–87

  93.60

  1987–88

  106.58

  1988–89

  107.10

  1989–90

  104.51

  1990–91

  105.61

  1991–92

  115.35

  1992–93

  116.72

  1993–94

  113.61

  The total estimated expenditure for financial year 1994–1995 is £104 million.

  Armed Forces (Work and Activities)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records are kept of the work and activities undertaken by members of the armed forces during the hours in which they are on duty.

  Mr. Soames
  The chain of command in each of the three services exists to ensure that its personnel are working effectively. Against this background, records of work carried out by service personnel are kept only in certain circumstances. These include reports of aircraft or vehicle maintenance completed; stores records of receipts and issues; and log books of various types, including aircrew log books of flying hours. In addition to this, certain records are maintained of individuals' on-the-job training.

  Horses (Insurance)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average cost per year of insuring a horse owned by his Department which is involved in(a) hunting, (b) ceremonial duties and (c) neither (a) nor (b).
  325
  Mr. Soames
  Horses owned by my Department are not insured for hunting, ceremonial duty or any other official use.

  Hunting
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel from Britannia Naval college in Devon took part in hunts with the Britannia Beagles during duty hours in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Soames
  No service personnel from the Britannia Royal Naval college have taken part in hunts during duty hours in the last three years.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many horses are owned by his Department; and how many have participated in hunts in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has an establishment of 474 horses with an average strength of around 470. Records do not separately identify hunting from other forms of recognised training, but it is estimated that some 70 horses have participated in hunts in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received relating to damage caused to property under the control of his Department by the Bicester with Whaddon Chase hunt.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no record of any representations relating to damage caused by the Bicester with Whaddon Chase hunt.

  Royal Navy Ships
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those Royal Navy ships which are in a state of(a) refit, (b) repair and (c) rest, giving the date when he expects each will return to full service.

  Mr. Freeman
  All Royal Navy vessels undergo essential repairs and maintenance as required while remaining part of the operational fleet. The following Royal Navy surface ships are, however, undergoing refit and are consequently non-operational: HM Ships Birmingham, York, Edinburgh, London, Bulldog and Orkney. We expect all of these vessels to be returned to operational service within the next year.

  We do not hold Royal Navy vessels in a state of rest. Some vessels are held in extended readiness, thus enabling significant running cost savings to be achieved whilst maintaining assets against the eventuality of adverse changes in the international situation. At present, HMS Ark Royal and HMS Intrepid are in extended readiness. For operational reasons, it is not our policy to discuss when these vessels will be returned to operational service.

  Type 23 Frigates
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place an order for the next batch of type 23 frigates.

  Mr. Freeman
  Invitations to tender for a further batch of up to three type 23 frigates were issued in November 1994. Subject to a successful outcome of the current 326
  competition, we hope to be in a position to place an order around the end of the year.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many applications from members of his Department to join defence or defence-related companies have been approved(a) subject to a waiting period and (b) with a ban on the involvement of the applicant in a specific project or area of work on behalf of the employer in the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Freeman
  Over the last 10 years, 4,422 business appointment applications have been approved. Of these, 328 were subject to a waiting period and 242 were subject to a ban on the involvement of the applicant in a specific project or area of work. Many staff submitted multiple applications of a speculative nature, and it is not known how many appointments were taken up.

  Departmental Houses (Sales)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number and location of his Department's houses sold off on the last two years; if he will give(a) the name of the company which bought the houses, (b) the amount received by his Department for the sale of each house; and (c) what monitoring is carried on of the price at which the houses were subsequently sold on by estate agents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  In the last two years from 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1994 my Department sold the following dwellings:

  Number

  Location

  Purchaser

  67

  Aberdeen

  Aberdeen University

  19

  Abingdon

  Individual Purchasers

  3

  Abingdon

  Individual Purchasers

  24

  Alderton

  Individual Purchasers

  30

  Andover

  Individual Purchasers

  19

  Armagh

  Individual Purchasers

  1

  Aultbea

  Individual Purchaser

  30

  Barton Stacey

  Individual Purchasers

  6

  Barton Stacey

  Griffin and Tabb Ltd.

  18

  Basingstoke

  Individual Purchaser

  1

  Bath

  Individual Purchasers

  48

  Baughurst

  Individual Purchasers

  3

  Bedford

  Individual Purchasers

  7

  Beith

  Individual Purchasers

  3

  Benbecula

  Individual Purchasers

  1

  Benbecula

  Western Isles Island Council

  1

  Benbecula

  Highlands and Islands Fire Board

  3

  Benbecula

  Northern Joint Police Committee

  1

  Benbecula

  Property Holdings, Scotland

  73

  Biggin Hill

  Artesian Group of Companies

  1

  Boscombe Down

  Individual Purchaser

  4

  Bournemouth

  Mr. Richards

  2

  Bovington

  Individual Purchasers

  68

  Bramley

  Individual Purchasers

  12

  Bristol

  Haig Homes

  5

  Broughton Moor

  Individual Purchasers

  20

  Burghfield

  Individual Purchasers

  5

  Caerwent

  Individual Purchasers

  10

  Calcot

  Individual Purchasers

  1

  Cambridge

  Individual Purchaser

  327

  Number

  Location

  Purchaser

  32

  Campsie

  Individual Purchasers

  7

  Cardington

  Individual Purchasers

  2

  Carlisle

  Individual Purchasers

  66

  Chatham

  London and Quadrant Housing Trust

  7

  Chatham

  Individual Purchasers

  1

  Chattenden

  Individual Purchaser

  2

  Cheadle

  Individual Purchasers

  4

  Chester

  Individual Purchasers

  7

  Chester

  Northern Counties Housing Association

  1

  Cobham

  Berkeley Homes

  2

  Cold Meece

  Individual Purchasers

  15

  Colerne

  Individual Purchasers

  19

  Colerne

  O'Kane Properties

  16

  Colerne

  Tyning Properties Ltd

  3

  Colerne

  Sanctuary Spiral Housing Association

  3

  Colerne/Durrington/Hullavington

  Brecks Property Co Ltd

  Hullavington

  3

  Corsham

  Individual Purchasers

  2

  Crombie

  Individual Purchasers

  3

  Dinton/Tisbury

  Hetton Properties Ltd

  1

  Dumfries

  Individual Purchaser

  1

  Dunfermline

  Individual Purchaser

  1

  Durrington

  Individual Purchaser

  17

  Edinburgh

  Individual Purchasers

  3

  Edinburgh

  Cairn Housing Association

  2

  Ely

  Individual Purchasers

  3

  Enfield Lock

  Individual Purchasers

  4

  Enford/Compton

  Individual Purchasers

  3

  Enniskillen

  Individual Purchasers

  6

  Eskmeals

  Individual Purchasers

  2

  Ewell

  Individual Purchasers

  10

  Exmouth

  Individual Purchasers

  105

  Farnborough

  Individual Purchasers

  70

  Felixstowe

  Orwell Housing Association

  47

  Felixstowe

  Individual Purchasers

  119

  Finningley

  South Yorkshire Housing Association

  2

  Formby

  Individual Purchasers

  28

  Garelochhead

  Individual Purchasers

  24

  Gosport

  Individual Purchasers

  196

  Gosport

  Barratt London Ltd

  75

  Gosport

  Ideal Homes

  18

  Gosport

  Portsmouth Housing Association

  7

  Great Broughton

  Individual Purchasers

  1

  Halton Heath

  Individual Purchaser

  1

  Hampton Magna

  Orbit Housing Association

  2

  Hampton Magna

  Individual Purchasers

  4

  Helensburgh

  Individual Purchaser

  3

  Helston

  Individual Purchasers

  1

  Hendon

  Tambarella Properties Ltc

  1

  Hereford

  Individual Purchaser

  11

  Houndstone

  Individual Purchasers

  7

  Inverness

  Individual Purchasers

  34

  Ipswich

  Individual Purchasers

  1

  Kings Lynn

  Individual Purchaser

  6

  Kirkcudbright

  Individual Purchasers

  1

  Lee on Solent

  Individual Purchaser

  16

  Liverpool

  Individual Purchasers

  16

  Liverpool

  Liverpool Housing Trust

  6

  Lovedean

  Arundel Estates

  11

  Lovedean

  Individual Purchasers

  37

  Lovedean

  Portsmouth Housing

  Association

  10

  Lower Quinton

  Individual Purchasers

  1

  Lower Quinton

  Orbit Housing Association

  2

  Lyneham

  Individual Purchasers

  328

  Number

  Location

  Purchaser

  4

  Maidstone

  Individual Purchasers

  11

  Malvern

  Individual Purchasers

  41

  Martlesham Heath

  Haymills (Contractors) Ltd

  17

  Newark

  C S H Finance Ltd

  2

  Newark

  Individual Purchasers

  12

  Newbury

  Individual Purchasers

  1

  Northfleet

  Individual Purchaser

  12

  Nythe

  Individual Purchasers

  21

  Padstow

  C S H Finance Ltd

  19

  Plymouth

  Individual Purchasers

  170

  Plymouth

  Wallsend Estates

  26

  Plymouth

  Devon and Cornwall Housing Association

  54

  Plymouth

  Plymouth Development Corporation

  29

  Poole

  Individual Purchasers

  29

  Portadown

  Individual Purchasers

  36

  Portland

  Individual Purchasers

  66

  Portsmouth

  Portsmouth Housing Association

  3

  Portsmouth

  Individual Purchasers

  228

  Portsmouth

  Messrs Pantheon

  84

  Portsmouth

  Swaythling Housing Association

  12

  Portsmouth

  Messrs Rendle and Pringle

  1

  Quedgely

  Individual Purchaser

  6

  Reading

  Individual Purchaser

  2

  Rochdale

  Individual Purchaser

  56

  Rosyth

  Individual Purchasers

  16

  Saxa Vord

  Shetland Islands Council

  1

  Sevenoaks

  Individual Purchaser

  24

  Shawbury

  Bromford Corinthian Housing Association

  8

  Shawbury

  Beth Johnson Housing Association

  22

  Shawbury

  Individual Purchasers

  14

  Shoeburyness

  Individual Purchasers

  42

  Shotley Gate

  Hodge and Co

  24

  Shotley Gate

  Haymills (Contractors) Ltd

  52

  Shotley Gate

  Individual Purchasers

  3

  Small Dole

  Individual Purchasers

  1

  Southwater

  Individual Purchaser

  24

  Stafford

  Individual Purchasers

  5

  Stockton Heath

  Individual Purchasers

  1

  Stornoway

  Individual Purchaser

  3

  Strood

  Individual Purchasers

  2

  Strood

  V Perry

  33

  Tadley

  Individual Purchasers

  13

  Tandragee

  Individual Purchasers

  1

  Tangmere

  Individual Purchaser

  1

  Thetford

  Individual Purchaser

  26

  Thurso

  Caithness District Council

  38

  Thurso

  Individual Purchasers

  4

  Tidworth

  Individual Purchasers

  1

  Tisbury

  Individual Purchaser

  1

  Waltham Abbey

  Individual Purchaser

  1

  Warton

  Individual Purchaser

  1

  Welford

  Individual Purchaser

  5

  Whitby

  Individual Purchasers

  1

  Woodford Green

  Individual Purchaser

  30

  Woolwich

  Giftboat Properties

  8

  Woolwich

  N H P Homes Ltd

  80

  Woolwich

  Brickstern Ltd

  2

  Wythenshaw

  Individual Purchasers

  Bulk sales are carried out by tender or at the district valuer's valuation to ensure that we receive a full market price.Individual purchasers include service personnel who have bought through the services' discount scheme,
  329
  tenants of MOD civilian houses who have bought at a discount and individuals who have bought on the open market through the estate agents. The amount received from sales is commercial in confidence and there are no measures in hand to monitor the price at which houses are subsequently sold on by estate agents.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel houses have been sold by his Department in each of the last five years; and how much money was received for the sales in each of these years.

  Mr. Soames
  The number of service married quarters sold and the capital receipts from these sales in each of the past five financial years was as follows:

  Financial year

  Total sold

  Receipts £million

  1989–90

  1,380

  46

  1990–91

  2,121

  44

  1991–92

  1,306

  51

  1992–93

  857

  33

  1993–94

  1,254

  24

  Receipts do not always relate directly to the number of houses sold in a particular year because of stage payments and accounting procedures.

  Type 42 Destroyers
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's current policy towards the Horizon class replacement for type 42 destroyers.

  Mr. Freeman
  We remain committed to Project Horizon. A memorandum of understanding for the joint development of this project was signed by the three partner nations, Britain, France and Italy, in July of last year. We continue to plan to replace the Royal Navy's type 42 destroyers with the common new generation frigate early in the next century.

  Procurement project

  Original estimated cost £

  Current estimated cost £

  Original planned in-service date

  Current in-service date

  Trident

  15.1 billion

  11.6 billion

  December 1994

  2December 1994

  EF 20001

  12.7 billion

  14.9 billion

  December 1998

  December 2000

  Common New Generation Frigate (project horizon)

  4.5 —5 billion

  4.5 —5 billion

  December 2002

  3n/a

  EH101 Merlin1

  3.8 billion

  3.9 billion

  December 1993

  December 1998

  Bowman1

  2.1 billion

  1.9 billion

  December 1995

  January 2000

  Challenger 24

  1.1 billion

  2.02 billion

  December 1995

  December 1995

  Spearfish

  885 million

  51.1 billion

  December 1987

  March 1994

  Asraam

  871 million

  795 million

  December 1994

  December 1998

  Tornado MLU

  6829 million

  837 million

  June 1993

  September 1998

  High Velocity Missile (HVM)7

  397 million

  411 million

  December 1990

  Mid 1995

  Notes:

  1 Previously reports in Hansard on 1 February 1995, Official Report,column 744.

  2 For first of class. ISD data for the remaining boats is classified.

  3 Date classified

  4 Costs include Challenger Armament (CHARM) 1 and 3 Programme.

  5 Excludes costs of main production order as commercially sensitive.

  6 At November 1993 reapproval of 'reduced scope' programme.

  7Tranche 1 only.
  330

  Competing for Quality Programme
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision for continuity of supply is made in the contracts awarded to private contractors as part of his Department's competing for quality programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Continuity of supply, or service, is ensured by the arrangements under which our contracts are placed. These arrangements include the use of appropriate conditions of contract, and proper planning of tendering programmes.

  Ministerial Duties
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what days he attended the House during the parliamentary week beginning 30 January.

  Mr. Soames
  Mr right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence attended the House on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of the parliamentary week beginning 30 January.

  Ian Greer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many items he has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.
  Mr. Freeman: My ministerial colleagues and I keep no records of the unsolicited mail or other items that we receive.

  I have received one social invitation from Ian Greer Associates which I have declined.

  Procurement Projects
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the 10 most expensive procurement projects currently being undertaken by his Department; what was the original estimated cost of each of these projects and their current estimated cost at today's prices; and what was the original planned in-service dates of each project together and the latest estimate of the in-service date.

  Mr. Freeman
  The 10 most expensive procurement projects currently being undertaken by the Ministry of Defence are set out below. Where data are classified or of a commercially sensitive nature this had been omitted.
  331

  Ministry of Defence Police Federation
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions he visited the Ministry of Defence Police Federation's exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall during the week beginning 30 January; which police or federation officers he met; what topics he discussed with these officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. and learned Friend did not make an official visit to the exhibition, but had the opportunity to see it when he was in the Upper Waiting Hall on Wednesday 1 February 1995. At the time, there were no MOD police or Defence Police Federation representatives present.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what independent medical audit is carried out on the assessments made of Gulf war veterans claiming to he suffering from Gulf war syndrome; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department is obviously concerned that any serving or former members of the armed forces should be worried about their health following service in the Gulf. It was for this reason that numerous appeals have been made for individuals to come forward for a thorough medical examination under our Gulf medical assessment programme. Under this programme, which has been the main focus of our investigations into the alleged Gulf War syndrome, United Kingdom Gulf veterans receive a full medical evaluation by military medical specialists. Approximately one third of the 233 veterans who have so far come forward under this programme have now been assessed and diagnosed, enabling some provisional conclusions to he drawn.

  Although there remains no scientific or medical evidence of a syndrome, the substantial statistical assurance which these investigations provide now make it appropriate for these preliminary findings to be subject to independent verification and to be publicised. consequently, the Royal College of Physicians has been approached to carry out an independent clinical audit of our assessment programme and its results to date, and it has kindly agreed to do so. It has been our intention to make public the detailed preliminary findings of the assessment programme at an appropriate stage when sufficient Gulf veterans have been examined under the MOD medical assessment programme, and I have agreed with the Surgeon General that he should do this in a letter to the British Medical Journal after 100 such assessments have been made.

  I again urge all current and former armed forces personnel with concerns about their health as a result of service in the Gulf conflict to come forward, through their normal doctors, for assessment under the programme. For those still serving I repeat my assurance that their careers will not be jeopardised as a result.

  Defence Industrial Base
  Sir John Cope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will set out the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the United Kingdom's strategic defence industrial base and its relationship to defence procurement decisions.
  332
  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 20 December 19941 Although we see our relationship with industry as principally one of customer to supplier, we fully recognise that it is an advantage to us and to the economy more generally to have a healthy, technologically capable and broad-based defence industry.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 1 February 19951 I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 6 February, by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury,Official Report, column 69.

SCOTLAND

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 20 December,Official Report, column 1055, which posts were filled as a result of the employment of executive search agencies, which executive search companies were involved in this exercise; and what were the values of the individual contracts involved.

  Mr. Lang
  Between 2 December 1993 and 30 November 1994, my Department made use of executive search agencies Goddard Kay Rogers and Associates Ltd. and Korn Ferry International. These were for appointments to Director of Human Resources and Director of Finance respectively, both within the NHS-Management Executive in Scotland. The total cost was £69,912 including VAT, as stated on 20 December 1994,Official Report, column 1055.

  In addition, although none of my agencies has used executive search agencies for search purposes, the Scottish Prison Service has used recruitment services provided by the following companies:

  Companies

  Melville Craig

  Marketing and sales manager

  NB Selection

  Five human resource managers; one senior procurement officer

  Rileys

  Ongoing campaign to recruit band C

  Search

  Prison officers. Partial cost only paid so far. Remaining costs to be paid at the successful conclusion of the campaign.

  Search

  Procurement buyer

  The cost of this work, which involves advertising arid dealing with resulting applications was £64,358.84.

  The value of individual contracts is a matter for the companies themselves and is regarded as commercial in confidence.
  333

  Agricultural Census
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the rate of response in each of the past five years in respect of the June agricultural census forms; and when was the last prosecution for failure to return the agricultural census forms.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The response rate for the main June census was as follows:

  1990 per cent.

  1991 per cent.

  1992 per cent.

  1993 per cent.

  1994 per cent.

  93

  93

  90

  92

  92

  The last year in which non-respondents were prosecuted for failure to return a June agricultural census form was 1992.

  Gourock Ropeworks
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed the present circumstances surrounding the Gourock ropeworks in Port Glasgow with Historic Scotland and the Inverclyde district council; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Historic Scotland is an executive agency within the Scottish Office and reports to my right hon. Friend on built heritage matters.

  My right hon. Friend has recently received a letter from Inverclyde district council conveying the council's view that the Gourock ropeworks should not be converted for residential accommodation but should he demolished. He has noted that view.

  The building is a category A listed building. Its demolition would require the granting of listed building consent, for which no application has yet been received. Historic Buildings

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those historic buildings, listed for their architectural merit in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole which have subsequently been de-listed and demolished in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The subjects of the question relate to matters undertaken by Historic Scotland. I have asked its Director and Chief Executive, Mr. Graeme Munro to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from F. J. Lawrie to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 8 February 1995:
  You tabled a Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland for written answer on 8 February seeking statistics on de-listing and demolition of listed buildings. As your Question relates to operational matters undertaken by Historic Scotland, Mr. Graeme Munro, Historic Scotland's Director and Chief Executive, has been asked to provide the information you seek. In Mr. Munro's absence, I am responding.
  I regret that we cannot answer the Question precisely as posed, since we do not keep a separate record of demolitions of listed buildings. Listed buildings may be demolished after the granting of listed building consent, but listed buildings are also lost from time to time by accident, such as through fire damage or structural failure.
  334
  The removal of demolished buildings from the statutory list would occur either through routine list maintenance or as a result of the rolling programme of national re-survey. Information on the annual number of deletions from the statutory list is only readily available from 1989; this information is as follows:

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Strathclyde

  26

  6

  7

  8

  17

  16

  Scotland

  704

  374

  123

  23

  81

  44

  Although we do not keep separate statistics to show why listed buildings have been deleted from the statutory lists, the majority of the deletions arise following re-assessment of merit under the re-survey programme.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mink Farming
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many licences were issued for mink factory farms for each county of Scotland in each of the last five years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The numbers of licensed mink farms over the past five years are as follows:

  Region

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Central

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Strathclyde

  3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Tayside

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  6

  2

  2

  1

  —

  Lochgreen Hospital
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will instruct Forth Valley health board to extend beyond 8 February the period for consultation on the board's proposal to close Lochgreen hospital;

  (2) if he will instruct Fort Valley health board to hold a public meeting as part of the consultation process on the board's proposal to close Lochgreen hospital.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The three-month public consultation on the closure of Lochgreen hospital was originally due to finish on 11 January. Forth Valley health board extended the period to finish on 8 February in response to a request from Central regional council and has no plans to extend the period further.

  The Scottish Office guidance on closure and change of use of health service premises published in June 1975 sets out the procedure which health boards must follow when proposing to close a hospital. It is a matter for the health board concerned to decide whether to hold public meetings.

  Housing
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the names of the housing associations in(a) Greenock and (b) Port Glasgow which will be allowed by Scottish Homes to bid for houses which Scottish Homes seeks to release;

  (2) what constraints have been placed upon Rankin housing association by Scottish Homes; and if he will make a statement;
  335
  (3) if the ballot papers issued to Scottish Homes tenants in Greenock and Port Glasgow will have an option for the tenants to vote (a) to remain with Scottish Homes, (b) to be transferred to (i) the Rankin housing association, (ii) the Clock housing association (iii) the James Watt housing association, (iv) the Victoria housing association (v) some other community-based housing association or (vi) the Inverclyde district council; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) which housing schemes in (a) Greenock and (b) Port Glasgow Scottish Homes is attempting to transfer to housing associations or other landlords;

  (5) what is the current value of the houses in (a) Greenock and (b) Port Glasgow that the Rankin housing association is seeking to acquire from Scottish Homes; and how much will be charged by Scottish Homes for these acquisitions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 February 1995]The information requested is a matter for Scottish Homes. I have asked its chairman, Sir James Mellon, to write to the hon. Member.

  NHS Trusts
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which hospital and related trusts have introduced elements of performance-related salaries for their employees.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 February 1995]All NHS trusts in Scotland have introduced elements of performance-related salaries for some of their staff.

  Agri-environmental Regulations
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to meet the EEC agri-environmental regulations; and what funds have been made available for their implementation.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 7 February I995]The Scottish agri-environment programme introduced under Council regulation EEC 2078/92 includes the extension of the environmentally sensitive area scheme and new schemes to encourage the conservation of heather moorland, the creation of wildlife habitats, organic farming, and informal recreation in ESAs and on set-aside land. The only scheme not yet introduced is the heather moorland scheme and this is scheduled for the 336
  spring. Expenditure on all these schemes is planned to rise to £12 million by 1996–97.

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

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 27 January 1995]In 1994, the Scottish Office and its executive agencies recruited 158 staff at a total cost of £416,000. This excludes the recruitment of casual, temporary and seasonal staff. It also excludes the cost of executive search agencies which was the subject of a separate answer on 20 December 1994,Official Report, column 1055.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out for each of the next steps agencies in his Department, whether they have acquired their own headquarters buildings and, if so, at what purchase cost or annual rental; how many support staff they have required which were not required when their operations were within his Department; how many of them published periodical journals and at what annual cost; how many have fleets of executive cars or single executive cars and at what annual cost; how many have specifically designed logos and at what cost; how many have corporate clothing and at what cost; and what is the cost of specifically designed and printed corporate stationery.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 January I995]These are matters which are delegated to agency chief executives and I have asked them to reply. Copies of their letters will be placed in the House Library.

  Registers of Scotland was a separate Government Department in its own right and the Scottish Record Office was an associated department of the Scottish Office and as such neither was part of the Scottish Office before they became executive agencies.

  When functions were transferred from the core of the Scottish Office to the agencies, so was the necessary funding; staffing levels in the Scottish Office and its agencies have decreased over the four years since the establishment of the first Executive Agency in my Department.

  The record of agencies in improving effectiveness and efficiency in government is summarised in the "Next Steps Review 1994," Cm 2750.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

Student Grants and Loans: Fraud
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action is being taken to identify fraudulent applications for student grants and loans.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, local education authorities, the Student Loans Company, the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, the Department for Education and the police are all taking action to identify and eliminate fraudulent grant applications.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Can he confirm recent reports in the press of organised widespread criminal activity, including forgery and invention of non-existent students? If they are correct, should not counter-measures be accelerated since the money lost could be used to help genuine students who are finding it difficult to make ends meet?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I can confirm that over the past year or two we have been aware that there has been a considerable increase in fraudulent applications for grants and loans. We have, along with the authorities that I mentioned in my first reply, taken substantial measures to combat this, including the recently announced grant to UCAS of £120,000 to develop further the measures that it already takes. I would of course be reluctant to go into any details as to what measures are being taken since that information could only help people to succeed where we hope they will not.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister give us a real assurance that the Student Loans Company is itself being well run and there has been no corruption there at all, because there have been allegations that it is being run appallingly badly? Can he give us any reassurance that those faults have been corrected?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as those who attended Monday's debate last week will be aware, we very much regret the administrative problems at the Student Loans Company which caused inconvenience to tens of thousands of students. I can confirm what I said then, that those problems have now been overcome and that we are putting considerable efforts into making sure that they do not re-occur. The noble Baroness mentioned the subject of fraud. As she will know, Coopers are conducting a forensic audit into certain matters which have been brought to our attention by a former employee of the Student Loans Company. I do not wish
210
before that report is made public to comment in any detail but I can say that they are matters more of principle than of amount.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend give the House some indication in figures of the extent of this abuse?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Audit Commission believes that the total of identified fraud is about £2.3 million. It is inevitable that there will be some unidentified fraud but given the efforts we are making we do not believe that that is particularly large.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, how many applications are found to be fraudulent?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord the figures for the Student Loans Company. In 1993–94 there were 67 proven cases of fraud and in 1994–95 to date there have been 41 cases.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, what assurance can the Minister give the House that the £120,000 over two years given to UCAS to set up computerised tracking devices is going to be enough to crack this problem in two years? If the answer is that he cannot be certain, will he now give us a commitment that appropriate support to UCAS will continue until this fraud is eliminated; and can he further confirm that universities will not be put to additional expense in solving this problem which is none of their making?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, of course I cannot give the detailed confirmation that the noble Lord asks for. However, I can say that we treat the problem extremely seriously and will do all that is reasonably in our power to eliminate it.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, my noble friend referred to proven cases. Can he say whether there have been any prosecutions and with what result?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am afraid I do not have the information my noble friend asks for, but I shall write to him.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend remind the House what percentage of total student grant applications are fraudulent?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the answer is something less than a tenth of 1 per cent.

Heart Disease: Treatment
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many people in the United Kingdom are affected by heart failure every year; and what initiatives are in progress to improve its identification and treatment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the information is not available in the form

211
requested, but in 1992–93 there were 660,000 admissions to NHS hospitals for all forms of heart disease. Initiatives include Health of the Nation targets to prevent heart disease, reducing waiting times for treatment, issuing guidance to health authorities and funding initiatives on training, audit and information systems.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the initiative of my local national health hospital in Birmingham, the Selly Oak Hospital, which has set up a one-day examination programme for GP patients? The patients go through the whole process of testing for heart failure, including an echocardiogram. Is she aware that that has saved the hospital a considerable amount of money? Will she look at that example to see whether national guidelines can be drawn from it to the benefit of patients and the health service generally?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, I shall certainly do what the noble Baroness requests. Clinical guidelines are currently being drawn up by a joint audit committee of the Royal College of Physicians and the British Cardiac Society. I would expect the committee to take that example on board. I shall draw it to its attention in case it has not.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if we are to reduce the scourge of heart disease in terms of both death and disability in this country, early detection of any tendency to the disease is of the utmost importance? In that connection, has she considered, or will she consider, the possibility of an increased role for the technique of nuclear magnetic resonance scans as a means of identifying such tendencies in a non-invasive way? Will she also consider the possible use of mobile units which could go round the country to different hospitals and reduce the enormous capital expenditure involved in introducing such scanning units hospital by hospital?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. That is a very good suggestion. I know that mobile units in other spheres, such as scanning for breast cancer, have been very valuable. As to early detection and prevention, as Valentine's Day is less than a week away it is important that your Lordships should look after your hearts, even if you do not wish to give them away.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the black spots with a high ratio of heart disease are all to be found in inner city areas in cities such as Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and Liverpool? As the figures in those areas are still frightening, can she give any indication whether there is any possibility of targeting increased resources to those black spots?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, those figures are taken into account when resources are allocated to different health authorities. The noble Lord is absolutely right. The variation across the country is considerable.
212
But we are aware of that and we try to target resources. We know that lifestyles in particular are very important in this issue.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this very morning I spoke to the world famous professor of thrombosis, Professor Kakkar? Is she aware that he told me that at King's College Hospital they sometimes have to cancel operations at the last minute because the intensive care beds are taken up by victims of acts of violence such as stabbings, and therefore the heart cases have to wait? Is that not a terrible waste of talent and resources?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, this Chamber is a power house of information. I was not party to the conversations that the noble Baroness had with members of the public, but I am always willing to learn.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in view of the figure mentioned by the Minister, which illustrates the enormous size of the problem, and the point made by the noble Lord on the Bench behind her concerning the urgency of obtaining rapid diagnosis, can the noble Baroness say what priority is being given by the department to ensuring that the type of facilities at Selly Oak to which my noble friend referred are available in other parts of the country?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is up to health authorities to decide where to spend their resources in the light of the needs of their particular populations. We do not think that it is appropriate for Ministers or managers to make those decisions; it should be for clinicians to decide. The incidence of heart disease in this country is still too high, but the number of people who suffer from the disease is reducing.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Royal Brompton Hospital already has mobile units? Is it not also a fact that the best approach is prevention through the health education system? Can the Minister tell us how effective the health education programme for the prevention of heart disease has been?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes. We have set out targets in The Health of the Nation policy to reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease. We are more than meeting those targets. Increasingly health authorities are aware of effective programmes to reduce coronary heart disease and are investing in them.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to congratulate Britain's heart surgeons on the remarkable job they do throughout the country under difficult situations? With regard to some of the big hospitals, perhaps a small adjacent building or even an empty shop could be taken over to enable those surgeons to carry out their operations. Patients would not then have to wait too long, as they may do in a larger hospital. That idea has been put to me by a number of heart surgeons. Perhaps it could be examined by the department.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, cardio-thoracic units have to be extremely sophisticated. There are only about 41 in the country. Increasingly more and more

213
people are seeing cardiologists and we are seeking to get cardiac services into the districts. The idea of carrying out such operations in a corner shop is not very appealing.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, in asking a question, I declare that I am President of the British Heart Foundation in order to put at rest the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
Why is the incidence of heart disease in the United Kingdom among the highest, if not the highest, in the world, while the lowest in the world is, I understand, in Japan and France? Is it attributable to genetic reasons, or to dietary reasons—perhaps wine? Such incidence is a remarkable fact. Is it not worth considering that more research should be directed to the matter?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to pay a tribute to the British Heart Foundation. It is an extremely well established, progressive organisation which invests £30 million a year in research into heart disease.
I believe the reasons for coronary heart disease need further investigation. We know that they are partly to do with diet, lifestyle and whether or not people smoke. But I suspect that other factors are involved such as genetics or heredity.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that we spend a great deal of money on heart treatment and research whereas hundreds of thousands of people suffer from rheumatic and arthritic conditions, very often for many years? Should not more money be spent, not on heart surgery or cancer research, but on research and treatment which helps those living in pain every day who are suffering from orthopaedic and other problems including, I may say, deafness?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, a quarter of all deaths are caused through coronary heart disease, so it is the biggest killer in this country. That is why we put so much effort into trying to reduce it. The noble Lord is absolutely right. There is a huge number of calls on the National Health Service. There is a great deal of pain and discomfort that 'we should be tackling. But the National Health Service is, of course, limited in its resources.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the noble Baroness realise that the recognition and treatment of heart failure is a basic part of good medical training? If the situation is as my noble friend suggested, perhaps the profession may be missing some diagnoses. I am in a delicate position as a doctor. Perhaps the answer lies in postgraduate education arid medical audit, to which the noble Baroness referred and preferably not through drug representatives, who call on GPs and are very clever at persuading them that they should use the latest and most expensive form of drug for heart failure rather than the cheaper and more widely used and well tested remedies which are available and are perfectly effective for most cases. Does she agree that the real answer lies in
214
preventing the development of coronary heart disease, which is behind most cases of heart failure these days? As my noble friend suggested—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Rea: As my noble friend suggested, does the noble Baroness realise that the situation is related to social deprivation, a factor not referred to in the White Paper, The Health of the Nation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, 'I entirely agree with the noble Lord on postgraduate education. Indeed, the Royal Colleges, the General Medical Council, and others are responsible for that area.
I have to say that without the investment which the drug companies put into research this country would be a much poorer place.

Veal Calves: Protection
2.55 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I have to report to the House that owing to an error which is entirely mine, and for which I apologise, the Question that appears on the Order Paper differs materially from the one that I thought I had asked Her Majesty's Government.
The Question on the Order Paper refer; to a proposal,
"providing for the rearing of calves in narrow boxes".
My Question was intended to refer to,
"prohibiting the rearing of calves in narrow boxes".
I have already tendered my apologies to Her Majesty's Government, who must have been put to some inconvenience. I was able to tell them only about three hours ago. I apologise, too, for any inconvenience I may have caused the House.
In the hope that the House will forgive me, I beg leave to ask the following Question:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government at which meeting of the Council of Ministers in 1989 a proposal was considered prohibiting the rearing of calves in narrow boxes; and whether they will provide particulars of the votes of the Member States on the proposal".
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's apologies, which are well received, and for the correct version of the Question.
In June 1989 a proposal laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves was presented to the Council of Ministers. However, the Council did not discuss the proposal until October 1991. Although the UK opposed the directive because it dill not ban the system of veal crates, the Council recorded its agreement by a qualified majority.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply and for the Government's indulgence in the matter. Is the noble Earl aware that the Commission has a different story to tell? According to the Commission, it made a proposal in 1989 for a regulation which would have ended the rearing of calves in narrow boxes. That was blocked by France, Spain and Italy. Is the noble Earl in a position to confirm or to correct the statement made to me by the Commission?

215
Will he give the House an assurance that when the matter is discussed on 20th February at a meeting of the Agricultural Ministers in Brussels, he will this time register the United Kingdom's support for the Commission's proposal to stop the practice of rearing calves in narrow boxes, no matter how many objections come from France, Spain and Italy?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's first question, Council minutes from 1989 and 1991 are not made publicly available. We are not allowed to refer in public to the way in which other member states voted in Council. However, I can state to the House that the United Kingdom Government opposed that directive. The rules have since been changed but the change does not apply retrospectively.
In reply to the noble Lord's second question, I remind him that the agenda for the February meeting of the Council of Agricultural Ministers will specifically deal with the revision of the 1991 directive on welfare of animals during transport. That is one of the measures that my right honourable friend sought to bring to the Commission's attention.
The review of intensive production systems for calves under the EC directive has been brought forward to this year, but because of the preparation work involved, it will not be ready for discussion at the February Council meeting.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend explain how it is that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, apparently has access to information which the Government are forbidden to tell the House?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has ways with the Commission that others of us do not have. If the noble Lord received that information and it is correct, it was in fact confidential.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the belief that the basic problem in this whole question of veal crates arises from the fact that animals are regarded under European rules as agricultural goods, which presumably puts them on the same trading basis as a tractor or a bag of fertiliser? Do the Government support the suggestion that farm animals should be redefined under the Treaty of Rome as sentient beings? They would thus be recognised under European law as having the ability to suffer from pain, fear or stress.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the Government are definitely prepared to examine the proposal in advance of next year's negotiations on the treaty amendments. However, as the noble Lord will know, achieving a treaty amendment is no small matter. Therefore we need to consider most carefully the precise implications of a change in definition before pressing it.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that despite any activity in regard to Community legislation, there is nothing to stop any member state
216
bringing in its own legislation in order to abolish the rearing of calves in boxes, as we have done in this country?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the other countries of the Community persist in refusing to ban the rearing of calves in narrow crates, is there any time at all at which the Government will engage on a unilateral ban on the export of calves, and perhaps other live animals for slaughter, where the slaughtering procedures are in our view cruel and beastly?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the Government share the sentiment behind the noble Lord's question. My right honourable friend has already considered the best case which can be made out to support the legality of such measures as the noble Lord suggested. However, the conclusion was that any such measures could not be justified in law.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House why it takes a year for the fate of these unfortunate animals to be decided? Surely if anyone was really concerned about them, a discussion could be held well before that.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Viscount will tell me which animals we are talking about now.
Noble Lords: Next question!
Lord Geraint: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that those police authorities that are affected by the demonstrations at ports and airports will be able to recoup their extra financial costs?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have that information with me to provide to the noble Lord.
Noble Lords: Next Question!

Students: Bursaries
3.3 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to modify the decision to terminate the provision of bursaries for students on vocational courses in translation and interpretation.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we have no plans to do so.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. In pursuing the matter, I declare a non-pecuniary interest as chairman of council of one of the universities that is concerned. Can the Minister say on what criteria the decision was made to withdraw all the bursaries for postgraduate courses in interpreting and translating? In making that decision, was the Minister aware that the two universities that are most concerned, Bradford and Bath, have a very high

217
international reputation for the quality of the interpreters and translators that are provided, and that that in itself brings other educational business to the United Kingdom?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we are talking here about people who are already very highly qualified and who take an additional qualification to provide them with an even more highly paid career than they might otherwise have. Surely that kind of vocational education is best paid for either by the people who are to benefit directly from it or by the employers who will employ them afterwards, as would be the case in, let us say, accountancy or the law.
Lord Healey: My Lords, is it not the case that Her Majesty's Government make great use of those who are trained under these bursaries—for instance, in the Cabinet Office, GCHQ and a large number of other departments that I could mention—as do major firms in Britain, such as the BBC and the Shell oil company, and major international organisations? How can the Government justify terminating bursaries which provide men of this quality—which made Britain world-famous i n this field—when they rightly decided to finance training at a grammar school in the same skills but at a very much lower level? Is it perhaps that the Cabinet Office has decided that it is better that we do not understand foreigners and they do not understand us?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Government and industry also employ many accountants, and we do not pay for their training. These are people who are being asked to make a personal investment in their own future and who will achieve some very great rewards thereby. If the Government at any stage—or, indeed, any other organisations—found themselves short of these skills they would doubtless sponsor people on these excellent courses.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister agree with the vice-chancellor of Bradford University, who says that abolishing these bursaries will not mean that these highly talented linguists will find alternative means of funding? There is no corporate or institutional sponsorship for this type of training. Is the vice-chancellor correct? If so, where would the Minister advise these highly trained linguists to look for alternative funding arrangements?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, there is not at present much corporate sponsorship for these courses, presumably because there are plenty of people out there with these skills. If an individual wants to finance himself on one of these courses, then all that I would suggest is that he should apply for a career development loan, which would seem to fit the case very well.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the Minister seriously saying that in this country we are overloaded with people who are good at foreign languages? It is the first tune I have ever heard such a fairy-tale in this House! Do not the Government recognise that the training of graduates is of the greatest possible importance? At present there is a large increase in the number of undergraduates. Does the Minister accept that if we
218
want people of high quality we must back graduate courses? This graduate course, producing the people who take those very responsible jobs—including simultaneous translation, which is highly skilled—is exactly what we need to support.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, these are high-level vocational courses answering the specific needs of particular employers. If those employers have a need which is not being met, they will surely find ways of financing students to learn the skills that they require, as happens in many other industries. In this industry they do not appear to need to do so at present.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, at a time when educational money is viewed very stringently, the Government's decision seems to me to be both fair and sensible?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I cannot but agree with my noble friend.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister realise that he has shocked a large number of us in this House by what he said today? It is very rare that we have these great centres of excellence in this country. To turn one down like this and not appreciate its value is really very shocking indeed. I am absolutely amazed at what the Minister said.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, excellence in vocational education is not a matter for the Government to express their opinion on; it is for the employers who make use of that particular skill. If employers wish to continue to employ graduates from these courses they will doubtless find ways of sending them on them.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Dubs and the Lord Ewing of Kirkford set down for this day shall each be limited to two-and-a-half hours.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 22).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. DECLARATION AND REGISTRATION OF INTERESTS
The Committee has appointed a Sub-Committee "to consider the practice of the House in relation to financial and other interests of members, and in particular the case for a register of interests, and to make recommendations".

The membership of the Sub-Committee is:

Lord Griffiths (Chairman)

Lord Hesketh

Baroness Hilton of Eggardon

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Lord Marsh

Lord Pym

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.

2. REVIEW OF SESSION 1993–94
The Committee decided in 1988 "to give annual consideration, at the beginning of each session, to the proceedings of the House in the previous session and, where appropriate, to make a report on procedural difficulties which may have arisen" (First Report, Session 1987–88). The Committee has accordingly reviewed proceedings during Session 1993–94. As it is the Committee's practice to consider, as they arise, any matters warranting consideration by the Committee, the review has not brought to light any further matters meriting a report to the House. The Committee has accordingly concluded that the annual review should be discontinued.
3. QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWER
The Committee has considered a proposal that the time within which Questions for Written Answer should normally receive a reply should be a week, instead of a fortnight as at present. The Committee considers that the present time limit is reasonable, and recommends no change.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, as regards the matter of Written Questions of course I accept the collective wisdom of the Procedure Committee, but I wonder if your Lordships in general are content to be treated as second-class citizens. Your Lordships are receiving Answers to Written Questions within two weeks, whereas in the other place it is within one week. I cannot believe that your Lordships are any less important than those Members down the corridor. Yet, when I put the case to your Lordships' committee, it decided that in its view there was no call to shorten the period to bring it into line.
I am content to leave the matter there; but if any of your Lordships feels that there is some merit in what I have said, it would certainly assist if they were to communicate their views to the Chairman of Committees.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, when we debated on 10th January the first report of the Procedure Committee, I drew attention to the paragraph in which the committee recommended that normally only the next speaker should congratulate a maiden speaker. I suggested that the custom had arisen whereby the Minister replying to a debate was just as likely to congratulate the maiden speaker as was the speaker who followed the maiden speaker. The committee was good enough to refer again to this matter in its latest meeting. I quote from the minutes of that meeting:
"The committee agreed that it was acceptable, at the Minister's discretion, for congratulations to be offered by the Minister replying to a debate".
220
The Companion to the Standing Orders is being revised. I understand that the new Companion will shortly go to the printer. I fear that if such words are not added to the bald statement that,
"only the next speaker should normally congratulate the maiden speaker",
the pleasant habit that the Minister who replies to the debate adds his congratulations will tend to fall into disuse. That would be rather a pity and a disadvantage. I hope that at this late hour it might be avoided.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may interject a comment from the Front Bench on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. If one is winding up from the Front Bench, it is rather difficult not to congratulate one of your colleagues who has just made a maiden speech.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the three noble Lords who have spoken on this matter. Let me turn first to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg. It would not be right for me to be tempted into making comparisons between your Lordships' House and another place. It is for your Lordships to take decisions concerning their own procedures and their own matters. That is in fact precisely what happened when your Lordships decided to accept the last two reports of the Procedure Committee.
Having been good enough to attend the meeting of the Procedure Committee, the noble Lord will be aware that his proposal on this matter did not find favour with any member of the committee. The committee felt that it was better to retain the present practice, which has operated for many years. However, the noble Lord secured a signal victory on the previous occasion, when his proposal to the Procedure Committee that there should be better provision—indeed provision—for answering Questions for Written Answer during Recesses was accepted and in due course was accepted by your Lordships' House. I hope that the House will allow me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, for having brought that matter before us and for having secured that improvement in our procedures. I am sorry to have to disappoint him on the other point.
I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for having notified me beforehand that he proposed to raise the matter to which he drew attention. The Procedure Committee, as indeed did your Lordships' House when it came to debate the Procedure Committee's report on 10th January, found attractive the idea of congratulations to maiden speakers by Ministers. But it is fair to say, in summarising the discussion within the Procedure Committee, that the committee felt it better to adhere to the clear practice that it should normally be the noble Lord speaking immediately after the maiden speaker who should be left to give the congratulations of the House to the maiden speaker.
I think I am right in suggesting that it certainly would not be looked at askance if a Minister decided that he would add his congratulations. But the principal point in the mind of the Procedure Committee was that it

221
would be wrong to make an exception to the general rule, because inevitably that would invite further exceptions to it.
I have partly covered the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in what I said about ministerial replies. These are matters which, as the rule stands, breach the rule. But your Lordships tend to turn something of a blind eye to a breach of that kind, if I may say so. I hesitate to enlarge that any further, but I should be very surprised indeed if noble Lords were not to turn a blind eye should the Front Benches feel disposed on occasion to do something similar. I do not think that I can take the matter further than that. In saying that, certainly I should not dream of giving a definitive reply on behalf of the Procedure Committee itself.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I must apologise for intervening at this point. With the permission of the House, it might be useful if I raised a point now which, perhaps I may say, I thought other noble Lords might have mentioned. I should like to ask the Chairman of Committees whether he will elaborate a little on the way in which the sub-committee on the declaration and registration of Members' interests proposes to work.
A circular has already been sent round asking interested Members of this House to submit written evidence to the committee. One Member of the House has made statements that have been widely reported in the media. I gather that they were made not in a submission to the sub-committee but to the Nolan Committee. Does the sub-committee have any plans to hear oral evidence from witnesses? Does it intend to ask Members of your Lordships' House, members of the public or people who might have evidence, to give oral evidence and effectively to have hearings on the subject?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, that is a matter for the sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths. Your Lordships will be aware that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, and his sub-committee invited submissions by 10th February. I understand that the sub-committee proposes to meet on 15th February. It may be helpful if I refer to one aspect of the remit of the sub-committee; namely, to make recommendations on the practice of the House rather than to pronounce on particular allegations of breaches of the present practice. As I said at the outset, it is a matter for the sub-committee and I would not wish to venture further.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Single Regeneration Budget: Inner Cities
3.20 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs rose to call attention, in the light of the problems of inner cities, to the working of the single regeneration budget; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted that I have been asked to open this debate. In order to set the context I shall refer briefly to some of the main
222
problems in our inner cities. I then want to mention the way in which I believe the single regeneration budget operates. Finally, I want to spend most of my time stating what I believe to be the defects of the single regeneration budget. In talking about the problems of inner cities I do not intend to go through all the difficulties—it would take far too long. But it is right that I should at least mention the main problems; it is those problems which government policy ought to address and it is those problems which ought to be alleviated by the single regeneration budget.
The first problem to which I wish to refer is poverty. I possess rather more precise information about the London situation than about the country as a whole. I hope therefore that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not statistically sweep the country. Let me give a few examples.
It is estimated that there are 1 million Londoners living in poverty—that is, people on income support and low pay. A third of the children in London are apparently poor enough to receive free school meals. In some boroughs—Tower Hamlets and Hackney—half the children receive them but even in so-called wealthy Westminster, a quarter of the children are on free school meals. We see signs of homelessness all around us. There are over 30,000 families in London in temporary accommodation who have been accepted as homeless by the local boroughs. Over 13 per cent. of the homes in inner London are unfit. Since 1979 there has been a massive reduction in the building of homes by local authorities throughout the country—perhaps one of the largest of all reductions in government spending over the past 16 years. And we see people sleeping in the streets on a scale which was quite unknown to us before this Government took office.
Let me turn to unemployment, although I am sure that your Lordships will be fully aware of the tragedy and the way in which it affects people throughout the country as well as those in inner city areas, For example, since 1988 over 500,000 jobs have been lost in London. In terms of crime, between 1979 and 1994 recorded crime in London increased by 58 per cent. and violent crime increased by over 15 per cent. on last year. Almost 10 per cent. of the crimes in London are classified as violent, and that is the highest figure in England. The clear-up rate for crime is 16 per cent. in London and 26 per cent. nationally.
When one talks about the health situation in London, we find that one in seven children in London now suffer from asthma —an illness which has increased enormously in recent years. Noble Lords will be aware of the cuts in the National Health Service; the closure of Bart's and Guys hospitals; the crisis facing the London Ambulance Service, and the fact that From July to September last year over 3,700 patients had operations cancelled.
Let me turn to the disadvantages facing ethnic minorities, including refugees. Here I must declare an interest for I am associated with the Refugee Council and we are greatly concerned with, and I hope that we have a reasonable knowledge about, the situation affecting asylum-seekers and refugees. Above all, there is a sense of hopelessness in our inner cities, and all that

223
after 16 years of Conservative government when many people would say that the situation in our inner cities is worse, the differences between rich and poor being much greater than they were in 1979.
What has been done to tackle those problems? It is my assertion that the Government have attempted consistently over the past 15 or 16 years to limit spending in inner cities, especially by local authorities. I referred earlier to the virtual cessation of house-building by local authorities. We have had a series of grants, sometimes related to new structures such as urban development corporations and training and enterprise councils, though they have not had much by way of democratic accountability. Then along came the single regeneration budget. Perhaps I can express my thanks to the many people and organisations who helped me in collecting and assembling some of the material that I am using; for example, the ALA, the LGIU, the staff of the Refugee Council and many other individuals and organisations who gave me information to help in an area where hard facts are difficult to obtain.
The single regeneration budget is an assembly of 20 existing programmes or grants. I believe that five different government departments are involved in the single regeneration budget and there is now a ministerial committee on regeneration. As regards the Civil Service, 10 regional offices have been set up to steer the single regeneration budget along. The concept of partnership has been developed and much mention has been made of training and enterprise councils involving the private sector.
There are clearly some good points in all that; nobody would say that everything is bad. But it may be worth commenting that, given the number of times training and enterprise councils are mentioned, only in recent weeks South Thames Training and Enterprise Council had the receivers called in and will now be abolished—so much for the weight given by the Government to the project when the single regeneration budget was first proposed.
If one studies the proposals carefully, it seems to me, at least as regards London—I am conscious that this debate is not merely about London but is intended to cover the whole country—that the Government have actually been contorting themselves to devise ways to make up for the absence of local government covering London. That is why we have a government office for London and that is why some of the devices used to steer the single regeneration budget along seem to send a signal saying, "Oh dear, what a pity we abolished the GLC. We should not really have done that". That is the message I get.
The main thrust of what I want to say relates to what I see as the disadvantages, difficulties and defects of the single regeneration budget, of which I have quite a long list. The first is that it is a device for reducing the amount of money to be made available. Of course the arithmetic is complicated. What has been happening is that as the individual programmes expired on specific projects, the single regeneration budget took over. The SRB therefore will not start taking over all the 20 programmes in April, but merely the elements of those
224
programmes where specific projects have come to an end. There will be a phasing-in of the SRB as the others are phased out.
Nevertheless, the best estimates that one can make are that over the next five years there will be a 25 per cent. cut in real terms in the money made available under the SRB compared to that available under the 20 different grants which it is replacing. That must be seen in the context of capping of local authority expenditure. That again is a source of money which has been severely limited. My understanding is that at the present time very few local authorities will be allowed to increase their expenditure by more than 0.5 per cent; so if inflation is at 2.5 per cent., it means that there will be a cut in real terms in local government spending of 2 per cent. on top of the cuts that are coming in under the SRB.
Let me say in passing that there is an uneven distribution of money by the Government, whether through local government spending or through the SRB, and sometimes it is a distribution that is difficult to justify. Let me talk about local authorities for a moment. For example, Wandsworth is a borough that I know something about. At the moment it is receiving the lion's share of the non-needs related grant. Wandsworth—a single London borough—is receiving 12 per cent. of the national total of the non-needs related grant. That seems to be a real distortion and suggests political favours being repaid rather than needs being met.
I am reminded of the comment made to me by a councillor from a north of England local authority who said to me—this was at the time of the poll tax but the principle seems to hold good under the new arrangements—that if his city had been given the same level of support from central government as Wandsworth and Westminster received, not only would his city not have had to levy any poll tax, but they could have declared a dividend for every poll tax payer. Such are the inequalities and distortions.
Let me turn to the main thrust of my argument. My second criticism of the SRB is that it seems to have no tangible strategy. It seems to me to be a series of bids; I agree that criteria are laid down, but there seems to be no overall strategy for saying that these are the problems that need to be tackled and how it is intended to tackle them. There is a bit of a hit and miss element about it.
My third criticism is that there seems to have been a change in the balance, and that much more weight is given to economic considerations than to social needs. I am not decrying economic considerations—they are vital—but in terms of the grants that have been replaced, where there was a heavy element of looking into and supporting social needs, it seems to me that this has now changed.
The result has been that places like Bolton, Leicester, Walsall and Nottingham, which have large levels of deprivation, have received nothing under the SRB whereas Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Eastbourne, for example, have received nearly £7 million. Hardly anybody would say that Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Eastbourne are particularly notable places of deprivation.
If one looks at the situation in London, one can also be rather puzzled at the criteria that have been used. For example, why was the King's Cross scheme turned down alone among major schemes submitted? Why was every scheme from Hammersmith and Fulham rejected whereas schemes in Brent were approved? There is a very odd pattern here which does not seem to make sense in terms of the needs of areas and the problems that are being faced in inner cities.
One of the characteristics of the SRB is that private cash should be injected. Of course, where that is possible it is sensible, and I welcome it. The difficulty is that it is unrealistic to expect private cash for many social projects. Projects for ethnic minorities and refugees typify the types of schemes where it is jolly difficult to persuade the private sector to put up cash. In other types of schemes it is possible, but we have an imbalance resulting from the criteria that have been applied.
My next concern is that there is no ring fencing. Let me briefly explain. Previously there was an ethnic minority grant. That was a small sum of money which was intended to deal with the needs of ethnic minorities. That has now been subsumed into the single regeneration budget and very few ethnic minority grant projects have been supported.
However, there is one exception. Section 11 funding, relating to ethnic minority grants, now comes under two different headings. Some of it still comes from the Home Office and some falls under the single regeneration budget. There is not much logic in having the same grant available under two different headings. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that.
All this highlights not only that the Government do not have an overall strategy for inner cities, but that they do not have a strategy regarding ethnic minority communities. There seems to be an absence of commitment, for example, to target funding to support language teaching, in which Section 11 plays a fairly important part. In fact boroughs have been discouraged from bidding for Section 11-type projects. I understand that several London authorities have been told that the best chance of a successful bid lies in physical regeneration projects rather than Section 11 bids.
This is likely to lead to the dismissal of teachers, to add to the already well publicised difficulties that the Government are facing with school governors because of further cuts in local government spending. The needs in London schools are clear and the language needs are well known. For example, in Kensington and Chelsea 37 per cent. of pupils in schools have English as a second language.
Let me move to my remaining points. I am concerned about accountability. We have localised Civil Service offices—integrated regional offices—but there is not much accountability except to five government departments. I am worried about the inefficiency of the whole process as there have already been 256 losing bids, or losing partnerships, all of which took a lot of time and effort to assemble.
As to housing, the way in which the single regeneration budget is working is a major threat to the housing capital programme. For example, in 1993–94
226
£80 million was available under estate action funds for new housing schemes, but it is estimated that the single regeneration budget has reduced that to a mere £15 million.
Furthermore, there is a geographical shift in funding away from the former 57 urban priority areas, which themselves were characterised by levels of deprivation which suggested above average needs. Many refugee projects have failed, and the Refugee Council's own project failed under the ethnic minority grant heading. Finally, I am concerned that, in allocation of bids, competition has been the main criterion and not the needs of the area and the viability of the project.
We could do better. I am not arguing that the single regeneration budget cannot be made to work better—I think it can—but it will need a few changes. We must find a proper way of developing strategies for dealing with inner city problems; we need a proper and democratic way of developing local plans and strategies; there probably needs to be some form of ring fencing of the most important areas if setting priorities alone is not sufficient; and the budget needs to be concentrated on high need areas.
As I mentioned earlier, I am not saying that all is wrong with the SRB. Perhaps it is better to have one scheme rather than 20, but there are a number of major defects. There have been some bitter disappointments in inner city areas; some important schemes have failed; and needs which were met in the past are no longer being met.
With some fast movement the Government could salvage something. They could modify pretty radically the SRB, and then we would have the beginnings of a little more help for inner cities; otherwise There is gloom and doom in our inner city areas, and it is the Government's fault. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the single regeneration budget was designed to bring together the 20 programmes of six agencies which previously had all been tackling the disadvantage of urban decay within the remits of their own organisation. As a result of bringing all these budgets together into the single regeneration budget, all agencies have come together to work in partnership.
Since people in disadvantaged and run-down areas frequently experience multiple problems, which do not take into account agency functions, the rationale behind all agencies working together is beyond dispute. The SRB from that point of view must be a good thing. Whether the competitive nature of the S RB is also a good thing, is more debatable. Competition may of course lead—and often does—to excellence in all spheres of life. But sometimes it may be a superficial excellence of presentation, or in this particular activity of regeneration it may overlook relative needs between different areas. We now have the 1991 census results and analysis, and these ought to have an important influence on regeneration priorities.

227
The SRB is also welcome because it puts local government in a central role, whenever that is appropriate, while leaving the freedom for other agencies to lead where circumstances favour that. The time span of the SRB programme, up to seven years, is potentially valuable, enabling hard core problems to be tackled over whatever period is needed. However, there is still only certainty in funding for year one projects, and this needs to be reconsidered.
The geographical spread of the SRB over the whole of England is in many ways a benefit compared with the selectivity of the former Urban Programme and City Challenge. Poverty and disadvantage are not exclusive to large urban areas; they exist for many individuals in small towns and rural areas. But the more widely the jam is spread, the thinner it has to be, and the overriding weakness of the SRB in 1995 and immediately following years is the low level of resource. Although £1.5 billion is being made available for regeneration, there is only £125 million in 1995–96 of uncommitted money available nationally for new initiatives.
What this means—if we take what is for me a local example such as Middlesbrough—is that the approved SRB in 1995–96 is only £440,000. Three years ago this borough, with extensive areas of disadvantage and urban dereliction, was receiving £7.5 million per annum from City Challenge and £5 million from the Urban Programme. The Urban Programme has gone, City Challenge will be gone in two years, and the funding of the Teesside Development Corporation—now at last starting to make an impact on Middlesbrough—will also he gone in two or three years. I do not see Middlesbrough's problems being solved in that time. The 16 per cent. unemployment figure will not disappear that quickly. The running down of City Challenge and the development corporations must not be taken as an excuse for reducing expenditure on regeneration. Those resources should be rechannelled into a greatly expanded SRB. By then the partnerships will have had experience of working together on regeneration, and it is to be hoped that some of the snags and irritations will have been ironed out. There are already stories of excessive bureaucratic requirements being imposed by central government through regional offices. Great wads of forms have to be completed, and expenditure has to be programmed with a precision which is ignorant of how the real world operates. Out there life is not so predictable in public and private sector alike. Flexibility is needed, not sanctions for missing targets in a given quarter.
One example and particular concern for me is the funding for the Learning from Landscape project. This has brought environmental issues to schoolchildren in 20 inner city schools in the area, and could have a dramatic effect on the outlook of youngsters in future to the environment, and indeed to matters such as crime. Funded by City Challenge, it stands to have to wind down when that funding ceases.
Given the experience of the SRB and a revised and more flexible framework from central government, can SRB achieve successful regeneration? The answer, I believe, is yes, but only partially. It has a strong
228
emphasis on bricks and mortar. Up to a point that provides jobs in the building industry during the construction period, but not enough jobs for disadvantaged communities. Should we now consider how we could create more jobs by direct means, in labour intensive programmes, no doubt in the main publicly funded? We need to be creating jobs for people who will never aspire to more than unskilled or semi-skilled work, who form much of the hard core of disadvantaged people, too many of whom turn to crime, and some of whom perhaps could become employable in the private sector given new experience of work.
There is plenty of work out there that needs doing, especially in the environmental sphere. The importance of our town centres can be emphasised. Let us have better cleaning and maintenance and townscape in our public areas. Community forests are in the public mind. Let us have more trees and foresters more rapidly. The Home Energy Conservation Bill is with us. More surveyors would allow a greater number of house installation operatives to be employed.
Perhaps we should now be thinking about a substantial proportion of the future resources for regeneration going into putting unemployed and unemployable people directly into work and regenerating their economic independence and self-respect, and perhaps thereby reducing their temptation and tendency towards crime, rather than putting all the money into bricks and mortar. The SRB is a good programme but needs full commitment from the Government and continued funding.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, in what I believe is known as the current climate I think I should start my remarks by declaring an interest, although most definitely not a pecuniary interest. As some noble Lords will know, I am the leader of an outer London borough council. Indeed, it is one of the very few outer London borough councils to be at least partially successful in its bid for the current SRB round, so what I have to say today will not be a whinge from an unsuccessful bidder. I am also aware that my council hopes to be successful in the second round too, so perhaps I need to temper my criticisms today while bearing in mind who may read the report of the debate at a later stage.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for initiating the debate. The SRB is not always the most exciting subject to the general public or perhaps to your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord so rightly described, it is a subject of enormous importance to the urban areas of this country. Like the noble Lord, my experience is primarily in London and the comments I make must primarily relate to London, although I am sure that they are at least as applicable to other parts of the country.
I want to start on a positive note and say why, overall, I welcome the single regeneration budget. As previous speakers have said, it brings together some 20 previous funding packages which central government allocated to local areas. Many of those packages could be applied for only by particular areas, mostly inner urban areas, and large parts of urban Britain were ineligible even to

229
apply for those funds. My own authority, and other authorities like it, was excluded from programmes such as the Urban Programme, City Challenge, and so on.
Where I start to differ with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is on his assumption that areas such as Eastbourne and the one I represent have by definition no needs. That is not so. In among the relatively affluent parts of boroughs like mine there are pockets of quite severe deprivation—as severe as can be found in many parts of the inner cities. Quantitatively they are not as great as can he found in the inner cities, but qualitatively, for the people and families concerned, they are at least as great. Indeed, it could be argued that they are greater, simply because they are not recognised. To be in need and to be invisible is worse than just being in need.
The single regeneration budget, for which all are eligible, gives us an opportunity to start to tackle those problems. Authorities like Sutton know that within its boundaries there are areas of great need. We know that we have the ability to bring our communities together to tackle those needs and we know that we have the flair and the imagination to do so innovatively. With SRB, at least we now have an opportunity to compete for the means to do so.
On a similar positive note, I have no doubt that the existence of the SRB has been an added spur to producing real and meaningful partnerships between local authorities, the private sector and a number of other bodies. It will undoubtedly bring greater private sector funding and resources than would otherwise have been achieved. It means chat local authorities and the private sector each have to learn a different way of working and a different way of working together. All of that is good. It is a great stimulus to developing a coherent local framework for regeneration. But what it does not alone do is to produce anything of a regional basis for regeneration, a regional regeneration strategy.
While I generally welcome the SRB I have some serious concerns both about the concept and the process, many of which have already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. My first concern is the Government's obsession with competition. It means that bidding for a share in the SRB is like a cross between entering a beauty contest and the National Lottery. The results seem to be as random as the lottery and the winners all too often seem to be those who know best how to appeal to the judge's eye. For instance, it is noticeable that the outer London boroughs have done very much less well than the inner London boroughs. That is partly for the reasons which the noble Lord set out. Nevertheless, I am certain that one of the reasons is that, by and large, the outer London boroughs are very much less experienced at entering these competitions and thus lose out to the experienced entrants who know how to make the best of what they have—just like a beauty contest.
My other principal criticism is the lack of any clear criteria against which to submit bids or against which the bids will be judged. Early on in the process the Government dropped the idea of regional regeneration statements, which would at least have provided a backcloth against which SRB bids could have been submitted and considered. There is still much confusion
230
about funding and about allocation. The process is less transparent than other schemes, which at least have had fixed judging criteria. One of the results of the lack of clear criteria is that there has been so much overbidding. In total, there were 469 bids, of which in the end only 201 received funding. In London, 182 schemes were submitted at the outline stage; there were 124 final bids and in the end only 49 bids received funding.
Overbidding on this scale represents an enormous amount of wasted time, effort and resources by local authorities and others who are already under severe pressure. It also means the raising of loud expectations which, in reality, are never going to be fulfilled. Some work is being done to try to estimate the cost of preparing the 124 bids in London, but an early guess that others have made is that some £2 million is required in preparing the bids to secure funding of just £35 million in total. That is a waste of time and resources. It need not have been so.
To be fair, the Government Office for London was as helpful as it could be within the limitations of the process. It is significant that 42 of the 49 eventual "winners" were among those given encouragement at the outline stage. But, even so, one still has to ask about the 18 London bids which were similarly encouraged at outline stage, but which were ultimately unsuccessful. They had been encouraged and they put real effort, time and resources into submitting their bids. Local expectations had every cause to be aroused and yet in the end they were unsuccessful. Why?
One of the obvious reasons which has already been alluded to is a lack of resources. There are nowhere near enough resources. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, it is an illusion to believe that these are new resources. In the main they are not, but existing resources channelled into a different channel and a different name. The late increase from £100 million to £125 million in the current round was certainly welcome and it undoubtedly had the effect of resulting in more successful bids. But that was not new money; it was money taken from the budgets of the urban development corporations, particularly the London Docklands Development Corporation. Indeed, one has to question, therefore, whether London really is any better off overall as a result.
The next problem to which I wish to allude has been of particular concern to my authority, and that is the timescale involved. The lack of clarity in the criteria against which bids were to be judged has been compounded by the very tight timetable for meeting the various stages. Too often the process actually ran faster than the guidance!
Even more important, though, for those who give a high priority to real and meaningful partnership with the voluntary and community sectors, the timescale made that virtually impossible. The voluntary sector generally needs a longer timescale if it is to engage properly with its volunteer members, be they its management committee or the local people with whom h is working. That was just not possible in the timescale allowed and, with the added difficulty for many of those organisations of treading in very unfamiliar territory in making SRB bids, I am sure that that is one of the main reasons why

231
there has been such a low level of voluntary sector involvement in London, at least. Indeed, only three voluntary sector bids were successful in London.
Similarly, an effective regeneration strategy must take the local community with it. The timescale just did not permit meaningful consultation with the local communities affected. The danger then is that those communities feel that they are not part of the process; that sometimes significant changes are being imposed upon them without their consent. The effect can be to increase still further the feeling of alienation within those communities. With time and hard work that can be redressed, but it does sometimes mean that rather than starting off on a very positive note one starts by having to retrieve a situation that need not have arisen in the first place.
In conclusion, I wish to make one or two other points. As regards resources, the Government are inviting bids for the second round this spring for which, they say, £40 million will be available in 1996–97 and £200 million in 1997–98. That is not new money, as has already been said, but money which will become available from the ending of present schemes.
We need more resources, effectively directed, to be really successful, as others have said. If more resources are not to be available, as seems probable under the present Government, at least we need more clarity on the relationship between the single regeneration budget and main programme funding. We need reassurance that the Government will not be giving with one hand—for example, through the SRB—and taking away with the other: for instance, should SRB "winners" expect a cut in their SSAs?
I believe that the Government should revive its original proposals for regional regeneration statements. These should be "bottom up", based on local strategies produced by local authorities with their partners. That would not only give a backcloth against which properly to judge bids, but would also provide the vital local democratic input to the regional strategies.
Finally, I believe that local authorities must be given a clear role in the submission of bids for their areas. They are the only democratically elected bodies which can do so. They are best placed in their local communities to bring all the partners together; they can best ensure genuine community involvement. Above all, they can enable decisions about priorities between competing local bids to be taken locally rather than behind closed doors at the regional office. The single regeneration budget could be a great opportunity: the Government must act now to ensure that it is not a lost opportunity.
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Dubs on introducing the debate this afternoon. I believe it was a fortnight ago when I spoke in a similar debate and emphasised the SRB and how it affected Birmingham. I shall speak again about Birmingham, but I shall not concentrate on the bid as regards which, to a certain degree, we were successful.
232
Some of the points which my noble friend Lord Dubs made in opening illustrate the serious disabilities which people living in what we call "downtown areas" or "inner city areas" have to face. Not only is there poverty and deprivation, but there is also ill health. My noble friend mentioned the high figures in relation to asthma. We have the same problem with children in the City of Birmingham. That is put down to the existence of the motorway, although I am not sure that that is right because the downtown area has always had high asthma figures. This afternoon at Question Time I asked a Question about heart failure. Again, the City of Birmingham is one of the areas with the highest incidence of heart failure. There are all kinds of reasons for that, including climatic conditions and deprivation.
Today when people speak about local government they regard it as something which is by the way: it is not of great importance to the Government, but something which has to be put off, and if it were possible to privatise the whole lot, that would solve the Government's problem. Hence local authorities are having to bid, put out their services to the private sector and hope that they can retain those services. Local authorities' pride has been completely diminished by this Government. Perhaps that is one reason why people believe that local authorities are to blame for everything, when more often than not it is government programmes that are causing severe problems for the projects which local authorities would like to put into operation.
At the end of the last century Birmingham pioneered a water scheme to provide pure water for its citizens. It did so for two reasons. First, industry was expanding and needed more water. In addition, there were epidemics due to impure water. The good fathers of that day recognised quite clearly that if an epidemic started in the poorer quarters it would soon spread to the better quarters and everybody would be caught up in it. The good fathers started off with very practical ideas. Just think, at the end of the last century a local authority was ambitious enough to undertake building a scheme which would take a great many years! Fifty years later, Birmingham needed more water and—again, because of the Private Bill procedure—it was able to embark on the Elan Valley scheme. That scheme ensured that the citizens of Birmingham had beautiful water, coming all the way from Wales. I know that my noble friend on the Front Bench will make quite sure that I understand where that water comes from when he replies.
But what happened to all that investment which the ratepayers of Birmingham had made over the years? All our assets and all that we had invested were suddenly taken from us. We now have Severn Trent Water Plc. There is no mention of Birmingham in its title. That water authority has made tremendous profits and pays its people a tremendous amount of money, but it did not contribute in any way to the infrastructure of that undertaking. It could be said that Birmingham's residents should be the main shareholders and that they should receive the dividend when it is distributed rather than the directors of the company.
We are seeing a change in what "local government" means. Birmingham had a municipal bank. When people banked there, the local authority benefited. Again,

233
however, under government legislation that had to go. Instead of being able to embark on such enterprises, which benefit citizens and are part of the ethos of the city, we now find that local government is faced with all the problems that nobody else wants. Local authorities have to pick up the pieces.
The Government have a policy of closing mental hospitals. I do not disagree with that policy, but the health authorities do not say, "Here is all the money that we had for that hospital which we are now closing; look after the patients we are going to send you". It does not work like that. The land on which the mental hospitals used to stand is being sold and a profit is being made on it. Local authorities, including in the Birmingham area, have to provide services on a mere pittance, as well as dealing with all the problems that arise with community care and from trying to help such people. It is not that the local authorities do not want to do that; it is simply that they do not have the finances. Instead of encouraging local authorities to be enterprising, we are giving them the jobs that other people do not want to do.
As I said in our previous debate on this subject, Birmingham was fortunate in its SRB. Although it did not get all that it wanted, it got a fair share. Now, however, we are faced with capping limits and we do not have the urban aid that would enable us to go further in helping our deprived areas.
What is Birmingham trying to do? I began with our history. During the past decade, almost 60,000 jobs have been lost in the city. That decline in employment must be contrasted with the growth in the number of jobs nationally. Most of the jobs that have been lost are manufacturing jobs. The Government, through the Department of Employment and the Department for Trade and Industry, should be considering that loss of manufacturing jobs in Birmingham because, if Birmingham loses the export markets which it has built up over the years, the decline in the country as a whole will be more severe. Birmingham is known as the workshop of the country.
It is important for the Government to realise that such problems are not fully understood. As other noble Lords have said, the bidding is a sort of competition. I suppose that Birmingham presented its case and o its bid successfully. I have read the bid all the way through and it is, indeed, well presented but, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said, other local authorities might not have had the skills or the workforce to enable them to do the same.
If we are to regenerate a city such as Birmingham, we must look at unemployment. Black, Pakistani and Bangladeshi workers are extremely vulnerable. In Birmingham, they experience an unemployment rate that is twice that of white workers. The unemployment problem is deep-seated. In July last year, almost 49 per cent. of the jobless did not come from Birmingham originally. We have to be careful about such figures.
Youth unemployment is growing in the city. My mother used to say that the devil makes work for idle hands. The increase in crime is occurring because of unemployment and deprivation. What do you do to keep up with the rest of the population if you cannot earn a
234
wage? You have to find the money in some other way. It is unfortunate that the local authorities are left to tackle such problems.
The City of Birmingham was disappointed that Saltley was the only area to be helped in its regeneration. It has lost out because, under the normal procedures, it would have received urban aid grant. Although Birmingham receives help for Saltley, it has missed out on help for another area and is very disappointed. Although I am sure that everybody in this Parliament building knows about Saltley, it is important to remind your Lordships about the miners' march and the final giving way at the Saltley gasworks. While regeneration is taking place in that area, I must ask the Minister who is to take over the responsibility—and when —for dismantling the gasworks in Saltley. They cover a vast area. That land is contaminated and will blight the city until some decision is made about it. Such a responsibility should not lie at the feet of the local authority. This is an important issue. I understand that gas boards all over the country are dragging their feet about the clearance of their derelict land. It is important for those in the inner cities to know about such problems and when they will be solved.
4.7 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, this is an important debate and I join others in welcoming the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in introducing this subject. I have been impressed by the regional expertise of those who have already spoken. From these Benches, I should like to make a much more modest contribution, beginning if I may with a personal reminiscence.
In October 1993 the Children's Society held its annual national service in St. Albans Cathedral and I was invited to preach. We were joined by a group of children from inner city Lambeth who sang a song they had written themselves as part of a church-based research project called Children in the Neighbourhood. The words went like this:
"I have a place of my own.
A place to dream—to sit and stare—
I travel fast—I'm anywhere—
In distant lands and far off times.
I've secrets kept in words and rhymes.
I have a place where I go when I am lonely.
I have a place I go to be alone.
There's peace and quiet there—
I can be anywhere.
I have a place of my own".
The research indicated that the children had a strong sense of what was right and wrong with their neighbourhoods. I was greatly impressed by their creativity, their deep insights and their aspirations for space and peace in the midst of the crowds in which they lived.
I am bishop of a diocese which is relatively prosperous, but it does have areas of urban deprivation in Luton and Bedford —yes, Bedfordshire does have its problems. I speak also on behalf of many of my brother bishops from urban dioceses, and the point I want to

235
make to your Lordships is that regeneration initiatives which fail to place a high value on aspirations such as those will fail to deliver lasting change.
For centuries the churches have provided a focus for community activity, a focus which values local people and which encourages them to hope. A fine example of this is the PECAN project in Peckham, South London. There a group of churches has set up employment preparation courses with the unique feature of recruiting unemployed people by door-to-door visiting on the council estates. The project workers reach out to those who have become demotivated; people who feel they have no hope. The Church of England's Church Urban Fund provided some of the funding for this project—and I am pleased to say that an offshoot in neighbouring Woolwich is now receiving some funding through the Greenwich Council's successful single regeneration budget bid: a good partnership of church and state funding.
It is the duty of a bishop to listen closely to what people living in our most deprived communities have to say. We work on the assumption—nay, the conviction—that each person is made in the image of God and is therefore a person of great potential, creative talent and innate energy. It follows that therefore we need policies that will ensure that this kind of energy can be harnessed in programmes which are stable enough to encourage long-term planning.
We welcome many of the principles that underlie the single regeneration budget. We welcome the co-ordination of effort between different departments responsible for different aspects of multiple deprivation which need to be tackled together if they are to make any lasting impact. We welcome the delegation of responsibility to regions, and within regions, to local consortia responding to local initiatives. We welcome the emphasis on partnership between the public and private sectors and the local community. We commend and welcome the rehabilitation of local government as a lead agency—in many cases, the lead agency—for delivering the programme, while keeping open opportunities for others to take the lead where this is more effective.
We welcome the consultation that goes on throughout the process, including the guidance offered in drafting bids and the on-going dialogue between partnerships and regional offices in the formulation of bids. We also welcome the extension of coverage to all areas of deprivation, both urban and rural, and the flexibility over the scale of projects whether covering small localities or wide areas.
All this is very much to be applauded; but we would want to offer some warnings as well. First, the scale of resources: this is not a plea for spending more money but just an expression of regret that the introduction of the SRB was the occasion for a substantial reduction in overall government resources going into urban regeneration, particularly as the coverage is wider. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, is right: the jam has become thinner. In this case the whole was considerably less than the sum of the parts. I am glad that, on current balance, the total resources of the SRB are to be
236
maintained for the next few years even at this reduced level. However, there are still strong arguments for increasing the sums involved so as to allow more new initiatives to be approved alongside the continuing funding of the first-phase projects.
Secondly, I would emphasise that the SRB, on any scale envisaged, is no replacement for the reduction in mainstream programmes affecting inner cities, and particularly those to do with training and housing.
Thirdly, the involvement of the local community must be more than lip service if projects are to have a lasting impact and if local people are not to feel let down. Recent analysis produced by Mr. Greg Clarke on behalf of the NCVO Urban Forum showed that fewer than half of the successful bids even claimed to have involved any sort of voluntary organisation. Even where the voluntary sector has been involved, the closeness of their involvement has sometimes left much to be desired both in the planning and, more importantly, in the implementation of the plan. There is inevitably here a risk of "tokenism". Moreover, one must emphasise that while the involvement of voluntary bodies is to be welcomed, it is not necessarily the same thing as involving the local community, which may be disorganised or inarticulate.
This leads me to my fourth concern, which is the absence from the SRB of any mechanism or resources for initiating, encouraging and building up the confidence and capacity of the local people themselves. If I may speak of the Church's contribution in this regard, the Church Urban Fund's trustees endeavour to respond to people's own vision for their own neighbourhoods. Each application must demonstrate that it is rooted in locally identified needs; but the fund is also aware that it must resource its intention, and so it provides special grants for feasibility studies and for management committee training. It has developed a system of application for grants which support the applicant, thus building confidence.
In the light of our limited experience in this area, I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would note three things. First, would they please acknowledge and emphasise the importance of medium and long-term development plans and at the same time ensure that local communities are involved in their formation? Secondly, would they not underestimate the damage to hope for local people involved in failed SRB bids and endeavour to develop strategies to redress this? Thirdly, would they ensure that the SRB is seen as only one part in a much wider strategy for cities which involves adequate funding through mainstream programmes?
By the year 2000 those children from Lambeth who came to St. Albans will be reaching adulthood. What can they then expect? Will they have a place of their own; a place to dream? The Church of England and other faith communities are committed to encouraging imagination and hope in our inner cities. I suppose it could be said that we are less concerned with regional regeneration and more concerned with the regeneration

237
of the people in those regions. I ask: will the Government provide the opportunities and the resources for these hopes to be fulfilled?
4.19 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am very privileged to follow the right reverend Prelate. I happen to be, together with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, the patron of one of the finest inner city projects that I know of in Stepney, the Bromley-by-Bow Church Centre. My purpose in mentioning it now is that it is a church initiative in which the main objective of the church concerned, which does not happen to be the Anglican Church, is not the conversion of souls, though in fact many souls have come as a result of the fact that 500 or 600 people every week of up to 100 races and languages are involved in this activity.
I do not know much about the single regeneration budget, but it is my pleasure to support my noble friend Lord Dubs who set out his case with great clarity. I want to add some perspectives from my own experience, to one of which I have just referred. Of the other two, the first goes back into my dim and distant past as a junior Minister in the Home Office in the 1960s at the time when Section 11 grants were first initiated, and when my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale was the Permanent Under-Secretary. The second is as chairman of the UNED-UK Round Table on Health and the Environment. It has produced a report on sustainable development, commenting on a UN inquiry into governments and their performance. The clear political conclusion of the Round Table, which includes over 30 voluntary organisations, some of them active and widely representative of different disciplines in this country, is:
"If the UK is to develop strategies to alleviate poverty—including inner city poverty—then the Government must play a full and active role in developing European Union social policy".
The Round Table believes that to do that outside the main agreement on social policy places an undue constraint on the role that the UN can play. The UK Government should reverse their decision to opt out, and should now endorse the Social Chapter. Many of us on this side of the House would argue that case. Our report is addressed to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, following the greatly faulted report to the CSD sent in by Her Majesty's Government.
Perhaps I may make a brief comment on Section 11 grants which, as I said, were introduced in 1967 when I was at the Home Office in my second junior ministerial post. It was an important initiative at that time. As my noble friend Lord Dubs said, Section 11 funding, especially in areas with substantial ethnic communities, was previously available only through the Home Office. Since 1992–93 the Home Office budget available for Section 11 has been dropping steadily. The proportion of Section 11 projects funded by the Home Office was 75 per cent. in 1992–93. That proportion was reduced steadily year by year. We now know that in 1995–96 the Government contribution to Section 11 will drop to as little as 50 per cent. of the total cost of projects: a cumulative cut of 25 per cent. in government support in two years. I hope that when he replies the Minister will
238
justify that reduction, and whether the circumstances in which the grants were made are ones which do not exist, or do not exist as much, in society today.
If boroughs had not struggled to make up the cuts in 1994–95, as many as 650 language teachers could have lost their jobs. The cut in London's funding in 1993–94 alone was £16 million.
The Home Secretary announced subsequently an increase in the Home Office funding available for Section 11: an increase of £15 million nationally, made up of £5 million each from the Home Office, the Department for Education and the Department of Employment. While that increase is welcome—it is helpful that local authority lobbying has had an effect—enormous concerns must remain about the adequacy of funding to meet even previous levels of demand; the absence of a government strategy for work with minority ethnic communities, and, in particular, their commitment to targeting funding to support language teaching. It is appropriate that my noble friend Lord Dubs opened the debate in view of his excellent experience as director of the Refugee Council. He has been able to watch things closely.
At the same time as the Home Office was cutting funding levels for Section 11 projects, 55 per cent. of the total Home Office Section 11 budget (about £60 million) was transferred to the SRB. The initial announcement was that only urban priority boroughs could apply for that element of Section 11 funding through the Government Office for London. That meant that 13 London authorities would not be allowed to bid for Section 11 through the SRB.
I shall move on to other subjects. I am concerned, and the Round Table which I represent is concerned, that we have no definition of poverty in Britain. We pretend that poverty does not exist when in fact poverty, not just in a comparable sense but in a real sense, is without doubt increasing at present. The European Council of Ministers has a worthy definition. It defines poverty as the condition of:
"persons whose resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life in the Member State in which they live".
The Department of Social Security publishes a document entitled Households Below Average Incomes, and the European Commission, the Council of Europe, and major NGOs use the relative poverty line of half the national average income. Using that indicator, the 1994 version gives the following figures for a poverty level as a percentage of actual population. If we look at 1979 which, to many of us, is a significant date in political history, we see that, after housing costs were considered, 9 per cent. were below the poverty line. Even as late as 1990–91, the figure had grown to 24 per cent., and in 1991–92 it was up to 25 per cent. I am sorry that I do not know what the figures are now. In terms of people there are now 12 million people living in poverty in the UK. That is well over double the number in 1979, which was then 5 million. It is a dramatic: and terrible commentary on the political achievements of the past 15 years.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, while the noble Lord's figures may or may not be true, does he agree that the

239
reason for it is that those who are not living in poverty have done so much better? Previously everyone was at a much lower level.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, that is true. I do not question that, because the figures show it. Ten per cent. of the population has done extremely well, but it has done so at the expense of the lowest section of society.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, no.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Lord says "No". It is true. If we look at the levels of remuneration, we see examples day by day of absurd, ludicrous and sickening levels of remuneration at the top while there is a virtual freeze on the pay of those at lower levels. Of course, that is a factor that we must take into account.
A survey undertaken by the Association of London Authorities showed that in 1993 25.1 per cent, of primary school pupils and 18.5 per cent. of secondary school pupils received free meals in London. That is another way of testing poverty. That compares with 17.8 per cent. and 12.4 per cent. in 1991. Again, that is a sad commentary on the state of those whom some would call the lower classes.
If income for 1979 is converted in line with 1992 prices, the poorest 10 per cent. of families with children had an average household income which was £438 per year lower in 1992 than it was in 1979. By contrast, the disposable income of the average household among the richest 10 per cent. rose by £13,900 per year between 1979 and 1992.
I believe that the Government have a great deal to answer for and I hope that we shall hear some positive proposals from the Minister.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Dubs for initiating today's debate. It gives the House an opportunity to look at the effect of two government decisions. The first was the bringing together under one roof of the regional activities of four major spending departments; Employment, Environment, Transport, and Trade and Industry. That created the 10 integrated regional offices to which noble Lords have referred.
One of the major tasks of the regional offices has been to administer round one of the single regeneration budget. When the regional offices were created and the SRB was launched they had friends in local industry and commerce and in local government. People heaved a sigh of relief because there appeared at last to be government recognition of the need to co-ordinate activities in the regions. Furthermore the SRB brought together 20 separate funding regimes from five separate government departments.
That pooling of funding and the creation of one vehicle for urban regeneration in England was welcomed. However, doubts were expressed at the time about the total amount of money made available. The Policy Studies Institute stated that the SRB had many welcome features but it expressed concern about the cut in urban spending from £1.6 billion in 1993–94 to £1.3
240
billion in 1995–96. That concern was well founded. There have been significant cuts in programmes. Those cuts have had a direct impact on urban regeneration. According to the Guardian of 11th January 1995:
"Figures provided by the Department of the Environment show that there is £6.1 billion reduction over a five year period beginning 1993–94. The cuts amount to a 21.2 per cent. reduction during the period 1993–94 to 1997–98 under the Department of the Environment's heading, 'Housing, Construction and Energy Efficiency' and the 'Urban Regeneration and Countryside' heading".
So, instead of providing more resources to meet the undoubted need of urban regeneration, the Government are providing less.
The second reason why the SRB has lost friends is because, having brought together under one roof and one director the regional activities of four major departments, there seems to be no regional framework—no recognisable, let alone agreed, regional strategy against which SRB bids can be considered. Together with other noble Lords, perhaps I may urge the Government to reintroduce the proposal that they made in November 1993, but subsequently dropped, that a regional regeneration statement be drawn up in every region.
Consultation with local authorities, training and enterprise councils, and other interested bodies should take place. As the Minister knows, there have been a number of complaints from unsuccessful bidders for SRB funds. Of course, if you allocate funds by a competitive process there are going to be losers as well as winners. That is understood. But, surely, the winners and the losers should know why they have won or lost. At the moment, it is a lottery or, as one chief executive put it to me, "You never see the ball hit the back of the net".
Let us not forget the amount of time and money spent in bringing together the bidding partnerships by private-sector companies, which are responsible to their shareholders; by voluntary organisations; by training and enterprise councils; and by local authorities. More than 450 bids were made and there were only 200 winners. Among the unsuccessful bids were 192 by local authorities; a lot of money was wasted.
The money was wasted by over-bidding for a relatively small amount of money in a competition where the rules were unclear and the criteria for success unknown. Before round two of the bidding process gets under way, will the Government enter into discussions with the major players—the local authorities and the TECs—to explore ways of making the process more transparent, more cost effective and more relevant to the needs of deprived urban communities, in particular if they expect the private sector to meet the shortfall in public spending on urban regeneration?
My fear is that local industry will begin to walk away from the process. I hope that I am proved wrong but before concluding I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to a speech made two days ago by Howard Davies, director general of the CBI. He said:
"Although… the establishment of Integrated Regional Offices, are seen as positive developments, companies are not clear that the new 'prefectural' system is right. They are confused as to whom to

241
consult and what criteria they take into account. There is... a growing consensus that a regional focus for decision-making across the public sector needs to be created".
I hope that the Government take note of that concern and act accordingly along the lines suggested by noble Lords who have participated in today's debate.
4.38 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, at this stage of a debate it is almost inevitable that there will be a good deal of repetition. Perhaps the only excuse is to emphasise the seriousness of the points already made. All noble Lords have made similar points and I apologise that mine will not be very different, even though each of us may put a slightly different gloss on our analysis of the position. Perhaps another reason for repeating points is to give noble Lords speaking in the next debate the opportunity to get here because we shall finish a little early.
After preparing for today's debate, the question that remains is: what have the Government learnt from the bidding process? I say specifically "from the bidding process" because we shall not know for a little while the success on the ground—"ground" perhaps being the operative word—of the particular projects to be funded. Like other noble Lords I am concerned about a lack of transparency and a lack of clarity in the criteria on which the bids have been judged. I accept that criteria have been published but they have tended to be technical criteria unrelated to the type of project which would be acceptable. I am concerned at how the criteria may he publicised and I am also concerned—this perhaps should have been the first point—at how the Government and all the parties involved consult on establishing those criteria. As many noble Lords, especially the right reverend Prelate, have emphasised, unless the criteria used are based on the communities which the projects are to benefit, they will not be successful.
It should not have taken so much effort to second guess what the Government and the regional offices have been about. There is a great deal of commentary attempting to analyse the process after the event but the parties who should really be explaining the position are not the ones who are doing so. I am not the only one who is relying on newspaper commentary for this afternoon's debate.
The strategic—or, if one likes, the holistic—nature of the assessments made by the regional offices is unclear. That goes along with a lack of accountability. The integrated regional offices' papers are not available even though there is no regional regeneration statement, as has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Tope and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin. One must assume that there is some sort of regeneration framework which is capable of being articulated. However, I do not believe any of your Lordships would be able to agree what that is, as we have not been told.
242
I looked at the Conservative manifesto to see what it had to say on the subject. In promising to bring together resources for targeted inner city programmes into a single budget, it stated:
"This will mean that funding will go where it is most needed locally rather than according to a set of priorities determined in Whitehall".
One must hope that that is so, but how do we know that it is? The integrated regional offices are not a substitute for accountable government, or indeed—as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, said—for regional government. I think he described them as co-ordinating central government activities. He did not emphasise the adjective "central" but it is, I think, the apposite term.
It is beginning to be clear that there is an over-emphasis, in the acceptance of bids, on the leverage of the private sector. I understand that the Government's press release on the successful bids showed a ratio of £1 SRB money to £4 private and other public sector moneys. Like other noble Lords, I welcome the partnership that is being fostered by the process. The process is not all bad. I welcome the opportunities that are being given for each of the partners to talk to one another and understand one another. I have a little experience of this myself—in what is certainly not "son of strategic London government"—in London First, which, I suggest, is quite far related from any sort of democratic government. However, it has been fascinating to see how difficult it is for those who represent industry and business to understand the processes undertaken by local government, which naturally moves at a slow pace because it is concerned to ensure that all those to whom it is responsible so far as possible are taken along and are part of the process. Those who are responsible to a small group of people for their decisions are able to take those decisions much more quickly. They find it difficult to understand the slow and consultative processes both of local government and of the voluntary organisations. On the other hand, it has been salutary for those in local government to see the frustrations of those in the private sector when they experience the snail's pace at which local government sometimes moves.
The question of competition has been referred to. I agree with those noble Lords who say that competition is not the right way to approach strategic matters and in particular is not suitable for tackling deprivation. I suggest that urban deprivation should not be a matter for the market. The costs of bidding have also been referred to. It costs about £2 million to prepare bids for an allocation of some £36 million. The right reverend Prelate was right to comment on the raised expectations and of course the sense of anti-climax among those who undoubtedly put an enormous amount of effort into what turn out to be unsuccessful bids. I hope that the lessons learnt can be spread among those who need to understand them as to why some bids, encouraged at the outline stage, eventually failed.
There are certain policy areas which concern me. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to housing and cuts amounting to a figure which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, said

243
amounted to over 20 per cent. during the period 1993–94 to 1997–98 in budgets under the DoE heading of housing, construction and energy efficiency, urban regeneration and countryside. Those are real cuts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, referred to air quality. That is a matter to which noble Lords will return tomorrow in the context of the Environment Bill. It would be helpful if the Government, today or tomorrow—preferably both—indicated their concern for our deteriorating air quality and the need for real steps to be taken to improve it.
There is also, of course, the question of education which one might describe as being investment in people. In the context of the current protests by school governors and others we must all be concerned about the fact that education may well have been a loser in this exercise. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to Section 11 funding. I will not repeat the figures he gave but I would endorse the concern he expressed.
We have all talked about clarity. The relationship between Section 11 funding and the SRB is one that needs to be much better understood so that boroughs bid in the right budget. I understand that they have been discouraged in many cases from bidding for Section 11 projects because, although the SRB may now be the vehicle, they have been told that their best chance of success from the SRB is physical regeneration rather than thematic Section 11-style bids. I believe, too, that central government argues that the SRB has been very popular with regard to Section 11-type bids and that the evidence given in support of this view is that a large number of bids have been received. That seems a somewhat circular point but it perhaps emphasises if anything the need and anxieties concerning Section 11 funding.
Noble Lords will be familiar with the needs. Indeed, many have been involved at an individual level in promoting the sort of undertakings which have addressed those needs. I shall give just two figures. A recent survey showed that 198 languages are spoken by pupils in London schools. In the borough of Kensington and Chelsea 37 per cent. of pupils in schools had English as a second language, 23 per cent. of pupils were not fluent in English and a total of 92 first languages other than English were spoken in the borough.
Sadly, given that physical regeneration seems to have been, by a long way, the priority in the recent round of successful bids, I have come to the conclusion that PR and the public impact of the announcements must have been at least as important as tackling deprivation and regeneration. Are the Government going for big splashes in the form of physical regeneration and new buildings to which they can point and say, "Look, we did that"? That is much easier to identify than investment in people through education and training which will have an important long-term benefit. I do not deny that physical regeneration in itself is important. It is important not least in giving people a feeling of well-being and confidence in themselves and as an expression of their own concern for their surroundings, but it should be part of a total package.
244
I make that comment bearing in mind a completely different area of expenditure, the National Lottery. I do not mean the big prizes but the Millennium Fund and the good causes that will benefit. Again, those are important PR items rather than mainstream funding. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that that must not be a substitute for mainstream funding. If the mainstream funding suffers we must look at the budgets together.
I believe that we must look at long-term integrated programmes and tackle the root causes of deprivation. I conclude as I began by asking what the Government have learnt. I hope that the Minister can assure us that they are more concerned with investment than PR.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I have to declare an interest, like many noble Lords. I am unpaid President of the Federation of Economic Development Authorities, many of whose members have been involved in bidding for funding under the single regeneration budget.
Secondly, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Dubs on both initiating the debate and also on the way he introduced it with great clarity and conviction. The debate comes at a very opportune moment since the Government are now reviewing the first round of the SRB and are preparing guidance to be issued for the second round. This is therefore the right time for your Lordships to be debating the matter, in the hope—which I hope is not entirely vain—that the Government may actually listen to what your Lordships say and take account of your Lordships' views in formulating the future approach to the SRB.
Many noble Lords concentrated on the problems of inner cities. My noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke about the areas of London that they know well. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, talked about Middlesbrough in a very moving manner. My noble friend Lady Fisher talked about Birmingham, bringing in not only deprivation, homelessness, unemployment and poverty but the ill health that follows from those. I am glad that my noble friend did not accuse the water that Birmingham gets from mid-Wales as being responsible for that ill health! My noble friend Lord Ennals, at a different level, spoke of the problems of ethnic minorities in the inner cities. All these are matters which are still with us and will no doubt remain with us for many years to come. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves how effective the single regeneration budget is and how effective it could be. I propose to concentrate my remarks on those two questions.
In our view the introduction of the single regeneration budget was potentially an extremely significant step in improving the way in which regeneration strategies were formulated and implemented. As many noble Lords have said, before it was introduced there was widespread criticism of the variety of funding schemes—some 20 in all—and of the way in which they operated. Therefore, bringing them together was potentially a sensible move. Furthermore, the new arrangements at least allowed the possibility that

245
funding would be allocated in a way which would truly reflect local needs and priorities rather than centrally imposed rules and regulations.
I have used the word "potentially" because, like other noble Lords, we do not believe that the SRB has yet achieved anything like the results that it should. I propose to set out to your Lordships what we believe has gone wrong and what needs to be done if we are to avoid those mistakes in the future.
Before I do so, I want to make one thing clear. I am not going to go into the level of resources that are available, although like other noble Lords I regret the overall cut in inner city programme funding illustrated with great clarity by my noble friend Lord Gladwin of Clee. I accept that the overall funding must be a function of the overall financial situation of the country at the time. But I hope that when the noble Earl replies we will be spared the kind of specious double counting to which we have been treated in the past. If we are told that nearly £4 billion will be spent under the SRB I shall have to point out that of that total only £800 million will be available for new projects over the five years, and that organisations submitting bids in the second round later this year will be competing for a meagre £40 million in 1996–97. It is even doubtful whether that is new money. That is thin gruel, and I hope that the noble Earl will not try to fool your Lordships by dressing it up as the richest gravy.
So what mistakes have been made in the first round? I put first the way in which the bidding was conducted. I know, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, that Ministers have boasted about the number of bids received. Of 469 bids submitted last September 201 were successful. However, there is nothing to boast about. In the majority of cases those who were successful, like Birmingham, received substantially less than they asked for.
Although the number of bids sounds good, there are two problems of which I have become aware as President of FEDA. The first, as other noble Lords have said, is that the awards seem to many bidders to be something of a lottery. That is particularly true of those who submitted preliminary bids in June, were encouraged to work out full bids for the deadline of 7th September (thus in many cases having to cancel annual holidays) and then lost.
The second problem, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is cost. I can supplement some of the figures which the noble Lord gave. One bidder reported to FEDA that it had cost some £75,000 to put together a bid. That bidder was successful and is not complaining. However, the 250 losers also spent similar amounts—a total of over £15 million of taxpayers' and council tax payers' money—which have gone down the drain. Think, my Lords, too of the morale of those who have spent the money and, after initial encouragement, have had their hopes dashed.
Furthermore, the key point of contact between bidders and the Government has been through regional offices. I am advised that the various regional offices have adopted significantly different approaches to the administration of the budget, both in the indications to prospective bidders on the level of resources available
246
and, even more important, in the nature and extent of contact between the offices and bidders once the preliminary bids were in. Regional offices have also varied in the amount of regional interpretation that they have put on the national criteria, and the indications that they have given of the size of bid which they would favour. Some favour large bids; others try to spread their resources more thinly and more widely.
As the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, pointed out, even if you win it is a hard task because you then have to submit a delivery plan. In that delivery plan you then have to provide milestones. As a successful bidder, you can only draw quarterly in arrears. If you fail on the milestones, you do not obtain your money. That is a pretty tough programme for bidders to achieve. Many bidders now—I speak of many members of the federation—find it extremely difficult to put together exact timetables in the way that regional offices require simply because firms outside are unable to bid within the time-frame required; and that is another problem.
In the light of the experience of the first round, I suggest that there are three objectives for the second round. Having slated them, I shall suggest how they could be met.
The first objective should be to reduce wasteful overbidding. That will be particularly important if 469 bidders will again bid, but this time for only £40 million. The way to meet that objective must be to involve local authorities at an early stage in the co-ordination of bids so that decisions between competing bids for the same area could be taken earlier, and locally rather than by the regional office. It was one of the great virtues of City Challenge that local authorities were invited to co-ordinate the preparation and submission of bids for City Challenge designation. That role has been lost in the transition to SRB and should be restored.
The second objective should be to remove what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, called the beauty contest element inherent in the current competitive process. It is absurd and wasteful. It is right—indeed it is desirable—to preserve regional diversity, but it cannot be right for regional offices of London departments—after all, they are only satrapies of Whitehall—to decide unilaterally what the features of that diversity should be.
This brings me to my third objective: to build on the regional office concept in a way which involves to the full local authorities and other organisations in the regions. I believe that this is the key to the matter, since if that can be done my second objective would be met. The key to strengthening the regional offices in the way that I suggest is, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, suggested, and others have confirmed, to revive the notion of regional regeneration statements which were mentioned in the original announcement of November 1993. Those statements should be drawn up by regional offices and local authorities in partnership and would serve—as the original plan intended—as a policy context within which the SRB would be administered. Regional statements, once agreed between regional offices and their local partners, would be submitted for ministerial approval. Once that was given they would

247
provide a framework, endorsed politically both locally and nationally, within which the SRB could be administered, more tightly, by the regional office.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities and other local authority associations support that approach. I hope that the noble Earl will give us his assurance and that the Government will see its merit and go back to the plan announced in February 1993. If there is to be a genuine truce in the war which the Government started between central government and local government, this is the way to start. It is only if the lessons of City Challenge are learnt and not cast aside—that there must be partnership between local authorities and central government—that we shall make progress. Only in that way will there be a resurgence of hope in our inner cities, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans referred. It is only if we can recreate hope that the single regeneration budget scheme will achieve the success which we believe it should.
5.5 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for bringing to the attention of the House the important issues concerning the condition of our inner cities and the role of the single regeneration budget. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, the debate comes at an opportune time.
We have bad a number of speeches from noble Lords with a great regional expertise and experience in inner city matters—not least from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Although it will not be possible for me to comment in detail on all the individual issues raised, I welcome this opportunity to underline the Government's determination and commitment to tackling the problems of the inner cities.
The most important factor in regenerating our inner cities is a healthy national economy. It is for this reason that the Government are determined to bear down on inflation, control public expenditure and raise standards of education and training. At the same time, the Government recognise that special measures may need to be taken to ensure that our inner cities benefit from overall economic recovery.
The type of measure applied depends very much on the individual circumstances of cities; there is no single-club solution. We should therefore make no apology for introducing a range of tailored measures to address inner city problems. Indeed, Lord Pitt (whose knowledge and insight on inner city matters is greatly missed) said in the House when we debated inner cities nearly two years ago:
"The problem requires local participation, support, and flexibility so that different methods can be adopted in different areas".—[Official Report, 24/3/93, col. 356.]
The single regeneration budget is crucially important. It is thus that we wish to learn from and feed off the rich experience of inner city initiatives. It was for that reason that the Secretary of State for the Environment announced in November 1993 the formation of the SRB. From April 1994 that has brought together, as many
248
noble Lords said, no fewer than 20 separate programmes, each with its own rules and methods of working.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to the casualties of the SRB, in terms of the number of individual programmes which were brought together at one stage. Government policy had been criticised for being too fragmented. For, example, the Audit Commission reported in 1989 that the programmes were seen as being "a patchwork quilt" which encouraged compartmentalised policy approaches rather than a coherent strategy. A report by the Association of District Councils in 1993 stated that what is required is a strategic approach which encompasses all relevant objectives. Therefore the general welcome to the SRB was legitimate. The criticism of the "patchwork quilt" had to be, and was, answered by the formation of the SRB.
It places the initiative with local communities to come up with solutions tailored to their needs and priorities. It recognises that although the most deep-seated problems are focused in our inner cities, there are other areas with pockets of need which require a flexible approach. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the right reverend Prelate recognised that point. That approach recognises that regeneration cannot be brought about by an edict from Whitehall or by any single local player alone. Thus a condition of success in competing for single regeneration budget resources is the formation of a broadly-based and active local partnership. That partnership should not simply be a talking shop. Those taking part in single regeneration budget projects have a genuine responsibility and a clear stake in the activities which are being promoted.
Many noble Lords today have questioned the concept of competition for resources. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, suspected that it might have been the main criterion on which the SRB was being run. I stress to noble Lords that the competitive mechanism was the methodology and had nothing to do with the criteria on which schemes were assessed. The Government are convinced that the very process of competition improves the standards of projects which are brought forward and, even in the case of unsuccessful bids for resources, managed to promote effective local partnerships which might not previously have existed. This is not the Government's view alone; local authorities, TECs and the private sector have all acknowledged the strengths of the competitive approach. Competition produces judgment by merit (I stress to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee) and has already proved successful with programmes such as City Challenge, of which my noble friend Lord Gisborough thoroughly approved.
In this process, various noble Lords have questioned the role—or the lack of role—allocated to local authorities, but I stress that local authorities are at the very centre of the Government's urban policies. Within the SRB bidding Round 1, they led in 53 per cent. of the bids and were involved in 90 per cent. of bids. They quite clearly had an important role. That role was laid down and anticipated by the bidding guidance. I stress to the right reverend Prelate that through the

249
involvement of local authorities and the creation of local partnerships, it is a genuine objective of the SRB to create local sensitivity and local confidence.
Some noble Lords have maintained that the single regeneration budget is a cover for cuts in public expenditure. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to be patient while I explain how the finances work, because he will no doubt recognise some of the figures that I am about to set out.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer's Autumn Statement preserved the baseline for the single regeneration budget at more than £1.3 billion per annum over the next three years, adding up to almost £4 billion in total. These resources will go to support ongoing investment in housing and other regeneration initiatives. In particular, more than £1 billion of the £4 billion will be spent on estate action and housing action trust commitments.
On top of meeting commitments, over £800 million will be available for new regeneration projects over the next three years, with more to come in later years. This £800 million will support both the first bidding round, and the initial years of the second bidding round announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 5th December 1994. I should add that we have been able to secure, within the overall baseline for the single regeneration budget, an additional £25 million per annum for each of the years of the public expenditure survey to boost the resources available for the first bidding round.
The first single regeneration bidding round has been outstandingly successful; local people have risen to the challenge—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Earl about to read the figures, or will he come back to them?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be patient, I will return to the figures in the later stages of what I have to say.
The 201 successful bids stand to attract some £1.1 billion in single regeneration budget support over their projected lifetime—that is up to seven years. The right reverend Prelate inquired about that point in wondering whether the medium term and the long term were being looked after. That £1.1 billion is expected to attract a further £2.9 billion in private investment, and a further £1.8 billion in other public investment. This is another important feature of the single regeneration budget: the extent to which it levers in or attracts resources from other contributors. Of this very substantial investment, some two-thirds will be directed into our cities.
The 201 projects which were successful in the first SRB bidding round will produce substantial benefits on the ground. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tope, on his involvement as one of the successful first round winners. On bidders' current estimates, during their lifetime of up to seven years the projects will improve some 75,000 homes, support over 7,500 voluntary groups and support some 60,000 new businesses.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suspected that the Government were seeking big splashes and that the glossily presented applications would stand a better
250
chance than those which did not have a glossy format. I can assure the noble Baroness on both counts that that is not the case. I can also assure her that physical regeneration is not an overriding priority of the Round I budget. I have here the figures as they break down across the different objectives: 95 per cent. are directed to employment and training; 72 per cent. to business support; 35 per cent. to housing; 35 per cent. to ethnic minorities; 47 per cent. to crime prevention; 50 per cent. to environmental projects, and so forth. Physical regeneration is not being pursued at the expense of all other objectives.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I am very interested in those figures, but I wonder whether he can tell the House if the objectives were made clear to bidders and potential bidders beforehand.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am about to come to the criteria for the bidding.
These figures relate simply to the first round of the SRB, which will start from April this year. The second bidding round will be launched later this year—once again, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is as successful the second time as he was the first time—with £40 million available for the early approval of bids in 1996–97, and £200 million in 1997–98. The second round will produce further substantial benefits to local communities. It will also ease some of the problems of timescale that noble Lords mentioned in relation to first round applicants, who found that the timescale had been a little too fast for them. Many of the first round losers are returning to bid. The Government offices of the regions are giving them all the advice that they need to complete their second round applications.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested that there was a lack of clarity and consultation, and a complete lack of guidance on the type of projects that would be acceptable. That is not true at all. The bidding guidance was subject to full consultation. There were 11 regional seminars. The guidance is not technical; it is not frightening. It is a commonsense checklist to guide bidders on how bids will be assessed. The guidance also goes into types of projects which will be acceptable, and into the size, the cost and so forth.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, and others sought assurances about whether the Government would consult the local authorities and the TECs before going into Round 2 of the SRB. We are taking stock of the first round of the SRB by talking to such organisations. We are co-operating on research and meeting with the TEC national council and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. I hope that that gives the noble Lord some assurance.
The role of the government offices has attracted some comment both in the press and briefly in the House tonight. But I stress that the new arrangements for those offices were widely welcomed by the local authorities, business and the Opposition when they were introduced in April 1994. They have been used to advise Ministers on the basis of the bidding criteria set out in the national bidding guidance and so forth. For noble Lords' information, I should say that Ministers then collectively

251
take decisions on the bids, and also in consultation with the recently created ministerial committee on regeneration.
Employment has been a regular concern of many speakers today. The right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, both mentioned specifically some of the problems in this area. The noble Baroness mentioned that the Devil makes work for idle hands. I was glad that the very next speaker was the right reverend Prelate so that we had some balance between Satan and the good Lord.
We announced following the Autumn Statement proposals to pilot a new in-work benefit for people without children on low earnings. The Budget also announced an extra £10 in family credit for full-time working families. In addition the jobseekers' agreement will be tailored to individual need; a back-to-work bonus will encourage part-time work with up to a £1,000 lump sum on transition to full-time work. In all, the package of work incentive measures announced following the Budget will help three-quarters of a million people to be better off in work.
Possibly more important than employment is housing. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, among others, mentioned that single issue. Providing decent and affordable housing is at the heart of making our cities more attractive and competitive. We expect to exceed comfortably our 1992 commitment to supporting the provision of 153,000 housing association homes in the first three years of this Parliament. We now estimate that around 60,000 are being provided by associations this year, bringing the three-year total up to over 180,000. Over the next three years, Housing Corporation funding for housing associations should provide around 135,000 new lettings; taken together with outputs funded by local authorities and by regeneration programmes, we estimate that the grand total of new social lettings over the next three years will be around 180,000.
Our investment in social housing and local authorities' efforts to tackle the problem of homelessness are bearing fruit. The third quarter of 1994 was the 10th in succession to show a drop in the number of households needing to be rehoused by local authorities through the statutory homelessness provisions. The use of bed and breakfast accommodation is dropping even more sharply: it's down by 24 per cent. over the past year. Bed and breakfast now accounts for only 10 per cent. of all households in temporary accommodation. We hope to see that progress continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred specifically to the position of ethnic minority communities in inner city areas. I know that that is an issue of great interest to other noble Lords in the Chamber. Well over a third of the successful bids in the first single regeneration bidding round have as a significant objective the support of ethnic minority communities. The type of support ranges from funding for business starts to specific health and housing initiatives and the provision of community facilities. The extent of support for ethnic minority communities varies from region to region. For example,
252
in London 83 bids were received which embodied the specific objective of supporting members of ethnic minority communities. Of those 83, 35 were successful. This means that 35 of the total of 49 successful bids in London contained measures of specific benefit to ethnic minority communities. This support through new SRB funding is in addition to the continuing funding of ethnic minority community initiatives arising through existing commitments on programmes such as Section 11, the ethnic minority business initiative and ethnic minority grant. It is worth pointing out that even where a project does not have the support of ethnic minority. communities as a specific objective, two-thirds of SRB resources will be targeted to the urban areas where there are above average concentrations of ethnic minority communities.
We are determined that SRB resources should benefit the communities for which they are intended. For this reason, the government offices for the regions require SRB partnerships to make effective arrangements to ensure that those sections of the community intended to benefit from support do so. The guidance on the preparation of delivery plans specifically lays down that practical steps should be taken to ensure that co-operation with the voluntary sector and priority to work with ethnic minority communities are, where appropriate, carried through into practical action on the ground.
Two or three noble Lords have expressed concern about the fate of Section 11-funded projects. It may help if I give some background. Funding has been cut. In November 1992 the then Home Secretary was driven to conclude, with regret, that due to the general economic situation, in particular the Exchequer deficit and the consequent need for further control of public expenditure, it would not be possible to sustain the level of Section 11 expenditure that had been planned. But local authorities were given over 16 months' notice before any reduction would need to take effect in 1994–95 in order to consider how to react to the changed funding situation. In practice, we are pleased to see that over 60 per cent. of authorities have been able to make good the shortfall in funding to enable projects to continue at their original level. The Home Secretary hopes to announce the results of the Section 11 bidding round by the end of this month. Resources for the Section 11 bidding round have been doubled from £15 million to £30 million as a result of additional funds being contributed by the Home Office, the Department for Education and the Department of the Environment.
Health has been a recurring theme in this afternoon's debate. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fisher and Lady Hamwee, have mentioned air pollution and asthma. As many of your Lordships know at first hand, the special circumstances of inner cities and their residents call for special measures. The Department of Health has produced guidance for local authorities to draw attention to the need to take account of the problems of living in the inner cities when assessing needs in relation to community care plans. This year the Department of Health is organising a conference on the causes of

253
asthma and what can be done to alleviate its effects. Consequently, there is sensitivity to the specific needs of inner cities through the guidance documents.
Primary health care is also a crucial issue in inner cities. For this reason, from April 1990 the GP contract has provided for payments related to patients in deprived areas and more assistance for the improvement of surgeries. The ethnic minority communities also have particular health care needs. The Race Equality Unit, which is funded by the Department of Health, advises social services departments on good practice to ensure that ethnic minority needs are taken into account in the planning and delivery of both health and personal social services. Inner city areas have special problems relating to drug and alcohol misusers. Local authorities may apply for a specific grant to provide 70 per cent. of support to voluntary organisations to assist drug and alcohol misusers who tend to drift to inner city areas.
In view of the fact that in particular the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and others from London are here, I should add that our urban policy is very much geared towards encouraging cities to come forward with their own prescription for success. It was for this reason that in November 1993 the Secretary of State for the Environment invited civic and business leaders in three cities—Birmingham, London and Manchester—to draw up what was known as a city pride prospectus setting out a vision for their cities over the next 10–15 years and the practical steps needed to achieve that vision. The three cities are now well advanced with their plans. The London pride partnership chaired by my noble friend Lord Sheppard published their prospectus on 23rd January. At the core of the city pride vision is the need for cities to compete internationally and to raise the living standards of their citizens. It is still early days, but the early success of city pride is yet another demonstration of the determination of cities themselves to shape their future.
The single regeneration budget has released a sense of commitment and partnership at local level which is truly astonishing. The hundreds of local partnerships which the first two rounds will support will play a major part in the regeneration of our cities and other areas into the next century.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
Lord Williams of Elve1: My Lords, the Minister said nothing about regional regeneration statements about which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and I talked a great deal. Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl whether or not the Government have ruled those out completely.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, they have not. The government offices fully intend when drawing up local assessments and criteria that there will be maximum consultation with local authorities and exposure to local development plans. Therefore, to an extent they will provide a less formal version of what the noble Lord seeks. The danger of regional regeneration statements is
254
that they set out prescriptive policies for the regions. The SRB has been trying to get away From imposed solutions. One must be wary of that danger.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken pan in what has been a very interesting debate. With the exception of the Minister, every noble Lord on all sides of the House has had criticisms to make of the SRB. I welcome the fact that there is a broad consensus that the SRB is not a bad thing but has faults. I hope that the Government will take it to heart, even though the Minister in his speech has not given an indication that the Government will change their policy.
In reply to the criticisms about competition being the basis of SRB bids, the Minister said that it was a matter of methodology and not criteria. I put it to him and to the House that, when people and partnerships bid, inevitably they will be influenced by the kind of bid that is likely to be successful. Therefore, bids that may be more important in terms of inner cities but which are likely to be less successful will not be made, because the more successful bids will, as it were, have priority. The fact that there is competition will have an effect on influencing the types of bids that come forward.
I still believe that the losers have been the voluntary sector, particularly ethnic minority bids. The Minister said that one-third of the bids had an ethnic minority element. Of course, that is so. One of the criteria put out by the Government was precisely the needs of ethnic minority communities. It is all too easy to claim that a bid is in the interests of an ethnic minority community when its effect may be marginal rather than central to the particular community. Nevertheless, I believe that it has been a very useful debate. I hope that the Government will think again about the criticisms that have been made. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Transport Infrastructure
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford rose to call attention to the needs of industry for an effective transport infrastructure policy in the United Kingdom and the European Union; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate on an effective transport infrastructure policy in the United Kingdom and the European Union. In a spirit of co-operation, let me open my remarks with the comments made by Dr Brian Mawhinney, the Transport Minister, on 7th December last year:
"I wish to see an end to the shouting and insults—sometimes even the actual violence"—
in view of the weekend's events, that sounds more like a prediction than a wish—
"—that have characterised arguments about transport in recent years. I want a ceasefire; a fresh start. We need to move back to properly informed, rational argument, with respect for opposing views, in a manner more fitting to the democratic traditions of our country. My aim is to define the questions and seek to pose them in as sharp and

255
clear a way as possible. I hope others will contribute to that process and, more importantly, will then help shape the answers to those questions".
It is in that spirit that today I want to make my contribution to the debate. The Government must be aware of the deep concern of British industry and commerce—in 1995 we must include tourism in that—about the condition of the transport infrastructure of the United Kingdom or, in this case, Great Britain. In comparison with, for example, Germany, the Netherlands and France, Great Britain does not come out particularly well. To be fair, in terms of access to our airports and seaports, we are in the top half of the European Union league. But, in terms of our rail network and road infrastructure, we are well in the bottom half of it.
Reading first the Department of Transport's statement on a transport infrastructure, followed by the Scottish Office's statement on a transport infrastructure and then the Welsh Office's statement on a transport infrastructure, it strikes one forcefully that none of them—neither the Department of Transport, the Welsh Office nor the Scottish Office—says in its statement of aims that we ought to develop good transport links with the European Union. That is an astonishing omission for the United Kingdom Government to make—to omit from their transport objectives the need to create good transport links or transport corridors with the European Union.
The statement from the Department of Transport does not even mention the need to use good transport links to develop the economy of the country. To be fair to the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office, in their statements—I suspect that it is because they cover a whole range of subjects rather than transport only—they both refer to the need to use good transport links as a means toward developing the economic prosperity of Scotland and of Wales. They include in that a specific reference to the need to develop tourism. I find it astonishing that the Department of Transport does not mention the need to develop the economy through using the transport routes.
Let me begin from the position that we need to develop a proper transport infrastructure to the level that is environmentally sustainable. One of the features of the developments that take place in Germany, France and the Netherlands is the way in which the environmental lobby is taken into the discussions and consultation process when transport infrastructure programmes are being decided. The outcome is a consensus. We do not have that in this country. Regretfully, we seem always to be in conflict when we seek to develop a transport infrastructure. In the three other comparitor countries to which I refer, there is a consensus which is simply not to be found in the United Kingdom.
I know Dr Mawhinney well. He is someone for whom I have great respect and I believe that he means what he says. When we come to decide the transport infrastructure, which is the centrepiece of this debate, it is essential to include the environmental lobbies.
I do not argue that we should litter the British countryside with new roads. However, the figures available from Germany, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom show that our roads are more heavily congested than the roads in those other three countries. It is not mentioned in any of the material that I have studied, but in the Netherlands heavy goods vehicles are not allowed on the roads between 6 o'clock on Friday night and 6 o'clock on Sunday night. Our roads therefore appear to be much more heavily congested in comparison with roads in the Netherlands. Indeed, many of our main transport groups are taking. roads way beyond the capacity for which they were intended when they were first constructed.
Part of my argument is that we should examine the existing network and consider the possibility of additional lanes. We must examine how to develop the existing network. I do not for one moment suggest that we should litter the countryside with new roads. But we certainly cannot sustain the present position. In the Midlands of England and the west central belt of Scotland the roads are very heavily congested. We must look at that situation.
Another aspect of the argument that appeals to me is the way in which other European Union countries—again, I refer to the three comparitors: France, the Netherlands and Germany —can say roughly what their transport infrastructure will look like by the year 2015. For obvious reasons, there has been slippage in the Netherlands. But those countries can say broadly what the transport infrastructure will look like by the year 2015. There is simply nothing like that in this country.
I hope that the Government are serious about having an open debate and seeking consensus, which I believe to be in everybody's interest, from whichever political party or economic standpoint they come. It is in the interest of us all to achieve consensus on this important issue. If the Government are serious about achieving that consensus, they cannot afford simply to publish a document which states their policy. Brian Mawhinney is serious about this matter. We need to have a debate. If the Government are to publish anything, it needs to be a Green Paper giving an outline of the views that they hold at the present time—something on which we can build a debate that I hope will lead towards consensus.
Our rail network is smaller per head of the population than that in any other European country. One of the main functions of our rail network is the transport of large numbers of people to and from work, which helps to develop the economy. The Minister must surely come to terms with the fact that one factor inhibiting economic growth in this country is the inability of people to get to work in reasonable journey times. That is not unimportant. There is nothing worse than leaving the house at 7 o'clock in the morning and not reaching one's office until half-past nine. That is not a reasonable journey time. Therefore, in my view, we must develop a rail network that will transport people to and from work in reasonable journey times.
We have the new development in manufacture and retail of what is called "just-in-time" production, where the goods are produced just in time to be delivered to

257
the consumers, to the retail outlets. If that system is to work, then we must provide a good transport infrastructure in order that the just-in-time approach can be successful. There is no point in producing these goods just in time if what happens then is that they arrive three days late. That takes the heart out of the system and that is something that the Government should consider in their discussions.
I turn briefly to the question of ports and to the state of our merchant shipping fleet. It is a worrying feature that in the mid-1980s our merchant shipping fleet was the oldest in Europe and now it is the oldest in the world. No other country in the world has an older merchant shipping fleet than the United Kingdom. The Government must look at that in terms of an integrated transport infrastructure linking us effectively to Europe.
I turn to air travel. I mentioned once before in your Lordships' House the need to develop effective rail links, particularly from the world's busiest airport—Heathrow. It is an astonishing fact that even in 1995 Heathrow Airport is not yet linked into the main rail network. We really should be looking ahead at the possibility of replacing many of the domestic flights. Is it necessary to go from Heathrow to Manchester by plane? If the airport was linked into the main rail network people could go from London to Manchester by train and the airports would be left free to deal with the kind of international traffic for which they were originally built. Much of the airport capacity is being taken up by domestic flights. When we talk of second runways at Manchester Airport, when we talk of additional capacity at Heathrow, that is not to meet international traffic needs; it is to meet domestic traffic needs. That does not help in developing a proper infrastructure which would link us in with Europe.
I close my remarks, because time is short, by reminding the Minister of something we are all inclined to forget: even though we want to be at the heart of Europe—here I speak for myself—geographically we will always be on the periphery. Of all the European Union countries, the United Kingdom has the most to gain by the creation of the infrastructure for which I am arguing today and has the most to lose if we do not create it. Therefore in opening the debate I trust sincerely that I have built the platform on which we can have a constructive debate; that the Government will take away the comments that are made and consider them in a constructive fashion; and that this will be the beginning of the creation of a meaningful integrated transport infrastructure for this country. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.43 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord said, except for the point on integration. I too would like to express the importance of a good transport infrastructure for this country. It is essential for our goods to be able to travel around the world and to their destinations quickly so that our industries remain competitive and this country remains a good place in which other countries can invest. That was one of the bonuses of the 1980s; let us continue it through the 1990s.
258
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, to whom we are extremely grateful for initiating this debate, that the present infrastructure is not as good as it should be despite the billions of pounds that have been spent on it, and that it should be improved further. I therefore look to take his argument forward. Having reached that stage, let us pose the key question: who will pay for all of this? I do not believe that it should be the taxpayers. I do not believe that the taxpayers should have to fork out more and more money. Taxpayers have done very well in the past but if we are to maintain the infrastructure, or bring it up to the standard we would like, we must involve the private sector.
I need to stress two points in this regard. First, if we are to involve the private sector, there must be a great deal more consistency in the Government's policies. We have seen Roads. for Prosperity; we have seen the road programme enhanced and, sadly, we have seen the road programme cut back. We have seen investment decisions made when times were good only to have them trimmed. That is not a background into which the private sector will willingly come. Too many private sector companies have been led on by government to make a lot of investment into a project only to find it turned down at the last moment. That is not healthy.
How do we involve the private sector? There are opportunities in the rail network. The Channel Tunnel is an incredible success and provides the unique opportunity this country needs to transport more freight on the railways. It is fairly uneconomic within UK Limited by itself; but if we can reach Europe by rail with our freight, then there opens up a huge new opportunity waiting to be taken.
In the future will those infrastructure improvements be undertaken by Railtrack in the private sector or are there opportunities to involve other private sector bodies? I can understand that Railtrack may want to keep it all to itself as a private sector body, but that, too, would be a missed opportunity.
Notwithstanding the opportunities presented to us by the Channel Tunnel, most of the freight in this country will go by road. In this regard again I stress the importance of consistency. My noble kinsman Lord Thurso drives from Thurso as far as Perth. With a sigh of relief he gets onto the dual carriageway heading towards Spain but then comes to the block at Newbury. It is a tragedy that that is the only section of non-dual carriageway between Perth and Spain. It is ludicrous; it is time wasting; and it is costly for our industry. If any noble Lords wish to sit in a traffic jam, try Newbury at five o'clock on a Friday evening.
The other areas that concern me are the sudden changes where road schemes that were to be public sector financed are put on to Design, Build, Finance and Operate. Again, construction firms have gone a long way, and spent a lot of money, in getting their tenders right only to have their feet chopped from under them. We must have more consistency. Regrettably, the private finance initiative did not work as well as many of us would have liked. The Birmingham North relief road is an example of something that went horribly

259
wrong and again a lot of money was wasted. But the Design, Build, Finance and Operate initiative stands a much better chance of success.
There is a further role for the Government. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done a good job in educating the public sector into thinking on a better basis. But there is a huge job for the Government to do in educating the private sector. I know that the Government and the public sector talk a different language from the private sector. If one is to persuade companies of all sizes—the big, the medium and the small—involved in DBFOs, they must know what it means by "transfer of risk". They must know what "value for money" means. The Government must be aware that the private sector must make a return on the money it invests. These things are not clear. The more I talk to people the more uncertain they are what the end result will be. I fear that a lot of companies will think this is a good idea and run with it, only to have the rug pulled from under them at the end because they did not know what the transfer of risk really meant.
So this is a wider point than just transport; it is the whole of the private sector finance initiative. The private finance panel is doing an excellent job, but it does need to produce a brochure of the underlying philosophy of what they are trying to do and what it actually means. That will save a lot of tears later on.
I move from roads to airports. I am grateful for the answer my noble friend gave me on RUCATSE with regard to airport congestion in the south-east. It was an answer to an extremely difficult problem; an answer that was never going to suit everybody.The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, talked about how he would like to see a greater consensus in this country. I, too, would like to see that when it comes to development, but I do not think it is likely to happen. Although we have the same population as France and the old West Germany, our country area is much, much smaller. When it comes to development—and there must be development—there are too many interests at stake, which they do not have in France and the old West Germany. That applies even more so in the East, which badly needs development. So I always see conflict. This is where the Government must be bold, must be brave, and must make a decision and stick to it.
Having ruled out a third runway at Heathrow, and virtually ruled out a second runway at Gatwick, I hope that they will turn their attention to the possibility of feeder relief airports in the south-east which can do an equivalent job. I am happy to declare an interest here as a consultant to Redhill Airport, which has the potential for relieving Gatwick of its smaller aeroplanes. I have to be very careful in what I say because that is subject to planning.
I will move on from that to another opportunity—Northolt. If ever there is a wasted asset in this country it is Northolt. What is the cost of keeping that airport for the RAF and a few private sector flights? The attempt to involve the private sector was not a great success—it was half-hearted, to be complimentary towards it. I should like to see Northolt put into the private sector, with a special arrangement taken for the RAF. Making
260
Northolt the domestic runway for Heathrow would solve the problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, about allowing greater capacity on the two runways at Heathrow. I hope my noble friend will take on board that rather new initiative. I know that he has his mind on it, and I hope that he will take it very seriously.
I hope my noble friend will confirm that it is the Government's intention to privatise the operational arm of NATS. It has extremely difficult decisions to make as judge and jury. It has to set standards. But it is also an operator in a large number of cases, and there is growing concern that it is finding that role too difficult to manage at a proper distance. With London City Airport, right up to the last minute NATS said that it could not be combined with the existing London pattern, and yet it is the operator of London City Airport and fitting into the London pattern.
We have problems when it comes to Manchester's second runway and Liverpool, and we also have a potential problem in the south-east. I hope that the Government will get to grips with this problem and separate the two arms of NATS in order to allow the Government arm to set the standards and the operational arm to get into the private sector and compete with others on a fair and equal basis.
I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, said about seaports. I discussed shipping two weeks ago and I will not bore your Lordships again with that particular issue. But, on that point, I hope that my noble friend will bear in mind that our ports are suffering heavier burdens than continental ports, which are much more subsidised than ours, and ensure that when it comes to trans-European networks British taxpayers' money is not given in subsidies to European ports.
The private finance sector in this country has an immense part to play. I commend the Government most strongly for what they are doing. There are potential flaws, but I hope that they will now seek to get those flaws right, before there are tears later.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am sure that we all welcome the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, back to our debates.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to hear such a constructive contribution on a very difficult problem.
Let me say straightaway that, as a resident living near Redhill, I am dead against what he is trying to achieve for the development of Redhill Aerodrome. We have enough from Gatwick, we have enough from London Airport and we have had enough from the Redhill Air Club, which ran a fleet of Tiger Moths—all more than 50 years of age—and made a great clatter and rattle on a Sunday afternoon.
I occupy a privileged position in this debate, and I hope I am not going to spoil it. This is pie in the sky. The canvas painted before our eager eyes by my noble friend in opening this debate—on which I congratulate

261
him very warmly indeed—was a comprehensive and knowledgeable sketch of a world problem, and was a rare treat indeed.
A great deal of this traffic and road transport infrastructure is on its way to India. There are other groups of countries besides Europe. Radical change is taking place in India. Road makers, technicians, communications experts and all those necessary for the development of a country from an agrarian way of life to an urban way of life are on their way to India. This is supported by American capital of such volume that it cannot all be absorbed in capital expenditure at the present time, with the result that they have about 20 per cent. inflation.
I am a bit of a cynic about transport because when I was a member of Harold Wilson's Cabinet he asked me to preside over a Cabinet committee into transport policies. Apparently we did not have any, and it was desirable that our views on transport should be made known. All I was given was the party formula, which was for an integrated system of transport. That is all I had to work on. By the time we had finished with the quarrel between the National Union of Railwaymen and the Transport and General Workers' Union over a supply line to a porthead in the south-east of England, we realised that there would not be an integrated system of transport.
That is history, but some of the problems remain. The canvas which my noble friend has drawn before our eyes this afternoon sought to show what may be achieved in the next century. I doubt it very much. I do not think that the world will develop along those lines because the resources will not be available for it. With the demands of so many people for a better standard of living—people want to reap the benefits of their higher skills and the signs of prosperity around them—how much can be devoted to this vast reconstruction of the world's communications in anything like a reasonable space of time? I wish that there was an encouraging message on the accomplishments that was anything like the complete picture which my noble friend has drawn. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, by directing his attention to the number of items, schemes and needs, certainly brought some improvements within our grasp. But that is only part of the problem.
I shall conclude what I have to say because I am under a very strong emotion. I can think of the word "transport" at the present time only in terms of the brutality that we are imposing on millions of our animals as we transport them along the roads of Europe for slaughter at the other end. This is becoming a major political issue. What is the transport infrastructure for? What is it to carry: more and more animals around the world, more human cargo around the world? What is the outcome? How much happier are people going to be? The Government have to face the fact that transport at the moment means only one thing to a great many people: they do not like to see what is being done to our young animals when they are transported to Europe. Better roads to cart more of them there? Better slaughterhouses to kill them when they get there? This is becoming a national emotional issue. The Government will have to take notice of it.
262
I cannot go on any longer without noble Lords realising that I am almost completely out of order. But I got up to give the House that message and I am going to take every opportunity I can of repeating it. That is all I have to say.
6.2 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, what a difficult one to follow! When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, I was filled with hope at this beautiful vista that he painted for us of a better Europe with better communications, more development, and industry getting about its business without let or hindrance. I would like to go back to thinking in those terms during this debate.
There is no doubt that an effective transport infrastructure is vital to any industry, indeed to any firm, or to the success of any individual manufacturing plant. It is vital to existing industries and existing industrial communities but it is, if possible, even more important to developing areas, developing industries and developing trade between countries. It is no good making a better mousetrap if the world cannot find a path to your door to buy it or if you cannot find a satisfactory and economic means of delivering it to would-be buyers.
It is obvious therefore that if industrial firms cannot find an existing transport infrastructure that suits their convenience they will seek to set up something which does. This usually means putting their own lorries, vans and cars on the road regardless of the effect it may have on the road system and the transport infrastructure enjoyed by other people. Your Lordships will, I hope, forgive me therefore if I examine this proposition in the light of what I know of my home area, the northern Highlands of Scotland.
In Caithness we are engaged in trying to carve out a future for ourselves in the aftermath of the shutdown of the fast reactor at Dounreay. Our search for industry wherewith to replace the employment lost by the closedown and to strengthen an economy weakened by the closedown is made much more difficult by a lack of effective transport infrastructure policy and the problems which arise as a result.
One piece of infrastructure which had been put into place to serve Dounreay is now of little further use and of no help in developing most of the industrial projects which we could hope to attract. I refer to the strengthened national grid power line. You cannot send boxes of fish or freezer cabinets down a power cable, yet these are two industries which are being successfully developed on an important scale. What therefore have these industries done to ship in their raw material and ship out their product?
The successful white fish industry is a direct result of infrastructure improvement. Scrabster Harbour Trust, on which I have the honour to serve as a management trustee, had the wisdom to foresee the possibilities of developing the port and the fish marketing arrangements. With the aid of loans from the Scottish Office, it constructed a new basin for fishing boats from ports all over Britain—Grimsby and Buckie to name but

263
two—whose catches now constitute a multi-million pound trade both in fish sales and in consigned catches which go to other markets for ultimate sale. The harbour trust has provided the infrastructure to bring in the raw material of this trade but the story of how it is shipped out is not so happy.
At one time refrigerated fast fish trains left Thurso every night bound for Billingsgate, and a very satisfactory arrangement it was. But the Beeching axe put a stop to that. Now all this vastly increased fish trade has to go on refrigerated lorries. One haulier alone sends 10 38-tonne articulated lorry loads on average per day down the A.9; obviously, on average 10 articulated lorries return with or without a load.
The problem is that all this trade must use the A.9 as it is the only road out of Caithness going directly south down the east coast. As it leaves Caithness it takes the form of an extremely steep series of hairpin bends at Berriedale which are difficult enough to negotiate in a private car. To the driver of a 38-tonne articulated lorry who does not know the road it sometimes proves impossible. The other day a lorry load of pipes bound for Rockwaters oil pipeline manufacturing plant just north of Wick got stuck on the top of a hairpin like the plank of a seesaw. In the large queue of traffic trying to go south which quickly built up were a number of unfortunate people with Apex tickets from Inverness to London in their pockets. None of them made it to their flights except one enterprising person who walked to the other side of the blockage and did some sort of a deal whereby someone took him to Inverness. However, British Airways were merciful—I suppose they wanted to keep their trade—and did not penalise the rest of the ticket-holders. My noble kinsman Lord Caithness will therefore realise that if I can negotiate the bend at Berriedale I am not put off by trying to get through Newbury.
I mention all of this to illustrate the fragility of a transport infrastructure which is ill-thought-out and unco-ordinated. Why could the pipes not come up by rail or by sea? Why are the flights at Wick so inadequate? Why do more people and consignments not use the existing railway? Why is the railway not brought up to date?
In looking at these questions it must be noted that many consignors have deserted the railway because it has not been modernised at the same time as the roads have been greatly improved. One must ask the Government, who are responsible for both: is this in the public interest? The question is all the more pertinent in the light of widespread condemnation of pollution due to too many vehicles using the roads. There should be greater use of the railway. But how can one use the railway when it refuses to be used?
All the livestock markets in the north were originally set up beside the railway—but Dr. Beeching put an end to that by refusing to accept green field traffic. This was a source of great disappointment to farmers and stockmen who knew how much kinder and better it was to use the railway for the transport of stock than the road. So now, whether we like it or not, at sale times our roads are crowded with huge, four-deck stock lorries
264
with four-deck stock trailers, adding to the refrigerated articulated lorries carrying a fish trade which has already been turned off the railway.
Post Office trade which used always to be carried by rail or air is now brought in one articulated lorry carrying parcels, three vans carrying letters and one special van carrying Data Post per day; a similar number are sent south. Add to that number the two or three articulated lorries per supermarket chain (the Co-op and Safeway) as well as the lorries of the wholesalers who supply the smaller shops and businesses and licensed premises, most of whom used to send their goods by rail until the railways unilaterally stopped carrying goods. You can see that there is not much room left on the roads for the tourists with their caravans about whom everybody complains during the summer season.
Now, anyone starting a manufacturing business in the north has to find a road haulier or else run his own transport on the roads. That is why our most successful manufacturer in Caithness, Norfrost, had to set up its own haulage business in order to ship out its product. It sends on average some 10 articulated lorries south daily with a like number returning.
Successful though our road haulage firms are, they are inhibited from achieving maximum efficiency by restrictions which are imposed upon them. If they invest in a trailer capable of carrying the full legal EEC permitted load of 48 tonnes, why are they then restricted to a mere 38 tonnes? This means that as soon as they have gone through the Channel Tunnel they are carrying some 10 tonnes less than their French competitors. In that context one must remember that they have to give up a tonne or so of payload to safety equipment which has recently been made mandatory.
If in a little and sparsely populated place like Caithness, our transport structure is in such desperate need of modernisation and co-ordination, how much greater must the need be in larger and more populous areas of the country which are grappling, like us, with the loss of traditional industries and which need all the help which the Government can give them to replace the lost jobs and develop new industries and new trade. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, for giving us this chance to debate this matter in your Lordships' House, and I support him in his call.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, I propose to confine my remarks tonight to rail and road transport, not because marine and air transport are not important, but the crisis in our transport system is largely one of the roads. That applies to industry and industrial transport as much as to private transport. Indeed, industry is subjected to the same dilemma which confronts all of us—the clash between freedom to move goods where we want and how we want, and at the same time preserving an unpolluted environment and a quality of life acceptable to our citizens.
My other general point is that we are going to retain our present infrastructure for quite some time. In my view the road building programme has been quite rightly curtailed. We can hope for developments on rail and

265
certainly we hope to see the Channel Tunnel link built, which would be a notable advance. Apart from one or two items like that, the infrastructure which we have today is very largely the infrastructure which we shall have in certainly 10 years time and probably 20 years time. So the problem is not developing the infrastructure so much as making better use of that which we have.
The almost knee-jerk reaction when one talks about moving goods is to say, "Move them from the roads to the railways". The Royal Commission on the Environment took a look at that and, despite the declining percentage of goods moved by rail in recent years, the commission felt that, with the right management policies, a decline to 6 per cent. could, over a 20 year period, be boosted to something like a 20 per cent. improvement. That would be a very significant advance in rail freight, but it would still leave 80 per cent. to be transported largely by road, although air and merchant shipping would play their part.
When one looks at the possibilities for further rail transport, there are limiting factors. I believe that we are all familiar with them. Goods carried on short journeys simply cannot be justified by rail, except in the case of very specialised loads such as coal. So one needs a journey, usually of hundreds of miles, to justify moving freight by rail. That has been almost impossible in this country because rail journeys are not more than 200 to 300 miles at the very most. But with the advent of the Channel Tunnel there is every hope that that distance can be extended to a 1,000 or more miles. Then rail freight will become a real competitor with the roads.
I congratulate the Government on making sure that the rail link passes to the north of London and comes into St. Pancras where there is a very real prospect of making proper rail connections to the Midlands, the north and Scotland. I hope that we shall make good use of the Channel Tunnel, and develop our rail freight trade as best we can.
The Government have taken a number of measures to try to encourage the movement of goods by rail. They have introduced two types of grant—the freight facilities grant and the track access grant, which are specifically designed with this kind of movement in mind. Unfortunately, the amounts involved are small and, perhaps even more sadly, the take-up—at least when I was last informed of the amounts involved—is also rather small. It seems unlikely that these two grants will make a particularly strong impression on freight traffic.
The really key factor to rail freight is the combined terminals. These have to be efficient, manned 24 hours a day and cheap. I believe that in the past British Rail has looked on freight transport as an unfortunate competitor. It has not gone out of its way to attract road freight onto the railways, using the various ways in which that can be done. This has to be a partnership between rail and road if it is to work as well as possible. One can only hope that the new privatised organisations will take this on board with rather more enthusiasm than British Rail seems to have done in the past.
I would now like to deal with one particular aspect of road transport which has come to my notice fairly recently, but with which some of your Lordships may be fully familiar. I refer to natural gas vehicles. They
266
are a fairly old development. Some of your Lordships will remember seeing vans running around after the war with large balloons on the roof. Then natural gas faded from the transport scene and, although I am sure development carried on, I, as a casual observer, only noticed it again some 18 months ago.
Natural gas has many and considerable advantages as a fuel. I have some figures and I shall only bore your Lordships with three or four of them which I have obtained through the courtesy of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara as the president of the relevant institution. Natural gas vehicles reduce emissions of carbon monoxide by 76 per cent., nitrogen oxide by 83 per cent., and non-methane hydrocarbons by 88 per cent. compared with petrol vehicles. They give extremely low particulate emissions compared to diesel vehicles. Carbon dioxide emissions per vehicle kilometre are reduced by 25 per cent. compared to petrol vehicles. That is a tremendous reduction in pollution. In addition. the fuel can be piped along normal gas pipelines, thus eliminating the need for vast fleets of tankers and lorries.
However, there are disadvantages. The obvious disadvantage is that at present most natural gas vehicles can run for only 200 miles on pure natural gas or for approximately double that distance if the engine is designed to take both natural gas and petrol or diesel. That means that the vehicle must return to a refuelling point, usually by evening. The fuel is therefore extremely suitable for large fleets of lorries and coaches which often do just that: after a day's run, they return to a common terminal. There is no problem setting up a fuelling depot in a vehicle terminal.
Such vehicles are being developed as motor cars for private citizens, but it is a chicken-and-egg situation. Until there are enough such vehicles, it is not worth having refuelling depots, but until there are enough refuelling depots, it is not worth people buying such cars. For the immediate future, therefore, the use of natural gas will be confined to heavy vehicles, buses and coaches. I should like to congratulate the Government on the fact that in the last serious increase in fuel duties in the recent Budget, although duties on petrol and diesel were sharply increased, no extra duty was imposed on natural gas.
Finally, by way of a general comment on the use of our existing infrastructure, perhaps I should point out that anybody who considers our transport network must be struck by its under-utilisation at night. One of the reasons for that—perhaps the main reason—is the multiplicity of rules preventing heavy vehicles entering urban areas. One can well understand the reason for that, but that area of use should be investigated. The obvious route seems to be to compel manufacturers to make quieter engines. If they are given enough time and, if necessary, some financial incentive, it seems possible that the noise level of heavy vehicles could be reduced to approximately that of the motor car. If that happened, heavy vehicles could use urban areas at night and the distribution of retail and industrial products could be speeded up; better use could be made of our roads and our citizens would find driving on them much more pleasant and convenient.

267
As I have said, one or two things need to be done. The danger is that most of the steps that are required in relation to industrial transport will cost money. The challenge to freighters is to try to avoid passing on those additional costs to the customer.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I join in thanking my noble friend and colleague Lord Ewing of Kirkford, and in congratulating him on his wide-ranging speech. He has given us plenty to think about. I imagine that most noble Lords will have received the CBI report, Missing Links—Setting National Transport Priorities. It is a discussion document of nearly 50 pages of information and points of view. It provides answers to some of our questions.
However, in order to get another view, I contacted the Institution of Highways and Transportation, which has made one or two comments—not criticisms, but suggestions—about where it feels that the CBI's report . requires further consideration. The institution stated:
"The report should be welcomed since it highlights the historic under-investment in United Kingdom transport infrastructure".
The institution continued:
"plans like Roads to Prosperity have no status (other than policy)".
That means that there is no commitment to ensuring that such plans are achieved.
The institution continued:
"The Secretary of State wishes our road network to 'sweat' before new construction—i.e: increase the through-put. This will lead to greater congestion and road wear.
The UK has a particular weakness in lack of maintenance of our existing transport infrastructure.
The Private Finance Initiative is not making progress in raising funds for investment—for a variety of reasons".
The institution stated that it was,
"unsure about the CBI suggestion that a national transport strategy be developed. How would this work within a privatised framework? The aims of the private sector may not match those of the government".
I recall that only a few weeks ago the Prime Minister said in another place that he would give the public a railway system that would be the envy of Europe. I do not believe anybody who tells me that the private sector will suddenly come up with bucketfuls of money to build a super railway system which is in advance of that in France. I do not think that such an offer is on the table. I do not think that there is any possibility of it happening.
I took particular note of what my noble friend Lord Ewing said about airports. Being a Mancunian, I have always been deeply interested in the development of Manchester Airport and, indeed, played some part in that some years ago. A couple of weeks ago there was a presentation in the Cholmondeley Room about why Manchester Airport requires a second runway. The presentation sought to explain how the airport authority is trying to allay the fears of those who are currently expressing opposition to a second runway. An excellent case was made. There is no question but that if the north-west is to make progress and to be able to compete equally with other parts of Europe, Manchester requires
268
a second runway. We are not talking only about transport within the United Kingdom, but about Manchester's ability to expand its worldwide capabilities. When this country's trade starts to revive, the north-west will be one of the busiest areas of the country yet it is at present under-provided with transport links.
Our railway system being what it is, what British Rail calls its "West coast mainline"—that running from Manchester to Euston—is grossly under-resourced if it is to be able to deal with the traffic that is expected to come through the Channel Tunnel from Europe. I am not making a party political point. I believe that that is the general view of those of all political parties in the north-west. That railway line needs radical improvement if it is to be able to cope with foreseeable developments.
Manchester has gone out of its way and has bent over backwards to meet the anxieties of those in the area who are worried about the development of a second runway. Manchester has gone as far as anybody could expect in that regard. If that proposal is accepted, I believe that construction could start within a matter of months rather than years. That is what the area needs. When that proposal lands on the Secretary of State's desk, as it will, I hope that he will expedite it quickly and let Manchester and the north-west have that second runway. There is no other international airport to match Manchester. There is nothing else between London and Manchester.
I was concerned by my noble friend's reference to the merchant navy. It is a strange fact that until 30 years ago —immediately after the last war, between the wars, and before the First World War—we were the world's leading maritime nation. If this country had no aeroplanes, we would be in effect a landlocked nation because we now have so few ships. We do not have a merchant navy. We have gone from the top of the league 30, 40 or 50 years ago to the bottom. All that we keep being told is "the market determines it". I suspect—and I do not think I shall be alone in saying this—that if the situation ever arose where this country was threatened again and needed goods brought to this island in defence of the realm, we would not have the ships to deal with that situation. That needs to be looked at very quickly.
People ask whether the present road system is adequate. If I may speak on a personal note, I live on the border of Stockport and Denton, which is just on the outskirts of Manchester. I live on a main road which has a rather restricted part, where there is a small stone bridge. Traffic has to go over the bridge, and about three weeks ago there was a crash which caused damage to the bridge. The bridge has been closed for three weeks. That added one hour and a half on my journey from home to your Lordships' House. Therefore, instead of travelling direct to your Lordships' House, I had to go all the way round Manchester. Juggernauts from the Continent are also having to be turned back because of the problem. This has happened in this day and age, and it is not for the first time. It does not inconvenience me, but what must it be costing industry? In the Stockport section alone there is a huge industrial estate which is developing and thriving. So what must the cost be to the

269
manufacturers who are moving goods in and out of that estate? One could go on giving more and more examples of such cases.
However, I am also concerned about the railway link to and from the Channel Tunnel. It has had a sad start, because it has not covered itself in glory. One hopes that things will improve because if the venture fails, a lot of finance will be lost and it will do a lot of damage to the proposed infrastructure of this country. So it is up to the people involved to get it right as quickly as they can.
Last but not least—although it might be a little removed from the subject of this debate—now and again in your Lordships' House, we have had questions about roll-on, roll-off ferries. I think the noble Lord who is going to reply answered a Question only a few weeks ago about the safety of these ferries, and he spoke as if everything was all right.
However, it was only a few weeks ago that a totally independent group of people compared the safety factor of ferries with that of normal liners and the survival chances of passengers when ships were in distress. They said that a ship which was on fire in the Indian Ocean had 100 per cent. of people saved because there was time to abandon ship, whereas once roll-on, roll-off ferries are in difficulty, everything happens very quickly. People who have no axe to grind say that the system is flawed and needs to be altered.
I close by saying that while this is not particularly relevant to this debate tonight, it is something which ought to be lookedat as a matter of urgency because—God forbid!—it could happen again. It is certain that something will happen again at some time because there have been two recent accidents—the one in the Baltic and at Zeebrugge—and these things do happen. Irrespective of the expense that is involved, I believe that the operators of such ferries will have to look again al what can be done. Once again, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, for his opening remarks, which were very enlightening and opened the door to diiscussion on many points of view.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, for giving us this opportunity to debate transport and infrastructure at home and abroad. I agreed with quite a lot of what he said, save perhaps in the Dutch context where, no matter however much one plans ahead, politicians can interfere. For example, in the last general election in Holland a major party did well by promising a massive increase in road fuel taxes to pay for railway investment. Alas, that fell by the wayside as a consequence of the political problems of proportional representation. Similarly, when the noble Lord prayed in aid the Greens, I am sure he will be aware that the press this weekend has reminded us that the Greens have a heavy burden to carry in terms of the flooding problems that hit Holland last weekend.
I also found myself greatly in agreement with my noble friend Lord Caithness on how we must bring the private sector in through the PFI. My own particular concern about getting it wrong is that it seems to me
270
tragic that the Bill that will enable the high speed link to the Channel to be built, and will define it, will go through long after we have asked the consortia who wish to get involved in the project to pug: their bids on the table. That really seems to me to be a matter of the cart before the horse.
As ever, I am concerned about the railways, in which I declare an interest, and also, to a lesser extent, aviation. Though rarely a road user, I would very much like to see more freight transferred to rail. Infrastructure usage costs for current and potential freight users have increased as a result of the restructuring of the railways, and these increases can be justified only if they are used largely to pay for the maintenance or renewal of the system. The PFI, hopefully, will take care of new investment.
I fear that these increases may actually restrain transfer of freight from road to rail because the charges are quite steep. They can be offset, however, by grants made under Sections 137 and 139 of the 1993 Act. The first section broadly restated the old Section 8 rules about grants towards the capital costs of sidings, wagons, cranes and other capital investment in infrastructure.
Section 139 facilitates grants towards the payment of Railtrack access charges, and is a most welcome development since it extends considerably the old Section 8, provided, as my noble friend Lord Elibank says, that we have enough money available. However, in evaluating the case for a grant a value is assigned to the lorry miles that would be saved if the traffic switches to rail. For local or single carriageway roads, this value is between £1 and £1.50 per lorry mile. However, for dual carriageways and motorways the value is only 5 pence per lorry mile.
Rail's strength lies in the trunk haul and the majority of flows which might switch are, I suspect, largely routed over the major roads. This poses road investment problems, and also problems in regard to the environment of congestion and noise. The grant differential makes the switch to rail much less attractive, and I wonder whether the Government would consider a more generous value—say, £1 per lorry mile for main road miles avoided rather than 5 pence. I feel that this, allied to the Channel Tunnel, could make an appreciable difference in persuading people to transfer freight from road to rail, not least those who so concern the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso.
My second point builds upon experience with other utility privatisations and the tendency for increased charges to go to finance dividend streams at the expense of new projects or the renewal of the infrastructure. Wearing my tourism hat, the case of the Cornwall beaches and sewage springs to mind. Elsewhere, many US railways have run into trouble by diversifying away from the core businesses and by putting excess emphasis on deferred maintenance to enable them to invest outside.
As regards new projects such as the Channel Tunnel rail link and CrossRail, I believe that if the Treasury can get the ground rules right the PFI has a part to play, if it ever gets off the ground. My real concern is regular maintenance and renewal—a matter for Railtrack, and

271
one to be funded by the higher access charges I have already mentioned, together with a contribution which I believe should come from government in recognition of congestion and environmental benefits.
The train operators need to be assured that the money generated by higher charges is spent on renewal and replacement of track and signalling, and is not used for diversification or ever-growing dividend streams once Railtrack is in the private sector. The regulator has a part to play in that, as have the Government, but how will the latter ensure that the necessary maintenance and renewal continue at the level paid for at access charges? Will it be through licence conditions, contractually, or by direction? Will Railtrack's rail industry plans include renewal proposals?
I turn now to aviation and, in particular, navigation and air traffic control in Europe. European charges are universally agreed to be far higher than those in America or Asia. That applies to all levels of fares. It gives the airlines higher cost bases, inevitably passed on to passengers in the form of higher fares. They are fares which do not stand comparison with those available in other parts of the world. European costs are higher because we have individual national systems. In a way, our air traffic and navigation control systems are reminiscent of where the railways were 70 years ago when a train was passed from one signal box to another and then to another, whereas nowadays it can be cleared for, perhaps, 100 miles under a modern signal centre.
That leads to inefficiency over flight routings, in the use of radar and data co-ordination, particularly across national frontiers. Those technical problems are sometimes compounded by industrial unrest and low productivity. The former—industrial unrest—will have had a bad effect on many of your Lordships' journeys in Europe. We need a Europe-wide approach to the technical and managerial problems. Will my noble friend the Minister tell us what steps Britain is taking to secure such an approach?
I turn, finally, to the problem of runway capacity in the south-east. While it is adequate at present, we cannot put off that issue indefinitely. Lead times are long, not just for the statutory procedures but for construction. They are long for terminal capacity and access. I seem to remember that when the Heathrow Express Railway Bill went through the House it was planned that it would be opened by now. Instead of which, we are now talking about 1997 or 1998.
Access is especially important not just for airport users but for the residents of the area around the airport, particularly Heathrow, and those who have non-airport related employment in the vicinity. I hope that the proposed Terminal 5 will be built. I am not asking my noble friend to abuse the statutory powers of his honourable friend, but we should consider both mainline and London Underground access. In more general terms, as the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, said, we should be considering a westbound access from Heathrow towards Reading as that would take a great deal of pressure off the M.4. That comes into an infrastructure policy, localised though it may be. Such a link would, I believe, cost some £325 million and fit neatly into the CrossRail
272
electrification to Reading, if that ever gets off the ground. The present Heathrow Express route is not built to deal with diesel traction.
By happy coincidence, £325 million is the sum expected to be raised by Her Majesty's Government in a year by the airport departure tax. Would not the use of the one to pay for the other be an excellent and effective example of transport infrastructure policy?
6.45 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, perhaps I may welcome the usual robust contribution to our debate of my long-standing and long-lasting noble friend Lord Houghton. After his contribution, and the contribution of other noble Lords, I do not need to rehearse again the needs of industry. It is sufficient to say that we do not have factories where iron ore goes in one end and cars come out at the other. To be competitive, European industry is highly decentralised. Transport is crucial to that and to the growing trend towards long-term relationships between customers and suppliers, which result in cost reductions. That is central to the ability of European industry to be competitive. The other crucial aspect of European industry's competitiveness is service. Of course transport plays an important role in that.
Over the past few decades it has become clear that in the UK the development of the motorway network has led to a great improvement in industry's productivity. However, rising congestion and growing environmental concerns probably mean that our road development has gone as far is is possible. Of course, there are some common-sense additions to the inter-urban network and completion of some missing links, but nothing major. The major future development must be on the railways, and it is here that I should like to concentrate
The eminent transportation economist David Aschauer has stated that spending on the public rail network has twice the potential to increase productivity as spending on roads. That is a message which seems to have been heard loud and clear on the Continent. The conclusion comes from figures complied for the World Economic forum's 1994 competitiveness report. It gives a mixed picture, as my noble friend lord Ewing reminded us. We rank in the bottom half of the European Union on the quality of road and rail infrastructure, but in the upper half on air infrastructure and access to ports. In the attitude survey there was particular dissatisfaction with the rail infrastructure, which is not surprising. Britain's rail system is not in a happy state. Privatisation will not solve the problem. The study showed that the cost of running our railways compares well with other European countries. What is lacking is investment to stop the infrastructure crumbling away. So where is the logic in a privatisation plan which guarantees subsidy for investment in the infrastructure for only two years ahead but guarantees the subsidy to the train operators for up to seven years ahead? Surely the Government have got this the wrong way round. Nor is it apparent to anyone how the fragmentation of the system will help investment.

273
The creation of 25 passenger train operating companies, some running as little as one line, with all the problems of co-ordination of timetables, tickets and travel to distant destinations will make the system more complex. Also, the number of people involved in shaping the new railway system is hardly conducive to investment. We have Mr. Salmon selling passenger franchises; Mr. Swift regulating the new railway companies; Mr. Horton running the track; and Sir Bob Reid working out his notice and looking after those parts of the railway yet to be privatised. Somewhere in this comes the Transport Secretary. Obviously, he has found it difficult to understand the new arrangement. Although he keeps repeating the promise of through ticketing, apparently he no longer has the power to enforce it. He can only provide "guidance".
All this fuels fears that the purpose of privatisation is merely a way of reducing state spending on railways. Investment has been predicated by the Secretary of State to continue at about £1 billion, but £850 million a year is required to keep the network in a steady state. In the present state of decline and uncertainty it is difficult to see even how that figure can be even remotely approached.
Gearing up for a serious programme of investment requires a long and continuous process of project preparation and tendering. In fact the early stages of the procurement process are almost non-existent. There is virtually no tendering for new rolling stock, and that is essential if /he age profile of the existing fleet is even going to be maintained. Manufacturers fear that there will be no new orders placed before 1997.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, infrastructure?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I shall deal with infrastructure in a moment. Manufacturers fear that no new orders will be placed before 1997 at the earliest by which time the rolling stock supply industry will have disappeared. Even orders for basic track components are falling away—and this at a time when there is widespread concern about the state of the infrastructure and obvious arrears of maintenance. All that has grave implications for safety. How long can we carry on with the imposition of speed limits when maintenance is overdue? For too many years we have been satisfied with mediocrity on the railways.
The suspicion that the Government are not interested in investment in the railways is fuelled by their lack of interest even in schemes to get heavy goods vehicles off the road and to transport goods more efficiently to the European Union by rail, via the Channel Tunnel. The noble Lord, Lord Elibank, spoke about that in explaining the need to make better use of our existing network.
Perhaps I may give an example. Currently, three-quarters of the unit load traffic between Britain and the Continent is carried on semi-trailers by road. Common on the Continent is the service whereby the semi-trailers are loaded on to rail wagons known as "piggybacks". The major part of the journey is then done by rail. That has the effect of taking a lot of heavy traffic off the roads. Bridges and tunnels are generally
274
lower and narrower in Britain than on the Continent and station platforms are closer to the tracks. The generally accepted view is that piggyback would be impossible in Britain.
However, with the support of DG7, under the pilot actions on combined transport programme, a study was carried out to see whether the service could be extended from the Channel Tunnel through the major industrial areas to Scotland. I have the report here. On the steering committee were local authorities, Eurotunnel, French Railways, British Rail and various transport organisations. I do not see the name "Department of Transport".
The study shows that adapting bridges and tunnels so that standard four-metre high road trailers can be carried on special rail wagons from Scotland to the Channel Tunnel should cost less than £100 million. That has the potential to take 400,000 long-distance lorry journeys off the road. Perhaps I may put that into context; it is about half the cost of widening the 12 kilometres of the M.25 motorway between junctions 12 and 15, which the Government were seriously studying.
I am sure that the project would not have been ignored by the Government if they had had a coherent transport framework covering all forms of transport and not favouring roads to the detriment of rail. It is their strategy of standing back that has resulted in the lack of investment. Many noble Lords have called on the Government to create a consensus but there is no framework in which that consensus can take place.
While the Government stand back, all that we shall have is vested interests shouting at each other. The one which shouts loudest wins. That is no way to encourage a strategic approach to the needs of industry for a transport infrastructure. The Government must accept that they have the major role of setting up the framework within which the strategic consensus can be reached. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House whether his department has any plans because industry must plan for the long term even though his department is unwilling to do so.
Investment in transport infrastructure is a long-term business and requires an act of faith. We on these Benches understand that. Since the mid-1980s we have had plans to seek a broad consensus on transport. More than two years ago we announced plans to enter into joint public and private financing arrangements to invest in the long-term improvement of our transport infrastructure to help make our industry become more competitive. Last week Tony Blair reiterated our commitment to that by stating that,
"the railways should be retained as a proper integrated public service".
6.55 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Ewing for raising this most important issue and, from my point of view, for setting it within its European context, in which I have an interest.
Your Lordships may have read an excellent feature in last Sunday's Observer in which the thoughts of Commissioner Kinnock were set out in detail. You will

275
have noted that the whole spirit of my right honourable friend's approach to the matter was one of obtaining a consultative consensus before taking any premature action along any particular line. That is well in accord with the method of thinking that your Lordships might consider appropriate in respect of a problem of this kind. All manufacturing life depends essentially upon movement; upon moving goods and services from one place to another.
Commissioner Kinnock put forward proposals for the investment of approximately £300 billion in the European network during the next 15 years. It would be idle to suppose that we in this country will not be required to contribute an appropriate share. But one thing is absolutely certain: that the money when expended, whether by means of investment or grant, must be kept under far stricter control both in regard to the total and the apportionment between countries.
There is an overriding problem. All economists and most politicians on all sides appear to assume—and probably assume correctly—that economic activity will expand considerably, if at sustainable levels, during the next few years. Everyone talks of expansion. Doubtless we shall make our own limited—to avoid controversy—and sustainable contribution towards this. But undoubtedly it will need more movement of goods not only within the country but to and from this country.
Therefore, whatever strains we have talked about today—and there have been many notable contributions on that matter—one can safely assume that the stresses will increase rather than decrease and that the refurbishment of the infrastructure and its extension must take account not only of existing production but perhaps of future expanded production. Those are extremely important factors.
Moreover, I venture to suggest that it is not appropriate only to consider the main networks, to which most consideration has been given, in particular at the European level. Not only the finished product requires speedy export from and import into this country; the raw materials and self-assemblies which make up the finished goods must also be taken into account. In the main, those come from inside the country and do not necessarily need the existing main road and rail networks.
Moreover, there is also the question of the staff and the workers. Not only raw materials but also working people are vital to the process of production and they have to get to their place of work. It is not only a matter of the modernisation and expansion of the infrastructure upon main lines; it is also a matter of the interim part—the local infrastructure and the local means of travel. That has a particular impact on the environmental questions which have been so admirably dealt with in previous speeches in this debate. Not only do air pollution and noise pollution—which are part of the environmental factor—have to be taken into account, but also what we will call the general balance of life in the environment. That should be uncorrupted in the sense of its ordinary balance not being unduly disturbed
276
so that people, when they are not at work or when they are going to work, can have a reasonable environment in which to do that. All these are important matters.
I venture to suggest to my noble friend that it is not even safe to consider the matter within its European context. One has to go a little wider than that. One has to consider —this is becoming increasingly evident now—that one of the most likely areas of the expansion of export of manufactures from this country is likely to be to the Pacific Rim itself and to the other developing countries. That gives an added emphasis to the remarks, that fell from the lips of my noble friend, Lord Dean of Beswick, when he referred to the deplorable shipping situation in which we find ourselves at the present time.
The Commission's idea of the importance of investment is roughly 60 per cent. rail, 30 per cent. road and 10 per cent. the rest, including air travel and canals. In this latter connection I would venture to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that up to now, and for the past 20 or 30 years, it has been the practice of manufacturing industry to use the main trunk roads, and to some extent the railways, as their interim store both of raw materials going into their factories and in terms of assemblies and sub-assemblies which go to make up the finished product. Instead of having a build-up within the factory itself, and a consequent extension of the acreage which they occupy, owing to very high interest rates—which are no longer 2 per cent., as they were at one time—and indeed general land values and rentals, it has become cheaper to use the roads as a work-in-progress store rather than establish buffers within the factory walls and build up stocks. Therefore the roads are not only being used for transport purposes; they are being used as a store.
That in itself tends to produce some congestion factors because as congestion builds up the question of delivering straight onto the end of the factory line becomes more difficult and therefore increases the cost. In view of the fact that the build-up time has commenced and a flow of traffic can be ensured continuously, we may well consider whether a far greater use ought not to be made inside the United Kingdom and indeed elsewhere—I have in mind southern France as well—of the canal system. Although such a system is slow and the build-up takes a long time—perhaps 10 or 12 days—once the flow starts and continues, it represents an economy rather than when goods are caught up in congestion on roads or even on rail.
I am asking that we take a broad and general view of this. We have already rejected the fashionable assumption for which the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby, at one time was responsible, of assuming that manufactured goods really did not matter much any more and that it was the total export effort from the country that really mattered. Quite clearly that is no longer the case. I have no doubt that we will have a formal recantation of the matter in due course, particularly in the light of the Select Committee report of your Lordships' House on employment and overseas trade which has been referred to many times.

277
One thing for certain is that the whole matter has to be considered at length and in public very quickly. All these factors ought to be discussed. It is for consideration whether a special Cabinet sub-committee ought not to be formed, comprising senior representatives from the Department of Transport, the DTI, the Treasury, the Department of the Environment and—if I may suggest, in deference to the emphasis given to the matter by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing—also the new Minister for Europe, Mr. Davis. His excellent feature in last week's European may attract a good deal of interest in view of the constructive manner with which he is dealing with the whole question of our relationships with Europe. But certainly we must have a public policy to cover all these matters, and it should be a matter for full public consultation—if necessary taking some time—accompanied eventually by a consultation paper, which can then be discussed free of any comparatively trivial considerations as to the value of further privatisations in any particular field. Let the national interest prevail within its European context and ultimately within its world context.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I always find it a matter of great interest to listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has to say. I am a little apprehensive when he gets onto his favourite subject of Europe but I must say that on this occasion on the whole I thought he was relatively mild on the subject. Indeed, I even got the impression that he supports the views of his right honourable friend Mr. Kinnock who has set out how he saw the transport policy in the European Community. Perhaps we can discern a little change in that direction.
I reiterate the gratitude expressed by others to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, for introducing the debate. I cannot think of anyone better qualified with his great knowledge of transport on the one hand and European affairs on the other. He painted a broad canvas for us which stimulated the wide-ranging and constructive debate that we have had so far. He referred in particular to the call which has been made by Dr. Mawhinney, the Secretary of State for Transport, that we should now engage in a national debate on transport. I fully agree with that. I think that is a very good idea and it is very timely. Unfortunately to engage in a debate of that sort as regards the whole country, you have to have some sort of framework. We cannot just meet casually and start talking about transport. Of course we do our best in this House. If Dr. Mawhinney wanted to pursue the question as regards this House he could see that over a period of years we have debated transport. In fact, we debated the report on transport of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, in October.
However, I think Dr. Mawhinney was thinking beyond the confines of your Lordships' House. If we are to launch into a wide-ranging national debate on transport it has to be sparked off by the Government's own views on the subject, setting out the priorities and the options. So we need, as the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, rightly said, a Green Paper. It is worth recalling that the last Government White Paper on the subject of transport
278
policy was published in 1977. There have been documents since then dealing with various aspects of transport, but as far as I can tell no document dealing with the whole area of transport policy. So it is about time we had one.
In order to help Mr. Mawhinney in his endeavour, I should like to suggest some of the issues that should be set out in the Green Paper which we might debate. We have been helped in that consideration by the very interesting document issued by the CBI, to which a number of noble Lords have referred. I have here a copy of the document which is entitled Missing Links—Setting National Transport Priorities. It compares transport performance within the UK with that in three of our European neighbours; namely, Germany, France and the Netherlands. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and other noble Lords referred to the report.
Let us have a look at how we compare with those other countries and the issues which arise. I do not do so in any negative, critical way; I am merely trying to suggest what came out of the report and the policies that we ought to be looking at, although some may not apply here.
I should like to identify four issues which seem to me to be relevant to any debate on transport policy. The first is the question of past investment, to which a number of noble Lords have referred. It is unfortunate that when a comparison is made between our transport investment and that of our continental partners, particularly in the case of rail, we show up very badly, indeed dramatically so. The CBI report shows that in the period between 1985 and 1991 expenditure in France was 37 US dollars per capita; in Germany it was 27, in the Netherlands 25 and in the UK it was seven. It seems out of all comparison that we should have as little as 7 dollars per capita compared with expenditure in the region of 20 dollars in the other countries. Therefore, we have to do a great deal to catch up even before we can compete on level terms.
Next, we have to look at the question of a coherent strategy. We often talk about the need for a coherent policy. Can we or can we not have such a policy? Most noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have suggested that we ought to have a go at creating a coherent policy, however difficult that might be.
One must be struck by the way in which those other countries have gone about this. They have not looked at transport in isolation. They have not looked at different modes of transport in isolation. They have tried to bring together their forward views on transport within their overall economic and social objectives, particularly on a regional basis.
For example, in France they have a policy called the Aménagement du Territoire—which, although it is difficult to translate the term, means the development of the country's social and economic resources particularly with regard to the regions. That policy has been developed over a number of years and takes a forward look to the year 2015. They are trying to make sure that the transport network is developed in response to the economic and social needs of the different parts of France so as to arrive at reasonable solutions in that

279
period. The sort of problem to which my noble friend Lord Thurso referred in the north of Scotland as a result of the closure of the Dounreay operation would automatically have been taken into account in the development of that policy. We lack a wide-ranging approach of that sort.
In Germany there is also emphasis on the integration of different modes of transport. An interesting aspect in Germany is the development of combined transport terminals, to which they are devoting nearly £2 billion out of state resources.
Next, I should like to talk about our lack of long-term thinking in this matter, which I have already touched on. Most of those other countries are thinking in terms of transport developments integrated with social, economic and regional requirements 15 to 20 years ahead. Should we not be doing the same and beginning to consider the problem in the same way?
Finally, I turn to the question of a consensual approach. A number of noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—whom I am delighted to see here speaking in the debate—emphasised the difficulty of reaching a consensus. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in his remarkable address full of his usual vigour, also expressed from his past experience how difficult it is to get agreement. That may be true, but we ought to work at it. The Government ought to set an example with a Green Paper and set out the economic, social, expenditure and environmental issues and then initiate a structured debate over a period of time. That is what those other countries have done.
I conclude by saying that this is an extremely timely debate. We not only have the Secretary of State saying that he wants there to be a national debate, but we have had the opportunity of taking a first look at the subject in the House this afternoon. I very much hope that we shall hear from the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, when he replies, that the concept of a debate launched by his right honourable friend is a serious proposition from the Government and that they will be taking the necessary steps to enable it to be initiated on the basis of a Green Paper or other document issued by the Government.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House is indebted to my noble friend for having initiated this debate in a very impressive speech. The debate has been unusual in that in many respects there has been a remarkable example of consensuality. We have also heard a variety of different ideas. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who recently held ministerial office in the department, pleaded for more consistency on the part of the Government. He was right to do that. The concept of an integrated transport policy has always stuck in his gullet and continues to do so, but in that he seems to be in a very small minority these days.
We also heard a most eloquent plea on the part of my noble friend Lord Houghton about the transport of animals, an issue which concerns him deeply. He has warned us that we shall hear a great deal more from him on that subject. I look forward to that.
280
It has been a timely debate because we have been able to focus on the CBI discussion document. I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that it is a very worthwhile document. I do not agree with every element of the points put forward. I believe that some of the remarks about the environment are not helpful. We have also been able to concentrate to some degree on the programme recently announced by Commissioner Neil Kinnock.
The common denominator in those two themes is, as my noble friend Lord Haskel pointed out, that the industries of Europe and the United Kingdom equally need efficient, safe, reliable and integrated transport systems, supported by a far more modern system of infrastructure. That is critical if we are to achieve the benefits of the largest internal market in the world and also expand our trade beyond that market, as my noble friend Lord Bruce pointed out. This is not just a European Union matter.
The interests of our industry and an effective transport system are, of course, inseparable. Our industries across the country need to be able to market and move their products across the European Union and beyond. Our people need to be able to rely on the quickest and most efficient way of transport causing, always, the least environmental damage, as my noble friend Lord Ewing underlined. My noble friend made another important point: that in the development of those policies there needs to be a far greater involvement with the environmental non-governmental organisations.
The purpose of the persuasive CBI document is, of course, to be constructive. In being constructive, it is necessary to underline the faults that have occurred in our own country so that their effects might possibly be mitigated; and we can wherever possible learn from the past and change course. It stresses the need for two important objectives—the strategic objective has been referred to during the course of the debate—recognising that transport is vital in terms of our whole economic effort.
However, it also refers to the need to foster a more consensual policy. I believe that it is worthwhile reporting that Brian Gould, when dealing with transport matters in another place quite some time ago, made precisely that plea on behalf of the Opposition. It was reiterated by my honourable friend, now Deputy Leader of the party. It was not reflected in the issue of rail privatisation. We did not even have the benefit of a Green Paper when a highly controversial policy was put forward. It was not dealt with in the days of the motorway madness of the 1980s.
The criticisms that have been made by the CBI replicate in many ways those which have been made by the Labour Party over a number of years. They are fierce, challenging and deserve serious consideration from the Government.
Of course it is right to say that the picture is not wholly bad. The Government have introduced the idea—it is not before time—of the Private Finance Initiative. It is fair to point out—the Minister must concede it—that that initiative followed the same ideas

281
announced by the Labour Party some years before. But we still have a long way to go. Neither party can claim that the results of those considerations are perfect.
The trouble is that there is no real transport policy in this country. The different modes are viewed in isolation, not as being complementary. That is the thrust of successive transport commissioners, including myself, over many years. Vacillation on the part of the Government over the past 15 years has led to appalling delays in the provision of essential infrastructural projects. Britain is undoubtedly left in the slow lane compared with our neighbours—a point made forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. We know that the high speed train travels across northern France at 186 miles an hour, whereas in the Kentish countryside the train has to move at an average speed of 50 miles per hour. It is no accident that that has occurred.
The noble Lord referred to the difference in investment in France, Germany, the Netherlands and, indeed, Belgium. Those countries have moved far faster than we have in this country. It has been a deliberate policy on their part. They realised long ago that we pay heavily for congestion on our roads. Some time ago the CBI estimated that the direct cost to our industry, much of it small and local, was of the order of £6 billion a year, to which one has to add the indirect cost of the accidents—the health care for the injured, the fatalities and consequential losses to industry, as well as the heavy environmental costs which such congestion involves. Those countries have given a much higher priority to transport and transport planning than we have done. In this country we do not have a transport policy but a road-building programme—or we did have until a few days ago.
Since 1981 the French have built three completely new lines for their high speed trains, Italy one and Germany two. In 1993 Spain ordered its first high speed train from Madrid to Seville. We are not beginning to compete at present. Investment in our railways is abysmally low compared with Europe. Indeed, there is more investment in much smaller countries such as the Netherlands and Switzerland. In 1991 France invested six times more, and Germany something like five times more, than we have done.
What we have in this country by way of a policy is, as my noble friend Lord Haskel argued so persuasively, a demented ideology of privatisation. We support the injection of private finance into transport. We were saying so years before the Government thought of it. But, like the CBI, we say—it is an important point—that that should be in the form of new money from private sources and not instead of the public sector contributions. Is that the view of the Government? Since the late 1980s the Government have insisted on private sector finance as a precondition of major investment in public transport. That has led to substantial delays in the construction of vital schemes; and that has led to further losses as regards British industry.
What industry needs is an assurance that the transport network will keep pace with economic growth. It needs a clearer vision for transport provision. It needs to be clear that if, as the Government assert, there is to be a greater use of rail for transport of goods, there are
282
sensible policies in place to achieve that aspiration. Those policies do not exist at present. Industry needs to know that our airport planning strategies can be completed rather more quickly because we face fierce competition from Schipol, Charles de Gaulle, and the new Brussels airport. As my noble friend Lord Dean pointed out, industry needs a more viable merchant fleet in place of our sadly neglected and geriatric fleet—all clearly linked to our poor investment policy in shipping where the private sector has been largely left to its own devices.
It is simply not good enough that the United Kingdom ranks in the bottom half of European Union member states in the quality of rail and road infrastructure. It is better placed on air infrastructure and access to ports; but in all four modes the United Kingdom comes off worse than France, Germany or the Netherlands.
I turn from that to the policies emerging from the European Union. Like my noble friend Lord Bruce (perhaps a little unusually but nonetheless pleasing for that) I welcome the priorities that have been announced by Commissioner Kinnock over the past few days on the development of road, rail, sea and inland waterway systems which, as he put it, should be integrated—I emphasise "integrated"—competitive, environmentally sensitive and safe. During the course of this year, his services will be producing a document setting out plans for the creation of a Europe-wide system of air traffic control. That is long overdue, blighted as it has been over the years by the issue of so-called sovereignty. They will be producing a strategy paper to ensure the survival of the rapidly diminishing and ageing European maritime industry with specific proposals coming forward in 1996. They will be producing a new "Citizen's Network" to make transport systems more attractive to the travelling public. There is to be a crackdown against cowboy operations on the roads and sea lanes of Europe; new proposals will be forthcoming to make better use of inland waterways—a crucially important means of transport of goods in many countries of the European Union—and wider use o f coastal and short sea shipping, both of which are extremely valuable with regard to environmental protection.
Perhaps most important of all, there is the further development of the trans-European networks whose object is to draw the Continent together by rail, road, air, waterway and telecommunications by the year 2015. In principle, the member states have agreed with that concept. But all the detail, and notably the ways in which the projects are to be funded, remain to be filled in. As Neil Kinnock put it,
"Transport is critical for economic development, regional advance, and the whole concept of community and the environment. It is central to the creation of wealth and employment and to the reduction of isolation and congestion".
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, 60 per cent. of the emphasis is on rail projects of one kind or another. Three of the priority projects directly benefit the United Kingdom: the upgrading of the west coast rail line; the high-speed rail link joining the Channel Tunnel to London; and the upgrading of road connections between Felixstowe and Holyhead. All are centrally connected with the development of our links with the European Union.

283
So where do the Government stand on those issues? Are they to be a passive onlooker, wary of proceeding unless a precondition for the development of the schemes is the availability of private capital, wholly or substantially? Will they seek to maximise the flow of funds to the United Kingdom while frustrating the overall European Union infrastructure programme, saying that the budget is out of kilter so far as the rest are concerned? Or are they to be a government who will do their level best to bring these bold concepts to fruition? The entire TENs concept is boosted by the fact that my right honourable friend the commissioner chairs the Commission working group of eight commissioners, working on the plans for co-ordinating the efforts of the member states as they begin to undertake their own part of the trans-European network plans.
Of course it will be costly. There needs to be a marriage of public and private sector finance. We should consider the BOT proposals that were dealt with in the speech in the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the "build, operate and transfer" ideas which are gaining a great deal of currency so far as the public and private sectors are concerned. The European Investment Bank has a vital role. Our minds must not be closed to any sensible means for producing that marriage between the public and private sectors.
These are not, in my view, to be seen as job creation schemes, although they will undoubtedly have a beneficial effect on job creation. Rather they are medium-term projects designed to enhance the competitiveness of the European Union, including Britain. So far, I regret to say, the Government have displayed little real sense of understanding or involvement in what these schemes mean. The next Government—a Labour
government—will.
7.32 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I welcome this debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, as an important opportunity to discuss the vital importance of transport infrastructure. I also welcome the fact that the noble Lord chose to open his remarks with a quote from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State calling for a wider national transport debate. I believe that that quote, which he put on the record, sets the scene very clearly indeed.
In deciding our transport policy the Government fully recognise the important—I would say vital—contribution of transport infrastructure to industrial competitiveness. But equally we must recognise the profound impact of transport on the environment. Growth in demand for transport services has increased the pressure on our infrastructure and forecasts of future growth in demand present a very serious challenge. Increasing public concern about the wider costs imposed by transport, particularly on the environment, are reflected in the increasing difficulty in getting major transport projects agreed. Our aim is to continue to improve the quality of and range of provision. But we must recognise that there is a balance to be struck between the environmental, economic and social consequences of transport.
284
This is not just a matter for the public sector; private finance and expertise is playing an increasing role in the delivery of transport infrastructure. I am very pleased to be able to welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in support of the private finance initiative. Privatisation has been a major success in the transport sector. The privatisation of transport operations and the private finance initiative have enabled us to speed up progress on major schemes and to provide new services more quickly.
Public transport can play a valuable role in safeguarding the environment and our spending plans for the next few years focus on public transport and more efficient use of the existing road network. For example, we are funding 37 packages of measures proposed by local authorities outside London to encourage public transport and to offer attractive alternatives to car use. However, it is not simply a matter of switching public support from road to rail. Investing in rail, bus, trams and light rail can have a tremendous impact in certain areas, but it is important to say that research and practical experience has demonstrated that improved public transport is not enough in itself to solve the problems of traffic growth.
Over 90 per cent. of surface freight travels by road and we need an efficient trunk road system to enable industry and commerce to deliver the goods and services on which we all depend. The Government have a comprehensive programme in hand to improve these strategic links, focusing on removing congestion and providing urgently needed by-passes.
The level of continued investment is a practical demonstration of our commitment to the road programme and the many benefits it brings. More than £20 billion has been spent on motorways and trunk roads since 1979 and over the next few years public spending on these roads will remain on average higher in real terms than it was in the 1980s. This will also be supplemented by the imaginative use of private finance, such as the development of design, build, finance and operate (DBFO) schemes. We have already invited bids for the first four of these schemes and we are considering the suitability of another four.
However, our concern is not only with the economic benefits of better roads. The major new construction programme was reviewed last year. The prioritised programme that resulted seeks a sensible balance between the different economic and environmental considerations. We are now concentrating resources on making the best use of the existing road network. We know that a congested road network is more than a nuisance to truck operators. It costs them, and their customers, money. It costs businessmen money when they are stuck in traffic jams, which cause tremendous inconvenience to the general public. There are also other problems associated with congestion. It adds to pollution. That is why we are working hard to remove congestion, which can also create problems related to safety and cause pollution blackspots. It is important to make it very clear that the days of making very largescale additions to the network are gone.

285
Some people have suggested that the trunk road programme should be halted in the light of the report on transport and the environment by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. We are examining the Royal Commission's arguments and assessing the costs of its proposals. There may indeed be some very hard choices to make.
The Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment's report on traffic generation has led to similar demands. In the light of that report, trunk road schemes will undergo extra assessment in the planning stages to judge whether or not the effect of induced traffic is likely to be significant. There will be a programme of research to improve traffic modelling techniques still further. But I do not believe that there is justification for halting the trunk road programme. The main factor that determines the level of traffic is normal economic growth.
The answer lies in focusing on schemes that assist economic growth, help to conserve the environment and deal with local congestion and accident black spots. It lies also in making much more effective use of the existing trunk road network. It means using ingenuity and the latest techniques and technology, making the most of past investment, and ensuring that environmental effects are kept at acceptable levels.
I believe it to be widely acknowledged that the United Kingdom has a very efficient rail network in comparison with its international counterparts. The Government invest a substantial amount in the railways, and that will continue. One focuses on the investment figures for the railway infrastructure over the past few years. The point has been made from all sides of the House. Investment has been at record levels in recent years. The 1992–93 total of £1.5 billion was the highest in real terms since 1961. Over the past five years over £6 billion of investment in today's prices has taken place. Investment will continue at over £1 billion this year. It is expected to be about £1 billion next year, of which 75 per cent. will be publicly funded.
These high levels of investment have resulted in major infrastructure improvements. Since 1979 224 stations have been opened or reopened, bringing passenger rail services back to areas which lost them in the cuts of the 1960s. So far £1,500 million in today's prices has been invested to ensure that the infrastructure is in place to run international services through the Channel Tunnel. This includes Waterloo international station that is designed to handle 6,000 passengers an hour. Current infrastructure investment projects include the Heathrow Express rail link, a major programme of resignalling of the London, Tilbury and Southend line to improve punctuality on this low-performing route, and the resignalling of Kent Coast lines as preparation for Channel Tunnel services.
British Rail privatisation and liberalisation will bring considerable benefits to industry and the travelling public. The advantages of privatisation have been demonstrated both in the transport sector and elsewhere. We now want railway customers to take similar advantage of these benefits. Railtrack has responsibility for rail infrastructure, and the privatisation of Railtrack is a key part of the privatisation programme. The
286
Government believe that by making Railtrack more accountable to its customers, that is, the train operators, passengers will receive a higher quality service more attuned to their needs.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans asked about the role of the regulator in ensuring that access charges would be used properly for maintenance and renewals. In the access agreements that the regulator will approve, Railtrack will contract with the train operator to provide a specified level of service for a charge which the regulator will also approve. The level of access charges approved will provide sufficient revenue to cover Railtrack's operating costs and fund renewal investment. As a condition of its licence, Railtrack will he required to produce a 10-year investment plan which will also have to be approved by the regulator.
Privatisation will also lead to a more focused and commercial approach to investment as Railtrack is given every incentive to increase substantially its efficiency in the management and operation of its infrastructure. Privatisation will enable Railtrack to explore more widely sources of private finance to fund infrastructure investment schemes, freed from the inevitable constraints of public sector funding. We are committed to continuing to pay subsidy to support socially necessary but loss-making passenger services. In deciding on infrastructure investment priorities, Railtrack will be expected to take commercially-driven decisions based on its ability to secure contributions from train operators and whether it can make a real return on investment.
Private ownership and competition should also reduce operating costs through improved efficiency. We believe that this will be important in helping to attract freight away from road to rail, which is a theme that has run through the debate from all sides of the House. We want to see rail used for as much of the journey as possible. This was very much the sentiment expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. Seventy per cent. of the international freight market is located to the north and west of London. The existing international service will keep these loads off the road until they reach their regional terminals. By the end of 1996 that will reduce lorry movements by up to 1 million per year. We are keen to encourage railways to offer new services if they sensibly can. So is the Commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, raised the issue of piggyback services. We have offered our support to the application of the Piggyback Consortium to research the possibility of providing special wagons and improving the infrastructure to carry lorry semi-trailers by rail. That is a private initiative. It would have been much harder to do in the old public sector railway. The consortium believes that this kind of move will help to get even more freight off the roads and onto the rail network.
I turn to the Channel Tunnel rail link. I believe this to be an excellent example of a project where the public and private sectors can work successfully together. The project will benefit from private sector initiative and management skills. The line would be built sooner than if it had to rely on 100 per cent. public finding. The Government are prepared to make a substantial

287
contribution to it and shoulder their fair share of the risks associated with the project. The high level of private sector interest in the project is testimony to the success of the Government's Private Finance Initiative.
I turn to the important issue of air transport. This subject was dealt with by many noble Lords who spoke this evening, notably by my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Mountevans. It is important to recognise in this debate—which perhaps has cast a little more gloom than one may otherwise have expected—that air transport is an industry in which the United Kingdom plays a leading role. The quality of our airports makes the United Kingdom a world centre for commerce and tourism. There has been a colossal expansion in air traffic. Air travel has expanded over the past 30 years. The expected growth provides an opportunity for economic benefits as well as environmental challenges. The Government are firmly committed to enabling the development of additional airport capacity where it makes economic, social and environmental sense. The economic benefits to business and industry are clear, as are the increased opportunities for leisure travel.
It has been said this evening that the Government have recently announced their response to the working group on the Runway Capacity to serve the South-East report, known as RUCATSE. RUCATSE's analysis shows a strong case for additional runway capacity in the South-East, but more work is needed to inform decisions on any proposals that operators may bring forward for that additional capacity. I believe that that announcement, making clear that certain options should not be considered but calling for further work, has been widely welcomed as a sensitive and sensible approach to what is an extremely difficult and complex problem. It is one that we must get right for the benefit of the entire country.
During the course of the debate we touched briefly on the subject of regional airports. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, mentioned Manchester and the proposal for a second runway. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has a quasi-judicial role in this process and it would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment specifically on that proposal.
However, in general we welcome the growth of regional airports and recognise the benefits of liberalising services to and from the regions. Last October my right honourable friend announced the biggest liberalisation of transatlantic air services, allowing all US airlines to have open access to UK regional airports. However, even on the most optimistic assumptions, regional growth will only have a limited effect on demand for additional capacity in the south-east. Smaller airports can also play a valuable role —for example, in serving business aviation.
I turn to ports, which are vital to the health of the United Kingdom economy. Over 90 per cent. of UK overseas trade is carried through UK ports. The Government wish to see a strong ports industry, with our ports competing with one another and with ports overseas on a fair basis.
288
In recent years changes to working practices and access to private finance have led to substantial improvements in the efficiency of our ports. We want them to take a fully commercial approach in relation to their operations and developments. For new infrastructure they must shape their plans in the context of our intention to safeguard areas which are environmentally important and to avoid environmental damage. We wish to avoid grant aid, whether from the United Kingdom or Europe, which would distort competition between ports.
On a wider note, much has been made of comparisons' with our European partners. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, drew what I would call a pessimistic comparison and touched on the CBI report. It is worth mentioning that the CBI report showed that in a number of respects the UK performs well compared with other countries. It highlighted the strong performance of the UK civil aviation industry, the high efficiency of our rail network, the substantial recent improvements in the efficiency of our ports and the competitiveness in our distribution and logistic service.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also drew comparisons in terms of investment. However, we must look at efficiency and competitiveness also. Other European governments may give more taxpayers' money to subsidise their railways but British Rail is one of the most efficient, ranking second only to the Netherlands in terms of train kilometres per employee. Therefore, BR is able to run an efficient railway at a much lower cost. For instance, I do not think it is widely known that InterCity has a better reliability and punctuality record than the TGV, the Italian railways and the German railways. It is important to bring out those points to put the situation fully in context.
Let me turn to the European issue. We are fully committed to the principle of the trans-European networks (known as TENs). We believe that they have a substantial role to play in strengthening the internal market and thereby the competitiveness of European business. The Commission's proposals for guidelines in three sectors—telecommunications and energy as well as transport—are now under consideration in Brussels. The current proposals for transport cover road, rail, combined transport, inland waterways, airports, ports and shipping navigation and air traffic control systems. The first part of the proposal deals with the general principles: the objectives, scope and priorities of the network for the selection of projects of common interest.
Those guidelines, when agreed, will designate projects of common interest. But while work has continued on the guidelines, the Christophersen group of personal representatives of heads of state and government, established by the European Council in December 1993, has been working to identify priority projects in transport and energy. In its final report to the Essen European Council in December, the group identified a list of 14 top priority projects in the transport sector. The transport projects were endorsed by the European Council and the member states were asked to make every effort to ensure that the projects were begun during 1996 at the latest. There are four

289
projects of UK interest in that top priority list: the proposed new Channel 'Tunnel Rail Link; the West Coast mainline improvement; the upgrading of the railway link from Larne via Belfast through to the Republic of Ireland; and the Holyhead to Felixstowe road corridor (now referred to as the Ireland-UK-Benelux road link). We are pleased to have secured the inclusion of four important UK projects in the top priority list.
The clearest message that has emerged from the debate this evening is that there are no clear answers to the very complex problems that have been put forward. That is illustrated by the different approaches taken by noble Lords. Different emphases have been placed on road and rail transport, regional links, maritime priorities and so forth. Anyone who believes that there are simple answers to any of those problems cannot have considered the issues fully. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, told the House that there was not much comfort in having to rely merely on the word "integrated". I believe that he was right to say that.
The Government's aim is to establish an efficient and competitive transport market to serve the interests of the economy and the community, taking due account of safety and environmental issues. We have set out our objectives in our sustainable development strategy; in the White Paper on competitiveness, and in our spending plans for future years. Future growth will present us with some difficult decisions. As has been said, my right honourable friend has called for a wider national debate on transport. Only then can we hope to meet the challenges that face us. I welcome all the contributions that have been made by noble Lords this evening.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps I may mention his reference to his right honourable friend's call for a wider debate. Is it intended to introduce that with a Green Paper?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my right honourable friend hopes to start off the wider national transport debate with a series of speeches. He has already met a number of important groups, including environmental groups, which seek to influence government policy on this issue. We shall have to see how the call for a debate develops. Decisions will then be made on whether any further action, such as the paper to which the noble Lord referred, needs to be taken.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, perhaps I may say, with your Lordships' indulgence and permission and with great respect to the noble Viscount, that I hope when the debate develops that we will have much more open thinking than we have heard from the brief that has just been delivered in response to the debate. He came dangerously near to defending the status quo. The status quo is simply not good enough. We have to move
290
forward. We have to develop our networks. Quite frankly, the brief was written for a debate which did not take place. The whole debate is still to take place.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, when the noble Lord reads Hansard I think he will see that that is not the case. I put particular emphasis on the changes that have to be made and on the very severe problems that we shall have to face in catering for increased demand. I certainly did not endorse the status quo. I said that these challenges were difficult. They were complex problems which required very sensible and well thought out answers.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords. I appreciate that the challenges are difficult. We need an open debate. Let me say to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby that I was worried about his pessimistic approach to obtaining consensus. One of my abiding memories of him dates from when I came to Parliament as a Member of the other House. In his role as chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party he was able to hold the delicate balance between the late George Brown and the late Manny Shinwell in the great debates that were taking place in the Labour Party about whether or not we should join the EEC. If anyone can achieve consensus, it is my noble friend Lord Houghton.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and to the Minister for his kindness and courtesy. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Bill
8 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Put simply, the purpose of this Bill is to move the Letchworth Garden City Corporation from the status of a non-departmental body in the public sector to a charitable foundation answerable to the Registrar of Friendly Societies under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. At this stage I should mention that extensive rules under the registrar will be required and I have placed in the Library a copy of what is described as the 19th draft of the Heritage Foundation rules together with the proposed policy statement by members of the board.
Perhaps I can begin by explaining briefly a little of the history and background of Letchworth Garden City. Letchworth itself is unique in that it was the first garden city established not only in this country, but indeed anywhere in the world. It was the brainchild of Ebenezer Howard and it came into being in 1903. Howard established it in accordance with three main principles which he developed the year before in his hook entitled Garden Cities of Tomorrow. Those principles, which continue to guide the running of the estate are as follows. First, that the best of town and country living is achieved by establishing a town in a rural environment so that its inhabitants can live near their place of work and can have easy access to the

291
countryside and the farmlands producing their food. Secondly, that the increasing value of land over time resulting from the growing prosperity of the garden city should accrue for the benefit of the community. Thirdly, that the garden city estate should as far as possible be maintained as an entity.
I have two personal reasons for taking pleasure in being able to move a Second Reading of this Bill. The first is that for a number of years I represented the constituency of North Hertfordshire, in which Letchworth is situated, and came to admire the town and its inhabitants and what the corporation, following the precepts of Ebenezer Howard, had been able to achieve for them. The second is perhaps even more of a personal one, in that many of Howard's ideas were adapted for the village of Stewartby, named after my great-grandfather and built to accommodate employees of the company which he founded.
Originally, Ebenezer Howard raised the capital for his venture through a company entitled First Garden City Limited. But in the 1960s a property company started buying up shares in First Garden City Limited with a view to exploiting its assets. In order to prevent that the then urban district council promoted a Private Bill which became the Letchworth Garden City Act 1962.
The reason for the present Bill before your Lordships' House is a recognition that the present status of Letchworth. Garden City Corporation as a public sector body is anomalous. It arises from two factors. The first is that in order to guarantee the finances of the garden city corporation in its earliest stages, a guarantee was provided for recourse to Hertfordshire County Council in case the corporation fell short of funds. The second reason is that the Secretary of State currently appoints the majority of the corporation's board members, but he plays no part in the corporation's affairs and for many years the corporation has been in no way dependent upon public funds. Therefore the designation of the corporation as a public sector body is no longer appropriate. In effect Letchworth Garden City is already a charitable foundation and the purpose of this Bill is to convert it into one by law.
The Bill seeks to allow the new foundation to do all things that the corporation currently does—to protect the assets of the garden city estate; to ensure that the foundation has available to it the knowledge and experience necessary to run a complex undertaking; to protect the garden city's present tax-exempt status and to provide an effective operational structure that will stand the test of time.
There has been extensive consultation since those proposals were first brought forward in September 1992 and the corporation conducted them in a most conscientious fashion. Also, thorough consideration was given to the proposals in another place, taking into account many views and representations that were made. Indeed, significant changes were introduced as a result of the Committee stage. For example, an important addition to the Bill—the provision of an ombudsman for Letchworth—was made at the request of the Committee
292
in the other place, as was the inclusion in the draft rules of a provision—Rule 70—for the principles of the Citizens Charter to apply.
The consultation process also strongly influenced the proposed arrangements for the nomination of governors and for other matters such as the provision for an annual town meeting open to all citizens of Letchworth; the right of the county council and district council governors to places on the board of management and so forth.
Perhaps I should say a word about the procedure for the nomination and appointment of governors because their role is crucial in the future of the garden city. The structure which was finally decided upon after extensive consultation includes a system of nomination by clubs, societies and voluntary bodies in the town whose activities correspond in particular to one or more of the stated charitable objects of the foundation. Those objects are set out in the Bill, in Clause 3, Schedule 1, and also in the rules. They are of fundamental importance. They identify the core activity of the foundation and are as follows. First, the preservation of buildings and other environmental features of beauty or historic interest within the garden city; secondly, providing or assisting in the provision of facilities for recreation and leisure; thirdly, promoting the advancement of education and learning within Letchworth Garden City; fourthly, promoting the relief of poverty and sickness within Letchworth Garden City; and, finally, supporting other charitable organisations and purposes within Letchworth for the benefit of the local community.
The corporation board were mindful of the need to identify closely with those objects. They were also conscious of the importance of having a sufficiently high number of governors to provide the expertise and experience necessary and to reflect the width and variety of interests found in Letchworth, but without having so many that their individual contributions were unduly diluted. That led to a proposal for a maximum of 30 governors, the majority of whom will be nominated by clubs, societies and voluntary bodies within the town together with the two local authorities with an interest in Letchworth. The remaining 14 will be appointed by the board of management with a majority drawn from residents of Letchworth. The intention is that the clubs and societies will put forward nominations who then come together in selection meetings corresponding to the objects of the foundation and that each selection meeting will nominate two governors. The board of management has no control or influence over which persons are nominated as governors and will be bound to appoint those nominated. The two local authorities—Hertfordshire County Council and North Hertfordshire District Council—as governors each have the right to a nominee, and the rules provide that the local authority nominees each have a place on the board of management.
The board of management will also use its powers of appointment of general governors to ensure that the knowledge and coverage necessary to the running of the foundation are available to it; that there is an adequate representation of, for example, the local business community and professional interests; and that those have a voice as well as the broad spectrum of residential

293
interests in the town—freeholders, leaseholders and tenants alike—and that all those interests should be well represented.
The system has been very carefully devised to ensure a proper emphasis on the objects of the foundation, the effective running of the organisation and accountability to the town at large, both through the clubs and societies and through the general governors.
All in all, the framework I have described should provide a suitable basis for taking the Letchworth estate forward into the 20th century in conformity with the enlightened principles established by its founders more than 90 years ago. I hope therefore that the Bill will commend itself to your Lordships, accordingly.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Stewartby.)
8.11 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, there is only one issue that I should like to raise this evening. It is a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, referred, but is not provided on the face of the Bill. That is the composition of the governing body to take over when the Letchworth Garden City Corporation becomes the Letchworth Heritage Foundation.
To find how the governors of the new body will be chosen, one has to look at the rules of the heritage foundation. As the noble Lord has mentioned, these are now in their 19th draft; but, after all, I recognise that solicitors do have to be kept in business. According to the rules as in draft —and also the proposed policy statement which I understand has been drawn up by the present board of management—the foundation is to have a board of management consisting, in the first instance, of seven founder governors. As the noble Lord has said, these will include two councillors from the county and district councils. The board may then appoint up to 30 governors—14 general governors, of whom half must reside in Letchworth, and 16 nominated governors selected, as we have heard, by clubs, societies and voluntary bodies with interests inside Letchworth. That sounds appropriate and is good so far as it goes; but I suggest that it does not go far enough.
The categories for nomination are listed in Rule 10. There are many groups which are barred from eligibility—to mention just two, residents associations and churches—unless of course the board considers that they fall within the terms of paragraph (gg) of Rule 10(b) (i), which provides a sort of catchall for representatives of:
"any other interest which is in the opinion of the board from time to time of significance within Letchworth Garden City in relation to the objects of the foundation".
On reading the equivalent provision in the policy statement —and this has only just occurred to me—I wonder whether it is quite the same. Paragraph 6(g) states:
"other charitable interests which the board considers to be of significance within Letchworth".
In other words, the distinction is that in the policy statement the interests have to be charitable ones. I am not asking the noble Lord to respond to this now—as I say, I have only just thought of this point—but it may
294
be that because the objects referred to in the rules must be charitable objects, that translates in the policy statement into charitable interests. However, it seems to me that they are not quite equivalent. I am not sure that resident associations, for instance, will fall into this category because they may not be charitable interests.
The only echo of any sort of democracy is the indirect appointment of the two councillors on the board of management.
In May 1993, the local Liberal Democrats in Letchworth distributed forms to local residents in order to gauge public opinion. I understand that 85 per cent. of those who responded opted for the proposal that residents of Letchworth be elected by ballot from valid nominations; that they would be able to elect a majority and the remainder would be chosen by the present governors.
I understand that at this stage calling for governors to be elected may not be a practical proposition—and I am sorry that the matter was not pursued earlier—but I wonder whether there would be more confidence in the process if the list of clubs and societies was widened to include, perhaps, residents associations. Or, alternatively, paragraph (gg) could be made in some way more objective so that long-standing Letchworth residents—who are perhaps not members of the local cricket club, but are nevertheless good citizens of the town who deserve to have their interests reflected directly in the workings of the board of management—could feel that they had a stake in the selection of the governors of their own city.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Williams.
I know Letchworth and endorse what has been said about it being a lovely place. It has a place in the history of garden cities, including Welwyn Garden City and many others. The work of Ebenezer Howard is well known to those of us who have followed the attempts of benefactors of his kind this century.
I have had an opportunity of looking at the Bill, and I saw nothing wrong with it until I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She did not say that there was anything wrong with it, but she was clearly very well briefed. I understand why when the noble Baroness told us towards the end of her remarks where her brief came from.
This is the opportunity for matters to be: raised and questions to be asked. I have scribbled down a note to ask the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, why we should bring about what, quite frankly—by any stretch of the imagination—is a major change in the legal nexus for a city. He went some way to reassuring me, but I should like him to satisfy me that the purposes behind it are wholly altruistic.
I understand that when one does something like this the ravages of a predator need to be taken head on—a possibility that might have emerged 30 years ago. I am delighted that the quick action taken against what might have been in the offing has been sufficient to deny a

295
speculator, a developer or a group of people on the make from taking advantage of something over which local people and the community, through the law, have built.
I would ask the noble Lord to say a little more about consultations. I have scribbled down here "consultation and the results", and we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that there was a form of consultation by asking the people. It is an eminently sensible way of getting answers to ask the people what they think.
Will the noble Lord tell us that everything that I have heard is in the best interests of Letchworth? There must have been a body of opinion that objected to what was being done or, if not to what was being done, to how it was being done.
I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, could advise the House whether there has been what one would call opposition, dissatisfaction or unease in any shape or form. I would not want to quantify it because something of this kind could have got to this stage only if the noble Lord, who has my greatest respect regarding his service for his community and for his party, felt comfortable and able to bring it forward. However, I should like to know a little more about that.
I am delighted that the vehicle to be used is the industrial and provident society. As a good Co-op man, I am very familiar with the history of the industrial and provident societies and the manner in which they have been a vehicle for so much good work which provides opportunities for what is proposed here and a range of other community and communal activities, not least the establishment of co-operatives and the expansion of the co-operative idea.
Can the noble Lord say a little about the Letchworth commissioner? I plead ignorance. When I made my notes I wrote "ombudsman?" The noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, went some way to clarify the point. Is there a comparable person or position in post now before the Act comes into being? In other words, is this a renewal of something that is in existence? I am not frightened by the term "commissioner" because the ombudsmen are called commissioners for local government.
Perhaps I may raise a point which was also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who has great knowledge in this area. Why on the face of the Bill was not an opportunity found to spell out in schedules to the Bill not the nitty-gritty—that has to be worked out—but the structure proposed? Schedules to a Bill are provided in order to take off the face of the Bill a lot of detail which explains things. A schedule seems to be a sensible way of producing the democratic structure. Why was not such a schedule added to the Bill so that amendments to it might be moved at a later stage if one felt that what was proposed needed to be altered?
The noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, is lucky to have the opportunity on behalf of the people among whom he has lived, and whom he has served with distinction for so
296
long, to bring the Bill before the House. I can see it quickly being passed by us. I hope it will then be a useful vehicle to enhance the beauty of Letchworth.
8.23 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, it may assist if I intervene briefly to indicate the Government's view on this Bill, which has been so ably and conscientiously moved by my noble friend Lord Stewartby.
The Government recognise the need to safeguard the special nature of Letchworth as the first garden city and. to preserve its heritage, while also guarding against a repetition of events which led up to the Letchworth Garden City Corporation Act 1962. We are content with the Bill's proposals to create the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation, thereby ending the corporation's anomalous treatment as a non-departmental public body. In addition, we see no reason why the proposal to create an industrial and provident society, with charitable status, should not provide an adequate safeguard to ensure that the affairs of the heritage foundation are conducted efficiently and effectively, and with due regard to financial propriety and regularity.
I therefore recommend to the House that the Bill be given a Second Reading and be allowed to proceed in the usual way to Committee for detailed consideration.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, with permission, perhaps I may respond briefly to those who have taken part in the debate. First, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his expression of support on behalf of the Government for a Bill which will enable Letchworth to have a second successful century of existence, retaining the original principles of the founder.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the question of the composition of the governors and their method of appointment. She also asked whether an open franchise for citizens of Letchworth would be appropriate. Perhaps I may comment first on that point. It was very carefully considered but it was felt for two or three reasons that it would be less appropriate than the form now proposed. There have been over past years attempts to politicise the garden city corporation. They have always been strongly resisted. However, it was felt that if a significant number of places on the board were open to public election, even if that did not happen for the time being, there was a risk that at some time political influences might come to play an undue part in the affairs of the corporation and indeed might at times produce conflict between the foundation, as I should now call it, and one of the local authority bodies in whose area it lies. There was also a wider question as to how appropriate it would be for governors, who are in effect charitable trustees, to be elected by that kind of public means.
The system which has been recommended is an attempt to ensure two things: first, that the majority of governors shall be residents of Letchworth; and secondly, that they shall, as broadly as possible, represent the interests in the town which reflect the

297
founder's original objectives but giving the hoard of management the opportunity to call on others to fill in the gaps. Those nominated by the voluntary bodies, clubs, societies and so on will provide a cross-section of a number of interests of Letchworth residents but they will not necessarily take into account the kind of things which the noble Baroness has sensibly raised, such as the leaseholders, residents generally, and so on.
I shall not try to give a legal answer to the very interesting point the noble Baroness raised by comparing paragraphs in the draft rules with paragraphs in the statement of policy but they are perfectly fair questions. I shall ensure that either through me, or directly, she gets a proper reply to the questions she asked. However, I can assure her that the idea behind the structure is to enable the board of management to be answerable to a group of governors who not only embody the direct charitable purposes of the original garden city concept but who are also equipped to deal with matters such as architecture, agriculture, local businesses, professionals, and so on, so that there is the proper mix.
From my own experience I can say that in the 1970s and 1980s there were distinguished persons on the board such as a local doctor, a local businessman, and so on, who contributed very much. Clearly, they would not be nominated, except by accident if they happened to be a doctor or a businessman, by the particular clubs. It will be important to ensure that the board contains the whole range of necessary experience.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, if there is a query about the future, how was the present management or board on which the doctor and businessman were invited to serve peopled, and who had the power to do it?
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I mentioned very briefly in passing that the majority of the board was appointed by the Secretary of State, but it was a small board. The members were appointed after extensive local consultation in order to get the appropriate range of skills. It was a very small board and therefore one did not have the opportunity of bringing in as many people as generally seems desirable.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I thank him for his very kind personal comments which I appreciate. He first asked about the consultation process. That was initiated with the proposals put forward in 1992 with public meetings and representations invited in Letchworth. In addition to those which were made at the time various representations were made to the committee on the Bill in another place and petitions were lodged and so on. The committee proceedings in another place went through the whole process from start to finish. Those who had made representations to the corporation in the consultation process frequently made further representations so that they could be considered by others. I believe that it is open to anyone to make such representations to the committee of your Lordships' House. If there are matters which are still unresolved those representations will be made and it will be in order to do so.
298
Various objections have been raised on this; for example, there was a proposal to include specific provisions about future land use which would be exceedingly difficult to formulate. There are certain general principles already embodied in the preservation of the estate but to specify which pieces of land can be used for which purposes indefinitely would probably be impractical.
Other objectors were concerned about the accountability of the board. From what I have said I hope that the noble Lord will have gathered that the new structure provides very much wider accountability to the interests in the town and it is something which I would have welcomed in my time, but it was not within the constitutional structure at that stage.
The noble Lord also asked about the commissioner. The Letchworth ombudsman will have powers broadly analogous to those of a local government ombudsman under the Local Government Act 1974. He will be concerned with maladministration in the foundation but not with contractual or commercial transactions. He will be totally independent of the foundation and will be appointed by the president of the new society. He must also be somebody with no previous interest in the foundation or the town. That is an innovation. Because the garden city has not been a local authority it has not partaken of the legislation which applies to local authorities. It is therefore a move in line with up-to-date arrangements for local authorities.
The noble Lord asked why the change was being made and why it was necessary. I go back to the point that the current constitution is anomalous in many respects. I have already explained that I do not believe that it provides wide enough accountability. But, purely in constitutional terms, to have what is technically a public body, and therefore in the public sector, for what is in substance a charitable foundation creates a great many difficulties. For example, its expenditure has to be vetted by the Government not because there is anything improper about it but merely because technically it is part of the public sector. As I said, the public sector status derives from the fact that the Secretary of State has been appointing the majority of the board and the residual funding guarantee from the county council in case, in the early stages, the corporation had not got enough resources of its own. It is now very prosperous; the town has been successful and the estate is more valuable. It has a good revenue, so that provision no longer applies.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, as regards Schedule 1 paragraph 1(d) and the objects of the foundation, can the noble Lord tell us what is meant by,
"promoting the relief of poverty and sickness within Letchworth Garden City"?
The mind boggles because one imagines that there is not a community in the country which would not like a group of good people promoting the relief of poverty and sickness within their community. What is in the minds of those promoting this provision and what is the manner in which they would do that?
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, one area is housing. The essence of the garden city is the garden city estate.

299
There is a great deal of public housing which is not local authority housing. Nevertheless it is owned by the garden city. It has enabled the provision of better housing in many cases. In other areas such as health and so on, there is a hospice in Letchworth and various worthy causes of that kind which can receive support from the garden city.
I do not want to wear your Lordships' patience any longer with the details because I believe that they should be very thoroughly considered by the committee. A great deal of what we are discussing is very technical. Anyone like the noble Baroness who has looked at the 19th draft of the rules will know that there is a great deal of detail to be looked at. I strongly support the general principle. It will create greater accountability in the first garden city. It will also provide a structure which recognises the actuality of the fact that this is a charitable foundation which we all hope can continue the original aspirations of its founder.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Electricity Generation Lands (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1995
Electricity Generators (Rateable Values)(Scotland) Order 1995
Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values)(Scotland) Order 1995
Electricity Generators (Aluminium)(Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1995
Electricity Distribution Lands (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1995
Water Undertakings (Rateable Values)(Scotland) Order 1995
Formula Valuation (Revocations)(Scotland) Order 1995
Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values)(Scotland) Amendment Order 1995
Electricity Transmission Lands (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1995
British Gas plc (Rateable Values)(Scotland) Order 1995
8.37 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 18th and 23rd January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the 10 draft orders before the House tonight relate to the implementation of the forthcoming rating revaluation in Scotland. These all follow a well-precendented pattern and, in introducing them, I will therefore touch only briefly on their detailed provisions.
The coming revaluation is being conducted on a fully harmonised basis north and south of the Border with assessors and the Valuation Office Agency working closely together to approach subjects on a similar basis. This allows special ad hoc provisions that attempted to; iron out previous differences to be removed. Also, the emerging outcome of the revaluation has allowed the Secretary of State for Scotland to fix the new rate poundage at the English level, and rates burdens should, therefore, now be fully harmonised. Together, these allow the abolition of industrial derating and the revocation of special orders relating to petrochemical plants and caravan sites. It is with these matters that the revocations and the mines and quarries order are concerned.
For the utility undertakings concerned, the remaining orders roll forward the prescription of rateable values for these major undertakings and others in direct competition with them, such as independent electricity generators. Here, the general level of values has been rolled forward on a fairly static basis to reflect the emerging outcome of the revaluation throughout Great Britain. The valuations are on the same basis as those for England and Wales which are contained in equivalent orders that have already been approved. The arrangements for annual adjustment and apportionment to rating areas which are incorporated in these orders reflect the well-established arrangements that have operated successfully, with the approval of the House, in previous years. I commend these orders to the House, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 18th and 23rd January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Carmichael apologises for not being here. He has asked me to say that there is nothing exceptional in what has been done and the orders meet with the approval of this side of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before nine o'clock.

  National Lottery Charities Board
  National Lottery Charities Board
  Prison Service: Home Office Supervisory Unit
  Prison Service: Home Office Supervisory Unit
  Prisoners in Shared Accommodation
  Prisoners in Shared Accommodation
  Tomahawk Missile System
  Tomahawk Missile System
  Defence Secretary: Advisers
  Defence Secretary: Advisers
  Gulf War Syndrome
  Gulf War Syndrome
  Water Quality Improvement
  Water Quality Improvement
  Construction Industry Report
  Construction Industry Report
  Jewel Tower Moat
  Jewel Tower Moat